You mean we should abandon the position that homosexuals are human beings who deserve the same rights as heterosexuals because “The American public doesn’t want it?” That, to you. would show “inclusion?”
Should we have accepted that America once didn’t want to give black people the right to vote?
I do not hold my positions based on what America wants but on what is right. Americans are morons. Americans believe in ghosts and angels. Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Most Americans would not be able to find either Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, tell you what country they were in or correctly spell “Afghanistan.”
Every bit of civil rights legislation in the US has had to overcome a majority that resisted it.
If the incumbent powers are wrong, then they’re wrong and it would be equally wrong for those who are right to acceed to them.
We should be inclusive the say way the pubbies were when Clinton was in the whitehouse. You know, when they got a special prosecutor with an unlimted budget to investigate Whitewater and then just let him stay around after that panned out to drag Bill down. Pubbies love to work with us!
What some republicans just don’t get is that I don’t want to be included in ‘Putting God Back in the Classrooom’ or ‘Raping the Environment’ or ‘Invading contries becuase my daddy didn’t do it’ or ‘Protecting the rights of the unborn’ or ‘Defending Marriage’. There is not ONE high level Republican who is willing to compromise. GWB surely does not. If you are a Republican and you really want inclusion then tell that GWB, especially when he replaces Rehnquist.
Now gobear, I think that is a little harsh. I would amend your statement as follows:
Why bother? Let’s jump to the goal that the Pubs really want–a one-party state with a Bush as president for life.
This all about creating a dynasty, there is a factory somewhere churning out Bushes to rule for the next century. I am not sure they are particular about which one holds the job at any particular time.
There are some issues that are clear losers, and that lose states and seats for the Democrats.
Gun control is one. There seems to be a consensus that the American public has all the gun control they can stand. Pro-gun Democrats are often winners. Howard Dean proved that.
Another is welfare. Again, there’s a consensus that it should be used as a bridge to self-sufficiency. When Bill Clinton finally came to this view, it helped him politically.
There are more. If the Democrats identify them, and take these issues off the table, they will be on their way to winning again.
Self-sufficiency is a good idea but the system would have to be fixed first. As it stands, there are too many people who want to be self-sufficient but feel the bureaucracy of public assistance has them trapped.
What’s the incentive for me to be more inclusive if George W. Bush will spend the next four years being even more of a right-wing extremist than his last four years?
INCLUSIVE!!! :mad: Christonnacructh man, have your heard the GOP and it plans now that the Senate seems even more under their control? They plan on 4 years of entirely running the show their way, and completely ignoring the Dems.
Inclusive? Fuck, man, the Republicans don’t even want to work with other Republicans who don’t toe the party line. You think they’ll give two shits about the Dems?
So, uh, we should stop believing stuff and support all the same stuff you support, and you’ll let us join your reindeer games.
I’m sure you realize that if you abandon your platform to be like the other guy, that kind of ruins the point of having a political party in the first place.
