March 14, 2014

"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues."

"The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues."

Said Rand Paul.

122 comments:

RecChief said...

I think he's right

The Crack Emcee said...

What a leader. Hillary's gearing up for WWIII and he's declaring the cultural field hers before the first shots are fired.

Lordy, lordy, lordy,...

Sean Gleeson said...

But, “festooned”? So young people (and others) do not want social issues to decorate them with chains of flowers. Well okay then.

john said...

Your right Crack, Hillary's calm composure under fire will win the day, and election, for her.

Did'ja see her handle that Glock?

The Crack Emcee said...

John,

That was funny!

Patrick O said...

first things first

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

'festooned?'

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Oops; Sean got there first.

Tom said...

I agree with this statement. But I'm concerned that Rand Paul continues to actively support socially conservative positions. He recently moved in the Senate to attack Rove v. Wade. And he's obviously not a supporter of same-sex marriage. While many folks are okay with these positions, to many young people, this makes him a bigot (never mind that Obama and Clinton also were actively against same-sex marriage -- logic doesn't apply in this case). On the national stage, Republicans would be wise to drop these issues - these positions are luxuries that we cannot afford. We cannot afford to spend time anywhere but on three things -- spending, debt, and protection of the 4, 5, and 6 amendments. If we do not focus here, then the "choices" around abortion or same-sex marriage will only be illusions -- we'll lose all choices except those dictated to us.

Bob Ellison said...

He meant "festered".

David said...

One of the meanings of festoon is "loup."

Loup? Loopy? Clever, Rand. Very clever.

(It just occurred to me, after all this time, that Rand must have been named for Ayn Rand.)

She's unreadable. He's unreadable,

Perfect.

mccullough said...

Importuned?

Freeman Hunt said...

From what I can tell, young people today like to be festooned with scarves, not gay marriage.

Freeman Hunt said...

Gay marriage as an issue anyway.

Freeman Hunt said...

There are also these large necklaces now that cover a good portion of the upper part of the chest. They like to be festooned with those.

eric said...

Young people need to mature into older, wiser people. Catering to the foolishness of the young is a bad idea.

wildswan said...

The financial side of the Republican party doesn't want to be "festooned" with causes it doesn't support. Well what they call "festooning" I call coalition building. If the financial Republicans don't want to build a coalition, then the Republicans will lose 10 to 15 % of those now voting Republican. I suggest that the money people try to understand that there are people who regard abortion as the murder of an innocent human being. Try to understand that it matters to some of us that the innocent are dying. And if you prefer to support gay marriage, well OK, so be it but don't think you can just tell people to toss aside a conviction like the conviction the prolifers have.

Saint Croix said...

He recently moved in the Senate to attack Rove v. Wade.

That's because Karl Rove should not have played one-on-one basketball with Dwayne Wade. The Republican party was really embarrassed by that. Old and fat white man who can't jump. Awful. Awful.

Saint Croix said...

On the national stage, Republicans would be wise to drop these issues - these positions are luxuries that we cannot afford.

Maybe you can start up a Whig party. "It's the 19th century and we have no opinion on that."

n.n said...

Go along to get along is the Democrat platform. What do Republicans offer to distinguish them from their competitors? It's not enough to be pro-choice or selective. Supposedly, the Republican party is right in principle, if not always in practice, and historically made the hard choices.

Sean Gleeson said...

Any of these might have made some sense.

fettered
fenced
felled
fellated
feminized

Revenant said...

I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues.

I agree (unsurprisingly). Fighting over unresolvable social issues when the economy side of government is completely falling apart is ridiculous. Social issues shouldn't even be the government's business in the first place.

Terry said...

the GOP is doing quite well at the level of states and smaller cities. Rather than "read people out" of the party, it might be wise to determine why the GOP does well at the state level and poorly at the big-city and the federal level.

Donna B. said...

I don't give an "f" about gay marriage or abortion or any other social issue except where my close kin and friends are concerned.

What I do care about is whether my kin and friends can make a living. I figure raising the minimum wage ultimately works against them, but I whole-heartedly agree with lawsuits that challenge not paying them the overtime they deserve.

If one of my friends or kin thinks she needs an abortion, I'll try my damnedest to talk her out of it. But before that, I'll try to talk to her about birth control and relationships with unsuitable me.

Some woman I've never met and likely will never meet -- I don't care. She can screw up her life however she wishes. I can't change or help the whole world.

But I've got a huge problem with my government acting as if it can change the whole world... even if the proposed changes are ones I'd morally support.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Well what they call "festooning" I call coalition building.

Opponents of gay marriage aren't attractive coalition partners, though. They dwindle in number with each passing year.

There's still the abortion issue, I suppose, although anyone with common sense has long since figured out that there aren't going to be any significant changes to the legality of abortion in this country until there are significant changes to public attitudes first. Even if St. Croix got to appoint all nine Supreme Court justices tomorrow abortion would remain legal in every blue state -- and of course travel from red states TO blue states would remain cheap and easy, too.

Saint Croix said...

Even if St. Croix got to appoint all nine Supreme Court justices tomorrow abortion would remain legal in every blue state

Well, to clarify, if St. Croix got to appoint all nine Supreme Court Justices tomorrow, the humanity of the unborn would be recognized, Roe v. Wade would be overruled, and no state would be allowed to do abortions that constitute a homicide under state law.

You are right, though, blue states would still allow abortions. But they would have to change their death statutes first, or leave their death statutes in place and only allow very early abortions.

Also my Supreme Court would continue to enforce Griswold, the right to birth control, and the right to emergency contraception.

SOJO said...

Came here just to make sure someone questioned "festooned". Was not disappointed.

rhhardin said...

Gay marriage isn't a social issue.

It's a language issue.

Mark said...

Until Republicans understand they are attacking potential voting groups by gay bashing or condemning women whose lives were saved by abortion, they are hopeless.

No one likes when politicians take swipes at people they know. The sooner the Repubs learn that, the better for them.

Jason said...

Every single person anyone ever knew and will ever know was a human in utero. When libtards try to deny that or wish that away, it is they who are taking swipes at humanity, the same way the Nazi concepts of Untermenschen and Leben unwertigs Leben were an affront to humanity, and for the same reason.

grackle said...

… there aren't going to be any significant changes to the legality of abortion in this country until there are significant changes to public attitudes first.

There seems to be a slight trend toward a pro-life stance by the public in recent years. This runs counter to all the pro-choice propaganda by the MSM.

http://tinyurl.com/2br99el

I had my own mind changed by taking a licking on the subject in a comment debate on a blog a few years ago. After that I realized I really knew very little about the issue, did some research and came to favor pro-life.

Although I do not think any SCOTUS will ever repeal Roe vs. Wade, some advances on the pro-life side have been made by nibbling at the edges of the legal issues, such as prohibitions on late-term abortions.

Henry said...

Crack wrote: What a leader. Hillary's gearing up for WWIII and he's declaring the cultural field hers before the first shots are fired.

Rand is trying to avoid WWI.

Tank said...

Paul is right. I wish he weren't a dope on immigration.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that he is right, and that this is the big difference between Democrats and Republicans. The latter has long been an uneasy coalition of very different interests. My understanding is that abortion is less accepted in the Black and Hispanic communities than by White non-Hispanics. Yet, both groups, and in particular, Blacks, vote almost exclusively for the party of angry white feminazis whose primary issue is abortion. Ditto for Gay Rights - again pushed by a small vocal Dem. constituency, but disliked by these major groups in the coalition. And, then there is school choice - opposed by right thinking progressives in solidarity with their union brethren, but well liked by most others in the coalition. The divisions in the Dem. coalition are far deeper and more intractable than in the Rep. coalition, and yet they almost never go to war over them, whereas inter-party warfare is so common on the Republican side that it is almost unremarkable.

I have been waiting, in vain, for decades for the Dem coalition to implode or explode. So far, they seem to get by by the monied progressive interests bribing minority leadership, who collect those bribes by bringing their fellow minorities to the ballot box. This is esp. tragic in the Black community, where their adherence to the Dem. party has essentially destroyed Black family structure, resulting in the lawlessness that we are seeing in many of these communities. The Dems they put in office essentially bribe many of them to vote and to raise their kids in fatherless households, while their leadership has skipped the middle class, entering the wealthy class, by making sure that their constituents vote Dem. I think this may be most noticeable in Chicago, where the children of the Black elite, including those of the Obamas, Jacksons, etc., along with their White political brethren, are in schools where admission is through political connections, bypassing the failed public school system staffed by unionized teachers, apparently a more important constituency.

You wonder how the Dems can continue to make this work, as the lot of many of their members continues to decline as a direct result of the polices that they espouse and implement, when given the chance, and then you watch how the Black leadership was able to generate such rage over the completely justified self-defense killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. The Black community gets outraged over almost any instances of White (or Hispanic in that case) violence against Blacks, but ignores the much more frequent, and disastrous Black on Black violence. And, I think that is part of the key of how the Dems can keep these minority parts of its coalition from straying.

I have long felt that giving social conservatives some of what they want is necessary to the Republican party, though I don't support much of their agenda (but, don't oppose it either). We have a common goal of reducing government power over our lives, and the economy, and that should be more important than whether or not abortion of viable fetuses is banned.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If he really means "agree to disagree", he's right. If he means "you guys shut up", not so much.

Sean Gleeson said...

Maybe he meant “dragooned,” as in, these other issues would be forced on them.

sinz52 said...

I have pleaded in vain with social conservatives to at least make their case without the hate and bigotry.

But on Redstate.com, for example, the moderator there has written diaries calling for the revival of state anti-sodomy laws, which would once again make "buggery" (as he called it) a criminal offense.

That is NOT "defending traditional marriage," but turning gays into criminals.

That has got to stop. Young voters today would find it incomprehensible to make any kind of sex between consenting adults into a criminal offense.

And they're not going to support a party or political movement that advocates that.

The Crack Emcee said...

Mark,

No one likes when politicians take swipes at people they know. The sooner the Repubs learn that, the better for them.


You don't say? *Cough. Cough* Please tell me more.

I'm going to call family members and let them know what you say,...

The Crack Emcee said...

sinz52,

On Redstate.com, for example, the moderator there has written diaries calling for the revival of state anti-sodomy laws, which would once again make "buggery" (as he called it) a criminal offense.


That's nothing. When you want discrimination, you've got to come to the folks even gays will screw over.

#Popular.

EDH said...

As a national candidate, Paul now just has to explain the parallel between a party "agreeing to disagree" and the genius of federalism.

jacksonjay said...

Mark sed:

...attacking potential voting groups by gay bashing...

What cha talkin bout Willis? Alec Baldwin/Bill Maher gay bashin or Dick Cheney gay bashin?

Revenant said...

Well, to clarify, if St. Croix got to appoint all nine Supreme Court Justices tomorrow, the humanity of the unborn would be recognized, Roe v. Wade would be overruled, and no state would be allowed to do abortions that constitute a homicide under state law.

Notice those last three words? Yeah. That's why abortions would remain legal in the blue states.

Titus said...

chick is devastated yet enthralled by paul's commnet. he will now go over to sullivan to hear his opinion, which he hates.

Revenant said...

Hillary's gearing up for WWIII and he's declaring the cultural field hers before the first shots are fired.


Gallup's poll of the most important issues facing America:
1. Unhappy with government 26%
2. Healthcare 19%
3. Economy in general 16%
4. Unemployment/jobs 13%
5. Federal deficit/debt 12%
6. Moral/religions decline 6%

"Abortion" and "gay rights" are in a 16-way tie for 32nd place, with less than 0.5% each.

Like they said when Hillary's husband successfully ran for President: its the economy, stupid. Or, more specifically, the economy and ObamaCare. The Democrats are incredibly weak on both of those, and the public is angry about both of those. Taking this time to pick fights about abortion and gays would be nutty.

Anglelyne said...

Mark: Until Republicans understand they are attacking potential voting groups by gay bashing or condemning women whose lives were saved by abortion, they are hopeless.

Funny how one can bash away at certain significant voter segments (like say, gun owners or white men who don't live in their mother's basement) without ever attracting all this sanctimonious "OMG they won't vote for you if you don't appeal to their emotions and kiss their butts" finger-wagging. Condemn an infantilized leech who thinks other people should be paying for her contraceptives? Oh oh oh she won't vote for you if you do that! Don't condemn pro-lifers, or advocates of fiscal responsibility? Oh oh oh the leech won't vote for you if you pander to haters!

It is to laugh.

No one likes when politicians take swipes at people they know. The sooner the Repubs learn that, the better for them.

In other words, the important part of the American electorate, the part whose vote you need to get, is composed of emotionally retarded and intellectually enfeebled people who don't believe there is any such thing as principled disagreement, only "haters", and who are easily swayed by appeals to emotion and "niceness".

OK, but tell me again why I should care about any of these people, or hold myself to standards of civic duty and mutual responsibility that most certainly will not be reciprocated by these over-grown children?

Btw, not a Republican. The GOP needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted around it. But the idea that the GOP establishment is a conservative, patriotic bunch in thrall to snake-handlin' yahoos is laughable.

Anglelyne said...

Bruce Hayden: My understanding is that abortion is less accepted in the Black and Hispanic communities than by White non-Hispanics.

By some elastic definition of "less accepted". Both blacks and Hispanics have higher abortion rates than non-Hispanic whites.

Revenant said...

Every single person anyone ever knew and will ever know was a human in utero. When libtards try to deny that or wish that away, it is they who are taking swipes at humanity, the same way the Nazi concepts of Untermenschen and Leben unwertigs Leben were an affront to humanity, and for the same reason.

I hate to interrupt you in the middle of your Nazi rant, but I wanted to point out that the notion that younger people have fewer rights than older people is enshrined in both the Constitution and in common law, and is ubiquitous to all human cultures.

Notice how when you were a toddler you had basically no freedom whatsoever? That you could be summarily beaten without trial? You poor little ex-untermenschen, you. :)

Revenant said...

Funny how one can bash away at certain significant voter segments (like say, gun owners or white men who don't live in their mother's basement) without ever attracting all this sanctimonious "OMG they won't vote for you if you don't appeal to their emotions and kiss their butts" finger-wagging.

You should get out more. It is regularly pointed out that gun control costs the Democrats votes.

Mark said...

Jacksonjay, as far as I know no one elected Maher or Baldwin. Can I just pick anyone to represent republicans now?

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jacksonjay said...


Mark,

No! Dick Cheney is your choice. He was elected several times!

EMD said...

White non-Hispanics

So not George Zimmerman, then.

Saint Croix said...

Rev, you're determination to not think about abortion (because it's irrelevant) makes your arguments about abortion glib.

Can states murder newborns, in your moral universe?

Because it seems to me you are defining newborns as non-persons who have no right to life.

What is your definition of "person"? Do you have one?

(hint: live human being)

Mark said...

Enjoy your straw men, Jacksonjay.

I find it hilarious that for republicans you happen to choose one of the few with an out gay child. Yes, comparing Alec Baldwin with Dick Cheney makes huge amounts of sense.

Enjoy chasing your squirrels, I think I will seek actual discussion, not your little games.

Saint Croix said...

Notice those last three words? Yeah. That's why abortions would remain legal in the blue states.

I feel like I write on abortion so much that my position ought to be fairly clear by now. It's not like you have to memorize my argument or anything, but if you're going to tell people what I'm saying, get it right, please.

1) A person is a live human being.

2) A live human being is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

3) The final determination of "person" is a federal question, not a state one. Congress has 14th Amendment authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. Congress can naturalize the unborn and make them citizens if they want to.

4) States have authority to define when people die, thus states have authority to define when people are alive.

5) States cannot abuse this power and start killing disfavored classes of people by defining them as sub-human.

6) We have widespread agreement and consensus in regard to when people die. All 50 states, and the federal government, agree on this.

7) States have authority to change our death statutes, but any change must apply to all people in the state, under equal protection.

As I said, states can allow abortion, but they cannot allow homicides against classes of people who are disliked. That means death statutes have to be written in good faith.

jacksonjay said...

Mark,

The truth is that Democrats have just evolved in their support for SSM. Barry is 18 months into his conversion (when the gay money dried up) and Hillary is 12 months committed! In DemVille, if you disagree with SSM NOW, you're a hater.

Republicans are and have been much more "diverse" in their positions on these "social issues" than Democrats.

I can think of two pro-life Dems! Casey and Stupak! There are countless pro-choice Republicans! Oh yeah, Stupak is no longer an elected Dem (Barry punked his ass) and Casey is the token!

Let me give you two un-elected squirrels. GOProud icon Ann Coulter and the SSM supporting Koch Bros! Can you think of any other Republicans more hated by Democrats?

Seems to me the "hater" argument is the straw man.

Saint Croix said...

I know Scalia's position is that abortion should be resolved by state law, and the Constitution "says absolutely nothing about it."

Apparently Scalia is assuming the unborn have been appropriately defined as sub-human.

Scalia simultaneously compares abortion to slavery, which is incompatible with the idea that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it.

He cannot make up his mind if abortion is like slavery (a case where people have been dehumanized by the state) or like bigamy (a victimless crime).

Apparently it doesn't matter!

It's like these Supreme Court Justices think of abortion as a simulacrum of homicide. It's like homicide but it's not homicide.

They have educated themselves into atrocities.

Scalia wants to send the atrocities back to the states. Get abortion off my docket! That's Scalia's position. Let the slave states allow slavery, if they want to allow slavery.

Scalia is way smarter than I am, but like Rev, he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about abortion, and it shows up in his work, which is sub-par in this area.

Saint Croix said...

I don't blame people for not wanting to think about abortion, by the way. It corrupts everything it touches. The lawyers who don't know what a person is, the doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath, the journalists who censor abortion photographs while writing articles about abortion. Each of these professions, corrupted in a way unique to that profession.

And don't get me started (too late!) about how we've corrupted sex, romance, marriage, and love in our society.

jacksonjay said...


... journalists who censor abortion photographs while writing articles about abortion.

Kermit who? Local story, not interested!

Revenant said...

Can states murder newborns, in your moral universe?

The empirical evidence is that states can murder whoever they want. Do you want to phrase that differently?

What is your definition of "person"? Do you have one?

A mind, human or otherwise, capable of reason.

(hint: live human being)

So if I throw your brain into a wood chipper but keep your body alive artificially, I haven't committed murder? Seems kinda dippy to me.

Revenant said...

2) A live human being is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

We've already established that in this scenario you control the Supreme Court, so you can concoct whatever flimsy rationalization you like for why, say, California is required to have certain kinds of laws.

What you can't do is actually force California to adopt them, California police to enforce them, or California juries to convict people under them. Oh, sure, I guess you could send in the troops and forcibly stop abortions for a year or two if you don't mind handing over Congress and the Presidency to the Democrats for the next fifty years, but that's about it.

You know why it took almost a hundred years between the passage of the 14th amendment and its actual enforcement against the states to stop racial discrimination? Because this is a republic, and the law needed to wait for popular will to catch up to it. By the time the 1960s rolled around, a supermajority of Americans thought it was wrong to legally discriminate on the basis of race.

Eighty percent of the country thinks abortion should be at least partially legal. Even if I agreed that the 14th amendment demands an abortion ban -- which I wouldn't, even if I thought fetuses were people -- you cannot actually do shit about that until you change those numbers.

SOJO said...

All of this is too late, so it hardly matters. It will seem fraudulent, and it will be fraudulent. Republicans are just going to have to wait for another group to age out and see what comes of it. Slow natural change, iow.

Dems aren't in the best position to lead the necessary rebuilding and updating of our system either since they are as dependent on deals and donors as anyone else. They can manage to not repulse more people, but can they execute deep, coherent change that benefits Americans as a whole in a global economy?

D.M.Dutcher said...

Without the social stuff, what do they have? Republican economic arguments aren't winning anyone when they bitch about raising the minimum wage or obsessing about companies over people. Talking about shrinking government or evils of government spending can only work when government isn't increasingly the only place for people to find a decent job.

I'd say the reverse; they need to kick the libertarians and economic cons out, keep the social cons in, and start seriously thinking about how conservatism can survive when productivity destroys more jobs than it creates.

Revenant said...

Scalia simultaneously compares abortion to slavery, which is incompatible with the idea that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it.

Um, what? The constitution explicitly bans slavery. That does not mean it bans everything which can be metaphorically compared to slavery and/or considered the moral equivalent of slavery.

Say what you will about abortion, but it obviously isn't involuntary servitude!

Saint Croix said...

Because this is a republic, and the law needed to wait for popular will to catch up to it.

In a republic, people have rights. You can't vote to kill the unpopular. That's how a republic works.

Saint Croix said...

Say what you will about abortion, but it obviously isn't involuntary servitude!

Scalia makes the slavery comparison because in both cases the Supreme Court defined people as sub-human, as outside the law. This is why Scalia makes Dred Scott comparisons, both in his Casey and Carhart dissents.

Scalia raises the possibility that the unborn is a human being, but he only raises it as a hypothetical. It has not affected his jurisprudence. Indeed, Scalia seems to suggest (like Rev) that states can murder newborns and the incompetent elderly.

Revenant said...

In a republic, people have rights. You can't vote to kill the unpopular. That's how a republic works.

Man, what history books have YOU been reading?

Revenant said...

Indeed, Scalia seems to suggest (like Rev) that states can murder newborns and the incompetent elderly.

You claim they're already doing it, so obviously they can do it.

Saint Croix said...

And all libertarians should be embarrassed at the necessity for censorship to hide abortions from our people.

If this movie was on 60 Minutes, this fight would be over.

Unelected people dictate a right to commit atrocities that are so awful our media cannot show them on network television. How does this comport with liberty, Rev?

Revenant said...

And all libertarians should be embarrassed at the necessity for censorship to hide abortions from our people.

I don't share your belief that "revolting to look at" is the same as "morally wrong". I don't want to see pictures of defecation, either -- doesn't make it wrong to take a crap.

Saint Croix said...

I don't share your belief that "revolting to look at" is the same as "morally wrong"

You want to privatize violence and keep it hidden.

Saint Croix said...

I appreciate you watching the movie, though.

jr565 said...

So should conservatives turn polygamy into a social issue and defend it like liberals defend gay marriage?

jr565 said...

crack Emcee wrote:
What a leader. Hillary's gearing up for WWIII and he's declaring the cultural field hers before the first shots are fired.


As much as I hate to agree with Crack, he's right here.
Pro life conservatives had an issue with Obama because he said abortion was above his pay grade.

Paul is saying all social issues are above his pay grade. he's going to out liberal the liberals.

jr565 said...

Tom wrote:
Republicans would be wise to drop these issues - these positions are luxuries that we cannot afford. We cannot afford to spend time anywhere but on three things -- spending, debt, and protection of the 4, 5, and 6 amendments.

How myopic that is. The republicans platform is economics, defense and culture. You want to pretend as if two of those don't even exist.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
agree (unsurprisingly). Fighting over unresolvable social issues when the economy side of government is completely falling apart is ridiculous. Social issues shouldn't even be the government's business in the first place.


How does that apply to gay marriage? Wouldn't marriage already be a resolved issue like abortion? Marriage was as it was, Why then are gays fighting to change marriage? Shouldn't they simply give up the fight and accept what is and has been?

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
Social issues shouldn't even be the government's business in the first place.

Whether they should or shouldn't be, they are. And thus why fight over unresolved issues when we have to worry about the economy? Shouldn't you therefore except that social issues are going to be handled by the govt and not try to change the position?
Which would be trying to resolve unresolved issues in a way that would require changing how society handles said issues.

jr565 said...

Marriage as currently set IS defined by the state. So if the state doesn't want marriage to be a certain way it defines it. Govt is currently not out of marriage, despite the libertarians wish otherwise. And so, if we are to not fight cultural wars, shouldn't libertarians accept that which is now and not try to change it? Who's fighting? Not the people who want to maintaint the status quo. It's those trying to change it.
So, you want pro lifers to just accept the law on abortion? Accept the law on everything else the same way.

damikesc said...

Young voters today would find it incomprehensible to make any kind of sex between consenting adults into a criminal offense.

Yet colleges routinely do that to male students who have sex with female students when both happened to be drunk and both said yes.

Funny.

You should get out more. It is regularly pointed out that gun control costs the Democrats votes.

Seemed the point was that the "concern trolls" who bemoan the conservatives anti-abortion stance (which has never been a major loser politically) don't mind the progressives anti-gun stance, which is a rather consistent loser.

Republican economic arguments aren't winning anyone when they bitch about raising the minimum wage or obsessing about companies over people.

Unless you advocate a minimum wage of $1,000,000 a year, then you're not serious.

If it has no negative impact on employment, why go so low?

I bet all of those kids who can't get a job are thrilled to know that, if they get a job, they will be paid decently.

...again, IF they can only get a job. Which they can't.

But poverty for bad policy is a poor trade.

Talking about shrinking government or evils of government spending can only work when government isn't increasingly the only place for people to find a decent job.

Ignoring that government has caused that problem...

jr565 said...

"Young voters today would find it incomprehensible to make any kind of sex between consenting adults into a criminal offense."
Do marriage restrictions prevent consenting adults from having sex? i.e. if gays can't marry does that mean that gays can't have sex? IIf polygamists can't marry does that mean people can't be in three ways?

jr565 said...

I don't see why republicans should have to cede anything in the culture war. Any more than liberals should have to cede their position.
If there is a war over marriage its not conservatives waging it, it's liberals. So then there is a natural disagreement over social issues if people want to change the status quo. If you cede this issue to your opponent then its not as if a cultural war isn't being fought. You're just saying its ok if your side loses.

jr565 said...

Sorry this should have said "Which would be trying to resolve resolved issues in a way that would require changing how society handles said issues."
The fight over marriage being in the hands of govt is already resolved. Libertarians lost. Stop trying to fight the culture war.

jr565 said...

Marriage being between a man and a woman is already a resolved issue. Stop trying to fight the culture war.
And yet, for libertarians and liberals only republicans fight the culture war. What a load of crap.

jr565 said...

Mark wrote:
Until Republicans understand they are attacking potential voting groups by gay bashing or condemning women whose lives were saved by abortion, they are hopeless.

That's a ludicrous position. Beuause those opposing said positions are also voting groups. Do you think liberals should understand that they are attacking potential voting groups? Why then shouldn't they for example, drop their opposition to maintaining traditional marriage OR not allow so many abortions.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
The empirical evidence is that states can murder whoever they want. Do you want to phrase that differently?

And by the same token the state could prevent the murder of whoever it wanted too. The state could implement a death penalty or ban a death penalty.

Saint Croix said...

I guess you could send in the troops and forcibly stop abortions for a year or two if you don't mind handing over Congress and the Presidency to the Democrats for the next fifty years, but that's about it.

I imagine Rev as Orval Faubus, standing in front of the abortion clinic, insisting that those babies aren't human.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
No one likes when politicians take swipes at people they know. The sooner the Repubs learn that, the better for them.


You don't say? *Cough. Cough* Please tell me more.

You can take swipes at people you disagree with. You disagree with Paul Ryan and call him a racist, I disagree with your assertion that he's a racist based on what you cite.
Don't see why you think you're entitled to make your critique but then not have people agree or disagree with your critique.

jr565 said...

It seems like those pushing for Republicans to give up on the culture war are perfectly happy with fighting the culture war when it suits their agenda.
And so Rev says we need to maintain the status quo for abortion but need to totally give up on defining marriage and have states involved even though we already define it.
And of liberals want all hands off aborrtion because it's settled but have no problem further restricting gun rights even though thats similarly settled.
If we're not to fight a culture war then that means all sides need to drop their weapons and maintain the status quo exactly as it is now.
That means abortions as they are, gun rights as they are, marriage as it is, the Fed as it is, Big govt as it is etc etc etc.
Who wants to be the first to completely sell out their principles? If its a mexican stand off repubs would be beyond foolish to be lulled into the idea that they can drop their guns while their opponents still have their guns pointed at their head.

Job said...


"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues."

Vacuous. What is the alternative?

Did I miss the GOP inquisition executing heretics?

Anglelyne said...

Revenant: You should get out more. It is regularly pointed out that gun control costs the Democrats votes.

Sure, Rev, because "chill on the gun control rhetoric because you'll turn off the voters who believe in the right to bear arms" is exactly the same thing as "if you don't purge all those crazed fringe fanatic Hatey McHating gun control advocates from the Democratic Party, no one will ever vote Democratic again! Only toothless old dope-addled inbred hippies who worship crystals are in favor of gun control. Who wants to be associated with them?"

The Democratic "big tent" is at least as full of crazies who alienate reasonable people as the GOP, but they don't get concern-trolled like that.

30yearProf said...

I just went to my Republican Senate District convention. It is the last one I will attend. The party establishment is sooooo outtttt of itttt. The battle is over and Social Conservatives won what battles they could and LOST THE WAR.

America, but not the RP, has decided that abortion up to viability is OK. America has decided that homosexual marriage is OK. But the RP won't stop fighting the last war.

Limitless immigration is still an issue but the R's have to at least "talk" about those who have been here all their adult lives. But they are too stupid to do so.

The Democrats, OTOH, are socialist nuts. As Obama reinforces daily.

So I've become a "pick and choose" Independent. The good side is that I get to keep what I would have contributed (until the D's find a way to take it).

jr565 said...

30yearprof wrote:
America has decided that homosexual marriage is OK.
And yet state after state keep voting against Gay marriage and keep putting it on the ballot. Why don't you respect the will of the state?

jr565 said...

30yearprof are you similarly outraged at the republicans fighting a war against polygamy?
You make it sound as if gays had rights t marry and then republicans rushed in and denied them the right to marry.
When in fact its the exact opposite. Gays never had the rights to marry, marriage was always legally defined as being between a man and a woman.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I think he's right. I know a Fr. James who still wants to be festooned with contrarian advocacy but, when it's not a winner, most will leave it aside. Nice choice of word, 'festoon,' strategic as you have suggested. My only problem with the quote was the recent report that Adam Lanza only communicated with his mother in the house by email; so his prior paragraph is freighted.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Saint Croix,

Re: Scalia: Bigamy is "a victimless crime"? Who knew? Bigamy has two very obvious victims.

Saint Croix said...

I had my own mind changed by taking a licking on the subject in a comment debate on a blog a few years ago. After that I realized I really knew very little about the issue, did some research and came to favor pro-life.

That happened to me, too, more or less. I was in college, mocking the pro-life movement. And my roommate, to my surprise, was a pro-lifer. And he asked me if I had read Roe v. Wade. (No). So then he started mocking me for my ignorance.

A year or two later I happened to come across Roe v. Wade in a bookstore. Skimmed it. Came across this sentence...

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

This is why the Supreme Court is in trouble. Pro-lifers are getting undergrads reading your damn opinions and your opinions are not convincing, Harry Blackmun.

Imagine the kids reading Carhart today!

I was still pro-choice at this point. No internet, no photographs of aborted infants, the media keeping me ignorant and happy. I was the quintessential low information voter.

Maybe 5 years later I did a research paper for a girl I was dating. She was pro-choice, I was pro-choice. She had me wrapped around her little finger, that's why I was doing her homework for her. Embarrassing. Anyway, I did some reading, and came across the argument that our death statutes define when people die.

Now I was "pro-life and pro-choice." I wanted to be pro-choice, honestly I did. But I wanted to disassociate myself from homicide.

Then came law school. It was an intellectual argument, kind of a game, if you can believe that. Win the argument! My 20's were mostly like that. Nothing was serious. I subscribed to New Republic.

I was appalled by partial-birth abortion. It was working its way through the appellate courts. Still didn't think about abortion much.

In 2000 I asked John Edwards in a conference room with 500 people what he thought about partial-birth abortion. He said he was appalled by it. I voted for him. He voted for it.

Last time I voted for a Democrat.

I thought Rush Limbaugh was an ass, around this time. Not that I had heard his show or anything like that.

It just shows you how our media dominates our politics, how uninformed people can be, and how this bias and prejudice seeps down, particularly to young people, who aren't paying any attention.

To me, it's a process of waking up.

Saint Croix said...

Re: Scalia: Bigamy is "a victimless crime"? Who knew? Bigamy has two very obvious victims.

Oops, I was actually thinking of consensual bigamy. But you're absolutely right, most bigamy would be fraudulent.

I think that's why he's talking about bigamy, though. It's not like pro-lifers are out there comparing abortion to bigamy. So why is Scalia talking about bigamy?

In the one scenario (slavery) a human being is dehumanized by the state. Scalia is raising another possibility, that abortion is just a bad act that doesn't involve killing (bigamy).

My use of "victimless crime" was sloppy but I think that's what he's trying to say. Maybe abortion is a homicide, maybe it's not, it doesn't matter for his purposes.

Saint Croix said...

I am probably too hard on Scalia. I liked his dissent when I was in law school. But now its evasions leap out at me.

Saint Croix said...

For instance, think about slavery. Think about the kidnappings, the dehumanization, the rapes, the deaths. Think about buying and selling people and ripping apart families. Think about all that, and then read Scalia's Casey dissent.

He's not thinking about all the victims of slavery. His worry, his concern, is how slavery has upset the Supreme Court. It's boo hoo hoo for Justice Taney.

Poor Justice Taney! Look what slavery did to you!

Saint Croix said...

Here's the photo that Scalia is writing about.

His focus should be here. Or, in the modern context, here.

The Crack Emcee said...

Saint Croix, holding down the fort:

It's Time We Paid A Visit To The Elephant's Graveyard

The Crack Emcee said...

Condoleezza Rice said Repubs should be more inclusive, too:

Didn't get the expected response,...

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Abortion is analogous to slavery. Both actions reduce human life to a commodity, which can be treated at will. However, abortion is the greater violation of human rights, in that it not only exploits and constrains liberty, it actually terminates a human life before it has an opportunity to reasonably defend itself.

This is where society is chartered, and our constitution demands, that we intervene to prevent judgment without cause or due process. That's the legal criteria for preventing whimsical violations of human rights. However, it still does not address the fundamental question: when and by whose determination does a human life acquire and retain its value?

The current de facto standard set by pro-choice is that preservation of human life is not a moral but fiscal or hedonistic choice. In fact, the state has a peculiar interest that a woman remain productive in tax producing activities. The representative parties have a peculiar interest in creating the appearance of maximizing liberty in order to secure votes. The woman, and man, have a peculiar interest to reduce their burden and maximize their pleasure. Then, of course, there are the policy planners, who have a peculiar interest to reduce the problem set.

The abortion debate in our highest court is clearly captured by legal innuendo. There is no legitimate controversy that human life evolves from conception to death. Yet, this is, in fact, quite controversial. Some people believe or defer to an act of spontaneous conception, and find solace in this mischief. Some people simply would rather not be bothered or burdened by the difficult questions, and abortion being the most difficult.

Pro-choice offers a false comfort which ignores the issues and degrades human life by not incident but by design. The voluntary nature of this act does not diminish its ghoulish character, and its provision by the state (i.e. normalization) has established it as an unprecedented violation of human rights. The faux ignorance to this condition is another source of false comfort, which only confirms the immorality of its practitioners.

Jason said...

Revenant said:

I hate to interrupt you in the middle of your Nazi rant, but I wanted to point out that the notion that younger people have fewer rights than older people is enshrined in both the Constitution and in common law, and is ubiquitous to all human cultures.

We get them into lifeboats first.

Watching a gay man and SSM supporter reach for this particular appeal to what is "ubiquitous in all human cultures" = lulz.

Saint Croix said...

hey Crack,

Orval Faubus was a Democrat!

My take on race is the Democrat party has always used race, always. They used race to scare white people for decades. Now they use race to scare black people and brown people. They just flipped the audience around, and the demons.

The Republican party has always ignored race. Let's not think in racial terms. Let's not divide humanity into races. You can say that this attitude has been a joke, but historically that has always been the Republican public face. Race is irrelevant.

So now you have the media constantly calling people "racist" who say nothing at all racist. That might work on the kids, who are spoon-fed stuff in school and believe the media is authoritative. But adults who are paying attention, who (for instance) actual listen to Rush Limbaugh before they judge, it is a very cynical game.

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues.

I agree (unsurprisingly). Fighting over unresolvable social issues when the economy side of government is completely falling apart is ridiculous. Social issues shouldn't even be the government's business in the first place.


Unsurprisingly Revenant's vision of "agreeing to disagree" is for the coalition to drop support for anything he doesn't agree with. This doesn't seem likely to generate much return support.

Instead libertarians should understand where their principles support conservative social concerns and support them where they can. For generations the left has been using government and quasi-government institutions to enforce their social agenda it's not tough to find such instances. Libertarians more interested in advancing their preferred policies and less interested in trying to ensure they insult both sides equally should take a good look at themselves.

The Crack Emcee said...

Saint Croix said...
hey Crack,

Orval Faubus was a Democrat!

Nobody's being fooled by that game anymore - they've switched sides and that's all there is to it.

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

I agree. The Republican's agnostic treatment of people is a matter of principle. As a party, they must be judged on their principles, and the many actions which have validated them. As individuals, they can be judged on their own merits. Any other approach is illegitimate.

This is, for example, where the anti-theists, including many purportedly faith-neutral agnostics, get into trouble. They can legitimately reject articles of faith, especially competing articles, but they cannot reject the philosophy and its principles in whole. Where they should use a scalpel, they instead use a scythe, or the most fanatical a guillotine.

Jason said...

Yes! They totally switched sides!!! That's why every single Dixiecrat except Thurmond went back to the Democrat part and were welcomed with open arms! That's how the Dems stuck with a former KKK official , "Mr. White Nig**s"as their number 2 Leader in the Senate, ahead of even Inouye, for the rest of his life. That's why the democrats are home to every crackpot jew hater in the country, and they even elect them. The Dems are the party of Hymietown. Oh. Fred Phelps? Democrat.

Saint Croix said...

Nobody's being fooled by that game anymore - they've switched sides and that's all there is to it.

I don't dispute that some white racists joined the Republican party.

But to be a Republican, you're not allowed to be racist. You have to repress it, deny it, hide it, kill it. You have to use code words. Welfare queen. Is that a code word? Welfare, crime. Are these code words? You have to guess. You have to invade a man's soul and say I know who you are, I know your dark secret ugliness.

And maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong. None of us are God, we're not omniscient.

I remember all the liberals who were sure Reagan was a racist. Based on what, his aura?

Regardless, the Republican position is that race is a boring, stupid concept, and we should be a color-blind society.

The Democrat position, as we all know, has never been that. Democrats love divisive politics, and love playing race games. They have done it for as long as there have been Democrats. (Bill Clinton: "He's calling me a racist!")

cubanbob said...

The Democrats, OTOH, are socialist nuts. As Obama reinforces daily.

So I've become a "pick and choose" Independent. The good side is that I get to keep what I would have contributed (until the D's find a way to take it)."

Pick and choose between what? Some third party that has no chance of effecting any outcome other than causing one of the two major parties to lose? This November and the November two years from now your choice will be between socialist nuts and the crazed conservatives as you put. There isn't any real third choice.

cubanbob said...

My take on race is the Democrat party has always used race, always. They used race to scare white people for decades. Now they use race to scare black people and brown people. They just flipped the audience around, and the demons. "

Very astute comment St. Croix. However Crack just doesn't want to hear it.

The Crack Emcee said...

Jason said...
Yes! They totally switched sides!!! That's why every single Dixiecrat except Thurmond went back to the Democrat part and were welcomed with open arms!

What do you think we're trying to accomplish here? To push people out of America or bring people in?

That's a major mistake the Right is making.

"That's how the Dems stuck with a former KKK official , "Mr. White Nig**s"as their number 2 Leader in the Senate, ahead of even Inouye, for the rest of his life."

Emphasis on the word "former" - a title Republican racists seem reluctant to brandish.

"That's why the democrats are home to every crackpot jew hater in the country, and they even elect them. The Dems are the party of Hymietown."

And, yet, there's Jews in the party, and they march with blacks, and I, for one, will gladly do whatever I can for them. You confuse a complicated relationship with hatred, and that's obviously not true.

"Oh. Fred Phelps? Democrat."

Fine. And I'll add they're NewAgers. Feel better? Now, let's look at "our side":

I just did a post exposing the Tea Party as a astroturf lie, and Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, and Ron Paul, associated with Charles Murray, David Duke, and white supremacist newsletters. Scott Walker's staff is really a Klan Rally. Rand Paul is so aware of the problem he's trying his best to shush everybody just so he'll have a chance. Why?

And why should any black join you? The Koch Brother's father started The John Birch Society, the craziest nut job organization in the history of American politics. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, had to kick them out of the party. Now they're your heroes. Great job, guys.

The Klan now votes Republican. The crazy militia guys? Republicans. Almost every white man that's shot a black person since Trayvon? Republican, that I can see. And you expect me to be a good little soldier for you? You're delusional, too.

Republicans can't attract anyone because they can't get past white history. Africa's fucked up because blacks sold slaves - not white colonialism.
Republicans don't know anything about that and never bring it up. They don't know anything about racism either except they freed the slaves.

Anything more and they're ready for an argument.

How welcoming.

Why were they claiming MLK was a Republican when it was MLK who told blacks to shun the Republican Party? White lies. That's a selling point, huh?

And somebody mentioned Lee Atwater - Really? Must I go there? I won't, because you know.

Mitt Romney - the Republican choice for president - part of a widely known racist "church". Good pick, guys. Never saw it coming.

Structural racism? Republicans have never heard of it. Though it's probably the first thing they participate in each and every day - as a group.

Anti-racism activists say, if you want to know if racism's at play somewhere, then you don't ask the people it DOESN'T EFFECT, but those it does. And, I have to tell you - no matter WHAT the rest of you say - we blacks seem to have our minds made up about this one.

I could go on - Breitbart posing with white supremacists, Glenn Reynolds' (and everyone else's) regular disdain for Rappers, cuts on our culture and behavior, laughing when whites kill us - but it all adds up to the same thing:

The Republican Party is housing racists, within it, and - unless it gets help - it's done for.

The Crack Emcee said...

Saint Croix,

Regardless, the Republican position is that race is a boring, stupid concept, and we should be a color-blind society.


Translation: The Republican position is to deny blacks, not only their most important political identity, but the entire experience of of our historical existence in this country.

Great - slap that on some business cards and let's get busy,...

The Crack Emcee said...

cubanbob said...
The Democrats, OTOH, are socialist nuts. As Obama reinforces daily.

See? Complete denial of history. Whites are the dominant group - 6 to 1. They can ONLY be resisted with government. Thus, THEY make government bigger through their resistance, every time they obstruct justice.


"So I've become a "pick and choose" Independent. The good side is that I get to keep what I would have contributed (until the D's find a way to take it)."

I may be joining you soon.

"This November and the November two years from now your choice will be between socialist nuts and the crazed conservatives as you put."

Black people don't care - we've got our "Eyes On The Prize" and whoever gets us there is how we're going,...

Saint Croix said...

The Republican position is to deny blacks, not only their most important political identity, but the entire experience of of our historical existence in this country.

Crack, if you're going to identify as black in your political identity, and reference "our historical existence," you might think about the black church. It's an important, I would say vital, aspect of black history. It's an important part of the black community. And there's amazing music, which you love.

The Crack Emcee said...

Saint Croix,

Crack, if you're going to identify as black in your political identity, and reference "our historical existence," you might think about the black church.

I "think" about it, but that's it. It has it's place in the story, and it's huge, but atheists have always been part of the movement and blacks give me no grief over it.

"It's an important, I would say vital, aspect of black history. It's an important part of the black community. And there's amazing music, which you love."

Indeed - love it with all my heart - but I also love so much more,..

Saint Croix said...

Also it's a good place to meet the ladies.