Did you miss the “She said she did not support the repeal of the Texas sodomy law” part? She also told the Dallas Eagle Forum that she opposed employment and accomodations non-discrimiantion laws that protect people in with AIDS “and those perceived to have AIDS.”
Didn’t Bush admit that himself: “Some call you the elite; I call you my base”
It was supposed to be a joke, I know
Well, I guess it’s possible to say that gays should have the same civil rights as straights and still support the Texas sodomy law. (I’m pretty sure Texas banned both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, didn’t it?) I wasn’t aware of her comments to the Eagle Forum.
I think so . . . most “anti-sodomy” laws do . . . but remember, heterosexuals get to choose from a slightly longer menu; pretty much any kind of intimate contact two persons of the same sex can have would be defined as “sodomy” under such laws.
Exactly. It’s not the typical Republican vs Democrat partisan stuff. It’s not even the typical Moderate Republican vs Religious Right Republican stuff.
Ann Coulter hates Meirs because she’s not qualified, but she does think Miers is conservative:
Newt Gingrich thinks that Miers will be a good traditionalist conservative judge because he trusts Bush.
Peggy Noonan thinks that Bush made a mistake by picking Miers because she’s too unknown and it was bound to anger his conservative base.
Pat Buchanan thinks that Miers isn’t enough of a constructionist and was a cowardly choice.
I love this stuff. These people are all conservatives, but they all have different takes on Miers as Bush’s SCOTUS pick. If you read these columns in their entirety, it’s clear that there is a true debate of ideas going on. This is very healthy for the Republican party, IMO.
I know that in order to be effective the executive branch must all be pulling in the same direction so to speak. Every administration does this, and Bush has mastered it. That’s fine, but it also comes at a price. In picking loyal cronies and not allowing alternative viewpoints, Bush’s administration has developed a sort of tunnel vision. I’m glad that notable conservatives of all stripes are out there in the battleground of ideas hashing out all this stuff about Miers and other issues. I just hope Bush is paying attention. He still has time.
Er…huh?? There is nothing intrinsically opposite between Blacks and the Republican Party…in fact, I happen to know several black Republicans. I even know a few Hispanic Republicans (my dad for one). From what I could see more Blacks and Hispanics voted Republican in the last election than had in the past (could be wrong there…going on memory). Even if I am wrong there is still nothing inherent that prevents minorities from voting either Republican or Democrat (if we leave aside your class/race warfare stuff for a moment and don’t talk dialectic 
). You are making an assumption (blacks can’t/won’t vote Republican because it’s not in their best interest to do so) based on your world view.
The same can’t be said though for either the radical/socialist left or the religious right though. They really HAVE no place else to go unless they choose not to vote or throw their vote away to a third party.
-XT
You cannot seriously believe that the Democrats have moved too far to the left. If anything, they’ve gone right.
The one thing they can stop doing is giving money.
To address the popular notion the OP uses that there was a stable moderate Republican Party until Reagan allowed the Religious Right & various conservative factions to dominate it- I suggest reading William F. Buckley’s GETTING IT RIGHT -a novel set around the time of the Goldwater Campaign in which the GOP was up for grabs between the Rockefeller Establishment, the respectable National Review conservatives, the Ayn Randians & the John Birchers, as well as various subgroups & personality cults.
For me, the perception in the OP that the GOP is splitting up is based mostly on the novelty of hearing the debates over Ms. Meirs aired publicly. The GOP/Right has been very effective at maintaining close ranks and singing from one sheet of music. Whenever we see something that does not match that model, some perceive vast fissures and violent eruptions. I’m more inclined to agree that the internal debating indicates some maturity and certain kind of strength.
That said, it will take a lot of effort and inventiveness by the religious political leaders to convince their flock to hang tight if the Meirs situation doesn’t pan out for them exactly the way they would like. The potential for them waking up to being used is a true risk. Would they steer towards the Democrats? Unlikely. Would they count noses and figure they can create their own party? hmmmmmm
You’d think so, but surprisingly, no.
Texas Penal Code § 21.06. Still on the books and everything.
No, I am assuming that, since most African-Americans have voted Democrat at least since Roosevelt, they themselves have perceived it is in their best interest to do so.
Apart from that: Even today, most blacks are poor or working-poor (their median income is 55% of whites – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#Contemporary_issues). And I do know that the Republican agenda has nothing of value to offer to poor or working-poor people of any race. (Not that the Dems have much more, nowadays.)
Well, times are a changin…least thats what I hear. The Republicans certainly seem to be at least attempting to reach out to the minorities.
You know this, ehe? 
Leaving that aside, do you see the difference between the various minorities (or the poor) and what I was saying about the radical/socialist left and the religious right? While YOU may not think the Republicans have anything to offer the poor of any race (I could name several things, and so could you if you were being honest…hint, think about what poor people have in common besides being poor), the radical/socialist left has NO other choice…they will get absolutely nothing out of going Republican. Same goes for the religious right…while they may get lip service from the Republicans they’d get scorn or worse from the Democrats.
-XT
Hence Bush’s 2% post Katrina approval rating amongst blacks?
He’s doing a heck of a job! 
Well, there are two things there Squink…two distinct things if I may. Bush…and the Republican party. They aren’t the same thing…right? I think Bush’s approval rate among REPUBLICAN’S has dropped if you want to look at things closely.
-XT
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is pro-life.
To me it doesn’t seem like they’re coming apart so much as rediscovering their brains. No political movement can remain healthy when all its members are in lock-step. Monoculture leaves everyone susceptible to the same sorts of diseases. Some people are just waking up to the fact they don’t have to catch the same disease Bush has got. If anything, some dissent should rescue the party. If some wingnuts take their marbles home, so be it. The party, and by extension, the country, are a heck of a lot better off.
Did not Bush select the leader of the RNC, Ken Mehlman? Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager after all. Does not Mehlman rabidly support Bush by releasing a steady stream of pro-Bush talking points? Do many republicans not support Mehlman, the RNC, its efforts, and through them the president?
The latest polls suggest only a statistically insignificant decay in support for Bush among the republican base (from 85% to 84%). That’s more consistant with Bush being the republican party than with a party which exists despite having an unpopular head.
I am curious who you think makes up the Democratic party. Whoever it is, they got 48% of the vote last election. From your appraisal, I can only conclude that nearly half the country is far left wing socialists.
Since when? I’m thinking long term here.
The Democratic Party made a slight rightward tack with Bill Clinton. That doesn’t erase the forty plus years of leftward Democratic drift since Kennedy’s death, does it?