Here we are, a year after the RINO "leaders" vowed to "reboot" their party to broaden its appeal in light of a dispiriting election loss to President Obama. I'm sure you remember the so-called "Growth & Opportunity Project" report that was commissioned by the Republican National Committee after its chairman Reince Priebus said a post-mortem was needed within this bewildered party. The project concluded that the GOP had an empathy gap and a perception problem. Simply put --- Many voters, especially minorities, single women and the young --- seemed to view the RINO as a bunch of out-of-touch "stuffy old white men" and "wrongly thought Republicans did not like them." This perception needed to be changed, if the GOP was to survive as a viable political entity in the United States. Or as Gov. Bobby Jindal said --- the Republican party had to stop being the "stupid" party. In an attempt to change this image, the RNC authorized the use of $10 million to hire "outreach" staffers across the country in an attempt to change perceptions associated with the GOP. Well! Here we are again. Last week at the RNC's winter bash, it was clear that the panic that hit this party after the 2012 elections has raised its ugly head again. Simply put --- Contrary to what the Obamaphobic "deep thinkers" in the conservative media would have us "believe," the polls indicate that pledges to make the RINO party more attractive to single women, minorities and gays --- have made little if any headway on this issue. In fact, last week's meeting of the GOP "leaders" was an affirmation of the party's reluctance to change its core strategies for the 2014 mid-term elections, that is their opposition to abortion and an assault on the ACA --- seem to be at the top of their laundry list. Analysts seem to feel that the GOP platform will represent the most conservative elements in the party that's still plagued by infighting between the "teapublican" faction and the more pragmatic "establishment." It will be interesting to see if the Republican party can "bamboozle" the electorate with a "cosmetic touch-up."
Simply trying to deceive the American People with rhetoric isn't going to work. It requires a policy change and not a rhetoric change. It is ironic that Gov Bobby Jindal is quoted because when it comes to the "State of Women In America" Louisiana ranks 50th as the worst state for women in America. http://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../75188/mapping-the-state-of-women-in-america/ Americans, especially wornen and minorities, are not going to be baffled by BS and that's what the Republican Party is offering to America. Americans don't really care what a political party says but do care about what a political party does. The actions of the Republican party, not what the leaders say, is why support for the Republican Party has dropped to only 25% in America today and it continues to decline. To believe that the Republican Party can control the political destiny of America when only 25% of Americans support their agenda is rather silly at best. Republicans know that they are becoming the "Party of Irrelevance" and yet they continue to advocate the same political agenda that is making them irrelevant to politics in America today. They need to change their agenda, not their rhetoric, and they seem unlikely to do that anytime soon. They've assumed a Party Position of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with BS" and it really isn't going to float the Republican boat.
The Center for American Progress is a left wing public policy research and advocacy organization, it is left wing and not a libertarian view , I suspect there data is leaning way to left
Excellent commentary. When everything has been said, it's clear that the Republican party fails to understand that it's not their processes that have to change but, rather; their values and policies. It's also clear that too many House "teapublicans" live in districts that are "isolated" in naturally homogeneous areas or gerrymandered ghettos, so elected officials there rarely hear --- or see --- the great and growing diversity in the United States and the infusion of energy and ideas and art with which it enriches us. The question must be asked --- Why do so many insensitive comments come from the "teapublicans"? Could it be that their districts are dominated by narrow, single-issue, ideology-driven constituencies that see an ervr expanding "them" ("those people") who threaten the heritage of a slowly shrinking "us." Unfortunately, these districts produce representatives who are unaccountable to the confluence. Let me leave you with the following thought --- As "We the people . . ." have seen, the defensive mindset of the "teapublicans" runs counter to a country that is embracing change. So it's not surprising to see and hear these folks try to reverse this trend. What the "teapublicans" don't seem to understand, is the fact that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus was right (no pun intended), when he said " . . . the only thing constant is change . . . "
I left the GOP because I no longer want my best intentions for others imposed upon them by force of law. I left the GOP not because I largely disagree with them but because I no longer want what I agree with to be forced upon my equals. I have come to understand that nothing is so good that it should be imposed upon equals by force, and anything done by law is done by force. Unfortunately, the vast majority of what is done by force is the imposition of the best intentions of some upon others. In my opinion, such a benevolent arrogance should be reserved to God and the parents of small children. I am left to believe that the only justifiable use of force is that necessary to enforce mutual volition amoung equals.
I doubt it. All indications are their strategy isn't going to change. Mike Huckabee proves that point.
GOP may have to take some time off to re-focus their priorities and attitudes and principles. In the meantime everyone should take a hard look at the Tea Party. It looks verry, verry, good to me. (Why doesn't Lorne Michaels invite Garrett Morris back to SNL to revive Chico Escuela once in a while?)
I am a pro choice Republican. With that being said I feel compelled to comment on this notion. You mention two platforms that you feel dooms them electorally. The ACA....with approval ratings for this program that languish in the upper 30s, and a growing uncertainty amongst the electorate about how this affects them personally, I find it hard to fathom how this opposition could possibly hurt them amongst the electorate. In fact it is fairly universally accepted that Republicans are likely to gain seats in both the house and senate this November, largely as a result of backlash against the ACA. Abortion.... Yes, this issue polls slightly over 50% in favor of choice. With that being said, you still have to look at how passionately differing people view this issue. For some that think it is murder, this issue trumps all other issues, and is going to be the single one defining issue as to how they vote. For some on the other side, they passionately support abortion rights and it too is going to be the single most defining issue as to how they vote. For most though,myself included, their passion on this issue is lukewarm. They dont believe that anything is going to ever happen that makes abortion illegal in this country, and as such the issue is looked at as mostly rhetoric, and subsequently has no bearing on how they vote one way or the other. On balance, I would tend to believe that the crowd that passionately thinks it is murder, outnumbers the crowd that passionately worries that it will be made illegal. I would also say that the crowd that passionately thinks it is murder, might otherwise be far more likely to vote Democrat if not for this issue, than the reverse, where the rabid pro choice people tend to be rather staunchly leftist. Additionally, I think that gay marriage falls into a very similar category. Yes I am part of the over 50% crowd that now thinks that gays should be able to get married, but in truth the issue just isnt that important to me, that it would effect how I vote.
Following President Obama's State of the Union Address, "We the people . . . " were "entertained by the RINO party's Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers ("R" - Washington) stepford performance. Talk about tokenism. The "deep thinkers" in the Obamaphobic obstructionist "club" could not have done a worse job in selecting an "teapublican" to respond to the president's speech. McMorris Rogers used her Down Syndrome child as a prop, while vowing to tear down the ACA --- was a heartless gimmick in the face of the reality that the ACA guarantees people with pre-existing conditions access to health insurance. In fact, the ACA also guarantees pre-natal and infant coverage to all in the most affordable way possible by requiring that everyone pay into the system through their policies. Simply put --- It's clear that the RINO obliviots only care about children until they are born. No matter what Robert Costa says about McMorris Rogers' presentation, I thought it was at "best" condescending. There was no substance. What points she tried to make was geared to the RINOs base. I understand that these individuals are attempting to "win" back the female voters. Let it be suggested that McMorris Rogers content was woefully lacking and her delivery was not fitting a representative in Congress.
IMHO the current GOP has abandoned the core values. It seems that the RINO party can only "think" in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always "bad." Government is never "good." Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish their America. Terror suspects are terrorists. If you ask why I remain such a strong Obama supporter, it's because I see him as that rare individual able to withstand the zeal without becoming a zealot in response, and to overcome the recklessness of pure religious ideology with pragmatism, civility and reason. That's why the Obamaphobic obstructionists in Congress fear and loathe the president. Not because his policies are not theirs. But because his temperament is their nemesis.
Can we assume that "way to the left" means advocacy for the civil and ecomomic rights of the Person? If the criteria is civil and economic rights then I'd state that the ranking of the states is very accurate.
I read the links provided and it was distrubing to me to see that some of the criteria was based on things like funding of abortion clinics and birth control , I am all for them having their abortions and using BC but I am totally against the government paying for it. I f you give me some time I will reread it and link it !
The real problem for Republicans is that they're trying to convince people that screwing them is good for them. For example 75% of Hispanics voted Democrat in the last election and immigration reform is one of their top priorities. The House Republicans have just offered up their own Immigration Reform guidelines and it offends me as an American Citizen and there is no way on Earth that the Hispanic community is going to accept it. The Republicans are playing "in your face" politics with the Hispanics where they expect them to accept any BS the Republican put out there. It was this arrogant disregard of Hispanics that has convinced 3 out of 4 to oppose their agenda. The Republicans also want to reach out to the African-American vote where virtually all vote Democratic. So how do they do this? The pass unnecessary voter ID laws that impose a de facto poll tax and are nothing but 21st Century Jim Crow voting laws intended to suppress the African-American vote. Studies have shown that these laws will disenfranchise up to 5 million predominately poor African-Americans and, what's worse, they don't even address a problem because voter identification fraud at the polls is virtually non-existant in the United States. There are lots of forms of voter fraud but voter identification fraud isn't one to be concerned with. Voter registration fraud and duplicate voting are the only real concerns. Disenfranching millions of black Americans to prevent a few dozen cases of voter identification fraud at the polls is an absurd proposition. The want to appeal to women while attacking the Constitutionally protected Right of Women to have an abortion. They want to deny woman government birth control under the PPACA as an employee because the employer, usually a misogynistic male religious leader of the Catholic Church, doesn't believe women should use birth control. What happened to the Woman's Religious Rights where she believes that birth control is acceptable? Since when did we start imposing the religious beliefs of one person on another person? No, Republicans don't get it because they continue the same anti-Hispanic, anti-Black, and anti-Women actions that they've always engaged in and expect a simple change in the rhetoric to convince these groups to smile, to bend over, and take it in the rear. It isn't going to happen!!!
Abortion and birth control are legitimate medical procedures related to the health and welfare of the woman so why does our government deny funding for them when it funds other legitimate medical procedures?
Right now it does pay for it in many cases , in no way should they be responsible for it, personal responsiblity is the right of the individual , the links also had something like unconstitutional limits on abortion ? Who determines it is unconstitional?
Let it be said that so-called "social conservatives" in the RINO party tell us that they " . . . want to return to traditional American values . . . " this sounds good. Unfortunately, they are talking about a "mythical" GOP. In reality, the right-wing echo chamber breeds extremism, intimidates Republican moderates and misleads people into thinking that their values are broadly shared. That's the information bubble that tugs the entire Republican party to the right and that transforms people like Ted Cruz into a crusading Don Quixote. And that's why these so-called "social conservatives" are in the process of leading the party over the proverbial cliff. Or to put it another way, the primary purpose of these "social conservatives" is to provide tax breaks and other financial advantages (such as not regulating pollution and other socially costly externalities) to their wealthy donor base like the Koch "boys." And since these "social conservatives" loath to tell the general public in straightforward terms what their "real" vision for America is. It seems that the corporate owned media is not exactly forcing them to do so. Simply put --- People like Cruz and his base seem to operate with a sleight of hand --- "We're more American than that Kenyan socialist in the White House!" Or "The Obama administration is riddled with Muslim extremists." Or "Planned Parenthood is taxpayer-subsidized." Or "Obama wants to take away your guns." Stuff that is not terribly persuasive to well-informed people, but a lot of people are surprisingly ill-informed, and very few institutions --- like the corporate media least of all --- have any interest in their being well-informed. That's why so manty "social conservatives" tend to enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
And that's your right under our system of government. However, the way I see it, the real issue of abortion should not be used as a political football. It should be a personal decision. What the "pro-life" people don't seem to understand or admit is the fact that making abortion illegal will not end abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the "wealthy" will still be able to afford a doctor to do it or travel to another country, as they always have done in the past. Poor women would be left with risking their lives and health. Coercing a woman into having an abortion she doesn't want is always wrong, whether it is done by the woman's "partner," her family, or her government. This is why it's correct to use the expression "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion." "Anti-choice" advocates go beyond "anti-abortion." They call themselves "pro-life." But their myopic zeal has led them to "crusade" for rigid prohibitions against contraception and sex education. This only aggravates the problem more. "Pro-choice" supporters realize that it's always better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to have an abortion. As the old cliché goes --- "If you can't be good, be careful" still applies in our ever changing society. I'm sure the "pro-life" people realize that throughout history, most young people have had sex in their teens or early 20s. Here's a reality check --- This generation is no different even though marriage must be delayed for educational and/or economic reasons, sometimes past the age of 30. These are the facts of life today and they should be faced in a realistic manner. Unfortunately, organizations like the "Focus on the Family" continue to "preach" male domination over women's bodies. This belief is clearly an attempt to control something they don't really understand and as biology dictates --- will never belong to them. If the "Creator of life," wanted men to have a say in reproduction, I would venture to say that they'd probably be "equipped" for it. "We the people . . . " need to remember that neither legislation or court rulings will not resolve this issue.
you can assume whatever you'd like, but the "person" you are talking about certainly doesn't include every person. what it means is throwing the the liberties of some under the bus in order to maintain the fictions of egalitarianism and seeing to the welfare of those in need. it means placing the good of the collective ahead of the freedom of the individual and placing the entire thing in the hands of political animals. it means using the rhetoric of a false populism to sway a series of "protected minorities" into handing over their power, so that a ruling elite can tip the balance in their own favor. it means abandoning all responsibility and most choice and embracing the drone-like existence of a statist dupe.
On another (Libertarian) forum I've address this matter and this is a conclusion that is beyond any real reproach. A Person has the Right of Liberty which woul include the Right to be Discriminatory in the Person's actions and that could include "invidious" discrimination related to employment in a Free Market economy. By "invidious" discrimination I refer to that discrimination which serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise. Based upon a logical assumption that enterprise does it's best when the "best person for the job" is employed by the enterprise (hard to argue against) then "invidious" discrimination harms the enterprise in a Free Market and a less qualified person will often be hired due to invidious discrimination (often caused by individual prejudice). The Free Market suffers because of "invidious" discrimination as it serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise and and can only negatively effect the enterprise. But we do have the Inalienable Right of Liberty that would allow this invidious discrimination but there is a caveat. In many cases of Inalienable Rights we allow the imposition of an infringement upon our Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right if it serves a legitimate purpose. For example we have the Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech and Expression that is based upon the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person and yet we allow infringements upon the Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right of the Person. We prohibit a person from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (unless there's a actual fire) because it causes panic that results in harm to the persons in the theater. It is a legitimate purpose for limiting the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right of the Person. The Inalienable Right of the Person is not violated by prohibiting them from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater because they can stand out in the middle of the street and yell "fire" all they want to. Only their Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right in the theater is being limited and not the Inalienable Right itself. When it comes to invidious discrimination related to employment (i.e. serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise) then it is harmful to the person being discriminated against as well as being harmful to the Free Market that suffers because the "best person for the jog" is all to often denied the employment. As a Libertarian that advocates the Inalienable Rights of the Person I'm more than willing to allow pragmatic limitations upon my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Rights as a Person so long as it causes me no harm. I'm willing to allow a very small limitation on the Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty by a prohibition agianst invidious discrimination that serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise, which harms the Free Market, that would harm my own enterprise, and that harms the individual subjected to it because it causes me no harm. This limitation and does not infringe upon my Right of Liberty and it's inherent freedom to discriminate in other instances. I am not harmed by being prohibited from committing invidious discrimination in the Free Market so I will accept that very small and insignificant limitation upon my Freedom to Exericse my Inalienable Rights. It is literally no different than the limitiation on the Freedom of Speech that prohibits me from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. As a Person I actually benefit from this limitation to my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Rights. That's something the "racist" fails to understand. The Free Market, and even they as a Person, benefit by the prohibitions against invidious discrimination in a Free Market economy. The entire US economy would be far better off, benefiting everyone, if there wasn't racial or gender discrimination in the American economy and we would all benefit from that as Person and none of our Inalienable Rights are being violated by ending invidious discrimination that serves no purpose of enterprise and which is harmful to enterprise. Race and gender prejudice that results in economic discrimination harms everyone including the person with the prejudice.
