The defection of Senator Specter has resulted in many heated exchanges between front and second page posters.
Many of you have been clear, you are either principled or pragmatic, some in the case of policy, others in the case of candidates, most on both. Unfortunately, others have been less clear.
Some have argued that we should be pragmatic in our policy and with our congressional candidates, yet they refuse to apply the same policies to our potential 2012 candidates. For me this is unsettling, so I figured I would take the opportunity to allow the readers to state where they stand and why?
Are you pragmatic or principled?
Would you support (or encourage the party to support) policies and candidates that you do not believe represent the values of the Republican party/conservative movement, whether they be at the Presidential level (i.e. Palin, Huckabee, Romney, etc) or at the Congressional level (i.e. Specter, Toomey, Ridge, etc)?
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Yeah.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I think this is a false choice, as I think that you can be both principled and pragmatic, having an underlying set of principles/beliefs, but at the same time understanding what type of politician can win in each state.
This is a large country, and in order to be a majority party, each demographic of the party (economic conservatives, social, foreign policy hawks, libertarians, etc.) must be willing to sacrifice some tenets of their beliefs in order to have any represented in the government.
It is naive to believe that the same sort of conservatives can win in states in different regions, but on the other hand, it is dangerous to not have an underlying set of general principles that connect the party.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I don’t think this is a simple divide and an easy distinction.
Some people take a thirst for power to the extreme where our party would stand for nothing on a national level and have no unifying principles.
On the other hand politics should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Pragmatism should have a secondary role in our decisions.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I feel that the recent posts from both Lorelli and Knepper have become a personal battle between the two, hahahah. I’ll depart from the conventional wisdom and let the both of you that it is extremely amusing.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
#3, I wholeheartedly agree.
Which is why I would support Mitt Romney, even though I question his principles.
Pragmatism should not be discounted, but definately play a secondary role.
On principle, I certainly would not support a candidate that supports the raising of taxes or who brings an isolationist approach to FP. I voted for Perot in 1992 because Bush raised taxes.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
#4, It worked out, he is no longer attacking republicans every 15 minutes.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’m in favor of principles that are pragmatic. If not, they aren’t true principles.
It’s definitely a false divide, something like the Christian one between faith and works. You can have different perspectives on their relation to our situation, sure, but you can’t say one can get along without the other.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I’ll try to be a Yes Man like you more often, Kristofer. Pretend everything’s alright. Fire’s falling from the sky, but open up for that soothing rain to fall in your mouth!
Kristofer’s just basically the Baghdad Bob of Race 4 2012.
(“Yes, Saddam. Your rockets are striking those Americans dead! We’ve driven them out of Baghdad, sir! The US is on the retreat!”)
May 4th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Kristofer, someday, hopefully soon, this post will illustrate Webster’s definition of a false choice.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Why Sampo?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Alex,
Are you willing to admit that you are a liberal hypocrite?
You lecture us and demand that we support Specter, but you promise to vote for Obama over Romney and Huckabee?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
This is getting annoying.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
10
Sampo is right, this is a false choice, because you make it a black and white issue, instead of the nuanced answer it should be.
The def of a false choice or dichotomy is when only two alternatives are considered when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking…
One can be a combination of both, and you make it into an extreme us vs them position
May 4th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Kris and Alex,
Find a boxing ring, settle it there, and leave the cat fighting off the boards.
Please………
May 4th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
James, I left the door open for those who want a principled policy, but a more pragmatic approach to candidates.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Kris, your vote for Perot explains your support for Palin.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Admit it guys, you aren’t entertained by Round 11? hahaha
I do wonder why Knepper supports Steeleman when it’s pretty clear from the reasonable analysis that she cannot win the primary and can only cause division in the Missouri Republican Party, a division that could be costly for the overwhelming likelihood that Roy Blunt will face Jean Carnahan.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Tommy Boy, ironically, I support her on principle.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Kristofer,
Me too but it certainly isn’t pragmatic, using Knepper’s definition of pragmatic as applied to Toomey, for her to enter the race considering that she has very little chance of defeating Blunt in the primary and can only make his eventual matchup with Carnahan more difficult.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Rudy made me a pragmatist. I would have easily supported him because he would have been a good president. Certainly, he would have been a much better nominee than McCain.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Kavon must be laughing his ass off somewhere…there are five active threads, hahah.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I know Tommy, that is my point. His positions are so confusing. Steelmen-yes, Toomey-no. Rudy-yes, Romney-no.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Kris isn’t a good fit for Palin either, for that matter. I think he’s just hoping he can get a one on one interview with her and get a full body hug like she gave that biker dude she’d never seen before the other day.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Martha,
I responded to you in another thread at a comment I believe you directed towards me….whoever tommy b is isn’t me. I’m the only guy claiming to know anything about data on this blog.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Indeed, 21. Why so many threads tonight?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Illinois,
Isn’t this notion of “fits” stupid? Romney has a lot of moderate supporters who disagree with a hardliner such as yourself on the issues. So does Palin. Even Huckabee has them. Jindal has them.
Jon Huntsman has a lot of hardliner support as well if you look at it from the other end.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Illinoisguy,
Actually, Palin is. Of all the leading candidates, Palin despises the active role of the federal government *almost* as much as I do.
It really is that simple.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Illinoisguy,
Are you really against women hugging men they have not met? You make odd arguments against candidates.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0dGO7v89LY69z/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/0dGO7v89LY69z&usg=__Vu3l-Wbny4PjjPhHykdbeaSfL7M=&h=401&w=610&sz=58&hl=en&start=16&sig2=3W231y5G0dOEuaxt7Ahn4w&um=1&tbnid=7x42fNY31V7bGM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dann%2Bromney%2Bhugs%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enCA276CA276%26um%3D1&ei=KsH_Sd27O4LwMvmOna0E
May 4th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
You differ greatly on social issues Kristofer. And she is a weakling on foreign policy, and I don’t think you want your President to be, right?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Kris, really? What was all that railing on Wall Street greed for? It seemed like Palin really wanted to regulate those guys. Remember when she kept saying she would walk across the aisle to get something done for the American people? Sounded like more fed control to me.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Kristofer,
This is music to your heart then…
Palin firm on refusing some stimulus money
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/783397.html
Alaska legislators argue Gov. Sarah Palin is overstating the strings attached to federal stimulus money she’s planning to reject. But Palin isn’t backing down and said she still won’t take the $28.6 million for energy programs….
Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said the governor’s primary concern with the funds is that she believes energy codes should be a local government decision that considers local needs — not a state mandate.
“We shouldn’t have to change our local laws to accept more of this federal package, as the feds already control much of our young state, thus prohibiting our opportunities to responsibly develop,” Palin said in an e-mail….
Palin’s spokeswoman said the governor recognizes some Alaska communities already have energy codes and that many buildings meet the standards.
“However, this does not resolve the issue of local control versus a state mandate and enforcement of energy codes,” Leighow said in an e-mail. “The fact that Alaska does not currently have a state energy code indicates that there has not been a statewide consensus for imposing such a code on local communities and Alaska residents.”
Palin doesn’t think it is worth accepting the federal demand that Alaska impose a statewide energy code just to keep Alaska’s share of the energy money from being sent to other states, Leighow said.”
May 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Notice how the lady was trying to get a lot of body, and Mitt just gave her a little shoulder?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Mitt gets the moderate support based on competency. Mitt will even get a lot of Democratic votes based on competency, and the ability to articulate the conservative message. The population, especially those that vote are more conservative than liberal; we just need someone they can believe in again, and one who is a proven record of success.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Illinoisguy,
I disagree with Palin with the federal role on abortion, but she is a neocon (stonger than Huck and Mitt), has filed a lawsuit(s) against the federal government for their intrusion against states rights, believes in a reduced federal role in taxation, spending and the delivery of social services…
She might only be 90% of where I am, but it is closer than the rest of the candidates.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Illinoisguy, that is great if he can, BUT NONE OF THEM VOTED FOR HIM IN CROSSOVER PRIMARIES! Mitt has to prove it.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Kristofer,
Got your e-mail…no rules, no wordpress. Just e-mail what you want to write-up to me.
This is incredible! I haven’t seen Race hopping like this in quite some time, hahaha.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Tommy Boy,
Palin is refusing only 29 million out of 930 million. Is it really something to crow about?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Kris, WTH? Palin is a stronger neocon than Huck or Mitt? Ha. She thought the Iraq war was about oil and wanted a timetable.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
35. He proved it in Mass.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Martha, wake up. She is a neocon, and did not endorse Mitt’s timetable agenda. Huck suggested neocons had a ‘bunker mentality’.
Martha, one of the reasons why Mitt lost was because he tried to be everything to everybody. He cannot do that again or he will lose.
Find your points and stick to them. You turn off too many, when you try to attract everyone.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
#39, I know and that is why he broke so many of our hearts when he moved away from that.
Do not make the same mistake.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Did you see he got 31% Democrats favorable in the last Rasmussen poll?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
#42,
although that is impressive, show me a head-to-head poll with Obama, there is a big difference…
May 4th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Illinois,
I believe Huckabee got the same percentage in the last Rasmussen poll of him. Democrats or the media haven’t attacked Huckabee or Romney in over a year and a half.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Kris, Romney had no timetable – you know that. Palin questioned whether there should be one. She also wondered if it was about oil. I can’t help it. There’s no substance to your claim that she is more neocon than Romney. But, there is plenty of reason to believe she would be inept at foreign policy, while Romney would not.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
“Huck suggested neocons had a ‘bunker mentality’”
Huck was right.
BTW, did ANY neocon predictions about Iraq come true? I guess we did get rid of Saddam, but there wasn’t too much drama in that…..
May 4th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
41. Moved away from what? Fiscal sanity? That’s why he was elected. He hasn’t moved.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Martha,
Do you think if Iraq’s leading export was, say, bananas, that we’d have been so interested in who ran the country there?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
46. ARROGANT, bunker mentality. I prefer to think that Bush had a “protect the people of the US” mentality, and it was NOT arrogant.
Huck also said our troops “broke something” in Iraq and that we need wingtips in Iran.
Huck – democrat-light on foreign policy
Palin – credibility gap on foreign policy
May 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Kris, a ton of it is going to be the ability of the candidate to argue and articulate the points. Mitt has a big advantage in that he actually thoroughly understands the economic issues, and has a great comprehension of the foreign policy as well. I know a ton of middle class people who voted for Obama this time that would switch and vote for Mitt this time around. My next door neighbors are very, very strong Democrat, the kind that has multiple signs in the yard every election, and I can tell they are already really fed up with Obama. Their son said yesterday out in the yard, Dad, did you know that Obama was digging us deeper in debt that all the other Presidents put together”, and his dad just shook his head, and uttered, ‘yeah, I know’. But we must have someone who can argue the conservative case consistently and without falter. We can’t have even one Katie Couric interview gone bad or its over for us folks.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
No Tommy, they didn’t poll Huckabee in that poll. But he did do well in another one recently.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Martha, the entire neo-con lobby is supporting Palin. Take my word for it. You are not correct in your facts. They are not sold on Romney.
#47. He ran to the hard right, towards voters who were not going to vote for him because of bigotry and because they did not believe him when he said he changed positions on abortion. Many of us expected to see a more pragmatic Romney, a business genuis, instead he stopped courting McCain and Rudy voters and went for evengelical right-wingers.
#46. Bush is not a true neocon. He ran and is a realist and he scewed up the Iraq war by allowing Rumsfeld to overide his generals and draw up his own plans. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
48. I think that we should be interested in any country that is led by the likes of S.H. and has an interest or program to develop WMD.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Illinois,
Read my post again:
“I believe Huckabee got the same percentage in the last Rasmussen poll of him.” “In the last Rasmussen poll of him” does not mean the same poll as the one you referenced.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Martha,
“Huck also said our troops “broke something” in Iraq”
If our military didn’t manage to break anything over there, what the hell is that colossal defense budget for?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Kris,
“Martha, the entire neo-con lobby is supporting Palin.”
Well, she’s officially out of my top 3 now. Thanks for the heads up.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Kris, I just don’t buy that the entire neocon lobby is supporting Palin this far out or ever will. That’s just a really tough sell.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:02 am
I liked that statement Lorelli made, where it’s all about principle but practicality plays a secondary role or sumsuch.
Look, the truth comes out once lots of pain is applied. We are going to experience economic crisis like never before in our short lifetimes, and the choice will become extremely clear whether or not religion, looks, or lack of experience matter more. If it gets as painful as I suspect it will, it’s going to be Romney. Why? He fixes stuff. With or without the fish on the back of his car, he’s the fix-it man and he’ll get the vote. In kinder, more abundant times we would willingly experiment with a Palin, or even a Huckabee. We won’t be able to afford that, is my best prediction.
In addition, we are having a Constitutional crisis as never before. Romney is a lawyer. He has clearly aligned himself with originalists. He is the ticket.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:02 am
btw Martha, Romney has recognized this is his post-election relfection. He is remaining a conservative, but much more pragmatic and more of a consensus builder.
If you notice, he is staying away from campaign-killing devisive issues.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Kris, ROmney was elected in Mass to solve their budget woes. He did. He will be elected in 2012 to solve our economic woes. And he will be great on foreign policy as well. Palin has done NOTHING to earn foreign policy cred.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:03 am
All we need tonight is a guest post from Liz and that will top off this lively night of Race42012….
May 5th, 2009 at 12:03 am
#56, no problem…glad you found out know and not in a year or two.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Ok, Tommy, sorry! But, I don’t think I’ve seen a poll showing Huckabee with a 55-36 overall poll. You may be right on the Democrat thing though.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:05 am
#60, Martha, I hope that is how Romney runs,
but with all due respect, Palin’s ties to McCain (his 2008 FP) and her sons involvement in Iraq gives her an upper hand.
Martha, some of the powerful neocon lobby is already advising her.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
61 Tommy Boy I graciously concede you my spot! What’s the topic? I’m just getting geared up for tonight.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Liz, 99.9967843% of politicians are lawyers. That’s hardly a unique qualification among the ambitious.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Liz,
I already had my test-run for a month from Kavon. Give guys like Kristofer and Knepper some credit. It takes a decent amount of time to come up with a reasonably good post.
I really want to bash David Frum tonight for some reason.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Martha,
here is Palin’s 2012 FP advisor.
http://www.goalsforamericans.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/randy_scheunemann.JPG
May 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Martha, if I were a betting man, I would say this will be her Chief of Staff.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vdltw3lS9BA/SduNuXFsb7I/AAAAAAAAAp8/n9VmwJ_oqSw/s400/kristol+2.jpg
May 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Kris,
Actually, I have a vague recollection of reading about Palin getting her crash course in foreign policy from the neocons, much as Bush did. I’m thinking it was in the American Conservative, but then again, my memory has already failed (at least) once tonight!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Uh, that’s a tad bit of an exaggeration, my friend!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
“I really want to bash David Frum tonight for some reason.”
I can understand that.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
And you know why I might be glad Romney didn’t make it in 2008? Too much crap gumming up the system. By that, I mean a powerful propaganda-spewing media, tons of drunken dems in Congress, and a fickle American public worried about whether or not they should grant Christian citizenship to an undeserving Mormon. After the pain and suffering this country and the world is going to endure, I’ll be stunned if Romney doesn’t get the frakkin’ red carpet in 2012. AND he’ll likely have a more favorable governing set to work with at all levels after 2010.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:10 am
MWS, look at #68, now a close friend of Palin’s. He was also the same gentleman who protected Palin for the McCain folks who tried to smear her.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:11 am
66 true but the J.D. is on TOP of the Harvard business + experience and the luxurious hair.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Kris,
You’re scaring me with those pictures.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Liz,
Throw in well manicured hands, and I might give him a second look!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I like Palin. I like people that want to see her succeed. I am one of them. AFTER Romney fixes stuff.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Kris, it’s all well and good that Palin has some FP advisors. It doesn’t really mean a hill of beans, though. There are too many other factors in play.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:15 am
#76, I am sorry buddy, but it is true.
Look at Meghan McCain. The dirty little secret the McCain campaign didnt want anyone to know, was that Meghan protested the Iraq war, but as soon as she graduated, got away from the radical liberals at her school and most importantly, when her brother was deployed to Iraq, she woke up and saw her fathers logic on the surge.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:15 am
MWS,
I’ll repost the Frum link I found just in case the two Frum-bot FPPs want to tackle the contradiction they fail to see between becoming substantively less socially conservative and bringing in more Hispanic voters. I really think that Frum’s motivation for coming out to the right of Bush/McCain on immigration is that he’s afraid that a prominent social con will embrace amnesty.
What World Does the Republican Party Live In? Part II – The David Frum Folly
http://ndnblog.org/node/3342
Mr. Frum contradicted himself during the interview: he alleged that minorities are an important part of the advantage held by Democrats, but that Republicans can essentially give up on the Hispanic vote and still win – his contention is that the group the GOP needs to win back in order to win are college graduates and that, basically, the GOP can do just fine without Latinos because we’re all poor and populist: “As populist economically as we need to be to win over this poor group of voters…you’ll blow the whole coalition to pieces…because are you going to be the universal state free at the point of consumption health care?” In fact, winning Hispanics is an integral part of moving “forward” and embracing the facts of a 21st century America. Mr. Frum also demonstrates his ignorance of the Hispanic community by continuing the erroneous stereotype promoted by hate groups and Lou Dobbs types that Latinos are all uneducated, poor, a burden to our society, and dependent on big government. In reality Hispanics are the demographic that uses the least amount of government programs (even though many are in fact in the middle or lowest income brackets), with the highest rate of employment, and in many areas they account for economic and labor growth as they are often small business owners. Also, historically Hispanics split pretty evenly between parties and they have never constituted a loyal “base” for either party. Not to mention, “Hispanic” concerns are the same as those of the general population, with some nuances.
Frum’s contention is yet another example of the GOP’s stubborn denial of the racial reality of the country. Only a few GOP strategists like Rove and Sen. Martinez have attempted to make their party realize that the United States will be a majority “minority” country by 2042, and that support among Hispanics is key to its survival. If the GOP intends to exist for the next generation, they had better accept – and embrace the new electoral map. Hispanics have consistently demonstrated their increasing political clout, particularly in this election, when they turned out in record numbers and affected elections in battleground states like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, etc. Additionally, Hispanics displayed the power in their numbers in non-traditionally “Latino” states because this demographic helped realign this election – i.e., Hispanics helped flip GOP “safe” or deep red states to blue, as was the case in Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana.
Frum’s theory is a tough sell – exit polls show that the election was the closest among high school graduates and college drop-outs, while the higher the degree obtained, the more supportive voters were of Obama (53% of college graduates supported Obama, and the number goes up to 58% among those with postgraduate degrees). Frum fails to recognize that race relations and the way Obama reflects and embraces the current U.S. demography was just as important in winning over the intellectual “elite.” Millenials and the more educated are increasingly intolerant of intolerance. Additionally, Hispanics are a part of all income and education groups. It should also be noted that voters with higher degrees comprise a smaller percentage of the electorate (only 17% of the electorate has PhDs). Within a few generations (max) the share of Hispanic voters will easily match the 28% of people with a college education who voted in this election.
Another flaw in Frum’s argument is that the importance of college grads implies the importance of young adults: 2/3 (or 67%) of all Hispanics who voted in this election are under the age of 45 – he should think about what that means for the future. Every month, 50,000 Latinos turn 18. Twenty percent of millenials have at least one immigrant parent. The irrefutable fact is that Hispanics – the fastest growing demographic in the United States – will only play an increasingly pivotal role in national politics in the 21st century.
The fact is that the GOP built an entire domestic agenda based on the exploitation of fear, racial and otherwise: whether it was Willie Horton, “welfare queens,” “tax and spend liberals,” and most recently the issue of illegal- immigration. And GOP leaders are still refusing to accept this fact – as recently as two days ago Mike Huckabee spent a half hour trying to explain his intolerance of certain gay rights to Jon Stewart; mind you, the Daily Show audience is precisely Mr. Krum’s “target”: college educated, about 18-35 years old. Republicans like Mr. Frum have to first recognize what has been their tactic in the past and second, think about what they want their future to look like. If it wants to stay in business, the GOP has to build a Party and coalition suited to the demographic realities of 21st century America.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:16 am
69. What was it that Kristol said about Palin, that he loved her or some such nonsense? I can’t remember right now. Yeah, he’s a real peach.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Martha,
Liz says that Romney has “luxurious” hair. Your contention in the past has been that his hair really isn’t all that. Maybe you two should discuss. Team Romney needs unity!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
#82, but Kristol, along with several others, lead the neocon lobby in DC. Some credit his father as the architect of the modern day neocon movement.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Tommy,
I did see that on the other thread. Thanks. It was good. I responded something about Frum being an idiot.
But truly (and I know I’ve been beating this drum for a while) hispanics have a natural home in the GOP. And we NEED THEM!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
What was this thread originally about? Oh yeah, pragmatism. You know, if I were going to grant a MALE conservative one issue to flip-flop on, it would be on abortion. I can see how guys would say, that’s disgusting and barbaric, but if women really really want it who am I to disallow? Now, women, I fully expect that they get it. Because they know this isn’t about indentured servitude, or privacy, or any of that crap the View tramps argue. It’s basic, Life & Death 101.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:20 am
“Some credit his father as the architect of the modern day neocon movement.”
I don’t think “credit” is the right word.
But truly, the neocons aren’t terribly picky about their host. Some have already attached themselves to Obama.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Liz, that is an excellent point. In fact, maybe men should avoid the topic all together?
It is not like we have to live with keeping or aborting the child, taking it to term, dealing with a special needs baby, etc….
I certainly believe a women when she says she is pro-life or pro-choice. As for men, I believe many lie for political reasons, or are more likely to change their positions once they become fathers.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Hispanics vote based on one thing – UNIVISION. I know, I gotta family full of them. THey are extremely socially conservative, but UNIVISION has no rival and it tells them how to vote.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:23 am
MWS, some have given Obama a passing grade on FP, but that will change soon. Iraq and Afghanistan are falling apart.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Liz, you have to write more for us…you are a blast and have a bloggers personality.
btw, as a female and hispanic, are you interested in filling an opening in the Supreme Court?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am
83. MWS. Liz was just kiddin around, so we’re good. But HearMeRoar is still up in arms about it.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“Iraq and Afghanistan are falling apart.”
Gosh, and things had been going so WELL for the past 6 years.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Martha,
HearMeRoar is up in arms about Mitt’s hair?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:28 am
#93,
They have for the last 2.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:28 am
88 thanks with seconding me, men cannot avoid the topic because they are absolutely in it with women. Any governor has to be a guardian of the culture of life, and more often than not, political leadership is still men. They have to get it and trust me, women appreciate it when they do. I suspect many pro-abortion women have had no support from the men in their lives which builds poverty, resentment, and possibly creates their ability to be unfeeling towards their own offspring. I otherwise can’t understand anyone clamoring for the right to terminate a life, your own child. Anyways ’nuff said I definitely don’t want to hijack the thread onto this grisly topic.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:30 am
#96, no you are discussing principle…not hijiacking.
Are you willing to settle for pro-choice candidate if it means the GOP will win (at any level)?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:32 am
91 I’m an attorney too. I declined appointment to the Supremes previously because I was frightened by the animal magnetism I felt toward Souter, but now that he’s leaving I may reconsider. I wish him the best and may someone send him a personal hygiene guide.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Liz,
A good friend of my wife’s had an abortion many years ago when she was young and didn’t know better and all her family and “church” told her it was the responsible thing to do.
It haunts her to this day. I think of her a lot when I consider that abortion does truly victimize many women. Often, it is not the men who live with the grief (though some do), but the women. Abortion uses women, flat out.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:37 am
a pro-choice GOP candidate? At this critical stage of American history? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Unless they apply thumb screws or deny me too many meals. Even then I might hold out, never been tested that way actually. And you?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:38 am
“never been tested that way actually. And you?”
Kris has been waterboarded. It’s a pre-req. for being a neocon.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:40 am
MWS – her church told her to do it? That can’t be right. But I hear you, you definitely get it. It’s not a real brain twister. Pretty rudimentary stuff, really.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I was waterboarded too. It was the first time I ever went water-skiing on the Mississippi River. After I saw the video, I spent the whole time under water. I thought I did great because I never let go. Most unpleasant.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Liz,
“her church told her to do it”
Unitarian. I don’t know if her case was specifically discussed, but the Unitarians practically treat abortion as a sacrament.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Good night, all.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 am
MWS well I’ll read up on the Unitards. I had no idea. Good night to you.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:10 am
“I think this is a false choice, as I think that you can be both principled and pragmatic, having an underlying set of principles/beliefs, but at the same time understanding what type of politician can win in each state.
This is a large country, and in order to be a majority party, each demographic of the party (economic conservatives, social, foreign policy hawks, libertarians, etc.) must be willing to sacrifice some tenets of their beliefs in order to have any represented in the government.
It is naive to believe that the same sort of conservatives can win in states in different regions, but on the other hand, it is dangerous to not have an underlying set of general principles that connect the party.”
James, you summed up my vuews on thos whole debate VERY WELL. Thank you.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:50 am
“Are You Principled or Pragmatic?”
My answer: Both
May 5th, 2009 at 10:36 am
101. waterboarding is torture…
May 5th, 2009 at 10:46 am
We need to support principles and policies that work (are pragmatic) and
conservative (lead to smaller government in all sectors, including the moral
sector). We don’t need to support the agenda of Jesus – Jesus is God and
can frankly take care of himself. It is hubris to believe otherwise.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Being one without the other is a one-way ticket to irrelevance, so you have to be both. Single-issue principles never find enough people to vote for them to win more than a few seats, much less a governing majority. Multi-issue principles exclude too many people in order to have a governing majority, but boy are they excited! The ultimate pragmatists can win ovrwhelming majorities, but to what end? What’s the purpose of such a consolidation of power if you can’t make up your mind what to do with it?
The best solution for a political party is to identify 3-4 key issues (preferably the 3-4 top issues for voters, if the goal is a governing majority), and stay principled on them at all costs. The economy and fiscal discipline are probably the best ones to stick with. For all other issues, sure, put out a statement of support for this position or that, but don’t make it the nat’l focus of the party (local races is just fine, as long as that’s what the locals want), and don’t exclude people on that basis. Religious and social values seem to fit here.
Finally, DON’T sit around blaming the “lesser” issue voters for costing you elections when you have completely and utterly FAILED at what should be the top issues for voters.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Good question Kristofer! I think we have to be both. I would like to see us put in the most conservative candidate possible for the demographics of the voting electorate. I also think that at times a candidate may have to bargain away a little conservatism in order to be able to make the contributions he/she is able to make. For example, Mitt Romney has said that he has always been personally against abortion. But, it was pretty obvious that for him to be elected in Massachusetts he couldn’t run on that platform. So, he had to decide whether or not it was just better to stand back and let Massachusetts stay in dire straights economically, and allow social issues to move rapidly toward liberal principles, or whether to strike a deal with them and agree to not allow abortion to move either direction while he was Governor. By doing that, he was able to actually govern 100% pro-life and still keep his promise.
Its a tough choice though. I think the Ridge/Toomey decision is a tough one based on this question you pose.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
There is a time for pragmatism, I suppose, but it is always the time for principle. The question is, which principle? There are some that I could compromise on and some I could not. For instance, I am extremely pro-life and would not vote for a member of Congress that was not at least moderately so, but I would be more likely to compromise on that issue in a Presidential election because there is precious little that a pro-life Pres can do against a pro-choice
Congress and Court. That being said, I could not, in good conscience, ever vote for anyone that was actively pro-choice. That’s my personal “principle” and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to follow it. I think I chose pragmatism over principle in the last election, actually. I really, really, really didn’t like McCain. Really. I voted for him, though, because he was a better choice than Obama. Had their candidate been HRC, my choice would have been different, I suspect.
As a side note, I really think Kavon needs to lock some of these posters in a room together till they can get along. That’s just the mom of 4 sons talking…
May 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
#113, no I suggest bare knuckles, and no holds barred?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
#114
Works for me, but they have to take it outside. I just washed this floor!