I <3 Huckabee

[drone]

Social conservatives tend to be religious - but not one religion. The want the government to primarily stay out of their lives (school indoctrination, pressure on churches, political correctness on holidays, etc)

I tend to think the opposite is true. Social conservatives tend to be religious, and want the government to legislate their views on the rest of the populace. Using abortion as an example, social conservatives want it banned for everyone. If they don't like intrusive government, why can't they just not get abortions and leave everyone else to make their own moral decisions? Are they worried about their faith and commitment, and want things made illegal so they aren't tempted? Or do they just want to stick their noses into everyone else's business? My guess is that it is the last.

Libertarianism is a sensible coalition - look at Ron Paul for example. He is adamantly pro-life.

The difference here is that Ron Paul will not try to ban abortions nationwide. He is pro-life, but believes the decisions are better made at the local levels. Don't confuse his personal beliefs with how he thinks the government should be run. Libertarianism is at direct odds with social conservatism. It's basically "you go to (or avoid) hell your way, I'll go (or avoid) mine".

Basically, both of the two parties want your money (and thus more power as BG states). Social conservatives hijacked the GOP to legislate morality, while the tax-and-spend Dems try to redistribute wealth (I guess, I'm not really sure about what they are trying to do with it ).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I tend to think the opposite is true. Social conservatives tend to be religious, and want the government to legislate their views on the rest of the populace. Using abortion as an example, social conservatives want it banned for everyone. If they don't like intrusive government, why can't they just not get abortions and leave everyone else to make their own moral decisions? Are they worried about their faith and commitment, and want things made illegal so they aren't tempted? Or do they just want to stick their noses into everyone else's business? My guess is that it is the last.

First: I want to point out that your broad generalizations are just that.

Second: I don't know of a state in the U.S. where murder is legal (aside from Abortion or Capital punishment). Why couldn't the Federal government allow states to decide on the issue of slavery? Because lives were being destroyed, stripped of value as human beings.

But I concede that it could have been left to the states in that instance. I would be content if that were the case with abortion. Alas, it is not because there is a weak supreme court ruling backing a ban on democratic federal or state legislation.

The difference here is that Ron Paul will not try to ban abortions nationwide. He is pro-life, but believes the decisions are better made at the local levels. Don't confuse his personal beliefs with how he thinks the government should be run. Libertarianism is at direct odds with social conservatism. It's basically "you go to (or avoid) hell your way, I'll go (or avoid) mine".

It isn't at odds. Some aspects are, but it depends on your definition of "conservative". Which values are you seeking to conserve and why? In Ron Paul's case he is primarily trying to conserve the ideas put forward in the constitution. That is why he is a foe of abortion and a massive Federal government (notice that I said federal). In my case it is the same thing - but I am also concerned with the state level. My opinions on federal government are very different from my opinions on State government. Many pro-lifers are saying "stop the government from allowing people to kill other people without legal consequence" because it strips human beings of their rights as established in the constitution. (please don't say that they are not citizens - they are clearly the offspring of citizens which is a qualifier)

Basically, both of the two parties want your money (and thus more power as BG states). Social conservatives hijacked the GOP to legislate morality, while the tax-and-spend Dems try to redistribute wealth (I guess, I'm not really sure about what they are trying to do with it ).

Your first statement is rhetorical and doesn't clearly define how Republicans want your money (I'm not saying that they don't here, just that you failed to make the point)

If social conservatives have "Hijacked" the G.O.P. then the social left has "Hijacked" the Democratic party. This is the reality in a 2 party system where 2 schools of thought are strongly at odds - they gravitate to one party or the other (with exception).

[drone]

First: I want to point out that your broad generalizations are just that.

Second: I don't know of a state in the U.S. where murder is legal (aside from Abortion or Capital punishment). Why couldn't the Federal government allow states to decide on the issue of slavery? Because lives were being destroyed, stripped of value as human beings.

But I concede that it could have been left to the states in that instance. I would be content if that were the case with abortion. Alas, it is not because there is a weak supreme court ruling backing a ban on democratic federal or state legislation.

Your belief is that abortion is murder. There are people who do not share that view. Neither side can prove their viewpoint as correct. By attempting to ban abortion, social conservatives are pushing their morals on the rest of the populace.

Let's not turn this into an abortion thread, so other shining examples of social conservatism: the temperance movement, drug laws, sodomy laws, censorship, and basically anything that usually is accompanied with "think of the children" cries.

It isn't at odds. Some aspects are, but it depends on your definition of "conservative". Which values are you seeking to conserve and why? In Ron Paul's case he is primarily trying to conserve the ideas put forward in the constitution. That is why he is a foe of abortion and a massive Federal government (notice that I said federal). In my case it is the same thing - but I am also concerned with the state level. My opinions on federal government are very different from my opinions on State government. Many pro-lifers are saying "stop the government from allowing people to kill other people without legal consequence" because it strips human beings of their rights as established in the constitution. (please don't say that they are not citizens - they are clearly the offspring of citizens which is a qualifier)

Again, you are making the assumption that an embryo/fetus is a person, both legally (and spiritually if you will). Not everyone agrees. Dr. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN, his experiences have lead him to be pro-life. You seem to be attributing his love of the Constitution to his pro-life stance, which I don't believe is the case.

Your first statement is rhetorical and doesn't clearly define how Republicans want your money (I'm not saying that they don't here, just that you failed to make the point)

If social conservatives have "Hijacked" the G.O.P. then the social left has "Hijacked" the Democratic party. This is the reality in a 2 party system where 2 schools of thought are strongly at odds - they gravitate to one party or the other (with exception).

GOP money-grabs: Legislating morality takes money for enforcement, this is where the social conservatives get their hands in your wallet. Country Club Republicans get your money through legislation favoring corporations. Neo-cons get it by starting illegal wars and raiding the treasury. Fiscal conservatives don't want your money, but nobody listens to them these days.

And I wouldn't say the social left has hijacked the Democratic party. The Democratic party is a coalition of many vastly different viewpoints, which generally explains why they can't get anything accomplished.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Democratic party is a coalition of many vastly different viewpoints, which generally explains why they can't get anything accomplished.

I find it hard to believe that you can write that in good faith and not believe it about the Republican party.

The democrats have seemed to find a candidate in record time. A simple realization of this tells me that there is more homogeneity in the party leadership than of the dems in the G.O.P.

But still it isn't true. Both parties have very different viewpoints within them. To not realize that is odd.




Aside - Do you believe in forcing the taxpayer to fund abortions for the poor through a socialized medical plan?

You speak of us placing "Bans", yet you don't realize that the "Ban" on democratic dialog under Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton is truely oppressive. Not only to nearly 50 percent of the population. (not counting those whoe don't realized that it is used primarily as birth control) but to the children that they seek to defend.

I would love to see the practice largely ended for reasons of convenience, but I would be content to at least have a say in the issue on a government level.

[AntiochusIII]

Oh please, Tuff. Don't try to excuse the social conservatives. They want to do what they want to do and no matter how much you say they don't want to do what they want to do it will change nothing.

They want to legislate morality and that's how it is. Good or bad your opinion of course.

The Reagan coalition is an unlikely one designed to bring down the New Deal-Civil Activists coalition from the Left. It succeeded.

I wouldn't mind a realignment too much quite frankly. I can largely understand and accept the position of the fiscal conservatives while on the other hand diametrically opposed to everything social conservatives stand for. If Huckabee wants the social conservatives for himself, good for him and good riddance. I can find much more common ground with Don Corleone than I ever could with Jerry Falwell.

[drone]

I find it hard to believe that you can write that in good faith and not believe it about the Republican party.

The democrats have seemed to find a candidate in record time. A simple realization of this tells me that there is more homogeneity in the party leadership than of the dems in the G.O.P.

But still it isn't true. Both parties have very different viewpoints within them. To not realize that is odd.

I believe I listed 4 different viewpoints within the GOP in my post. The party is more organized, and the usual party platform (even if it is full of lies) may be more palatable than the schizophrenia of the Democratic party. There tends to be more overlap in the beliefs and values. Most Republicans can at least be civil to each other, certain demographics of the Democratic party despise one another. They have turned into the catch-all party of the two party system. The GOP would be wise to recognize this, if one intra-party faction gets too powerful they may drive more members into the Democrats' clutches.

And the Dems haven't found a candidate yet, they have the results of one state's caucus. As much as I have railed against the unfairness of the spread out primary/caucus season, winning one small state does not mean it's over yet.

Aside - Do you believe in forcing the taxpayer to fund abortions for the poor through a socialized medical plan?

No, but that really doesn't have anything to do with my views on abortion. More on my views on federal powers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most Republicans can at least be civil to each other, certain demographics of the Democratic party despise one another. They have turned into the catch-all party of the two party system. The GOP would be wise to recognize this, if one intra-party faction gets too powerful they may drive more members into the Democrats' clutches.

THANK YOU - that is the point that I was trying to make and, I believe, the point of the article!

It isn't that we don't have differences, it is just that we have struck a well founded balance that I believe to be threatened.

[drone]

THANK YOU - that is the point that I was trying to make and, I believe, the point of the article!

The article is saying that, but I couldn't let the "They want the government to primarily stay out of their lives" bit go without comment. They want that, but only if the government can force everyone else to live like they do.

It isn't that we don't have differences, it is just that we have struck a well founded balance that I believe to be threatened.

But this party harmony is not going to last long anyway. Many social conservatives are fed up with the GOP's inability (or unwillingness) to push their agenda through, while the rest of the party is struggling with the conundrum of punting them completely to make the GOP seem more sane without losing the votes. The fiscal conservatives are fed up with the deficits the party seems unwilling to control when in power. The only guys happy are the Country Club Republicans, who have their tax breaks, are making money hand over fist, and pull the strings on the Democrats as well. Of course, they generally win regardless, but that's the game.

[Papewaio]

If social conservatives have "Hijacked" the G.O.P. then the social left has "Hijacked" the Democratic party. This is the reality in a 2 party system where 2 schools of thought are strongly at odds - they gravitate to one party or the other (with exception).

The 2 parties are from an external perspective very close. They are fighting for votes so they have to appeal to the middle and not alienate their core.

The 2 party system itself is a function of the voting system. If you want to change that dichotomy you will need to a use a different voting methodology.

[KukriKhan]

The 2 parties are from an external perspective very close. They are fighting for votes so they have to appeal to the middle and not alienate their core.

The 2 party system itself is a function of the voting system. If you want to change that dichotomy you will need to a use a different voting methodology.

As how one is paid largely determines how one works (how hard, for how long, with what priorities),

The 2 party system itself is a function of the voting system. If you want to change that dichotomy you will need to a use a different voting methodology

is a truth the US won't examine (again) until some scandal erupts - and certainly not in the middle this round of horserace.

Still, despite crying in the wilderness, your truth-talk is noted.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sure. The Republicans and Dems could fragment if the focus groups weren't so small. In the U.S., you have alot of specialization. People with 1 plan for one or two things. They can't hope to run a government that way, so they need to form coalitions and hopefully form a common policy.

Right now you are starting to see libertarians break away due to the increasing big government positions of the G.O.P. - Much smaller and less powerful, but still possibly effective in the future. The Liberal Dems in the UK is a similar example of a third party that (after it's huge fall from major UK politics due to a Labour sweep) was a small party that has gradually grown into a nearly viable political entity again.

[Odin]

Right now you are starting to see libertarians break away due to the increasing big government positions of the G.O.P. - Much smaller and less powerful, but still possibly effective in the future. The Liberal Dems in the UK is a similar example of a third party that (after it's huge fall from major UK politics due to a Labour sweep) was a small party that has gradually grown into a nearly viable political entity again.

Very good example Tuff.