COMMENTS: 49
Young Conservatives Ashamed of GOP
November 9, 2009 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Advertisement
In an effort to rally a young Republican base after the 2008 presidential election, when Democratic Party identification among voters ages 18 to 29 was at its highest since 1972, Michael Steele announced that his new communications strategies were going to be "off the hook" and "beyond cutting edge." Part of this approach was a redesign of the RNC website, which features a blog by Steele. When it launched, the blog was titled "What up?" but after considerable media mockery, it was changed overnight to "Change the Game." Now it's simply called "Steele's Blog." But has Steele and the national Republican Party really reached out to their young base and asked them "What up?"
Spend some time talking to college Republicans and you might find that the new GOP strategy really hasn't been that "off the hook." At a Columbia University College Republicans (CUCR) meeting, 21-year-old Learned Foote says proudly, "I hate Republicans." He is a conservative but doesn't align himself with the current GOP. Before moving to New York to attend Columbia, Foote lived in an evangelical household in the Midwest. Despite growing up in a Republican environment, he came of age during the abuses of the Bush era, and this undoubtedly informed his politics. He believes adamantly in the classic Goldwater conservative ideals of small government and limited spending, but feels like he hasn't seen them executed in his lifetime. "[The Republican Party's] allegiance to these ideas has been shaky in the past, never ideal, and horrendous in the past few years. I cannot wrap my mind around the bailouts exercised under George W. Bush...and I'm concerned by certain portions of the Patriot Act," says Foote. He also seems to have little faith that if the Republicans were in office right now there would be real change either. "At the moment, most Republican leadership recycles talking points in response to the Democratic agenda."
Derek Turner, communications director of the CUCR, expresses a similar dissatisfaction with the party. "There are far too many times where I am embarrassed of the Republican Party," he says. "[It] is definitely in disarray.... We are in the midst of soul-searching." Unfortunately, this soul-searching is playing out on a national stage, in which the Republicans with the loudest, most reactionary voices seem to make the strongest impression. Most recently, moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, who has been criticized for her prochoice views and support of gay marriage, dropped out of the race for an open Congressional seat in New York's 23rd District. Scozzafava was pushed out by third-party candidate Douglass Hoffman, who was running on a far more conservative platform. After Scozzafava's departure, Hoffman was quickly endorsed by the Republican National Committee. This fueled a national conversation about the role of moderates in the 'new right.' Right-wing activist Richard Viguerie took the opportunity to call out Scozzafava for being an "establishment Republican" and rhetorically forged a path for what he believes is the future of the GOP. On his website he triumphantly states, "Tea party activists are the new GOP."
But contrary to Viguerie's analysis, the far right's domination of the media landscape doesn't necessarily mean it represents the Republican Party writ large. While these college Republicans represent a small, particular demographic--living in blue states--as politically active young people, their ideas and intentions should be important to the Republican Party, especially when evaluating its future. Kevin Preskenis, 19, chief of staff of the Georgetown University College Republicans, wants the party to rein itself in from extremist rhetoric and instead focus on building a more concrete ideology. "We need to bring our party back to common sense and practical, pragmatic solutions for a lot of the problems we have right now." In addition, Turner feels that in order for the GOP to regain power in the 2010 elections and eventually win the presidency in 2012, the "party [needs to] prove itself to be both ready to provide solutions, ready to go into action, as well as be applicable to today's times.... We need to be focusing on our own party instead of trying to bring down the president."
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 49 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
---Hubert H. Humphrey
Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)
Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)
Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)
Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)
During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.
A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:
"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.
"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."
---Hubert H. Humphrey
Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)
Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)
Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)
Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)
During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.
A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:
"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.
"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And a virtual kick in the ass
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: some liberals are uncomfortable with abortion...
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: I don't care what you call it.
Posted by: Longdream
» vasumurti's a...
Posted by: morticia
» RE: vasumurti's a...probable hypocrite.
Posted by: Longdream
» Common ground?
Posted by: morticia
» RE: maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party
Posted by: stellans
» you say "a person's body is their own," but there are TWO bodies in pregnancy
Posted by: vasumurti
» Yeah, but unlike anything else under the sun....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 95-10 Initiative
A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions
and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.
The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.
Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons. There are several bills before Congress that address pregnancy prevention. While we have not endorsed a particular bill, we support finding the most effective way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
Pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term have not received that same commitment from the Federal government. We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment have introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407 and H.R. 3192) in the U.S Senate and U.S House. The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are:
* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.
Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066
A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions
and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.
The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.
Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons. There are several bills before Congress that address pregnancy prevention. While we have not endorsed a particular bill, we support finding the most effective way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
Pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term have not received that same commitment from the Federal government. We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment have introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407 and H.R. 3192) in the U.S Senate and U.S House. The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are:
* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.
Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: And you got a "1"
Posted by: Longdream
Comments are closed-
It will be an evolution.
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
Barry Goldwater (Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." as quoted in Ed Magnuson, "The Brethren's First Sister," Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Barry Goldwater (Speech in the US Senate, 16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, 2006)
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
Barry Goldwater (Interview, The Washington Post, 28 July, 1994)
(Post Continued in next block. For some reason the rest of it wouldn't post in Preview)
Barry Goldwater (Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." as quoted in Ed Magnuson, "The Brethren's First Sister," Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Barry Goldwater (Speech in the US Senate, 16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, 2006)
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
Barry Goldwater (Interview, The Washington Post, 28 July, 1994)
(Post Continued in next block. For some reason the rest of it wouldn't post in Preview)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It will be an evolution.
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
It will be an evolution. (Continued)
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Goldwater is the ideal of young Republicans, we surely can look forward to better day. There is nothing that will improve the lot of people in this country than a government with honest, vigorous and fair opposition on real issues. I can't wait for the time when it's not progressives or conservatives, but dishonest wimps who need not apply.
And it's typical of present Republican leadership that they think the title of Steele's blog is the heart of the matter, and not the words that are written therein. Voters 18 to 29: 45% Democrats, 26% Republicans (and falling).
Viva La Evolution!
And it's typical of present Republican leadership that they think the title of Steele's blog is the heart of the matter, and not the words that are written therein. Voters 18 to 29: 45% Democrats, 26% Republicans (and falling).
Viva La Evolution!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It will be an evolution. (Continued)
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
As they should be
Posted by: Boduognat on Nov 9, 2009 7:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Boduognat on Nov 9, 2009 7:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The recent trend in the GOP is to move even further to the right(if such a thing is still possible)They will now demonise members of their own party,who are a bit more moderate in their opinions.This means that previous presidents like Nixon,Ford,GHW Bush and even Reagan himself would be persona non grata in todays GOP.These men were all centrists,more like Obama,then like W.Bush. Nixon himself once quoted:'we're all keynesians now'
Ultimately this rightwing strategy will fail,and moderate conservatives could end up in a fortified Democratic Party. That doesn't sound so bad,does it?
Ultimately this rightwing strategy will fail,and moderate conservatives could end up in a fortified Democratic Party. That doesn't sound so bad,does it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
"Dems for Life"
Posted by: EddDoerr on Nov 9, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: EddDoerr on Nov 9, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems for Life plan is a not too subtle attack on women's rights and freedom of conscience. It says nothing about comprehensive sexuality education or contraception, leaving the distinct impression that Dems for Life is really just a front for the Catholic bishops, who turn to the political process when they can't sell their misogynistic patriarchalist message to the diminishing flocks who attend services. A more worthy organization is the respected Catholics for Choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» "Not all of us are rabid right-wingers."
Posted by: morticia
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: Arrongre
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» There's a chapter missing from your book!
Posted by: morticia
» You are such a misogynist, you cannot even recognize your misogyny
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Vasumurti! OH! OH! How could I have missed this one?!!
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: actually, I agree with you
Posted by: vasumurti
» "There must be a better way."
Posted by: morticia
» Jesus Christ, vasumurti. Do you realize....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: actually, I agree with you (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti
» In other words, make it...
Posted by: morticia
» I credit you and your writings....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
I think
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these young Republicans are totally missing the point. In a country like the US where unrestricted capitalism at its worst has created such disparities between different social groups you can't rationalize conservatism. It would be the last straw to have such an ideology gaining control once again of the levers of power. The US would become a republic much like those of South America where great wealth resides beside great poverty, a perfect mix for revolution. The only thing that prevents such a deadly mix of poverty and violence is a government that is open to using public funds to smooth out the discrepancies between the extremely poor and the extremely rich. A fair and just social system requires it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think
Posted by: Boduognat
» RE: I think
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
Hey, rethugs
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have you done for us lately?
A big, fat NOTHING, that's what.
Want to win some hearts and minds? Produce another Teddy Roosevelt,or shut up.
A big, fat NOTHING, that's what.
Want to win some hearts and minds? Produce another Teddy Roosevelt,or shut up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
These young people may be the next leaders...
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and they are not going to be so as Republicans. First, let me say that I was raised as a Republican, switched to Democrat, and am now an Independent. I have listened to all the rhetoric over the last 57 years or so, and I have found out three things:
Americans, by and large, all want small government that does not intrude on their lives too much. This has been true since the founding of this nation, and was one of the guiding principles behind our revolution for freedom from England.
Most Americans are fiscal conservatives, period. They do not like deficits or huge public debt. But, they are also pragmatists that, by and large, realize that sometimes the only option is to run up the debt in order to save our economic bacon!
Most Americans embrace social programs because it is in our nature to help those who are our neighbors, friends, and communities. Many object to entitlement programs, but seldom object to programs like free public education, job training, medical care, and financial security programs like Social Security. Americans are "can do" types, and we will help feed each other, but often prefer to teach those in need how to feed themselves, and when that is possible, we will willing foot the bill.
This is what these Young Republicans have seen is important. Just as Young Democrats, and at one time, Obama saw as important. They should be listened to by all their elders. Their voices should not be drowned out by corporate money or right(or left)-wing religious/political nutjobs.
Many people say that our current party system is just two-sides of the same coin. Perhaps people are right, and maybe it is time for this new generation to form not two parties, but one meant to put humanity-based controls back into our government and our communities, not corporate ones. Where they can espouse and provide plans for fiscal conservatism with pragmatic components, while also developing social programs that truly help and do not just provide temporary patches or inadequate help.
Maybe this new generation, of both Republicans and Democrats, will realize that they have more in common than their elders claim, and they can form a unified party that will put people first and not corporate agendas. These young people seem to understand, and if they can find a way to come together before they are ostracized for their youthful idealism, then more power to them.
I think the country would be better for it, myself, and I think our Founding Fathers would think so as well.
Americans, by and large, all want small government that does not intrude on their lives too much. This has been true since the founding of this nation, and was one of the guiding principles behind our revolution for freedom from England.
Most Americans are fiscal conservatives, period. They do not like deficits or huge public debt. But, they are also pragmatists that, by and large, realize that sometimes the only option is to run up the debt in order to save our economic bacon!
Most Americans embrace social programs because it is in our nature to help those who are our neighbors, friends, and communities. Many object to entitlement programs, but seldom object to programs like free public education, job training, medical care, and financial security programs like Social Security. Americans are "can do" types, and we will help feed each other, but often prefer to teach those in need how to feed themselves, and when that is possible, we will willing foot the bill.
This is what these Young Republicans have seen is important. Just as Young Democrats, and at one time, Obama saw as important. They should be listened to by all their elders. Their voices should not be drowned out by corporate money or right(or left)-wing religious/political nutjobs.
Many people say that our current party system is just two-sides of the same coin. Perhaps people are right, and maybe it is time for this new generation to form not two parties, but one meant to put humanity-based controls back into our government and our communities, not corporate ones. Where they can espouse and provide plans for fiscal conservatism with pragmatic components, while also developing social programs that truly help and do not just provide temporary patches or inadequate help.
Maybe this new generation, of both Republicans and Democrats, will realize that they have more in common than their elders claim, and they can form a unified party that will put people first and not corporate agendas. These young people seem to understand, and if they can find a way to come together before they are ostracized for their youthful idealism, then more power to them.
I think the country would be better for it, myself, and I think our Founding Fathers would think so as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These young people may be the next leaders...
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
Conservatives will stick to the GOP
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is laughable to think that conservatives will abandon the GOP. This is the party that read Teddy Roosevelt out for his progressive views 97 years ago.
They will change the wrappers so that candidates like Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell will seem to moderate the message.
But it will always be the same old same old of class warfare, white privilege and big money exercising total power.
They will change the wrappers so that candidates like Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell will seem to moderate the message.
But it will always be the same old same old of class warfare, white privilege and big money exercising total power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This isn't news.
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on Nov 9, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on Nov 9, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These young conservatives who hold the fundies in contempt have been called South Park Republicans for years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
jfielding
Posted by: jfielding on Nov 10, 2009 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jfielding on Nov 10, 2009 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And oddly enough, we in the GOP do not choose to take the prescriptions of the Nation magazine for our continued health.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: And a virtual kick in the ass
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: some liberals are uncomfortable with abortion...
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: I don't care what you call it.
Posted by: Longdream
» vasumurti's a...
Posted by: morticia
» RE: vasumurti's a...probable hypocrite.
Posted by: Longdream
» Common ground?
Posted by: morticia
» RE: maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party
Posted by: stellans
» you say "a person's body is their own," but there are TWO bodies in pregnancy
Posted by: vasumurti
» Yeah, but unlike anything else under the sun....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: And you got a "1"
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: It will be an evolution.
Posted by: Dak
» RE: It will be an evolution. (Continued)
Posted by: Dak
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» "Not all of us are rabid right-wingers."
Posted by: morticia
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: Arrongre
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» There's a chapter missing from your book!
Posted by: morticia
» You are such a misogynist, you cannot even recognize your misogyny
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Vasumurti! OH! OH! How could I have missed this one?!!
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: actually, I agree with you
Posted by: vasumurti
» "There must be a better way."
Posted by: morticia
» Jesus Christ, vasumurti. Do you realize....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: actually, I agree with you (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti
» In other words, make it...
Posted by: morticia
» I credit you and your writings....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I think
Posted by: Boduognat
» RE: I think
Posted by: Dak
» RE: These young people may be the next leaders...
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
---Hubert H. Humphrey
Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)
Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)
Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)
Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)
During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.
A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:
"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.
"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."
---Hubert H. Humphrey
Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)
Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)
Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)
Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)
During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.
A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:
"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.
"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And a virtual kick in the ass
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: some liberals are uncomfortable with abortion...
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: I don't care what you call it.
Posted by: Longdream
» vasumurti's a...
Posted by: morticia
» RE: vasumurti's a...probable hypocrite.
Posted by: Longdream
» Common ground?
Posted by: morticia
» RE: maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party
Posted by: stellans
» you say "a person's body is their own," but there are TWO bodies in pregnancy
Posted by: vasumurti
» Yeah, but unlike anything else under the sun....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
maybe we could bring them into the Democratic Party (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 95-10 Initiative
A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions
and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.
The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.
Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons. There are several bills before Congress that address pregnancy prevention. While we have not endorsed a particular bill, we support finding the most effective way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
Pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term have not received that same commitment from the Federal government. We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment have introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407 and H.R. 3192) in the U.S Senate and U.S House. The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are:
* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.
Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066
A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions
and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.
The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.
Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons. There are several bills before Congress that address pregnancy prevention. While we have not endorsed a particular bill, we support finding the most effective way to reduce unplanned pregnancies. We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
Pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term have not received that same commitment from the Federal government. We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Pro-life Democrats in Congress who share this same commitment have introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 2407 and H.R. 3192) in the U.S Senate and U.S House. The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term. Some of the programs included are:
* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.
Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is all nice.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: And you got a "1"
Posted by: Longdream
Comments are closed-
It will be an evolution.
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
Barry Goldwater (Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." as quoted in Ed Magnuson, "The Brethren's First Sister," Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Barry Goldwater (Speech in the US Senate, 16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, 2006)
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
Barry Goldwater (Interview, The Washington Post, 28 July, 1994)
(Post Continued in next block. For some reason the rest of it wouldn't post in Preview)
Barry Goldwater (Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." as quoted in Ed Magnuson, "The Brethren's First Sister," Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Barry Goldwater (Speech in the US Senate, 16 September 1981)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, 2006)
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I came out for it."
Barry Goldwater (Interview, The Washington Post, 28 July, 1994)
(Post Continued in next block. For some reason the rest of it wouldn't post in Preview)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It will be an evolution.
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
It will be an evolution. (Continued)
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 9, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Goldwater is the ideal of young Republicans, we surely can look forward to better day. There is nothing that will improve the lot of people in this country than a government with honest, vigorous and fair opposition on real issues. I can't wait for the time when it's not progressives or conservatives, but dishonest wimps who need not apply.
And it's typical of present Republican leadership that they think the title of Steele's blog is the heart of the matter, and not the words that are written therein. Voters 18 to 29: 45% Democrats, 26% Republicans (and falling).
Viva La Evolution!
And it's typical of present Republican leadership that they think the title of Steele's blog is the heart of the matter, and not the words that are written therein. Voters 18 to 29: 45% Democrats, 26% Republicans (and falling).
Viva La Evolution!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It will be an evolution. (Continued)
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
As they should be
Posted by: Boduognat on Nov 9, 2009 7:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Boduognat on Nov 9, 2009 7:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The recent trend in the GOP is to move even further to the right(if such a thing is still possible)They will now demonise members of their own party,who are a bit more moderate in their opinions.This means that previous presidents like Nixon,Ford,GHW Bush and even Reagan himself would be persona non grata in todays GOP.These men were all centrists,more like Obama,then like W.Bush. Nixon himself once quoted:'we're all keynesians now'
Ultimately this rightwing strategy will fail,and moderate conservatives could end up in a fortified Democratic Party. That doesn't sound so bad,does it?
Ultimately this rightwing strategy will fail,and moderate conservatives could end up in a fortified Democratic Party. That doesn't sound so bad,does it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
"Dems for Life"
Posted by: EddDoerr on Nov 9, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: EddDoerr on Nov 9, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems for Life plan is a not too subtle attack on women's rights and freedom of conscience. It says nothing about comprehensive sexuality education or contraception, leaving the distinct impression that Dems for Life is really just a front for the Catholic bishops, who turn to the political process when they can't sell their misogynistic patriarchalist message to the diminishing flocks who attend services. A more worthy organization is the respected Catholics for Choice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» "Not all of us are rabid right-wingers."
Posted by: morticia
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: Arrongre
» RE: "Dems for Life"
Posted by: vasumurti
» There's a chapter missing from your book!
Posted by: morticia
» You are such a misogynist, you cannot even recognize your misogyny
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here's a double standard for you vasumurti.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Vasumurti! OH! OH! How could I have missed this one?!!
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: actually, I agree with you
Posted by: vasumurti
» "There must be a better way."
Posted by: morticia
» Jesus Christ, vasumurti. Do you realize....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: actually, I agree with you (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti
» In other words, make it...
Posted by: morticia
» I credit you and your writings....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
I think
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these young Republicans are totally missing the point. In a country like the US where unrestricted capitalism at its worst has created such disparities between different social groups you can't rationalize conservatism. It would be the last straw to have such an ideology gaining control once again of the levers of power. The US would become a republic much like those of South America where great wealth resides beside great poverty, a perfect mix for revolution. The only thing that prevents such a deadly mix of poverty and violence is a government that is open to using public funds to smooth out the discrepancies between the extremely poor and the extremely rich. A fair and just social system requires it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think
Posted by: Boduognat
» RE: I think
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
Hey, rethugs
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have you done for us lately?
A big, fat NOTHING, that's what.
Want to win some hearts and minds? Produce another Teddy Roosevelt,or shut up.
A big, fat NOTHING, that's what.
Want to win some hearts and minds? Produce another Teddy Roosevelt,or shut up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
These young people may be the next leaders...
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and they are not going to be so as Republicans. First, let me say that I was raised as a Republican, switched to Democrat, and am now an Independent. I have listened to all the rhetoric over the last 57 years or so, and I have found out three things:
Americans, by and large, all want small government that does not intrude on their lives too much. This has been true since the founding of this nation, and was one of the guiding principles behind our revolution for freedom from England.
Most Americans are fiscal conservatives, period. They do not like deficits or huge public debt. But, they are also pragmatists that, by and large, realize that sometimes the only option is to run up the debt in order to save our economic bacon!
Most Americans embrace social programs because it is in our nature to help those who are our neighbors, friends, and communities. Many object to entitlement programs, but seldom object to programs like free public education, job training, medical care, and financial security programs like Social Security. Americans are "can do" types, and we will help feed each other, but often prefer to teach those in need how to feed themselves, and when that is possible, we will willing foot the bill.
This is what these Young Republicans have seen is important. Just as Young Democrats, and at one time, Obama saw as important. They should be listened to by all their elders. Their voices should not be drowned out by corporate money or right(or left)-wing religious/political nutjobs.
Many people say that our current party system is just two-sides of the same coin. Perhaps people are right, and maybe it is time for this new generation to form not two parties, but one meant to put humanity-based controls back into our government and our communities, not corporate ones. Where they can espouse and provide plans for fiscal conservatism with pragmatic components, while also developing social programs that truly help and do not just provide temporary patches or inadequate help.
Maybe this new generation, of both Republicans and Democrats, will realize that they have more in common than their elders claim, and they can form a unified party that will put people first and not corporate agendas. These young people seem to understand, and if they can find a way to come together before they are ostracized for their youthful idealism, then more power to them.
I think the country would be better for it, myself, and I think our Founding Fathers would think so as well.
Americans, by and large, all want small government that does not intrude on their lives too much. This has been true since the founding of this nation, and was one of the guiding principles behind our revolution for freedom from England.
Most Americans are fiscal conservatives, period. They do not like deficits or huge public debt. But, they are also pragmatists that, by and large, realize that sometimes the only option is to run up the debt in order to save our economic bacon!
Most Americans embrace social programs because it is in our nature to help those who are our neighbors, friends, and communities. Many object to entitlement programs, but seldom object to programs like free public education, job training, medical care, and financial security programs like Social Security. Americans are "can do" types, and we will help feed each other, but often prefer to teach those in need how to feed themselves, and when that is possible, we will willing foot the bill.
This is what these Young Republicans have seen is important. Just as Young Democrats, and at one time, Obama saw as important. They should be listened to by all their elders. Their voices should not be drowned out by corporate money or right(or left)-wing religious/political nutjobs.
Many people say that our current party system is just two-sides of the same coin. Perhaps people are right, and maybe it is time for this new generation to form not two parties, but one meant to put humanity-based controls back into our government and our communities, not corporate ones. Where they can espouse and provide plans for fiscal conservatism with pragmatic components, while also developing social programs that truly help and do not just provide temporary patches or inadequate help.
Maybe this new generation, of both Republicans and Democrats, will realize that they have more in common than their elders claim, and they can form a unified party that will put people first and not corporate agendas. These young people seem to understand, and if they can find a way to come together before they are ostracized for their youthful idealism, then more power to them.
I think the country would be better for it, myself, and I think our Founding Fathers would think so as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These young people may be the next leaders...
Posted by: Dak
Comments are closed-
Conservatives will stick to the GOP
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is laughable to think that conservatives will abandon the GOP. This is the party that read Teddy Roosevelt out for his progressive views 97 years ago.
They will change the wrappers so that candidates like Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell will seem to moderate the message.
But it will always be the same old same old of class warfare, white privilege and big money exercising total power.
They will change the wrappers so that candidates like Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell will seem to moderate the message.
But it will always be the same old same old of class warfare, white privilege and big money exercising total power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This isn't news.
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on Nov 9, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on Nov 9, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These young conservatives who hold the fundies in contempt have been called South Park Republicans for years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
jfielding
Posted by: jfielding on Nov 10, 2009 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jfielding on Nov 10, 2009 12:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And oddly enough, we in the GOP do not choose to take the prescriptions of the Nation magazine for our continued health.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
