Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 15, 2009, 08:45:00 PM
-
Yes. That's the ticket. Stop talking about "morals and values." ::)
MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Should Abandon ‘Morals and Values’
By Kyle Drennen | June 15, 2009 - 16:38
On Monday, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer offered some advice to Republicans: "Until they change policies – I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win – is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives.’
Brewer made the comment during the 2PM ET hour while discussing the future of the GOP with New York Times reporter John Harwood, who completely agreed: "Well, bingo, Contessa, that's exactly right." Harwood added: "The question is what is the right mix? To what extent are they going to focus on economic issues...Or do they focus more on national security...Or those social issues which have repelled some voters. But still motivate a lot of people in the Republican base." Brewer replied: "The one’s who probably vote Republican anyway."
The segment began by Brewer asking Harwood about his latest article in the New York Times, entitled "Rethinking the Reagan Mystique," in which he argued that some Republicans are calling for the party to move beyond Ronald Reagan. Brewer observed: "While there may be disagreement in the Republican about the best way forward, you know, it's been in this sort of Republican mantra to invoke Ronald Reagan's name often and loudly. That could be changing though."
http://newsbusters.org/
-
Was that the whole quote or just a couple sentances?
I agree about being so heavily reliant on morals and values religion.
-
Was that the whole quote or just a couple sentances?
I agree about being so heavily reliant on morals and values religion.
Don't know.
-
morals and values are important - but - disagreeing with repubs on them shouldn't exclude someone from the party.
Ridge and Crist and friends - who invite in moderates and even those who are pro-abortion or anti-war, have the right idea.
Cheney and Rove and their idea of "if you're not with us, you're a lib and we dont want ya!" aren't good for party growth.
-
when did the GOP ever have morals or values?
-
morals and values are important - but - disagreeing with repubs on them shouldn't exclude someone from the party.
Ridge and Crist and friends - who invite in moderates and even those who are pro-abortion or anti-war, have the right idea.
Cheney and Rove and their idea of "if you're not with us, you're a lib and we dont want ya!" aren't good for party growth.
I agree with that BUT I dont agree that someone like Powell should be included.If you cant even agree that lower taxes and less government is THE tenant of republicanism,then YOUR NOT a republican.
-
when did the GOP ever have morals or values?
The same time Ted Kennedy was leaving a drowning woman people to die in their car and Bill Clinton was usinig a cigar to stimulate Monica in the Oval Office.
Or maybe it was when Barney Frank's boyfriend had a gay prostitution ring going out of Barney Franks' apartment.
Neither party has a monpoly on values or vice. Both has good and bad.
-
Yes. That's the ticket. Stop talking about "morals and values." ::)
MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Should Abandon ‘Morals and Values’
By Kyle Drennen | June 15, 2009 - 16:38
On Monday, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer offered some advice to Republicans: "Until they change policies – I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win – is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives.’
Brewer made the comment during the 2PM ET hour while discussing the future of the GOP with New York Times reporter John Harwood, who completely agreed: "Well, bingo, Contessa, that's exactly right." Harwood added: "The question is what is the right mix? To what extent are they going to focus on economic issues...Or do they focus more on national security...Or those social issues which have repelled some voters. But still motivate a lot of people in the Republican base." Brewer replied: "The one’s who probably vote Republican anyway."
The segment began by Brewer asking Harwood about his latest article in the New York Times, entitled "Rethinking the Reagan Mystique," in which he argued that some Republicans are calling for the party to move beyond Ronald Reagan. Brewer observed: "While there may be disagreement in the Republican about the best way forward, you know, it's been in this sort of Republican mantra to invoke Ronald Reagan's name often and loudly. That could be changing though."
http://newsbusters.org/
Brewer makes the foolish mistake of assuming that it’s an “either/or” deal. It's not. The economy issue is what got Obama elected, pure and simple.
The reason Reagan's name keeps getting invoked is because he had the WINNING formula. Look how easily he crushed Carter and mauled Mondale.
Winning elections requires two things: Keeping your base AND attracting moderates. The GOP CANNOT WIN without evangelicals and conservatives behind. That's a fact.
The GOP doesn't need to abandon 'morals and values', not unless they want the Democrats to stay in power, indefinitely. The moderates don't buy it and the conservative base thinks you've sold out. Thus, you get the lukewarm pre-Palin response that McCain got.
-
The GOP needs to embrace libertarian economic policies and adopt a live and let live ideology, fiscally, and morally.
-
The same time Ted Kennedy was leaving a drowning woman people to die in their car and Bill Clinton was usinig a cigar to stimulate Monica in the Oval Office.
Or maybe it was when Barney Frank's boyfriend had a gay prostitution ring going out of Barney Franks' apartment.
Neither party has a monpoly on values or vice. Both has good and bad.
when did any of those guys make it their platform to pretend to teach the rest of us moral values?
-
I agree with that BUT I dont agree that someone like Powell should be included.If you cant even agree that lower taxes and less government is THE tenant of republicanism,then YOUR NOT a republican.
Can an anti-war person be a repub?
Can a pro-abortion person be a repub?
The moment you say someone is excluded because of any issue, you're screwed. The party is SUPPOSED to say, we want EVERYONE in. I don't care if the person lives in SanFran and believes in global warming and washes nancy pelosi's car... if the person is anti-abortion and wants to vote repub, YOU TAKE THE VOTE.
When you say "I dont want this person in the party", you can't regain congress.
-
The GOP needs to embrace libertarian economic policies and adopt a live and let live ideology, fiscally, and morally.
That won't work. Again, without the evangelical and conservative base, the GOP stands no chance in an election.
Republicans actually LOST some of those voters to Obama and the Dems last year. They must return to the basics to get them back.
Can an anti-war person be a repub?
Can a pro-abortion person be a repub?
The moment you say someone is excluded because of any issue, you're screwed. The party is SUPPOSED to say, we want EVERYONE in. I don't care if the person lives in SanFran and believes in global warming and washes nancy pelosi's car... if the person is anti-abortion and wants to vote repub, YOU TAKE THE VOTE.
When you say "I dont want this person in the party", you can't regain congress.
BALONEY!!! The Dems didn't do that; yet they regained Congress.
-
The Republicans should embrace their practice of preaching morals and values while being the most unethical immoral dirt bags in Washington.
(not that the Democrats aren't douche bags themselves.)
-
BALONEY!!! The Dems didn't do that; yet they regained Congress.
I disagree. Obama wooed repub voters in a big way last year, and it worked.
-
I disagree. Obama wooed repub voters in a big way last year, and it worked.
The "wooing" was due his emphasis on the economy, NOT by appealing to the morals and values part. Along with that, many Republicans weren't all that thrilled with McCain. That's why it took his picking Palin to bolster any interest in his candidacy.
-
Can an anti-war person be a repub?
Can a pro-abortion person be a repub?
The moment you say someone is excluded because of any issue, you're screwed. The party is SUPPOSED to say, we want EVERYONE in. I don't care if the person lives in SanFran and believes in global warming and washes nancy pelosi's car... if the person is anti-abortion and wants to vote repub, YOU TAKE THE VOTE.
When you say "I dont want this person in the party", you can't regain congress.
Listen,when Powell said that Americans want more taxes anf more government days before Cali. voted against more government and more taxes,he disqualified himself from ever having a say in republican politics.PERIOD!
Social and moral issues are entirely different.I think you can be anti-war and a republican,Ron Paul is.I think you can be pro choice and a republican,there are many that are.However,one thing you cant be for is higher taxes and more government.It would be the same as being a PETA member and only eating meat and wearing fur.There has to be certain tenants that are followed and less government and lower taxes is THE ENTIRE reason for republicans.If you dont stand with them on that YOUR NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!
-
The "wooing" was due his emphasis on the economy, NOT by appealing to the morals and values part. Along with that, many Republicans weren't all that thrilled with McCain. That's why it took his picking Palin to bolster any interest in his candidacy.
being anti-elective way in iraq was certainly morals/values based.
-
The "wooing" was due his emphasis on the economy, NOT by appealing to the morals and values part. Along with that, many Republicans weren't all that thrilled with McCain. That's why it took his picking Palin to bolster any interest in his candidacy.
Correct. For example, he talked repeatedly about tax cuts.
-
Yes. That's the ticket. Stop talking about "morals and values." ::)
MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Should Abandon ‘Morals and Values’
By Kyle Drennen | June 15, 2009 - 16:38
On Monday, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer offered some advice to Republicans: "Until they change policies – I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win – is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives.’
Brewer made the comment during the 2PM ET hour while discussing the future of the GOP with New York Times reporter John Harwood, who completely agreed: "Well, bingo, Contessa, that's exactly right." Harwood added: "The question is what is the right mix? To what extent are they going to focus on economic issues...Or do they focus more on national security...Or those social issues which have repelled some voters. But still motivate a lot of people in the Republican base." Brewer replied: "The one’s who probably vote Republican anyway."
The segment began by Brewer asking Harwood about his latest article in the New York Times, entitled "Rethinking the Reagan Mystique," in which he argued that some Republicans are calling for the party to move beyond Ronald Reagan. Brewer observed: "While there may be disagreement in the Republican about the best way forward, you know, it's been in this sort of Republican mantra to invoke Ronald Reagan's name often and loudly. That could be changing though."
http://newsbusters.org/
I completely agree with the MSNBC commentator. The sooner the Republican party stays out of people's lives and stops trying to dictate to them how they should live and behave the better. It is anything but conservative, they should be concentrating on ensuring the freedoms of the individual rather than this stupid moral crusade they've been on since the 1980's
Go back to being conservative (the sham the Republicans have been putting forward for the last twenty is years is anything but)...until then they're going to be stuck in the wilderness just like the Tories in Britain were until they woke up.
-
I completely agree with the MSNBC commentator. The sooner the Republican party stays out of people's lives and stops trying to dictate to them how they should live and behave the better. It is anything but conservative, they should be concentrating on ensuring the freedoms of the individual rather than this stupid moral crusade they've been on since the 1980's
Go back to being conservative (the sham the Republicans have been putting forward for the last twenty is years is anything but)...until then they're going to be stuck in the wilderness just like the Tories in Britain were until they woke up.
Your analysis makes no sense. You act as if the GOP has been down and out for decades. It has not. Again, it was just four years ago that the roles were reversed. The GOP was on top and the Dems were the minority party. The Dems didn't abandon their liberal philosophies, whatsoever. So why on Earth should anyone expect the GOP to do the same.
At the very least, all it takes is one party to screw up royally, in order for the other to capitalize and get back in the game. That's what happened to the GOP in 2006 and 2008.
And, as I've said multiple times, the GOP cannot, I repeat, CANNOT win without that evangelical/conservative base. The plan has to be: How to keep the base AND reach out to moderates. One without the other spells BEATDOWN (for either party).
-
Your analysis makes no sense. You act as if the GOP has been down and out for decades. It has not. Again, it was just four years ago that the roles were reversed. The GOP was on top and the Dems were the minority party. The Dems didn't abandon their liberal philosophies, whatsoever. So why on Earth should anyone expect the GOP to do the same.
At the very least, all it takes is one party to screw up royally, in order for the other to capitalize and get back in the game. That's what happened to the GOP in 2006 and 2008.
And, as I've said multiple times, the GOP cannot, I repeat, CANNOT win without that evangelical/conservative base. The plan has to be: How to keep the base AND reach out to moderates. One without the other spells BEATDOWN (for either party).
The first thing the GOP needs to do is adopt libertarian economic policies.
-
As if the repeated gay scandals, pedophile scandals, sexual deviant scandals - and more!- of the GOP wasn't enough to bring people over to Obama's side. Even without a clear sense of direction and platform, even without the fact that Repubs dumped McCain after Palin doomed the ticket, even after the frustration of a lame duck President that did nothing for his own party....
Get a clue.
-
As if the repeated gay scandals, pedophile scandals, sexual deviant scandals - and more!- of the GOP wasn't enough to bring people over to Obama's side. Even without a clear sense of direction and platform, even without the fact that Repubs dumped McCain after Palin doomed the ticket, even after the frustration of a lame duck President that did nothing for his own party....
Get a clue.
Again, coming from a party that sports the biggest WHOREMONGER to ever hit Washington, your words continue to ring hollow.
Throw in "Turbo Tax Timmy" (along with the rest of Obama's tax-dodging posse) and Joe "pay-your-fair-share-while-less-than-one-percent-of-my-income-went-to-charity" and you have a classic pot-kettle scenario.
And, as is often the case, your political memory loss surfaces. What's happening to the GOP is typical of what happen when a party is in the minority. Go back to 2005, and you'll see virtually the EXACT same thing was true of the Democrats.
-
As if the repeated gay scandals, pedophile scandals, sexual deviant scandals - and more!- of the GOP wasn't enough to bring people over to Obama's side. Even without a clear sense of direction and platform, even without the fact that Repubs dumped McCain after Palin doomed the ticket, even after the frustration of a lame duck President that did nothing for his own party....
Get a clue.
Dont worry, you soon will know the feeling. Obama's train is already falling off the tracks.
-
Dont worry, you soon will know the feeling. Obama's train is already falling off the tracks.
He already knows the feeling from 2000.
-
He already knows the feeling from 2000.
ZERO is heading for a massive meltdown, and it wont be pretty.
-
LOL @ the desperation posts of hope from the conservative nitwits.
-
LOL @ the desperation posts of hope from the conservative nitwits.
Just like Bush had his small group of hacks, even in the end, so you too will be one of the lackeys left supporting this marxist clown we have as a president.
Even some dems are jumping ship on his proposals such as cap & trade, card check, spending trillions of phoney money, and spending trillions to cover 16 million people with health insurance.
GWB & the GOP were horrible, but what ZERO is doing is just unbelievable to anyone with an ounce of a clue about economics.
-
GOP = bouncer, deciding who can come in to be in their exclusive party.
Dems = big house party with sex and drugs and big-breasted strippers waving signs, inviting everyone in.
-
Even some dems are jumping ship on his proposals such as cap & trade, card check, spending trillions of phoney money, and spending trillions to cover 16 million people with health insurance.
150 days into office... and his party has been pretty darn loyal so far. They splinter on some little things, but overall they're letting him have 90% of his way
-
Just like Bush had his small group of hacks, even in the end, so you too will be one of the lackeys left supporting this marxist clown we have as a president.
Even some dems are jumping ship on his proposals such as cap & trade, card check, spending trillions of phoney money, and spending trillions to cover 16 million people with health insurance.
GWB & the GOP were horrible, but what ZERO is doing is just unbelievable to anyone with an ounce of a clue about economics.
Your frenzied frantic and fruitless predictions reek of self insecurity and desperation.
-
Your frenzied frantic and fruitless predictions reek of self insecurity and desperation.
Read it and weep.
Obama's predicitions vs. reality. ZERO is already a failure.
http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/the-obama-stimulus-predictions-vs-reality/
-
GOP = bouncer, deciding who can come in to be in their exclusive party.
Dems = big house party with sex and drugs and big-breasted strippers waving signs, inviting everyone in.
That's just about the only thing about which liberals are actually liberal. And, it fits with my initial post on the thread about Ensign: Democrats are expected to be hoes.
-
Read this and weep :
Obama = POTUS
You = some dude thinking the Zombie Apocalypse is right around the corner.
-
Read this and weep :
Obama = POTUS
You = some dude thinking the Zombie Apocalypse is right around the corner.
Me = taking rest of day off since I closed a good deal already by 9:20 am
You = still on unemployment line waiting for Hope & change to get you a job.
-
Since I am not unemployed that would pretty much render your little post irrelevant. Just like the rest of the others you tend to make.
You = wrong
Me = never having to worry about working as a teleterror bill collector.
-
Since I am not unemployed that would pretty much render your little post irrelevant. Just like the rest of the others you tend to make.
You = wrong
Me = never having to worry about working as a teleterror bill collector.
Ha ha. Good one. I hope the DMV is doing well today.
-
Since I don't work there either, one must think you are simply proving my point of calling you delusional and insecurely desperate here.
False assumptions about someone never really help your case in any event. Hope this helps.
-
Since I don't work there either, one must think you are simply proving my point of calling you delusional and insecurely desperate here.
False assumptions about someone never really help your case in any event. Hope this helps.
Fine, how is the post office doing?
-
Fine, how is the post office doing?
Sorry, keep trying.
Here's a hint. Some of us actually went to college. That way we didn't end up as telemarketers.
-
Sorry, keep trying.
Here's a hint. Some of us actually went to college. That way we didn't end up as telemarketers.
And some of us have a JD too!
-
Had you recalled from past conversations that I have a MHA, that would have been your first clue.
-
Had you recalled from past conversations that I have a MHA, that would have been your first clue.
I try to forget every one of our conversations. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I try to forget every one of our conversations. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Forgetting things must come natural.
-
Forgetting things must come natural.
Its a defense mechanism when constantly being bombarded by utter garbage and bs. :o :o :o :o
-
And some of us have a JD too!
Fred Phelps has a JD too.
-
Its a defense mechanism when constantly being bombarded by utter garbage and bs. :o :o :o :o
In that case no wonder the GOP can't remember who it's face is or what it's message was.
-
Fred Phelps has a JD too.
So does Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton,
-
Yes. That's the ticket. Stop talking about "morals and values." ::)
MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Should Abandon ‘Morals and Values’
By Kyle Drennen | June 15, 2009 - 16:38
On Monday, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer offered some advice to Republicans: "Until they change policies – I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win – is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives.’
Brewer made the comment during the 2PM ET hour while discussing the future of the GOP with New York Times reporter John Harwood, who completely agreed: "Well, bingo, Contessa, that's exactly right." Harwood added: "The question is what is the right mix? To what extent are they going to focus on economic issues...Or do they focus more on national security...Or those social issues which have repelled some voters. But still motivate a lot of people in the Republican base." Brewer replied: "The one’s who probably vote Republican anyway."
The segment began by Brewer asking Harwood about his latest article in the New York Times, entitled "Rethinking the Reagan Mystique," in which he argued that some Republicans are calling for the party to move beyond Ronald Reagan. Brewer observed: "While there may be disagreement in the Republican about the best way forward, you know, it's been in this sort of Republican mantra to invoke Ronald Reagan's name often and loudly. That could be changing though."
http://newsbusters.org/
You know, if by "morals and values" it means to be anti-pornography, anti-cuss words, anti-nudity, anti-slang, anti-freedom of speech, anti-filesharing, anti-free sex, anti-sodomy, anti-gay, anti-depraved sexuality, anti-atheism...
then I think "morals and values is definitely something that should be abandonded for the GOP.
But if by "morals and values" means to do what is the moral thing, to show moral conduct, have great human values and ethics, then I think it's a great code.
-
You know, if by "morals and values" it means to be anti-pornography, anti-cuss words, anti-nudity, anti-slang, anti-freedom of speech, anti-filesharing, anti-free sex, anti-sodomy, anti-gay, anti-depraved sexuality, anti-atheism...
then I think "morals and values is definitely something that should be abandonded for the GOP.
But if by "morals and values" means to do what is the moral thing, to show moral conduct, have great human values and ethics, then I think it's a great code.
It really means doing the right thing. No one in politics should abandon "morals and values."
-
Your analysis makes no sense. You act as if the GOP has been down and out for decades. It has not. Again, it was just four years ago that the roles were reversed. The GOP was on top and the Dems were the minority party. The Dems didn't abandon their liberal philosophies, whatsoever. So why on Earth should anyone expect the GOP to do the same.
At the very least, all it takes is one party to screw up royally, in order for the other to capitalize and get back in the game. That's what happened to the GOP in 2006 and 2008.
And, as I've said multiple times, the GOP cannot, I repeat, CANNOT win without that evangelical/conservative base. The plan has to be: How to keep the base AND reach out to moderates. One without the other spells BEATDOWN (for either party).
I never said the GOP has been down and out for decades...and that's beside the point anyway, what I said was, if they want to win again they are going to have to go back to being conservative. Say what you want, but nothing about the GOP has been conservative, esp in the 21st century...yes the roles were reversed four years ago...but Thatcher won by a landslide in 87 and Major won big in 92...then look what happened to the Tory party, politics is sometimes about the simple of fact of people getting bored with those in power and the 'kick the bastards out' mentality, but I think with both the Tories and the Repubs the dynamics of failure have been fairly similar. Huge splits in the party, lack of direction on policy, and following ideologies that take them away from their traditional conservative roots. As for the evangelicals, im sorry but I just dont agree with you, Republicans can win big if they get a more relevant conservative message into their platform, all this focus on ethics and messing around with people's lives and moral choices is not the job of a truly conservative party, the government should have no say in how you run your life with the exception of devising laws so as to ensure the saftey of the individual and the right to liberty...the moment you get into this 'nanny state knows better than you' type of politics you piss people off, big time, and you cannot deny that the Repubs have expanded government and overly involved themselves in social issues which frankly should be of no interest to those in power.
-
I never said the GOP has been down and out for decades...and that's beside the point anyway, what I said was, if they want to win again they are going to have to go back to being conservative. Say what you want, but nothing about the GOP has been conservative, esp in the 21st century...yes the roles were reversed four years ago...but Thatcher won by a landslide in 87 and Major won big in 92...then look what happened to the Tory party, politics is sometimes about the simple of fact of people getting bored with those in power and the 'kick the bastards out' mentality, but I think with both the Tories and the Repubs the dynamics of failure have been fairly similar. Huge splits in the party, lack of direction on policy, and following ideologies that take them away from their traditional conservative roots. As for the evangelicals, im sorry but I just dont agree with you, Republicans can win big if they get a more relevant conservative message into their platform, all this focus on ethics and messing around with people's lives and moral choices is not the job of a truly conservative party, the government should have no say in how you run your life with the exception of devising laws so as to ensure the saftey of the individual and the right to liberty...the moment you get into this 'nanny state knows better than you' type of politics you piss people off, big time, and you cannot deny that the Repubs have expanded government and overly involved themselves in social issues which frankly should be of no interest to those in power.
A lot of what you say is true, particularly about the lack of focus. I've made the same point about the Republican party.
What I disagree with is the supposed need to abandon Christian conservatives. Conservative presidents have been winning elections for decades without "abandoning" either Christian conservatives or the "morals and values" message. The "doing the right thing" message should always be a part of public policy. When that ceases to be the case and we adopt an anything goes mentality, our society will fail.
-
I never said the GOP has been down and out for decades...and that's beside the point anyway, what I said was, if they want to win again they are going to have to go back to being conservative. Say what you want, but nothing about the GOP has been conservative, esp in the 21st century...yes the roles were reversed four years ago...but Thatcher won by a landslide in 87 and Major won big in 92...then look what happened to the Tory party, politics is sometimes about the simple of fact of people getting bored with those in power and the 'kick the bastards out' mentality, but I think with both the Tories and the Repubs the dynamics of failure have been fairly similar. Huge splits in the party, lack of direction on policy, and following ideologies that take them away from their traditional conservative roots. As for the evangelicals, im sorry but I just dont agree with you, Republicans can win big if they get a more relevant conservative message into their platform, all this focus on ethics and messing around with people's lives and moral choices is not the job of a truly conservative party, the government should have no say in how you run your life with the exception of devising laws so as to ensure the saftey of the individual and the right to liberty...the moment you get into this 'nanny state knows better than you' type of politics you piss people off, big time, and you cannot deny that the Repubs have expanded government and overly involved themselves in social issues which frankly should be of no interest to those in power.
The numbers just don’t add up. Even if every single moderate/independent voted GOP, that wouldn’t be enough to replace the numbers of the conservative base.
I said it earlier: Winning elections requires BOTH keeping your base AND attracting moderates. The GOP may not win with the conservative/evangelical base; but they WILL NOT WIN without them.
As we say in the southern states here, "You dance with one that brung ya!"
A lot of what you say is true, particularly about the lack of focus. I've made the same point about the Republican party.
What I disagree with is the supposed need to abandon Christian conservatives. Conservative presidents have been winning elections for decades without "abandoning" either Christian conservatives or the "morals and values" message. The "doing the right thing" message should always be a part of public policy. When that ceases to be the case and we adopt an anything goes mentality, our society will fail.
EXACTLY!!! In fact, many conservatives are angry with the GOP, because they've dropped the ball on BOTH fiscal and social issues. When they get back to basics, business will pick up. The former will attract the moderates; the latter will keep and re-energize the conservative/evangelical base.
Ironically enough, when the Dems lost in 2004, DNC Chairman Howard Dean actually started a campaign on (get this) HOW TO REACH OUT TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. The consensus was this block was the home-run hitter that got Bush re-elected, especially given the immediate post-election Christian bashing by the far left.
-
The numbers just don’t add up. Even if every single moderate/independent voted GOP, that wouldn’t be enough to replace the numbers of the conservative base.
I said it earlier: Winning elections requires BOTH keeping your base AND attracting moderates. The GOP may not win with the conservative/evangelical base; but they WILL NOT WIN without them.
As we say in the southern states here, "You dance with one that brung ya!"
EXACTLY!!! In fact, many conservatives are angry with the GOP, because they've dropped the ball on BOTH fiscal and social issues. When they get back to basics, business will pick up. The former will attract the moderates; the latter will keep and re-energize the conservative/evangelical base.
Ironically enough, when the Dems lost in 2004, DNC Chairman Howard Dean actually started a campaign on (get this) HOW TO REACH OUT TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. The consensus was this block was the home-run hitter that got Bush re-elected, especially given the immediate post-election Christian bashing by the far left.
Yep. Candidates from both parties often talk about "morals and values," so I'm not even sure this is an entirely partisan issue.
-
Yep. Candidates from both parties often talk about "morals and values," so I'm not even sure this is an entirely partisan issue.
As well they should. That's why they get taken to task, when they get caught (or admit to) creeping.
What's really silly here is certain liberals claiming that it's not so bad when THEIR politicians get popped for doing that, because they aren't/weren't running on the 'morals and values' thing.
Of course, that doesn't quite work, when the perpetrator of the most well-known case of adultery in the Democratic party signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
-
Yes. That's the ticket. Stop talking about "morals and values." ::)
MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Should Abandon ‘Morals and Values’
By Kyle Drennen | June 15, 2009 - 16:38
On Monday, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer offered some advice to Republicans: "Until they change policies – I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win – is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives.’
Brewer made the comment during the 2PM ET hour while discussing the future of the GOP with New York Times reporter John Harwood, who completely agreed: "Well, bingo, Contessa, that's exactly right." Harwood added: "The question is what is the right mix? To what extent are they going to focus on economic issues...Or do they focus more on national security...Or those social issues which have repelled some voters. But still motivate a lot of people in the Republican base." Brewer replied: "The one’s who probably vote Republican anyway."
The segment began by Brewer asking Harwood about his latest article in the New York Times, entitled "Rethinking the Reagan Mystique," in which he argued that some Republicans are calling for the party to move beyond Ronald Reagan. Brewer observed: "While there may be disagreement in the Republican about the best way forward, you know, it's been in this sort of Republican mantra to invoke Ronald Reagan's name often and loudly. That could be changing though."
http://newsbusters.org/
(http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/9/pyzamhitit.jpg)