Thursday, May 7, 2009

The rebirth of the GOP

Today on CNN.com - a beacon of neutral journalism, there was a bit of commentary on the resurgence of the Republican party. One of its equally neutral viewers wagered a very interesting comment:

Kris

GOP rebound?! Dream on. It will not rebound unless you guys learn to listen and be more moderate. Your views are so extreme and your followers ill informed about the world. You lack empathy and insist on your own way even though your crooked ways failed in the last eight years! Not only that you are a bunch of hypocrites. You want less government intervention and yet you want to appoint the most conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Why? Because you want to interfere with other people's way of life.


I’ll take this line by line.

Be more moderate:
As much as I hate to admit it now, because I pulled for him so much during the primaries and the election, McCain was the wrong choice. He was too moderate. There was very little difference between McCain and Obama, except Obama was younger, sexier, and more eloquent. While neither delineated specific plans of attack in regards to the Iraq war, the economy, health care, or education, Obama could get away with it, and that, in large party, is due to the Obama-media lovefest which preceded the election, and which is still taking place. The biggest issue of the Conservative community right now is the bailout and the budget (the teaparty movement). While McCain railed against pork his entire campaign, he blindly followed President Bush and now President Obama to the bailout slaughter. While Palin was not the right choice due to her lack of foreign policy experience, she still was one of the best governors we've ever seen. Alaska is a better place to live because of her, and Wassila has been completely remade because of her influence. She has executive experience, something neither Presidental candidate had. Perhaps some executive experience could've helped when Obama was picking his Cabinet.

Extreme & ill informed views:
This is another of many cases of the Left deeming diverging opinions as extreme and ignorant. The Left loves portraying itself as the haven of inclusiveness and open-mindedness. That is, unless you don’t agree with them. You cannot judge someone on their religious beliefs (well, unless you really are practicing, then that’s just loony), their ethnicity, their sexual orientation... There’s a whole list of what we cannot discriminate against. Except political views. Politicians like Palin and Bush Jr. were ignorant, personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are bigots, and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are nothing less than pure evil. Despite my having a Bachelors from a public Ivy, having travelled to over 25 countries in my life, I’m still pegged as closed minded and ignorant by most Leftists that I meet.

Lack of empathy:
This one really gets me. I need to quote Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC speech on this one.

I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party.

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
The rest of his speech can be found here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

I genuinely think it’s worth a listen.


Our failures the past eight years:
My biggest issue with President Bush was his fiscal liberalism and his support of bailouts in his last few months. Fingers can be pointed on both sides of the aisle for responsibility for the recession, and someone who definitively places blame on anyone’s shoulder’s shouldn’t be trusted as far as they can be thrown. However, there’s not much else I take issue with. After September 11, 2001, right after he came into office, we were attacked on our soil for the first time since Pearl Harbour. And we all waited with anxious, baited breath for the second attack. And it never came. He kept us safe. While some people may have found his methods questionable, the end justified the means when the end was American lives. He did not endanger our economy by drastically altering our environmental policy, nor did he use our tax dollars to pay for foreign abortions or research with fully realised human embryos, and for that, I am grateful. The biggest complaint against President Bush is, of course, the invasion of Iraq. At the time, it was "known" that they were possessors of WMD. They used it against their Iranian neighbours, and the wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors in to verify their having disposed of them. By a vote of 29-21, the Democratic members of the Senate, voted for the war in 2003.

Less government intervention:
Yes, that is what we want. Thank you for getting something right.

Appointing conservative judges to the courts:
And Democratic Presidents appoint liberal judges to the courts. It’s called politics.

Interfering with other people’s way of life:
This is perhaps to do with gay marriage and abortion. While I am in favour of the former, this is ultimately a decision that belongs to voters, not politicians, not lawyers, and not judges. While I applaud people gaining equal rights, it should not be the few making the laws for entire states. California got it right when they introduced Proposition 8, regardless of the outcome. The efforts of the Left to subvert the will of the voters here is un-Democratic and un-Constitutional.
As for my views on abortion, scroll down. That's what I think.

The farther in time on on the spectrum I move from the Left, the more I see it for what it truly is.

So, the question is, how do we change our image? How do we spread the truth and disseminate our positions in a hostile Left-leaning media?

14 comments:

LB said...

I've been experiencing my own move rightward over the past few years, and I agree with most of what you said here, but there is one issue you raised, with which I really disagree.

On gay marriage you said: "this is ultimately a decision that belongs to voters, not politicians, not lawyers, and not judges."It really isn't an issue that should be up to the voters. Opposition to gay marriage is based, by and large, on religious grounds. This view approaches marriage as a religious institution, defined as between a man and a woman.

If so, then the state (and by state I mean both federal and state levels of govt and legislature) is legislating religious matters, in direct violation of the first amendment. Therefore, if marriage is a religious issue - the state should get out of the business of marriage altogether. People who want to get married, should do so via their religious institutions, and with regards to the civil matter - sign a contract, delineating the same legal relationship that civil marriage confers about couples today.

If, however, marriage is not solely a religious matter, then religious considerations are irrelevant, and it does, indeed, become a 14th amendment issue (equal protection clause). In that case, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. Period.

The problem is that the current situation is neither here no there. The states want it both ways - a secular institution bound by religious laws, subject to the voters' desires. However, voters don't matter here.

Like I said - if it's religious, it has no place in the law. If it's not - then it becomes a constitutional issue, religion has no place, and voters' desires don't matter (unless there's a push for a constitutional amendment to remove the equal protection clause - DOMA would cause the constitution to contradict itself, btw).

Just my 2 cents.

Joy Wharton, Life Coach said...

This is outstanding. Hope many people see it.

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

Isn't there something definitively unethical about posting about something that was brought to your attention by someone else without giving credit *cough me cough* to that person?

In any case, good post...I want to point out something else that's even more absurd about "Kris" and people like him/her than you might have noticed...

"Kris" said:
Not only that you are a bunch of hypocrites. You want less government intervention and yet you want to appoint the most conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Why? Because you want to interfere with other people's way of life.This in itself represents a complete lack of understanding of conservatism by the general ignorant masses that form the backbone of American society.

CONSERVATIVE JUDGES are appointed specifically because they are SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR LIVES.

That's literally the difference between "activist" judges and conservative judges who are supposed to show restraint and NOT legislate from the bench!

People just do not understand what they are talking about - it's no wonder who our president is

Sif said...

Thank you!

billamj said...

Superior! I wish that I could turn a phrase half as well.

JimCracky said...

The term 'activist' judges is a phrase concocted to by conservatives as a pseudonym for the phrase "they ruled in a way I don't like." When it comes to judges interfering in people's lives -- that's what they do -- they send people to jail, the let them go free, they impose fines and other penalties. They interfere. Superior and Supreme Court judges don't operate at that level. Rather they tell us what our laws say. California Supremes told the state their current laws enforced nondiscrimination against gay/lesbian people and that marriage was deemed a basic human right by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, they could only rule the way they did based on the current law. They were not "imposing" anything on the state, they were telling its citizens the status quo of their current law. Prop 8 proposes to change that law, but the same court must now debate whether a basic human right - marriage - can be denied to a minority by a majority. The Court appears to be leaning toward letting that happen and if they do it will be a mistake, flying in the teeth of all American jurisprudence for over 200 years. If they strike down Prop 8 it will not be "activism," it will be constitutional law at work. The U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to protect the rights of minorities from a majority who just doesn't like them. That's why Irish, Italian and other unpopular immigrants were able to settle in this country and make a life for themselves. It is why Jews don't have to become Christians and we can all practice any religion or none at all. It is why women have the vote and we no longer have slavery. The Constitution is living document that continues to imbue our society with greater individual liberties, despite the desire of religious conservatives who time and again have opposed such moves. Read your history. Take a civics class. This is not judicial activism, this is your democracy at work.

Bethany said...

I like when people leave anonymous comments. It proves they are unable to engage in dialogue, other than insults. Thank you for reminding me why I am no longer one of you.

Anonymous said...

I left it anonymous because I wanted to have a discussion on the points of our arguments rather than turning this into the right wing circle jerk the rest of this blog has become.

Show me how not modertaing will help the GOP.

Bethany said...

You can agree or not agree, there is no-one forcing you to read this blog. But I get the feeling you know me. So if you do, I have one suggestion: Don't be friends with someone whose views you find bigoted and biased. Don't waste your time and don't waste mine.

Anonymous said...

Actually I don't know you (came across this blog randomly today) but I do agree on the bigoted/biased point. I personally find it helpful and intellectually stimulating to discuss things like this with people who have a different view point than I do. Just conversing with fellow liberals/conservatives/libertarians/etc in my opinion doesn't lead to anything constructive.

Will you be answering my question or just being very defensive?

RonMossad said...

Hey JimCracky - thanks for the reply to my comment. Hopefully you'll also be checking out my site in addition to this one as I'm sure there's plenty for you to talk about on there as well. I'd like to respond to your comment however, because there were a few errors...

The term 'activist' judges is a phrase concocted to by conservatives as a pseudonym for the phrase "they ruled in a way I don't like."No. It is not. It may be USED incorrectly by certain people, be they conservative, liberal or moderate, but the CONCEPT of an activist judge is very real and cannot be ignored. Some judges expand the scope of the Constitution and some do not. That's all there is to it. By definition a conservative judge would not attempt to expand the scope of the Constitution or he would cease to be conservative. Just like a Zionist that stopped supporting Israel would cease to be a Zionist.

When it comes to judges interfering in people's lives -- that's what they do -- they send people to jail, the let them go free, they impose fines and other penalties. They interfere.What if they just rule that someone was rightfully terminated for something he/she said that offended a fake-outrage, bogus PC policeperson? Which then leads to...

Superior and Supreme Court judges don't operate at that level. Rather they tell us what our laws say....and all of the sudden when the Constitution says Freedom of Speech/Press it doesn't apply to jokes made by comedians. Suddenly a right that the Constitution gave me does not exist anymore. Sure I'm not in jail, but I just can't support myself anymore. Because of a joke.

California Supremes told the state their current laws enforced nondiscrimination against gay/lesbian people and that marriage was deemed a basic human right by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, they could only rule the way they did based on the current law. They were not "imposing" anything on the state, they were telling its citizens the status quo of their current law.No. See what you are doing here is not ruling on what the current law is...you are defining a word. Same-sex marriage is not a basic human right. MARRIAGE is a basic human right (which it isn't but that opens up a whole different can of worms that I don't have the time to fight about now). If you define marriage the way it has been defined for the past X,000 years it is:

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

That's what it means. Saying that it's between two men or two women changes the definition of the word. That's DEFINITELY not conservative...it is liberal...or activist if you will.

There is nothing to prevent a gay man or a gay woman from marrying another gay person of the opposite sex. THAT is the "basic human right" - if you want to add to that, that's fine...but that's very definition of activism.

The U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to protect the rights of minorities from a majority who just doesn't like them. That's why Irish, Italian and other unpopular immigrants were able to settle in this country and make a life for themselves. It is why Jews don't have to become Christians and we can all practice any religion or none at all.What you're talking about is very different than Prop 8. You're talking about Jews being forced to participate in Christianity...that is an active thing where someone does not want to do something and is forced to. No one is forcing gay people to marry members of the opposite sex. They're not being told to DO something they don't want to do...they're being told they're NOT allowed to do something they want to do. That's two different situations.

It is why women have the vote and we no longer have slavery.Women voting is more in line with with your case than slavery or forced religion on minorities. It's still wrong though because no one needed to change the definition of "women" or "voting" in order to give them the right to vote.

The Constitution is living document that continues to imbue our society with greater individual liberties,

What a lovely quotation of a seventh-grade social studies book. Unfortunately, as you advance in your studies beyond a seventh-grade level the reality becomes a bit more complicated.

despite the desire of religious conservatives who time and again have opposed such moves.You may want to look at who invented the concept of "marriage" to begin with. I'll give you a hint it WASN'T Americans, gays or lesbians. Do some research and get back to me...normally I'd be waiting, anxiously for your response on my own blog - but I'll hang out here for a while just for you.

Read your history. Take a civics class.See my previous comment above. And the one before that.

This is not judicial activism, this is your democracy at work.

See two comments ago. And three comments ago.

Please don't lecture me (or anyone else) - as it appears that you yourself could benefit from some additional research on the topics you've brought up. Actually come to think of it, save the lecturing entirely...it's irritating and insulting to assume you know better than the rest of us.

Finally, neither I nor anyone else brought up "gay marriage" - I'm not sure why that's IMMEDIATELY what people jump to in these debates (probably because that's who is the most offended by "religious conservatives" - i.e. the homosexual crowd)...but if anything it only reinforces my point about activist judges. Once you move away from simply ruling on the law and start changing definitions of words...you prove my case!

And I don't even care about gay marriage...God bless them and their desire to use the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" - it's fine by me! But that doesn't change the fact that you and most of the country has no clue that the words you throw around as catch phrases (activist, conservative, marriage) all have MEANINGS that aren't just able to be changed on a whim because they don't fit your argument anymore.

Bethany said...

Thanks for your response @ronmossad

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for taking the time to read my blog, but I have a policy of not entering debate with people that call me bigoted and racist.

Anonymous said...

Where did I call you a bigot or a racist? Those are terms I do not throw around loosely. I said you were not closed minded but that you were biased, but who isn't biased?

Are you still unwilling to back up your statements?