Comments on: The Cheney Might Have Been?

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:46 +0000

sinz54, re Evangelicals and politics: "They don't care that it's inconsistent with federalism. It's consistent with Christianity."

Then anyone who promotes this line of thinking should not have a strong voice in the GOP. I guess by my own sword, I would have to agree that Roe v Wade might be overturned, and leave it to the states.

Note that as of today, the GOP supports a "right to life" amendment, and a "sanctity of marriage amendment". They also oppose any local ordinance that restricts gun ownership, even if it means cops get killed by drug dealers with easy access to weapons.

No attempt at federalism there -- it's one-size-fits-all. If the liberal states don't like our nation-wide platform, they can go fly a kite. Well, that's why they're in the minority, and are going to stay that way until they can walk their walk as well as they talk their talk.

No one wants to vote for a pack of hypocrites.

By: cb55

cb55 — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:23:55 +0000

sinz54 and dandmil99: I believe that an Evangelical who ignores things such as federalism, and limited federal government are not conservative either. Just as much as I believe a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage advocate who is willing to ingore the same prinicples are not really conservative either.
But consevatives, moderates, social conservatives, libertarians, etc, need to find common ground in some areas. There is no way we can agree on everything- so the common ground needs to be the approach, and manner which things can be attained. Too much central and federal control leads to everyone being unhappy at some point.
While I am not a fan of these type of Ammendments- they are a legitimate option for the American public. The process is allowed and in the Constitution. I think when courts ignore States rights, that is a tool to combat it. But at the same time, it is almost impossible to get through, so a super-majority of people would have to really support it.
But different states having different laws gives people options. You may not like the marriage institution in your state- but another might be more to your belief system.
The gay marriage debate is not a big deal to me. The state either has a vested interest and reason in an institution like this, or it does not. At this point in time, I no longer see what an individual state's interest is. I know it might sound radical, but let's just end the argument, and not have state marriage. It does not bother me if gay people want to get married. But if they are included, what point does marriage serve for the state. And if it is about including everyone, why does the state still have an interest in denying other domestic set-ups?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:57:18 +0000

danbmil99: The Christian evangelicals have told me, to my face, that they do NOT believe in federalism, if federalism means they must turn a blind eye towards dangers to Christianity in other states.

They told me that they agitate against the Federal Government when they believe that Government is doing things detrimental to their practice of Christianity. But that their goal remains the spread of Christianity. And if the Federal Government can be turned toward support of that goal, they would be happy to use the Federal Government for that purpose.

Hence their advocacy of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban abortion nationwide. They don't care that it's inconsistent with federalism. It's consistent with Christianity.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:53:40 +0000

danbmil99: I support the right of states to set their own marriage laws. If the Vermont legislature wants to legalize civil marriage for gays, that's fine with me. I absolutely oppose the passage of a Defense of Marriage Amendment, as the current GOP platform advocates. Such an Amendment is wrong on many levels--moral, legal, constitutional.

But I'm still opposed to "hate crime" laws. And it's a violation of principle to vote to extend a bad law even further, just because you don't have any hope of getting it repealed at the present time.

If I were in Congress, and a vote came up on whether to extend hate crime laws to cover gays or or any other new group, I would just vote "Present."

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:53:56 +0000

cb55: your points about federalism are interesting. This is an aspectt of the ideological divide that doesn't get talked about much.

In general, I think liberals do not believe in "states rights" in any real sense. So when it comes to something like abortion or gay marriage, they will not be happy with them being legal in NY but illegal in AL. They feel it's a moral issue to protect the women and gays of Alabama from oppression. (Of course, many pro-lifers feel it's their duty to save babies everywhere, so the whole 'let the states decide' thing doesn't really hold water when you feel strongly that someone's rights are being abused).

Now the irony: liberals, by and large, are not nearly as aggressive as conservatives (well, neocons) about the idea of extending democracy to places like Iraq. They complain about the treatment of women and minorities, but they also have this weak-kneed morally relative sensitivity to 'local culture'.

Of course, true conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, avoid this hypocrisy by rejecting the neocon idea that the US is the world's policeman.

I think the truth is that people bend their ideology to suit their bias. Examples such as Terry Schiavo, and the SCOTUS overrulling Florida in 2000, make it hard to take the GOP's supposed belief in federalism seriously.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:41:05 +0000

sinz54: "danbmil99: Many conservatives, such as myself, regard all so-called "hate crimes" legislation as politically correct statism."

OK, but they're on the books protecting race, gender, and religious identity. To vote against extending the existing policies to cover LGBT etc. gives lie to the idea that the GOP has any respect at all for gays.

I love when a republican is asked about gay marriage, they always say some mamsy-pamsy thing about not being bigoted or homophobic. My point here is that by and large, the GOP thinks homosexuality is a sin, and that people who choose that lifestyle should live in shame. Their basic desire is for "don't ask, don't tell" to be the law of the land.

The problem is, for the most part the younger generation doesn't think that way at all. Almost everyone under 35 has an 'out' gay friend or two, and in general they see it as intrinsic to the person, not a 'choice' in the deeper sense. So they see this older attitude as deeply bigoted, and that's a huge turnoff.

It's going to be hard to get back to power with such low support from everyone born after 1975 or thereabouts,

By: cb55

cb55 — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:48:01 +0000

sinz54- I do not necessarily agree with you here. My opinion on this is that the Frums, and other moderates, want to expel social conservatives out of the coalition, because moderates are "embarassed" by them.

I think this is a stubborness on both sides. They both need each other on the national scale, yet they both want to kick each other out. But the simple fact is that both sides interests are based on limited federal government. Roe v Wade, federal courts making rulings on state marriage, etc go against the role of a limited federal government.

But some of this debate has been about Arlen Specter. Specter was not given the boot just because he is pro-choice. The last straw with Specter was that he supported the stimulus package, and was going to support Card check until he got a challenger. So not only was he not a "social conservative"- he was not a fiscal one either. Club for Growth is not a group based on social conservative principles. It is a fiscal conservative group. Yes, probably many of its members have social conservative stances, including Toomey. But their charter and what they promote is fiscal conservatism.

By: cb55

cb55 — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:34:36 +0000

KenMcCloud: I do not necessarily agree with your point on social conservatism and governmental conservatism.

First of all, some coalitions are just necessary. And in my opinion social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives need to find common ground. And they can- someone who is pro-choice, or someone who just does not really care about the issue, can still find common ground with social conservatism. As a "governmental conservatives" you should at least have the stance that the federal government should not be deciding what the abortion policy is for very state and community, whether you are pro-choice, pro-life, or just dont care.

You are right that a pro-choice or pro-life stance really has nothing to do with governmental or fiscal conservatism. But how those decisions and laws our made have everything to do with "governmental conservatism."

Now, there needs to be give and take from both groups. But if you are really some "governmental conservative" you should probably be more inclined to support federalism, and less inclined to want to allow the federal government to make those kind of decisions.

Hey, we might be voting on a different side of an issue in our state elections, but when it comes to the federal government, we should be on the same page.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:36:05 +0000

cb55: There is no room for social moderates, or their ideas, in the GOP anymore. This means those who aren’t animated by same-sex marriage, abortion, and premarital sex.The 1976 Platform acknowledged that there were differing views on these issues. The 2008 Platform does not. It takes a hard-right stance on all of them, without even acknowledging that those who disagree can still be proud Republicans.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:31:55 +0000

danbmil99: Many conservatives, such as myself, regard all so-called "hate crimes" legislation as politically correct statism.

If you murder someone, you should be tried and convicted of murder. It doesn't make your crime somehow worse because the person you murdered was a member of a Protected Class like blacks.

All human beings are created equal. But "hate crimes" laws suggest that some humans are more equal than others.

And we should explain that to the American people.