That's it, exactly, Steve. Karl Rowe, and others, conceived of a strategy for keeping the Republican Party in power by appealing to a wide set of "single-issue" voters, those who take the position that, "I don't care who it is, so long as he/she is, 1) pro-life; or, 2) anti-immigrant; or, 3) supports the right to bear arms; or, 4) is evangelical Christian; or, 5) consistently and persistently favors cutting taxes and government programs, etc., etc. The problem that this strategy has created for the party is that these positions must then be combined in a single candidate, who by taking these positions has already turned himself into something that will be a hard sell to the independent voters. _______________________ Here's a novel thought (I think!): stop focusing on the parties, and start focusing on the voters. Who are the voters the parties are trying appeal to? Let the winning party be the one that says, "Our core is the voter who is educated, thoughtful, cares about all our citizens, looks beyond single issues in making his/her choice for president, understands that this job requires the best and brightest, and must be someone who has dealt with complex issues over a long period of time in whatever field they have pursued, has finely developed skills as a leader and communicator, and has a good character." Let's judge the parties by the voters they try to appeal to: let the winning party be the one that tries to appeal to the best people our nation has produced. _______________________
The difficulty all of us are going to face in this election is to pick the lesser of the evils. Obama's constant giveaways and pandering to the entitlement crowd is going to bankrupt the US. Santorum comes across as a religious zealot who has lost touch with those of us who do not think the Bible has all the answers even when we don't know the question. Romney seems to be branded as a rich guy who doesn't understand the struggles of Americans. So where does that leave us? I think we need to take a look at what normally occurs in primaries. The candidate has to preach to the choir to get nominated by his or her party. Once they have the nomination then they tend to move to a more centrist position. I would hope that is what both Romney and Santorum will do. From the perspective of a business person, we cannot afford four more years of the nonsense of Obama. His ideas are beyond incompetent. He tells us the economy has improved, but yet he has extended unemployment benefits for almost two years. He has cut Social Security funding by half with his idiotic payroll tax cut in an effort to stimulate an economy which he is saying is improving. If it is improving then why do we need more stimulus? He tells us we have no inflation but gas is approaching $4 a gallon and diesel is getting up toward $5. Going to a grocery store is a constant $200 bite but we have no inflation. Quite frankly, I fear for my children and their children if we have to have four more years of stupidity.
Not a "states' rights" man, either It's too early to make predictions but the way things are going in the Republican primary the wheels will be off long before election day. Santorum continues destroying his candidacy by, day by day, revealing what he thinks on a wide variety of subjects, not all of which would fall within his responsibilities and powers as president. We assume he is for reducing the power and reach of the federal government; now, he's let us know he doesn't see much of a role for state governments, either. Take this set of recent comments, on education, for example. I'm surprised he leaves an opening for school districts, yet another agency of government. Perhaps he just hasn't yet applied the full force of his argument to the question, which would lead him to conclude that home schooling should be the option of choice: it is, I suspect, already the choice of many who would consider themselves his most ardent supporters.
rdubnpk And Christies reasoning was that it should be placed on the ballot and the majority rule. The problem with that is the majority may vote no on an issue that, should in all good conscience, be the law. At the time the Civil Rights laws were being passed, I believe the majority of Americans were, at least initially, against them. I may be wrong on that, but it would have darn sure been close. But, regardless, you see my point. Some things simply should by, any measure, be the law and could be thwarted by a majority vote. I personally don't care if you decide to marry a man or woman and the decision to care is strictly a MORAL one. And not allowing it is an infringement on the rights of an American on a RELIGIOUS basis. Shouldn't happen.
rdubnpk Are we really that bad? I think those in our country that every waking decision is governed by their religious beliefs are referred to as the religious right and/or the evangelicals. They are called that and identified by that nomenclature BECAUSE they are so far to the right of the main stream. That is why there is a big discussion about Santorums electability. Can he swing the independents who will ultimately decide the election because he is so far to the right.I think once his views are put under the microscope the answer becomes definitely no.
rdubnpk: Ah, I think Ive read about that in year 9 in school. Remember something about the "popular vote" regarding slavery. Had they voted, slavery wouldn't have been banned, at least not at that time. I agree with you: Somethings, like same sex marriage, should not be decided by popular vote.
Extremely important notion, not inherent in democracy, but based in a notion of unalterable human rights, it was partially embodied in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified by the states. Many today would do away with the thin protections to individual liberty contained in that now ancient document. Those who would base human rights on much older documents, of whatever origin (Santorum comes to mind), will not find the protections we have come to expect of our individual liberties; including, for example, a women's right to a voice in decisions being made about their destinies, one of which we now call the "right to vote" (not part of the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution until it was amended one-hundred and fifty years later: slaves got their rights seventy years before women as a class did). We often don't understand how very new these protections truly are: it wasn't until after WWII that the full panoply of human rights was finally articulated- as now contained in the more than fifty year old Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international treaties to which the U.S. is a party, as well as others, to which it is not, conceived in response to the horrific abuses of the Nazi era, and the Stalinist era- which go far beyond the Constitution in breadth and scope of protection of the rights of individuals. http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/hrphotos/declaration _eng.pdf I love the comments from potential voters about Santorum, whom they know little about at this point, "He's got a common touch [so I'm going to vote for him]." Independent voters will be less enamored of him as they get to know him better. He's already lost a majority of the independent women voters, as anyone would who based his concept of women's rights as narrowly as he does, primarily on what he thinks the Bible and the Catholic Church have to say on the subject. _________________________
Wow, I can't believe this one. How dare the people be allowed to vote on something when only the government knows what's best! My goodness, I thought Josef Stalin was gone, but I guess not. The last time I looked we were supposed to be in a democracy which means the will of the people. If the people don't want to legalize gay marriage then they should have that right. The thought that the government should dictate to us what they (whomever they may be) want and we should have no say is incredible. What if that same government wants to dictate what they think is correct to you? What if that is the government of a Rick Santorum? Should that be allowed? Apparently you feel that the government knows best when you agree with them, but what if you don't? Then should the people have a say? If we want gay marriage in NY then we should be allowed to legalize it but we should not have to have it shoved down our throats by a government that thinks it, and only it, knows what's best.
twinimini: Haha, Stalin? Wow.... Please know that my grandfather fought against him during the occupation of Finland. So, you think slavery should have kept going? What about the slogan "land of the free, home of the brave"? Would you adapt it after the limitations that apply if you happen to be of color, gay, non-Christian, etc.? My point was: The example of slavery - how much of a chance would the black slaves have had in a vote(in which themselves were NOT allowed to participate, obviously) where the clear majority was against banning slavery? Certain things, such as womens right to choose, same sex marriages etc, should be as simple as A, B, C... There shouldnt even be a discussion - its about the equal rights for all, right? Or does that only apply to heterosexual Christians? Having not read the US constitution, Im hoping it says something about equal rights for everyone. Certain things should always be voted on, but certain things are as clear as day. Why should some fanatic Bible pushers decide what love is to "Joe and Steven"? Have to run, but Im certainly excited as how you want to limit the rights for several groups of people, based on a 2000-something year old book. Ps. You put a nice spin on it, Ill give you that.
Rawkus, first off, I'm not opposed to gay marriage at all. I think it should be allowed and I have no problem with the concept. Actually I find most of the gays that I know seem to get along better with their partners than a lot of my heterosexual friends get along with their spouses. I'm also not a Bible thumper by any remote stretch of the imagination. You bring slavery into the mix, but remember that slavery was as much an economic issue as it was a human issue. As to voting, the original proposal of Thomas Jefferson was that voting would be limited to white men who owned property. Times change and our thoughts and atttitudes change. I'm more non-judgemental than my parents and my kids are more non-judgemental than I am. All things take time to change. The idea that only the government would know what's best is just totally beyond comprehension. That is particularly true with the incompetance we have in the White House right now. Like you Rawkus, I have to run and make some money so I can pay taxes so a lot of folks don't have to work! We will continue this thread later I hope.
