Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
HE (or she) is going to be asked about the issue.
The issue is not what they get asked about. At the federal level, what the "base" wants is a candidate that will CLAIM to "intend" to DO something about "the problem." At the very least, they will be expected to load the SCOTUS with judges that may at some point overturn Roe v. Wade.
If it was understood that the federal government had NOTHING to do with this issue, then even loading the SCOTUS for that purpose would be irrelevant.
The point is that, at the level of federal elections, this issue would fade into the background, as it would be understood that a candidate had no "promised to keep" on this issue if elected. As it stands now, it is a HUGE and foreground issue in the primary.
I'm not saying that "the right" is not going to have stupid things to emphasize, even without abortion as a hobby horse. What I'm saying is that at present, abortion is the "base's" primary hobby horse, and riding it is hurting the Rebumblecons in the transition from the primary to the general election.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Never say anything that isn't Mainstream.
My point exactly.
At present, the Repub candidate is FORCED to say non-mainstream things (particularly about abortion) to get the nomination.
And I mean that they are forced to say non-mainstream things about what they "intend" to DO if they are granted the power to DO it.
Then, the general population is afraid to give them the power to DO what they said, so the candidate spends big resources leading up to the general election trying to undo the image they portrayed (about what they would DO) to get the nomination.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Won't said presidential candidate be expected to "do something" about these "awful states" that now permit abortion.
My logic presumes that it is widely understood by even the "base" that the feds CAN have nothing to do with the issue. So, there is NO "something" for an elected president to DO about those "awful states." Then the "base" has no motivation to "hold a candidate's feet to the fire" on the issue in federal elections.
The "base" will then turn their attention to state races, which is where this issue should be decided, on a state by state basis.
I'm not saying that abortion will suddenly "go away" in the minds of the "base." What I'm saying is that it will no longer be such an elephant in the room for deciding FEDERAL candidates.
Of course the federal candidates can still "mouth the right words," but EVERYBODY will know that they can't DO anything. And just expressing vapid sentiments is not dangerous when it is KNOWN that the sentiments CANNOT play out in action.
The focus thus shifts in ALL respects from federal elections to state elections, which is where the focus SHOULD be.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I simply do not feel that the fundamentalists will be satisfied all that easily
They CAN be if they understand that they would have to change the very FORM of government to get the feds to DO what they demand.
Problem is that we have gone SO far from the originally-intended states' rights perspective of governance that we DO look to the feds for everything now.
But if people grasped the original principles of governance that founded this nation, they would immediately recognize that they HAVE to address the STATES rather than the FEDS to "stamp out the problem" of abortion.
"Lockstep" would be assured insofar as the MEANS to do otherwise would no longer be available.
I'm not saying that this shift in focus even CAN happen at this point. I believe that we are far too far down the road to full federal control of everything to ever go even a few steps back now. My point at the start was that just ONE of the implications of how far down the path we ARE is that the Rebumblecon party particularly suffers from it on just this one issue.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Frankly, I'd like to see a "shove it in your face" GOP candidate
I TOTALLY agree!
And the great irony of it is that if such a candidate emerged, he/she just might manage to win the primary ANYWAY! I think they run FAR too scared of the "base," when what I've seen is that the "base" is incredibly fickle and NOT to be pandered to.
But pander they do, and it does hurt them.
I don't think there's a Repub candidate even waiting in the wings with some balls (male or female). But it would sure be something to see if there was.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
My logic presumes that it is widely understood by even the "base" that the feds CAN have nothing to do with the issue. So, there is NO "something" for an elected president to DO about those "awful states." Then the "base" has no motivation to "hold a candidate's feet to the fire" on the issue in federal elections.
Sadly, your logic is faulty.
We are, I think, only ONE vote away on the SCOTUS, from repealing Rowe. In the meantime, there is a federal issue related (at this point) to "religious freedom", allowing an employer to follow their religious inclinations as to what medical coverage is covered (read: abortion and birth control).
Not yet decided.
There is also a movement to place such huge restrictions on the ability to technically perform abortions, as to make it a practical impossibility. Texas was successful with this, and it was confirmed by a federal district court. This success will probably be followed with laws that will place tremendous restrictions on being able to provide birth control.
The big and successful program by the Repubs to refit the bureaucracy attorneys with only conservatives, and the judiciary with only conservative judges, has been very successful in supporting such efforts. They know it, too, and so should you.
If the Senate goes to the Repubs, Obama will not successfully appoint another judge.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Sadly, your logic is faulty.
No, your reading/understanding of my clearly-stated points is.
I quote:
"I'm not saying that this shift in focus even CAN happen at this point. I believe that we are far too far down the road to full federal control of everything to ever go even a few steps back now. My point at the start was that just ONE of the implications of how far down the path we ARE is that the Rebumblecon party particularly suffers from it on just this one issue."
Is it possible to say more clearly? "I'm NOT saying that this shift in focus even CAN happen at this point."
I don't think you have followed the chain of argumentation here at all.
I am fully aware of the FACTS of where we actually ARE at this point in the history of the USA. I have been talking about the disparity between where we ARE and where we should be. I have been talking about one implication for one party of where we are.
The whole balance of power between the feds and the states has shifted so completely to the feds that "states' rights" is now just a quaint phrase that has essentially NO relation to the present form of government. Abortion was an EXAMPLE of this, not THE POINT of my arguments.
And just getting a Demoncrat into the White House once more is not going to even touch, much less address, the fundamental problem. Saving Roe v. Wade is NOT the issue of this discussion! And the Rebumblecons' attack on Roe v. Wade is NOT the issue of this discussion.
You appear to have entirely missed the ISSUE and focused instead on one example.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If the Senate goes to the Repubs, Obama will not successfully appoint another judge.
True, but it will be worth it just for the entertainment value of seeing the Demoncrats suffering the implications of their high-handed change to the filibuster rule.
Now THAT will indeed be fun to watch. And I'm no Rebumblecon.
I get a big kick from seeing people hung on their own petard! And the Demoncrats are about to be hung. Running scared already, they are, and with good reason.
In the big picture, though, it doesn't matter....
This country is circling the drain. I should at least get some entertainment value from the ever-increasing extraction of my tax dollars.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Now this is "progress". We don't need no stinking first amendment if that means that rightwingers can just keep flapping their lips. Todays newz:
"FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs
Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.
“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.
“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.
Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.”
All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.
But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity's radio show and Citizens United's movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.
Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission's "fairness doctrine" to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.
“The picking and choosing has started to occur,” said Goodman. “There are some in this building that think we can actually regulate” media, added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December. And if that occurs, he said, “then I am concerned about disparate treatment of conservative media.”
He added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I believe that we are far too far down the road to full federal control of everything to ever go even a few steps back now.
Quite the opposite.
Marijuana, marital equality, abortion restrictions, voting rights - how many current examples of states pushing the envelope would you like me provide here?
States Rights remain alive and well. The vast majority of civil rights innovations happen in the States. The Feds typically react to what happens in the States - not the other way around.
The Feds rarely pass sweeping civil rights legislation, whether expansive (Civil Rights Act) or restrictive (Defense of Marriage Act)- and only after copious experimentation in the States.
Recently, Federal laws and policies have been deeply effected by State actions - the demise of DOMA and DODT, the striking down of key parts of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ rolling back the War on Drugs.
After all, nearly all lawsuits start at the State level, and the States pass far more legislation than the Feds do.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
It's (abortion) a classic example of the feds injecting themselves into the everyday lives of citizens. Even if abortion were murder, local municipalities and states themselves address the crime of murder. We don't need (nor want) the feds injecting themselves into every phase of every crime.
Hardly. Roe V Wade was the end result of a suit that filed to challenge a Texas law. The ruling is a narrow one.
Abortion is still very much a State level issue - witness the over 500 pieces of abortion-related legislation that have been offered up at the State level or below since the Tea Party arrived on the electoral stage.
Abortion must become a Federal issue when States attempt to redefine personhood (at conception), as Mississippi unsuccessfully attempted to do in 2012 by referendum, for obvious reasons. The definition of personhood must be consistent throughout the states if the Bill of Rights is to apply equally to all persons.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
If you decry ALL of "originalism," then you are left with exactly zero connection to the principles upon which this nation was founded, and then your "constitution" means whatever a fickle majority take it to mean at any given moment.
Again, pretty far from the mark.
Originalism seeks only to preserve the original intent of the authors based on their writings and events of the time. It is a narrow interpretive approach that avoids, rather than indulges in sweeping generalities like 'principles upon which this nation was founded', which are, invariably, wholly modern fabrications created for electoral purposes.
In addition, Originalism seeks to render The Court subservient to the Legislature, given its philosophical abhorrence to unelected power. Far from avoiding the pitfalls of the 'fickle majority', Originalism defers to its power.
Originalism famously fails to address changing standards of decency, changes in society in general, and the real world consequences of the decisions that employ it.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Frankly, I'd like to see a "shove it in your face" GOP candidate i.e. "this is where on stand on AB and creationism and if you don't like it, vote for someone else." Been there, done that in '012
Of the dozen or so Republitard candidates, the last man standing was not-so-shove-it-in-your-face Romney. All the straight talkers except Huntsman (the brightest of the lot) are Whackos.
Having grown up in Utah (non-Mormon) I never thought I'd see the day that two Mormons would be running for President at the same time. I'm not so certain Romulus could have kept his religion out of policy making. I do believe Huntsman would have.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Speaking of religion and the Presidency
Reagan exploited religion to get elected and during office.
Carter, the Baptist Deacon, kept religion out. He enforced Roe v Wade even though he personally felt it wrong. It was Law above personal religion. His religious ethics certainly have been his guidance through his entire life.
Shrub prayed and his god told him to go into Iraq (he confided this to his fellow Christian Tony Blair, it was reported once and has been well covered up since). Blair had also prayed to his god about the war and publicly discussed it. So much for an omniscient being.
Shrub also has the blood of many Ugandans on his hands.
in 2003, when President Bush pledged $15 billion to fight the global spread of AIDS, the biggest single contribution from any nation.
...The pledge, which took effect under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), stipulated that a third of the money assigned to prevention be used to promote abstinence-only programs and that promoting condom use should be restricted to high-risk groups, such as sex workers and truck drivers. ....plenty of documented evidence that teaching safe sex and promoting condom use had been successful in preventing the spread of the virus, especially among the young. "Uganda is gradually removing condoms from its HIV/AIDS strategy, and the consequences could be fatal," warned Tony Tate, a researcher with HRW's HIV/AIDS program. so much for god's advice.
When you're as stupid as Shrub, perhaps prayer is a better choice than thinking?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
ahh yes, GinGrinch
In 2007, Gingrich authored a book, Rediscovering God in America, arguing that the Founding Fathers actively intended the new republic to not only allow, but encourage, religious expression in the public square.[citation needed] Following publication of the book, he was invited by Jerry Falwell to be the speaker for the second time at Liberty University's graduation, on May 19, 2007, In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left his wife after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther....
In 1993, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior.[193] Gingrich and his second wife were divorced in 2000 having produced no children. A 7 year affair?
Then he married Callista.
Makes Bill Clinton look like a schoolboy.
GinGrinch was carrying on with Callista and Speaker Of The House and a major proponent of impeachment (1998)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
To the extent that Republicans want to make the "religious right" their base, they're not only asking to be an irrelevant minority, they're being untrue to core conservative principles. My experience with the "religious right" [In the spirit of full disclosure, in the unlikely event that any reader does not know this, I am a conservative, a Republican and an Evangelical Christian] is that they are far too populist to make a conservative feel comfortable.
Not only do many of them wish to legislate what the New Testament, in particular, says cannot be achieved with worldly means, but many would prescribe more dangerous and damaging economic remedies than many Democrats. If you doubt me, ask the typical "religious right" rabble-rouser what he or she thinks about free trade, immigration, or just about any other issue involving real-world markets.
When Reagan was the image or Republicanism, the party was a "big tent," and the Democrats were the tiny one. Unless one held to the left's orthodoxy on abortion, taxation, the size and scope of the military, let-them-eat-cake environmentalism, etc., there was no room for you as a Democratic candidate (see, e.g. the Dell-Lieberman primary contest in Connecticut.)
While the Democrats have certainly not broadened their message (try being an anti- Roe v. Wade Democratic candidate), the Republicans have severely narrowed theirs. Add to that the vehemence with which the agitators condemn things like compromise, and the party has a message too narrow to win.
I think part of the problem is our nation's tendency to get information consistent with what we want to hear. It reminds me of Pauline Kael's infamous statement after the 1972 election, where Richard Nixon won every state except Massachusetts, to the effect that "Nixon could not possibly have won. I don't know a single person who voted for him." We know -- and listen to -- too many people like ourselves, and neither listen to nor understand those who differ.
John
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Reagan didn't hold a candle to Eisenhower.
The Gipper did tremendous, long term damage to this country in the following ways:
He really pumped up the volume $$$ on Nixon's Drug War. 42 years, 37 M arrests, and a trillion dollars later - we got nothin' but a prison nation, hundreds of thousands of dead, a nation that takes more drugs than ever.
Trickle down. Welcome to 'income disparity is OK!'. Nuff said there.
The rise of the power of the Moral Majority - our most strident domestic enemy of civil rights.
Regulation? What's that?
Military spending. WOW.
The deficit. HEY BIG SPENDER!
That he was arguably better than today's raft of conservative buffoons, religious kooks, and asset strippers, and obstructionists isn't saying much.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
I really don't care what somebody does in their private lives. What can you do in terms of leading this country Until their private lives completely defy what they preach. We're "hiring" them to implement what they preach.
We're not talking a dalliance here or a BJ there. FDR had mistresses, Eleanor knew about them; Ike and JFK did as well. But most importantly they weren't pretending to be religious leaders.
I'm pretty certain none of them would have been baying for Clinton's impeachment as GinGrinch was.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
In the case of Gingrich, I think it's important to choose leaders that, preferably, aren't absolute nutters.
You wouldn't want Gingrich as a nuke sub captain. Why would you want him as Commander in Chief of an entire nuclear arsenal?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
When Reagan was the image or Republicanism, the party was a "big tent," and the Democrats were the tiny one.
If that's true, then I'm sure that Repubs controlled the House when Ray-gun was president. After all, no way the "tiny tent" party could control the branch of government closest to "the people."
Hey wait a second . . .
Since I've been around (not as long as you judging from your posts, but I'm no spring chicken), the Dems have always done a pretty good job of cobbling together "minorities" and "special interests" (which crazily enough somehow seems to include women, the majority gender).
I've always been surprised that the Repubs have done as well as they have--and it always seems like they're perpetually flirting with complete irrelevance at the national level.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!