Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 5  Next >

The Republican Party's civil war begins

Posted: 11/6/2012 11:23 PM

The Republican Party's civil war begins 


NT
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/6/2012 11:38 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


Money vs God.





Who wins?

If the fiscal right manage to suppress the religious right.... there might be some Christian-esque Hezbollah group formed...

And the left still wins....

sun! sun! sun!!! burn! burn! burn!!!
i will get you soon, soon, soon!
i am the lizard king.. i CAN do anything..

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/6/2012 11:56 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


it will  be interesting to see.....I have friends that truly believe that if the GOP would simply be MORE conservative, people would flock to change the turnout % and would draw support from the middle....

I just don't see it....ideologically or demographically.....



Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 12:04 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I actually don't think they have to move that much. Just give a little on science, targeted tax cuts, accept the one dollar tax increase for the ten dollars of spending cuts, stuff like that, and then just market themselves better.
Their message and presentation is horrendous.

Last edited 11/7/2012 12:13 AM by pdono

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 12:51 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


The country is in a virtual dead heat with a president in just about the worse position a president has been in for 30+ years. bad economy; wars that are dragging out. deficits. unemployment. And the dems gained in the senate.

I think the GOP needs to move left a little. Become more moderate. They don't need much. Just enough to make a middle class non-redneck from Kentucky or Tennessee actually believe their BS. Right now, its not believable.


Play him off, Keyboard Cat
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 12:52 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I think there are certainly Republicans that can appeal to a broad national electorate. The question will be who is in charge of shaping the party's platform, and more important, the face they present to the country. They are increasingly becoming a party of old, white, socially conservative voters. While the country continues to move, for the most part, in the opposite direction.

IMO, the Dems' ability to portray morons like Akin as the face of the party really hurt the GOP. Obama was like 60 points up in exit polls among unmarried women. 10 up among women in general, plus pulling more than 70% of Latinos. Meanwhile three states now, and possibly four by tomorrow, just legalized same sex marriage. Two states legalized recreational marijuana. The formerly red West is getting more Hispanic, to the point that Texas will likely be in play for Dems in the next decade or so.

The GOP will be back, I have no doubt. But they need to figure out a way to expand their tent and moderate some parts of their platform to speak with voters who are tuning them out, because even as the popular vote remains tight, the electoral map continues to tilt away from them.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:06 AM

Re: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



Dan01 wrote: NT

It's wonderful rhetoric Dan, but that's all it is.

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 7:58 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


These candidates were almost identical...all Romney had going for him is... well nothing.  Too bad the guy I voted for only got 2 % =/.

Last edited 11/7/2012 7:59 AM by LionsfaninBearcountry

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 8:52 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I think if nothing else, what happened last night in the Senate should validate much of what Dan has been saying the last year.

Apart from a few tense days a month ago, I've been pretty confident that Obama would be back for another term. What happened in the Senate, in this political and economic environment, is stunning. If you would have told me six months ago that the Dems would not only hold onto the Senate but actually gain a couple seats, I would have said you were nuts. The only reason they did is that Republicans took themselves out of several key races with the candidates they chose to run.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 8:55 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I think if nothing else, what happened last night in the Senate should validate much of what Dan has been saying the last year.

Apart from a few tense days a month ago, I've been pretty confident that Obama would be back for another term. What happened in the Senate, in this political and economic environment, is stunning. If you would have told me six months ago that the Dems would not only hold onto the Senate but actually gain a couple seats, I would have said you were nuts. The only reason they did is that Republicans took themselves out of several key races with the candidates they chose to run.
I have to disagree on that.  And BTW, what Dan was doing was trashing the tea party, and last night showed that was not correct either.

I don't know what the hell last night showed in the senate, as I didn't closely follow the issues, but one thing for sure was that it really was not about the candidates.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 9:14 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


What election were you watching? In every race where a tea party candidate supplanted a more moderate Republican in the primary, the Tea Party candidate lost. You think the Senate race in Missouri wasn't about the candidate? The state went overwhelmingly for Romney, but reelected an unpopular Democratic incumbent. Same story played out in Indiana. The only reason Dems won those seats is that the alternative the GOP gave them was simply unpalatable.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 10:17 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: What election were you watching? In every race where a tea party candidate supplanted a more moderate Republican in the primary, the Tea Party candidate lost. You think the Senate race in Missouri wasn't about the candidate? The state went overwhelmingly for Romney, but reelected an unpopular Democratic incumbent. Same story played out in Indiana. The only reason Dems won those seats is that the alternative the GOP gave them was simply unpalatable.

OK, let's walk through this...  In both MO and IN, the tea partier was both ahead and favored until they said something idiotic.  Not a position statement, but an off the cuff stupid remark.  That's not about the tea party, and to  repeat, they were both favored until that point.

Now, let's also look at the rest.  Sure, the two tea partiers lost.  So did Connie Mack in FL.  Very mainstream candidate.  So did George Allen in VA.  No tea patier there (although another example of a big mouth killing someone with "makaka" in the last cycle).  Then, you also had tommy thompson lose in WI, and he was a proven, no TP comodity.  Then you can see the tea partier winning in Texas (and yes, you can write that off to texas), but you also had tea partier deb fischer beat party stalwary bob kerry in NB.

So, here's how I see it.  2 favored tea partiers lost exclusively to stupid things they said only.  I see three 100% mainstream guys that were very popular and in races that were at least in theory winnable, lose.  I then see 2 tea partiers win, 1 which was not a special win, but 1 beating a home state favorite son.

How do you see it?

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 10:44 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I see Republicans in blue or blue-trending places (Wisconsin, Virginia) losing tight races to similarly moderate Dems. Which happens. But if I'm a Republican strategist, Indiana and Missouri are must-wins. Those seats should be gimmes for the party. Basically any semi-competent candidate should be able to walk in, put an R next to their name, and win those seats.

For Akin and Mourdock, this wasn't a case of them just saying something stupid off the cuff. This was a case of them trying to defend an extreme and unpopular position--that they want to outlaw abortion in cases of rape. Yes, Akin came off like a fool. Mourdock basically just tried to express a straightforward rationale for the position. I don't think the problem in either case was ultimately the language though. I think the position itself was a signal to voters that these guys are EXTREME social conservatives. And women in these states especially said "nuh uh," when a candidate who simply said he was a pro-life conservative could easily have captured their votes.

Both John Brunner and Dick Lugar are pro-life Republicans. Both would have won these seats walking away. Both were drummed out in the primaries because they couldn't pass tea party purity tests--because they weren't extreme enough in their positions and rhetoric. So tea party voters got their purity candidates, and handed the Senate back to Democrats.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 10:55 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I think if nothing else, what happened last night in the Senate should validate much of what Dan has been saying the last year.

Apart from a few tense days a month ago, I've been pretty confident that Obama would be back for another term. What happened in the Senate, in this political and economic environment, is stunning. If you would have told me six months ago that the Dems would not only hold onto the Senate but actually gain a couple seats, I would have said you were nuts. The only reason they did is that Republicans took themselves out of several key races with the candidates they chose to run.
Yes they did, and they did that last election before with Tea Party guys....(the issue w the Tea Party is it's really 3 factions of the conservative GOP welded together-the Religious right, the Libertarian and a collection of far right fringe, and the Libertarian part hasn't been driving the bus)

The demographics say that the country is becoming more urbanized, with a greater % of voters being under 35 and minority, and more women as a % of the electorate as well. The Great Moderation is what it could be called....

Unless the GOP figures out that they need to appeal to the hispanic vote along the lines of family values, lower taxes on the middle class etc, and gets rid of these guys that drag their church pulpit onto the campaign trail, they are looking at further losses and erosion of their base. They have to broaden their appeal to women from an economic sense, as the Democrats have cast them, as REM said, not by the entire party, but by the Religious part, which scares moderate women terribly....They need another Teddy Roosevelt, but they've put out a lot of Warren Harding/Hoover/Coolidge types the past 30 years....

When you scare one big chunk of an electorate, and tell another big chunk that a sizeable % are criminals and you want to arrest them....and have no shot with another chunk (african american), well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that getting 80% of 35% isn't getting you anywhere but in the L column....



Last edited 11/7/2012 10:59 AM by weaselpuppy

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 11:26 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


Oh, another counter-example: Jeff Flake in Arizona. Open seat to replace a Republican, in a Republican-leaning state. Despite a strong challenge from a popular Democratic opponent, his combination of tough on government spending, moderate on immigration and gay rights won him the day.

I vote largely Democrat, obviously, so Republicans are free to tell me to stick my opinions about their party where the sun don't shine. But if you ask me, if you want to expand your map (and you really, really need to), you want guys like this--and like Rick Snyder, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio--to be the face of your party.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 11:46 AM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


And another important example. In a bad economic climate where the GOP was hoping to make gains in Congress, they actually lost two seats in the House. Which ones? The two most strident, bombastic faces of the Tea Party: Allen West and Joe Walsh. They always made for good sound bites. They just handed their seats to Dems.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 12:22 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: Oh, another counter-example: Jeff Flake in Arizona. Open seat to replace a Republican, in a Republican-leaning state. Despite a strong challenge from a popular Democratic opponent, his combination of tough on government spending, moderate on immigration and gay rights won him the day.
Jeff Flake is a Mormon and there are a lot of Mormons in AZ. Those same Mormons came out voting for Romney and checked his name too, that's my guess.
Oh, and Flake is a very well known name in AZ, I believe his Dad was a very popular politician as well, and Jeff served in the House for a long time. He was pretty much the incumbent name.

"Final results of an exit poll conducted for The Associated Press and television networks found that Flake drew wide support from white voters, while Carmona won high marks among Hispanics."

http://www.azfamily.com/news/R...-177587441.html

Last edited 11/7/2012 12:54 PM by pdono

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 12:58 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I see Republicans in blue or blue-trending places (Wisconsin, Virginia) losing tight races to similarly moderate Dems. Which happens. But if I'm a Republican strategist, Indiana and Missouri are must-wins. Those seats should be gimmes for the party. Basically any semi-competent candidate should be able to walk in, put an R next to their name, and win those seats.

For Akin and Mourdock, this wasn't a case of them just saying something stupid off the cuff. This was a case of them trying to defend an extreme and unpopular position--that they want to outlaw abortion in cases of rape. Yes, Akin came off like a fool. Mourdock basically just tried to express a straightforward rationale for the position. I don't think the problem in either case was ultimately the language though. I think the position itself was a signal to voters that these guys are EXTREME social conservatives. And women in these states especially said "nuh uh," when a candidate who simply said he was a pro-life conservative could easily have captured their votes.

Both John Brunner and Dick Lugar are pro-life Republicans. Both would have won these seats walking away. Both were drummed out in the primaries because they couldn't pass tea party purity tests--because they weren't extreme enough in their positions and rhetoric. So tea party voters got their purity candidates, and handed the Senate back to Democrats.
That's still a LOT of hyperbole with little fact.  

Fact is the comments were off the cuff and not a talking point position.

Fact is they were ahead before the comments.

Fact is that Brunner's off the cuff statement was that it was "God's will".  Hardly a straightforward position as you state.

It's a fallacy to say these 2 lost the senate for us when 3 mainstream guys lost, and the TP also picked up 2 seats.  VERY selective in your intrepretation.  It's a great MSNBC talking point, but the actual facts here is that the TP won and lost and the mainstream guys mostly lost.  Trying to pin this on the tea party for purity when that had ZERO to do with it is silly.

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 1:27 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I pretty much agree with what Rem has said. I think the Republican Party has a problem with women voters, blue collar voters, young voters and a major problem with Hispanic voters. The numbers don't lie. They have to adjust to be a party of the future.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 1:36 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



sid11 wrote:

Fact is that Brunner's off the cuff statement was that it was "God's will".  Hardly a straightforward position as you state.


It's entirely straightforward. The rationale for opposing an exception for women who are raped is a religious rationale: a belief that life begins at conception, and that a fertilized egg is a life that God has imbued with a soul.

That's the rationale for the position. Mourdock (not Brunner, btw) simply articulated that. It wasn't a gaffe; it was just an earnest statement of the argument. It's the position that's unpalatable to 70% of unmarried women voters, not the language.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 1:39 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote:
sid11 wrote:

Fact is that Brunner's off the cuff statement was that it was "God's will".  Hardly a straightforward position as you state.


It's entirely straightforward. The rationale for opposing an exception for women who are raped is a religious rationale: a belief that life begins at conception, and that a fertilized egg is a life that God has imbued with a soul.

That's the rationale for the position. Mourdock (not Brunner, btw) simply articulated that. It wasn't a gaffe; it was just an earnest statement of the argument. It's the position that's unpalatable to 70% of unmarried women voters, not the language.
OK, and walk us through the events behind him saying this.

You guys can duck and weave on this all you want, but the actual fact here was that this came out as an off the cuff statement rather than a planned position statement and he never recovered.

It was not part of his platform, not something he wanted to run on and not something he planned.  Hence "off the cuff".

Now, am I wrong??  If so, I'd like you to walk me through it.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 1:57 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


???

Your party's platform includes a plank advocating an amendment to the Constitution to define personhood as beginning at conception and make all abortions illegal--with language allowing exceptions for rape or incest now stripped from the platform. The guy in charge of drafting this part of your party's platform spearheaded the effort in Virginia to force women to have ultrasound wands jammed inside their bodies against their will if they sought an abortion.

There is nothing to walk through with Mourdock's statement. He was asked why he does not support exceptions for rape, and he explained why. He was simply defending his own beliefs and his party's duly adopted platform.

Not sure why this is confusing. This isn't a problem of language. This is a problem of taking extreme positions on abortion that are repugnant to the broader electorate.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton

Last edited 11/7/2012 1:58 PM by REMRebound

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:05 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: ???

Your party's platform includes a plank advocating an amendment to the Constitution to define personhood as beginning at conception and make all abortions illegal--with language allowing exceptions for rape or incest now stripped from the platform. The guy in charge of drafting this part of your party's platform spearheaded the effort in Virginia to force women to have ultrasound wands jammed inside their bodies against their will if they sought an abortion.

There is nothing to walk through with Mourdock's statement. He was asked why he does not support exceptions for rape, and he explained why. He was simply defending his own beliefs and his party's duly adopted platform.

Not sure why this is confusing. This isn't a problem of language. This is a problem of taking extreme positions on abortion that are repugnant to the broader electorate.
Yeah, where is the duck and weave?  Seems like the Republicans are ducking and weaving on this one.


Play him off, Keyboard Cat
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:20 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: ???

Your party's platform includes a plank advocating an amendment to the Constitution to define personhood as beginning at conception and make all abortions illegal--with language allowing exceptions for rape or incest now stripped from the platform. The guy in charge of drafting this part of your party's platform spearheaded the effort in Virginia to force women to have ultrasound wands jammed inside their bodies against their will if they sought an abortion.

There is nothing to walk through with Mourdock's statement. He was asked why he does not support exceptions for rape, and he explained why. He was simply defending his own beliefs and his party's duly adopted platform.

Not sure why this is confusing. This isn't a problem of language. This is a problem of taking extreme positions on abortion that are repugnant to the broader electorate.

Quite a reach there REM.   Do I need to walk through it again??  I'll be happy to...

Both guys made off the cuff comments.  Do I need to define "off the cuff" for you??

Neither guy was running at the time on their statemens, nor was it in their plans.  They were asked questions, and gave "inelegant" replies that haunted them throughout the race. 

And please, what does the platform have to do with any individual candidate.  Shall we do the same to the dems.

At least try to be intellectually honest.  The fact here is that both guys gave off the cuff answers that they NEVER would have given in any other area, and they cost them the election.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:28 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


Heres my hope: 

Fiscal conservatism. No more socialism or quasi-socialism. 
Gay marriage: Let em marry! Its none of my business.
Pot: Smoke all you want! 
Abortion: While I dont agree with it, its none of my business.

aka Zona Cat 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:32 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 


I think you have a pretty interesting idea of what "off the cuff" means.

Akin introduced a bill in Congress specifically to try to outlaw abortion in cases of race and incest. It was one of his signature issues as a politician. His entire brand is that of a staunch religious social conservative and abortion hardliner. In an interview he was simply asked why he thought abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape. Because HE HIMSELF had made that a core issue of his political career. His response was idiotic, but it's because his ideas are idiotic--not because he was unprepared to talk about the issue. Again, the most significant legislation he's sponsored in his career has been on this very issue.

Mourdock's statements are even less credible as "off the cuff" comments. Since he made them weeks after the Akin controversy, when abortion hardliners like him were constantly being asked whether they supported outlawing abortion in cases of rape.

The idea that the language here is simply "inelegant" is laughable. What you're actually saying is that if they'd only had more practice, they could find some way to duck the issue or obscure what they actually believe. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will. THAT'S WHY THEY ADVOCATE FOR STRICTER ABORTION LAWS. There is no pretty language that's going to make that a non-issue for them, if significant numbers of voters see that view as a deal-breaker.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:40 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I think you have a pretty interesting idea of what "off the cuff" means.

Akin introduced a bill in Congress specifically to try to outlaw abortion in cases of race and incest. It was one of his signature issues as a politician. His entire brand is that of a staunch religious social conservative and abortion hardliner. In an interview he was simply asked why he thought abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape. Because HE HIMSELF had made that a core issue of his political career. His response was idiotic, but it's because his ideas are idiotic--not because he was unprepared to talk about the issue. Again, the most significant legislation he's sponsored in his career has been on this very issue.

Mourdock's statements are even less credible as "off the cuff" comments. Since he made them weeks after the Akin controversy, when abortion hardliners like him were constantly being asked whether they supported outlawing abortion in cases of rape.

The idea that the language here is simply "inelegant" is laughable. What you're actually saying is that if they'd only had more practice, they could find some way to duck the issue or obscure what they actually believe. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will. THAT'S WHY THEY ADVOCATE FOR STRICTER ABORTION LAWS. There is no pretty language that's going to make that a non-issue for them, if significant numbers of voters see that view as a deal-breaker.
preach on, brother man.  I also think that these sort of positions hurt the GOP not only in the specific election districts but also in the general election.  Its too extreme for a national party.


Play him off, Keyboard Cat
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 2:42 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I think if nothing else, what happened last night in the Senate should validate much of what Dan has been saying the last year.

Apart from a few tense days a month ago, I've been pretty confident that Obama would be back for another term. What happened in the Senate, in this political and economic environment, is stunning. If you would have told me six months ago that the Dems would not only hold onto the Senate but actually gain a couple seats, I would have said you were nuts. The only reason they did is that Republicans took themselves out of several key races with the candidates they chose to run.
Yeah, we need two Democrat parties.
We just need to let the Democrats have their way with no resistance for the next 4 years. If the country still votes Democrat, then socialism it is. Scrap the Republican party and become a one party system like the Soviet Union.

In the last century, governments killed 260 million of their own citizens. Logical conclusion: Ban governments.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 3:28 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



REMRebound wrote: I think you have a pretty interesting idea of what "off the cuff" means.

Akin introduced a bill in Congress specifically to try to outlaw abortion in cases of race and incest. It was one of his signature issues as a politician. His entire brand is that of a staunch religious social conservative and abortion hardliner. In an interview he was simply asked why he thought abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape. Because HE HIMSELF had made that a core issue of his political career. His response was idiotic, but it's because his ideas are idiotic--not because he was unprepared to talk about the issue. Again, the most significant legislation he's sponsored in his career has been on this very issue.

Mourdock's statements are even less credible as "off the cuff" comments. Since he made them weeks after the Akin controversy, when abortion hardliners like him were constantly being asked whether they supported outlawing abortion in cases of rape.

The idea that the language here is simply "inelegant" is laughable. What you're actually saying is that if they'd only had more practice, they could find some way to duck the issue or obscure what they actually believe. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will. THAT'S WHY THEY ADVOCATE FOR STRICTER ABORTION LAWS. There is no pretty language that's going to make that a non-issue for them, if significant numbers of voters see that view as a deal-breaker.
It's silly to think that one cadidate is going to watch his words or script things based on the slip of another candidate.

I can't believe you're trying to take such a weak position.  Consider this....

Show me in the race where either brought this up.  They didn't.  Hence the "off the cuff".  The fact they believe it, or advoacted it earlier is meaningless.  It was not on their platter.  Or can you show me that they had made it a platform in this round of elections and as such, they should have been ready for it.  Guess what?  You can't.

Now, tell me this...   Go back and re-examine each question and answer.  You want to tell me that for example, if this was a written reply, or if they had the questions in advance, that one of the backstage svengalies could not have come up with a more articulate, more softly worded version of what they laid out??   Because you know damn well that it's exactly what could and would have happened.  Unless you want to say that "God's will" is really what he was going to be running on.

So, let's walk through it again.  Both guys got questions they didn't know were coming, an responded with answers that were poorly worded (or stupid, or whatever you want), and were never able to recover from them.  That's the like-it-or-not actual truth here.  Are they hard liners?  Sure.  And guess what??  That didn't hurt them before the statement, did it?  Lots of abortion hard-liners win elections.  It was their dumb statements, not their hard right positions that took them down.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 3:51 PM

RE: The Republican Party's civil war begins 



sid11 wrote:
REMRebound wrote: I think you have a pretty interesting idea of what "off the cuff" means.

Akin introduced a bill in Congress specifically to try to outlaw abortion in cases of race and incest. It was one of his signature issues as a politician. His entire brand is that of a staunch religious social conservative and abortion hardliner. In an interview he was simply asked why he thought abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape. Because HE HIMSELF had made that a core issue of his political career. His response was idiotic, but it's because his ideas are idiotic--not because he was unprepared to talk about the issue. Again, the most significant legislation he's sponsored in his career has been on this very issue.

Mourdock's statements are even less credible as "off the cuff" comments. Since he made them weeks after the Akin controversy, when abortion hardliners like him were constantly being asked whether they supported outlawing abortion in cases of rape.

The idea that the language here is simply "inelegant" is laughable. What you're actually saying is that if they'd only had more practice, they could find some way to duck the issue or obscure what they actually believe. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will. THAT'S WHY THEY ADVOCATE FOR STRICTER ABORTION LAWS. There is no pretty language that's going to make that a non-issue for them, if significant numbers of voters see that view as a deal-breaker.
It's silly to think that one cadidate is going to watch his words or script things based on the slip of another candidate.

I can't believe you're trying to take such a weak position.  Consider this....

Show me in the race where either brought this up.  They didn't.  Hence the "off the cuff".  The fact they believe it, or advoacted it earlier is meaningless.  It was not on their platter.  Or can you show me that they had made it a platform in this round of elections and as such, they should have been ready for it.  Guess what?  You can't.

Now, tell me this...   Go back and re-examine each question and answer.  You want to tell me that for example, if this was a written reply, or if they had the questions in advance, that one of the backstage svengalies could not have come up with a more articulate, more softly worded version of what they laid out??   Because you know damn well that it's exactly what could and would have happened.  Unless you want to say that "God's will" is really what he was going to be running on.

So, let's walk through it again.  Both guys got questions they didn't know were coming, an responded with answers that were poorly worded (or stupid, or whatever you want), and were never able to recover from them.  That's the like-it-or-not actual truth here.  Are they hard liners?  Sure.  And guess what??  That didn't hurt them before the statement, did it?  Lots of abortion hard-liners win elections.  It was their dumb statements, not their hard right positions that took them down.

I don't even know what you're talking about... Both of these guys have pages on their campaign websites devoted to their staunch pro-life positions. Akin in particular built his political career around this issue. This is a core element of their pitch to voters. This is a FEATURE of their message, not a bug. To suggest that they would be blindsided when somebody asked them about it is just... insane. I don't know what else to tell you.


"The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

--GK Chesterton
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 5  Next >