No, I was thinking more like the Taliban. 
Whatever you guys decide, we’re not taking them back. The Democratic Party has been shut of those guys for forty years and we LIKE it this way.
But without the Religious Right and the Lunatic Left, what would we have to separate us, issues? Even then, we’ll just end up sounding like a bunch of moderates and we all know how boring moderates are.
I would be happt to do away with the right altogether.
Like here.
This seemed to be worthy of a thread of its own; I’d been thinking of starting a thread on this anyway.
Just to make it clear, I was talking about the Duke/Sharpton/Falwell thing, as opposed to the question raised by the OP.
I think of myself as conservative-sympathizing, though I don’t know that I’m entitled to call myself a conservative.*
I do not know if the Republican party would be politically strengthened if it parted ways with the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Bauer. If such a thing is done, though, it should not be on the basis of religious belief, but of policy. If the Republican party cut out everybody who had religious beliefs against abortion and homosexuality, and gave voice to those beliefs, it could not possibly survive. But the Republicans could survive without the people who think they have the right to make those religious beliefs the foundation of national policy and law; that’s not to say the Republicans would be politically better off, but they could still compete.
Anyway, I do not believe that now is the time for the Republicans to decide this. This moment calls for national unity, not separation. Right now Republicans and Democrats need to focus on working with each other to defeat the terrorist threat; both parties can worry later about purging themselves of radicals.
*For those who wish to classify me, these are my credentials to be called a conservative: pro-2nd Amendment, anti-affirmative action, in favor of strong defense, prefer starkly limited social spending, in favor of low taxes at all income levels, prefer limited environmental protections enforced more by the states and the judicial system than by the federal government and the executive branch, favor reduction in both military and economic foreign aid, and cast about 8 Republican votes for every 2 Democratic votes. I leave it to you to determine if I can still be conservative as an atheist, a hesitant pro-choicer, and a supporter of equal rights under the law, including marriage, for gays.
Boy, this is the second time today I’ve tried to quote two messages. What fun!
And you intend to accomplish this exactly how? Loyalty tests? Pledges saying, “I will never say a good word about Falwell or Robertson?” Truth squads that kick anyone out of the Republican party that disagrees with you?
Now that’s a nice, conservative solution.
Sorry, you are not the king of the world — or even the party. Anyone who wants to play, can. If your friends cannot understand one of the basic facts of politics — that a party is a big thing and that people who disagree on some very important issues can nevertheless agree with each other on a sufficient number of issues that they come together for mutual benefit — then I suggest you either educate them, or reserve your political discussions for grown-ups.
Oh yes, do that. Splinter the Republican party into ten or twelve smaller ones. The Democrats will come and kiss your hairy cheek and call you blessed, even Saint. The Republicans will cease to exist as any kind of effective political force, and Democrats will rule the earth (or at least the US).
The reason that parties come together, even when members disagree on basic issues, is that they can form enough common ground to get things done in the common area. When the area outside that common ground grows so large as to offend your personal integrity, leave. But the major parties are where things get decided, and where the real political power lies.
The way around this is to join one of the parties, band together with like minded individuals within the party, and start to influence things. What you seem to think should happen overall, outside the parties, happens within the parties. Primary battles, committees, platform struggles, funding drives — all of these are the tools. But you have to get in the game to play. Kibitzers can kibitz, but not effect things.
Sooner or later it all comes down to getting your people elected. I thought about joining the Libertarian party — Virginia has a large branch. Then I saw how effective they were, and decided to dedicate my effort elsewhere.
By all means, start your own party. Take over a small one if you like, as Pat Buchanan did last election. Play in your own sandbox. Have fun. But don’t expect to have a real big effect on the world.
It would be political suicide to cut off the religous right from the Republican party. Each party is energized by its most fervent adherents. A political party guts are those in it most motivated to help. For a political party to succeed it needs a base of people willing to do the grunt work of politics, manning phone banks, stuffing envelopes, and going door to door. These people are motivated by ideology and if a party loses its ideological edge it loses its guts. Think of how many thousands the “march for life” draws each year versus how many the “march for indexing capital tax rates to inflation” draws.
I understand that many in the GOP are uncomfortable with the religous right because they are NOTD but they must decide whether it is more important to win elections and serve our country or feel less awkward at cocktail parties.
NaSultainne a couple of things:
Try a history book start with teh Crusades continue through the Taliban and cone back with a report.
Gaudere gave one, I van add more if you like. For just about all but three, I can think of a several reasons why a person would object to it.
This never fails to amaze me. Briefly, morality and religion are not conditional on each other.
pldennison you wrote:
Didn’t we have this arguement a few months ago? You can state that as many times as you’d like but that won’t make it true. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Not really. Why do you think so?
There’s a difference between influence and control, as I’m sure you know. There’s also a difference between many state-level parties and their national counterparts. Or did you intend that comment as a straw bogeyman?
On what do you base your perception of the influence in the (huge) community of black voters?
Nice use of code words there: Traditional, values, heartland. Good old Republicans, the true Americans, huh?
Sheesh. This thread started with an OP request not to get into partisan bashing. Nice going, pal.
Um, because they aren’t the same person, nor are they spelled alike.
OK, then explain why Jackson is always invited to speak at the Democratic conventions, and explain why you don’t think there would be any fallout in national elections if he was not invited to do so.
Don’t put words in my mouth, kiddo. In fact, to paraphrase Harvey Keitel, if you even dream about putting words in my mouth, you’d better wake up and apologize. I use the terms “traditional-values folks” in the most sarcastic and ironic of ways.
And, for your edification, I am going to explain this to you for the 10,000th time, so that perhaps it will sink in for once:
I have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life. I have never been a member of the Republican Party. Except for the most recent Presidential election, I have always voted for the Democratic candidate. I always vote for Democrats at the state and local levels, except in the rare cases where I vote for independents.
Do you get it yet, or do you need it in writing.
Er . . . if anyone got into partisan bashing, it’s you, since I specifically mentioned prominent but loony elements from both parties that it is nevertheless dangerous for them to declaim. You, in return, accused me of thinking that Republicans were the only true Americans.
Really, are you ever going to get past debating in this manner, or is it something pathological, or is English not your first language, or what?
Not this Time
Put up or shut up!
You made a claim, back it up pldennison
You can make all the if/then equations you like, but I’m asking for facts like:
A petition form at least 51% of Black Americans saying they’ll bolt the democratic party if it disassociates itself form Jackson.
A similar letter regarding the DNC
A poll citing near unanimous support for JJ and Sharpton among AA and or the DNC.
You know a cite of some kind to back your absolutely unequivocal opinion.
Or a retraction of your statement.
I’ll be waiting.
Gee, that should be real easy to come by. Can I have a few months to collect signatures? And since 100% of Black Americans are not members of the Democratic Party, can I limit it only to Black Democrats? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: again. I can’t imagine that anyone seriously questions that for the Democrats to disassociate from Jesse Jackson would be political suicide among a huge proportion of their core of urban black voters, but I’ll get you some information just as soon as I’m inclined to do some research.
I mean really, folks, is this a matter of some controversy–that the Democrats have to court Jackson or risk losing a lot of black votes (not to the opposing candidate, but losing them period)? Am I out on a limb with this?
I can’t imagine why you’re using smilies. I mean you’re absolutely sure you’re right, so you must have some access to information that leads you to believe that your opinion is the correct one.
It seems to me that these arguments in GD require citation to back up suppositions. Otherwise it belongs in IMHO. I mean really folks, isn’t that how we do things here?
So for the third time:
Cite support for your statement or retract it.
I’m sure you can’t. I mean, demanding the kind of proof that neither I nor any other living human being could possibly be in possession of – who could roll their eyes at that?
Pardon me, but did I not just say, " . . . I’ll get you some information just as soon as I’m inclined to do some research"? I’m pretty sure I did. checks above Yep, I did. Wow. I mean, if you’re going to stay glued to the SD waiting, you’re going to get very hungry. Perhaps you keep everything you’ve ever seen or read on a small shelf by your computer (and I suspect it would probably fit on a small shelf), but I do not.
Hey, if it turns out I’m wrong – if the DNC is not worried about losing black votes, and instead keeps inviting Jesse to speak at every convention just for shits and giggles – I’ll happily retract it. But I’m not going to retract it just because you don’t like it, that’s for damn sure.
well stuffinb did ask for one type of evidence that can be found, Percentage of black americans who support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. This:http://www.bampac.org/polldata/2001/Interview.pdf is a poll of black americans on politics and it found Jesse Jackson was the most popular Black politician amoung black people with an 83% favorable rating and a 12% unfavorable rating. Al Sharpton is the third most popular black politician with 54% and 16% favorable/unfoavorable ratings.
83% is not unanimous but it is very popular.
In other words you can’t back up that statement.
Your feigned outrage doesn’t impress me. See puddleglums response after yours. See that’s a citation. Although I wonder about it’s methodology not having looked at it yet.
Anyhoo, I’ll keep looking for this thread to be bumped, though I won’t hold my breath.
puddleglumI can’t get the webpage you mentioned to come up, can you direct me to the main page of that website?
I do have acrobat btw.
Look, son, if you want to pick a fight with me, there’s a forum for that sort of thing, and I will gladly meet you there whenever you want. Start a thread, and I’ll be there.
In the meantime, I’m not quite certain who you suppose you are that you can demand I drop everything and conduct research rightnowgoddamnit, but whoever it is, I assure you you are wrong. It is a wide, wide gulf from “have not looked anything up yet” to “cannot defend your statement.” When I get to it, I’ll get to it, and rest assured you will be the first person I notify whatever the outcome. Can I have your home phone number, so you can absolutely be the first to know?
BTW, I am neither experiencing nor feigning outrage. You, I’m afraid, are hardly worth the expenditure of energy for either.
The article I tried to link to is in pdf format, but if you plug the url into google they can do a text translation of it. I found other polls that had higher approval ratings for Jesse Jackson but that study included Sharpton and includes verbatim the questions asked.
Well excuse me!
I have seen the request for cites in virtually every debate in Great Debates. Why my request should be treated with scorn is unfathomable.
You keep coming back without answers, not I. The fact that I keep repeating it, is in direct response to your continual post expressing surprise that someone would ask you to back up a statement in GD with a cite.
My e-mail address is in my profile; a phone call is quite unnecessary.