Bring it on! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Association between anti-abortion and family values isn’t really that weak; it may be rhetoric alone, but quite a few right to life proponents use the slogan “against abortion, FOR family.”
Stem cell research is unfortunately tied in to the abortion argument. I’m not saying it’s a rational argument, but it’s such an emotionally charged one that people manage to make a tie between the two.
anti-non-missionary-position sex. Well, that was stretching it, obviously, but sex outside of marriage, other than procreational, seems to be frowned on by our GOP counterparts, to the point that they fight to make sure the only type of sexual education received in schools is basically “don’t do it.”
I agree that “family values” is a nebulous stance; as I said, that’s what makes it so difficult to counter. How does one argue against family values? It’s practically impossible. It’s also amazing to me that people are credulous enough to consider it a good reason to vote for someone.
But Clinton got a blowjob, I tells ya! A blowjob!
Those of us who understand the concept of code words in politics aren’t hampered at all.
No, no. He lied about getting a blowjob. A far more serious crime because, as any upstanding citizen will tell you, men don’t lie about their sex lives. Ever. Especially not politicians.
As UncleBeer points out, the Dems are also given to statements about “family values”.
The larger problem is that there isn’t anything about “I support family values” + my kid got busted for dealing coke or underage drinking that leaves you open to charges of hypocrisy, while “I will run the most ethical Administration in history” + all the associated scandals makes you exempt.
Regards,
Shodan
[NewDrunkenBushMode]Them be fighting words, Whass we got left to send north, I want paratroopers in Montreal immedia… imediot… ASAP. [/NewDrunkenBushMode]
Bah. Suppose I claim that “diversity” is a code word meaning “pass laws mandating that jobs go to unqualified minorities instead of qualified members of non-protected classes.”
Naturally, then, I would say that everyone should disfavor diversity, because it’s wrong.
How can you possibly disprove my allegation about the meaning of the diversity code word?
What about the whole Dan Quayle disparagement of Murphy Brown (a fictional character, I might add) as single mom?
The GOP certainly pushes heterosexual, monogamous, 2 parent households as the gold standard for which to raise healthy, productive, law abiding citizens like themselves–despite facts like Cheyney’s daughter is gay, Reagan was divorced and not much of a father(from all accounts), Santorum (or was is Frist? or DeLay?-they all are so cookie cutter, down to the red ties they wear) is not home much at all to help rear his kids (read about it in either Time or Newsweek just this past week).
To me, “family values” is indeed code for the Cleaver family ideal-with Mom at home and Dad as HOH. It may not be written down, but that is message that is stressed.
Certainly, noone is going to argue that a strong relationship, sans addiction, with financial security (no matter the income level per se) and involved parents is NOT a great way to raise kids.
But the GOP doesn’t leave it at that. They raise up the standard whilst disparaging the alternatives. There are many, many kids who are raised in divorced homes who do quite fine in later life–ditto those with gay parents, adopted kids, step-kids, kids raised by grandparents, uncles, aunts etc. In fact, the alternatives are somehow faulted (that and the “liberal agenda”) as weakening the moral fabric of the country–whatever that may be. Look at the GOP’s scare tactics re gay marriage. I still have not heard one solid reason WHY letting gays marry weakens and threatens heteros. It makes no sense.
NONE of those “alternate lifestyles” are touted by the GOP as acceptable. This bothers me and makes me suspect an agenda–one that is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-other religions/lifestyles, and yes, even anti-minority. Nothing I’ve noted in the platform or commonly heard GOP speeches leads me to think otherwise.
IMO, the burden of proof is on those Republicans who protest that their party does indeed want to embrace that single Mom, that gay couple, that extended family who lives together etc.
I grew up in a community that is strongly Rep. The vast majority of wives(overwhelmingly college educated and beyond) do NOT work–they stay at home, no matter the age of their kids. That is a personal choice, and one that they are fortunate to have the financial wherewithall to have.
But, I can’t shake the notion that they assume that whither they go, so goest the nation and the world. It’s a bubble that they live in, an insular, almost incestous(culturally) bubble. It’s scary as hell, to me.
Now, now children!
I’m sure we can all agree that everybody in this Thread who posted before I did is a weenie.
Sure. The only intelluctually honest tactic is to recognize that a call for support of “family values” is nothing but the fallacy of equivocation. The honest analyst must weigh it by asking specifically what “family values” means in a specific context, and then address that proposal. If “family values” means that we should not support same-sex marriage, then we argue in favor of same-sex marriage, not against family values. If family values means against abortion, then you argue in favor of abortion rights, not against family values. And so forth.
You could *claim * whatever definition you like for any word, and this wouldn’t be the first time for you, either. Awareness of and respect for its actual generally-accepted meaning in common use is another matter, though.
One easy way would be by comparing your invented definition to the actual policies espoused and implemented by the party you ascribe it to. But then, in your example, you’d have to discuss your assumption (or is it a flat assertion?) that minorities aren’t qualified for jobs. You don’t really want to get into that, I trust.
For the specific examples I summarized of the meaning of “family values” as used by the Christian Right that controls the GOP, it’s no trouble to find such policies and positions for every single one, is it?
It might be easier for you, and more helpful to the board, to acknowledge what your guys are doing than to try to redefine it away with more of your customary verbal handwaving. But let me help you lower your partisan shields with a Democratic example, okay? The former mayor of Boston was reelected several times on a campaign platform of “protecting the neighborhoods, keeping the heighborhoods strong, the neighborhoods are the soul of Boston” and so forth. Sounds fine, doesn’t it? Who’s against neighborhoods? They’re the heart of Norman Rockwell America. But it was still code for “keeping the colored out of Southie”. That was no secret, especially in Southie. It worked fine. I trust you don’t want to invent a new definition of “neighborhood” that avoids that little problem.
I’ll take your word for this one, because I’m not familiar with Boston.
But I am familiar with the national scene.
And I stand by this analysis, although in light of Maureen’s commentary I might allow as how “MAYBE” is better than “NO” as regards stem cells. But you’re going to have to do something more specific than say “everyone knows it” if you want to convince me that “family values” is a code word for “anti-evolution” and “anti-non-missionary-position-sex.” Everyone doesn’t know it. You are making the claim; you provide the evidence.
The trouble is “intellectually honest tactics” has nothing to do with politics. Just an example: Politician X is running for some office in the heartland. His opponent happens to be gay (or divorced, or pro-choice etc.) Politician X can’t come out and say, my opponent is gay, so vote for me. But he doesn’t have to say that. He can stress “Family Values” in all his speechs and ads. The voters will know exactly what he is saying between the lines and X doesn’t even have to mention his opponent’s “shortcoming”. The vague (non-existent) definition of Family Values that you mentioned before makes it a valid tactic in any of a thousand races across the country. It has nothing to do with values but is a buzzword for whatever you can scare the public with regarding your opponent.
Give it up, Sparky.
Not only did he never go to jail (though he did go to Bangkok for a few Asian adventures later, including accepting $2 million by a company headed by Jiang Zemin’s son for “business analysis” services for a product he admitted knowing absolutely nothing about), but Daddy used his connections to have Silverado remain open 45 days to put off the closing and investigation until AFTER the election, costing its investors millions more in damages. Total scum.
[NDBM]We’ll use nuclear weapons![/NDMB]
Neil also deserted his wife and children to take up with his mother’s assistant. When he didn’t make the mortgage payments, they were almost evicted. Mommie & Daddy had to buy them a house to avoid their being in the street. Some family values!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Bushes are trash with cash.
Certainly not in this thread.
I think you reach a point eventually when being a slimeball backfires. If I mischaracterize everything my opponent does, pretty soon it becomes easy to discount whatever I say in advance. And pretty soon after that, people start to assume that my opponent has to have something on the ball, just because he has a shit bucket like me for an enemy.
Sometimes I read the SDMB for no other reason than to see what the lowest common denominator has to say. If some politician I never heard of can attract attacks from some of these ass clowns, there has to be something admirable about them.
Regards,
Shodan
You mean “libel is an actionable action.” Because libel is written, not spoken; and it’s not a matter for the police (unless we’re both reviving the Sedition Act), but rather for a civil case.
Absolutely.
FWIW, I think you’ve described a major reason that Clinton managed to beat the rap – people noticed how incessant his opposition was, and concluded they were protesting too much. I am not saying that everyone who expressed vociferous dissent from 1993-2001 was a shrill nut case. (Several of my oldest, closest friends have honest reasons to hate Clinton. Based on their adherence to their principles, I have no quarrel with them).
But a person who started referring to “America Held Hostage”*, and meticulously numbered the days from January 20, 2001 to the present would probably have helped re-elect Bush.
- As Rush Limbaugh did starting in 1993.