46 Comments

1. BPT (Australia):

When even liberal pollsters concede that there are more pro-lifers than pro-abortionists in America, the “moderate” argument seems insane. (I know where Newtown, a foreign Christian stood on life.)

May 16, 2009 - 12:46 am 2. JR Dogman:

Say Shaw,

What do you think of this: We should use the Federalism Amendment to put an end to the abortion debate. I’m pro-abortion, yet I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided; in fact I’d call it a disaster.

Me, I think the Federalism Amendment is a great idea. From gay marriage to abortion, it basically declares: let New York be New York, and Utah be Utah.

May 16, 2009 - 2:08 am 3. Delia:

Dayummmmmmmm. Newton was a hottie!

Uhm. Well, ya got me on the ‘abortion’ issue. Sorry, pally. I want to meet my maker without the blood of innocent babes on my hands. Government funded abortions puts blood on my hands and that ain’t cool.

Gubm’nt funded waterboarding of sleazy, slimey terrorists? Where do I sign up?!

May 16, 2009 - 3:52 am 4. Derek:

Really, security is currently the only glue that holds the business conservatives with the social conservatives. It took the war on terror to give Bush his popular vote majority. Mccain was the only one that found a middle with the social conservatives and business conservatives (while romney and huckabee polarized the two groups).

Prior to 9-11, the conservative coalition was dying (they had already ran against and beaten the initial thing that held the coalition together, big government) and really only won in 2000 by fluke. The security issue papered over the differences though. Business conservatives fell back on criticizing government spending and the social conservatives got to fight a new crusade with a president that was very sympathetic to their interests. When you’re out of power though, that paper thin cover is ripped away and the differences become amplified.

Now, eventually big government will be the problem again, and the conservative party will have a more cohesive unity. But that won’t happen for a long time. For all this doomsday talk about socialism and spending, how long did it take conservatives to recover from the new deal? even the great society didn’t produce immediate results. the GOP got nixon but Republicans didn’t take over a house of congress until 1980.

May 16, 2009 - 4:02 am 5. Bob:

While Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were all anti-abortion, this was not a priority of their administrations. At most, they sought to limit late-term (partial birth) abortions. Likewise, both Bill Clinton and BHO believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While Republicans may generally oppose gay marriage, so do a majority of many other groups that traditionally vote Democratic, such as blacks and Hispanics.

The biggest issue right now is the tremendous growth of government under Obama, “financed” by a projected $1.8 trillion dollar fiscal year 2010 deficit, with large deficits as far as the eye can see. In addition, although Medicare and Medicaid will go broke even sooner than previously predicted, BHO wants universal health care. He says this is to control costs, but providing health care for more people who can’t afford to pay for it themselves is incompatible with lower costs absent rationing of care. There is also the issue of strong national defense – the one area where the current administration has actually called for significantly decreased spending, abandoning major defense programs, etc.

Many Americans are duly concerned with these issues: (1) fiscal responsibility, (2) government accountability, (3) limits on government control of the economy, (4) keeping our country safe and (5) strong opposition to our enemies, particularly those radicals and terrorists that want to kill us. With Obama leading the charge in the opposite direction, Republicans should be able to mount a platform that sticks primarily to these issues, not abandoning its pro-life stand or other traditional values, but not making them the key issues. This is how Reagan, Bush I and Bush II won, and how Republicans can win in 2010 and beyond.

May 16, 2009 - 4:21 am 6. chris in Toronto:

It seems the author is pointing out the lack of morality in democrats, which is quite understandable given their acceptance, hook line and sinker, of moral equivalence and political correctness. Ultimately, the polity, riding in steerage, loses under such circumstances as the ship of state drifts, rudderless, through the stormy seas of shifting, often contradictory, single-issue debates, and crashes headlong into the iceberg of financial ruin.

May 16, 2009 - 4:41 am 7. Tolbert:

The greater question is this -

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Do we as conservatives sacrifice principal on the alter of pragmatism for a modicum of temporal power?

May 16, 2009 - 4:48 am 8. LeighB:

On the issue of rage, let’s see where we are on the rage and outrage scale a year from now. I am not sure what inflamed Dems so much during W’s presidency and when I ask my angry Dem friends, I don’t get a consistent answer. Some say it started with the 2000 recount. For some it was the overconfidence and then disappointment of the 2004 election. Some hated some of the president’s men, Rumsfeld’s name comes up a lot, as does Rove’s.

The people who are flying high with “our time, our man…we won” sentiments think the TEA parties are worth making fun of. Please, by all means, keep laughing and don’t pay attention. Really. Nothing to see here, move along.

Oh but wait. The rage is building and the outrage is in check for now. His Glibness is flying high and even gets a free pass for Air Force One flying low.

American Idol, the TV show, is almost over for this season and I hope the Prezzident stops his solo performances too. Helpful hints: Find your patriotism. Find some humility. Express gratitude to the troops who are serving this country. Just one day a week, please consider it is not all about you. Invite the other party over for talks and then listen. If they have a better idea, say so and then use it.

Or continue the path you are on. And then we’ll see if the TEA partiers can make a dent at the ballot box or whether we’ll be overmatched by ACORN and the MSM.

May 16, 2009 - 4:57 am 9. Terry Gain:

People like you Jazz, who consider the right to life a bugaboo, are welcome to partake in and support the party which upholds this principle. However,if you want to shove your pro choice (for the mother only) view down the throats of Republicans you will continue to get resistance.

You can always continue your support for the party that has no principles except acquiring and exercising power.

If this seems hyperbolic please deal with the fact that that party elected and is enraptured by a gross incompetent who voted for infanticide 4 times. Prove you are a moderate. Attack the extremists running the Democratic Party instead of attacking principled Republicans.

May 16, 2009 - 6:08 am 10. RE:

Democrats have a natural advantage in that their platform directly appeals to some very negative weaknesses in human nature: envy, sloth, lust, etc. Adopting a personal code of self reliance, accountability, and discipline appears to be a much more difficult and demanding path to a great many people, even though it produces a much more pleasant, comfortable, productive, and trouble-free life. It is easier for the immediate gratification crowd to take the path of least resistance and embrace the Left’s dishonest and sinister arguments that individuals are deliberately oppressed victims not responsible for their own condition.

May 16, 2009 - 6:35 am 11. sheesh:

States rights! (Unless it’s assisted suicide, then the US government should stop it!)

Who’s with me? Charlatans, mountebanks, con men and women, grifters, liars, cheats and swindlers – stand up to the evils of federal government when it’s convenient! Set aside your principles in favor of your real principles! And if someone challenges you, stand on those principles that suit you best at the moment!

Remember, you will be persecuted for your good works. They will say, “Hey, that’s not what you said yesterday!” and you must stand with tallness and vigor and loudly proclaim, “My god is a god of today! He has no interest in the past or the future! He is a force for good in the world as it is, was and will be – even though I just said he doesn’t care about the past or the future.”

Now is not the time for consistency. We must unite in our chaos – Republican and conservative, middle-aged and old, white and off-white, mad and angry, southern and deep southern, pistol and rifle, the godly and the holy.

Now is our time! This is the day! The revolution starts . . . right after Matlock.

May 16, 2009 - 6:59 am 12. scott:

Yep it’s pretty hard to beat the Sin Coalition when half the country no longer even believes sin is and half the other half aren’t really sure.

Evangelism is what we need here not more politics. No honestly moral person could vote for a race-baiting-late-term-abortion-proponent to be POTUS. Especially when he had just about zero qualifications for the job. About as ‘moral’ as putting a child behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer truck loaded with radio active waste.

It would be nice if the opposition could come up with a viable candidate however. It would also be nice if they could purge their party of crooks, liars and sell-outs.

May 16, 2009 - 7:36 am 13. David Thomson:

“Democrats have a natural advantage in that their platform directly appeals to some very negative weaknesses in human nature: envy, sloth, lust, etc.”

Democrats generally perceive the government as Santa Claus. They are easily conned into believing all the goodies can be paid for if only we tax Bill Gates and his friends a few dollars more. There is another group of people who is inclined to join the Democrats: major corporate leaders like Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric. They want to partner closely with the government to increase their wealth—and destroy their competitors In many respects, Immelt desires a fascist economy. The big secret is that conservative GOP members are the only true friends of small to mid-size businesses. Large government advocates particularly despise mom and pop companies.

May 16, 2009 - 7:42 am 14. Self-hating Boomer:

Hmm. Another way of saying this is that the Repubs are more like a nation, and the Demos are more like a a tribal union of clans. Just like in the clan system, for the Demos, the (interest) groups identity comes first, and the larger union is an arrangement of convenience. And just like in a nation, the Repubs all believe that their particular variant is the one, true national identity. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster.

In a nutshell, the advantage that accrues to the Demos is that they have no core principles worth fighting over. Occasionally there is friction between the clans (minorities resent gays, Blacks resent Hispanics, union whites hate everyone, etc.), but they do seem to know how to band together even when they can’t stand the guy next to them in the foxhole.

May 16, 2009 - 7:49 am 15. T. J. Babson:

The root of the problem is that people no longer believe Republicans stand for much of anything anymore and have lost the public’s trust.

I’m afraid they will wander in the wilderness until a new crop of leaders springs up that people feel they can trust.

May 16, 2009 - 8:05 am 16. Fred Beloit:

Very weighty, Mr./Ms Shaw. Very, very gravitasic. Newton, Planck, The Principia, yes, full of tons, really heavy.
But your heavy piece here is based on some faulty assumptions. It is based on a shaky foundation. As Obama now likes to say, we need to rebuild our foundation, or something equally obtuse but high of sentence (See T. S. Eliot).

First, one-issue voters, IMHO, are relatively rare. That’s why American voters can get by with basically two parties. To vote is to compromise a bit. But tell us please, shouldn’t those who think and act mostly like Democratics be Democratics? And, if not, why not? Why shouldn’t there be, you seem to ask, two parties for mostly Leftists?

Second, one of your unspoken assumptions is that being elected is an end in itself. There is only one major goal or good in being a politician and that is being in office. If I were a politician, I would seek that good. But I am not, so please don’t ask me to vote for someone just because he/she wants to be elected regardless of principles or party affiliation. Give me a reason why I should.

Second

May 16, 2009 - 8:20 am 17. Self-hating Boomer:

The big secret is that conservative GOP members are the only true friends of small to mid-size businesses.

Herein lies part of the problem. The converse of that statement is true; i.e. RINOs are likely to favor large corporations over small business, but the statement on its own has a flaw: social conservatives don’t care. Ron Paul (and no, I don’t support him, but that’s not the point here) could at least be counted upon to support an even economic playing field. Mike Huckabee, OTOH, doesn’t give a rat’s rear. The social conservatives may support free enterprise and a level playing field, but many don’t, and some (like Huckabee) are downright statist.

This is the kind of issue that the libertarian camp can’t compromise, because its a core definitional issue. The Huckabee types simply have to go. Period. You can get a broad agreement between social conservatives and libertarians on a lot of issues, but when you get someone like Huckabee who insists on peeing all over economic liberty, the difference just can’t be squared.

May 16, 2009 - 8:24 am 18. Bilgeman:

Mr. Shaw:
“The secret of its success,[The Democratic party] it should be noted, is that the various interests rarely contradict each other to the point where civil war erupts over the margins.”

The secret of their success is that they are absolutely immune to the strictures of logic, consistency, conscience and sanity which bind the rest of the human race.

This is how they can arrive at policies that decry the physician-attended waterboarding of known terrorists, an demonstarte against the execution of sociopathic convicted murderers while stridently endorsing the killing of infants.

This is how they can vote on authorizations for the use of military force, but be aghast at some of the scenes from the “war” that they authorized.

This is how they can pass laws that contribute directly to disease and famine in order to make a “better planet”.

This is how they demand tolerance for the belief system that is intolerant of tolerance.

If the Dems were a person, they’d be locked in a rubber room to watch cartoons and be afforded a single crayon to occupy their time with.

May 16, 2009 - 8:50 am 19. David Thomson:

“social conservatives don’t care.”

Social conservatives are often economically illiterate. Still, most of them are probably small business people. They merely haven’t realized that there is another good reason for them to be hostile toward Democrats and their “moderate” Republican allies. RINOs are inherently inclined to embrace fascist economic principles. Most of them would have felt right at home residing in Mussolini’s Italy and groveled at the feet of FDR. Far to many people think RINO are merely interested in advocating on behalf of left-wing cultural values. That’s just half of it. RINOs are also fascists to the core.

May 16, 2009 - 9:14 am 20. Ms. Attitude:

I’ve considered myself a Republican my entire adult life. But I’m reconsidering, I’ve become a voter without a party. I’ve been leaning lately towards the Libertarian Party.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I know abortion is a hot topic, I for one believe that it is murder, and what is needed is the medical community to come out show proof that the baby is alive and can suffer. Then it will be illegal. Most men agree with abortion because it gives them an excuse to be stupid in the sack! I’ll never understand how a woman who has ever felt the first flutter of an unborn child inside of her can support abortion.

In the area of gay marriage, I’ve met gay couples who make better partners than married couples. They would also make better parents! The ferderal government has no business defining marriage. Why are there laws about this anyway?

I am a Christian but I don’t want the government pushing my religion on anyone nor do I want another religion pushed on me. Creationism should be taught a long with all theories, heck, even the dadgum alien, planet x, theory. Let the parents stress their preference at home.

I think the Fair Tax is the way to go!

The government should be the government, not our mommy and daddy!

May 16, 2009 - 9:24 am 21. Cybergeezer:

With the cast of “characters” inhabiting this administration, it shows that American politics is becoming more like a supermarket tabloid in business model.
The Conservatives are just that: Conservatives, not characters nor intending to become characters of vogue.
Democrats are becoming more socially experimental or socially peripheral.
They seem to ignore history and will not accept any parallel between themselves and recent German, British, French, or Dutch societies.
(I guess this offends everyone; including myself).

May 16, 2009 - 9:44 am 22. Self-hating Boomer:

19, so we’re in general agreement. Just to be clear, the problem isn’t that the Huckabees of the world are too moderate, it’s that they’re ignorant and oblivious to the larger political theater because they’re so hyperfocused on their specific issues. And they share a basic fault with the left: moral vanity. Huckabee and Carter share more than a Southern accent. They’re both insufferable scolds.

May 16, 2009 - 10:35 am 23. geokstr:

One of the left’s coalition members will soon be confronting all the rest of them – Muslims. It will be interesting to see how gays, feminists, atheists, and other progressives react when they realize that Muslims really do want to kill them.

May 16, 2009 - 10:44 am 24. David Thomson:

The Jeffrey Immelts of the world are not explicitly fascist. As matter of fact, they most assuredly would accuse me of hyperbole, if not outright slander. And yet, their eagerness to collaborate with the political classes ultimately dooms them. These greedy and naive individuals will inevitably be compelled to embrace and support the political aims of the reigning regime—whether they like it or not.

May 16, 2009 - 10:49 am 25. john from cinncinatti:

the whole administration is a play and it is badly cast.

May 16, 2009 - 10:52 am 26. Steve:

I think the whole debate over moderates vs. conservatives in the Republican party is vastly overblown and most often is brought up by liberal democrats (I realize a few token self-proclaimed moderate Republicans working for liberal publications like the NY Times have mentioned it too.)

Four years ago Republicans were united and Democrats were the ones in disarray. Nothing fundamental to the electorate has changed since then. All it really takes is a reasonably strong leader to unite the party and make the factions put aside their differences. Bush even did it though he was despised by the left, as conservative (socially) and liberal (fiscally) as they come in Republicans. The current difficulties are mostly specific to Bush and will become less and less relevant over time.

May 16, 2009 - 11:04 am 27. Self-hating Boomer:

It will be interesting to see how gays, feminists, atheists, and other progressives react when they realize that Muslims really do want to kill them.

No need to wonder. Look at Europe. That’s how they’re going to react. And frankly, western feminists are doing their damnedest to recruit western men to islam.

May 16, 2009 - 11:17 am 28. David Thomson:

“I think the whole debate over moderates vs. conservatives in the Republican party is vastly overblown”

Some of it is legitimate—and some of it is the result of the propaganda efforts of George Soros and his buddies. They have done everything possible to encourage animosity between conservative and moderate Republicans. Leftist activists have been paid good money to even pretend they are Republicans upset by other GOP members. Many time we have been victimized by a “Moby.”

May 16, 2009 - 11:32 am 29. Self-hating Boomer:

Many time we have been victimized by a “Moby.”

Victimized? I think too many people here can’t resist the temptation, and scratch the mosquito bite. But “victimized”? They’re doing it to themselves.

Ignore the trolls and Mobys, and they have no power. And if you must respond, take a lesson from Iowahawk, and smother them with snark. They have no defense against well formulated snark.

But then again, snark is the martial art of debate, and Iowahawk is a black belt. Don’t attempt it if you have no sense of humor.

May 16, 2009 - 12:07 pm 30. Self-hating Boomer:

A better analogy might be the third law of political thermodynamics, to wit: “those who seek to destroy have entropy on their side”. Dear Leader is demonstrating that right now with his drunk sailor budget.

May 16, 2009 - 12:42 pm 31. D.D.Mao:

Democrats have a big tent? HMMMMMM how about asking pro-life Gov. Bob Casey of Penn. being turned down to speak at the Democrat convention or pro-war Sen.Joe Lieberman of Conn.

Big tent my butt!

May 16, 2009 - 3:42 pm 32. Houdini:

Why not this, a politician that states his views while at the same time states what his economical policies and views are, and morals are concerning that abortion should be left up to states, that gay marriage or any other matter concerning should be left to the states to enact or reject, and that the main function of government should and would be their priority to protect and defend the United States and its citizens from all enemies. Whose philosophy of promoting the general welfare of this country allow the opportunity to pursue happiness and in the process to acquire wealth that can be passed to their heirs without taxation.

Possibly someone that also states that he was not necessarily running for his position to be popular but to do what was right and for the country as a whole. Someone who will admit that while like the rest of us while imperfect, strives for it and wishes the best for all the country and not just a few. That has an upbeat attitude and thinks that all can do better if they attempt it and can even poke fun at themselves while jabbing the opponent with a little zinger (kind of like Ronald Reagan).

That is what we need again. A real leader that did what he thought was right and stood up and told the world “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

May 16, 2009 - 4:35 pm 33. billslayer:

I don’t care. I think you’re WAY over thinking this. Does anyone know what’s going to be on people minds in 2010? Barring some kind of game changer it will be an elephantine debt and a Nuclear Iran. Right now the only thing the republican party has going for it is exactly what the dems had going for them in the early party of the decade:they were simply not the guys looting the the national piggy bank and the majority party was. The dems are going to continue doing this bc is simply one of the grosser aspects of human nature. This cycle will continue until we force it to stop. I propose replacing the cynical old stooge Boehner with a real reformer like Jeff Flake. Thats how you stop this country’s decline.

May 16, 2009 - 5:32 pm 34. Phil Byler:

Reliance on the Melissa Clouthier column undermines this piece. Who are the “moderates” scolding social conservatives about how to win elections?

Don’t say Colin Powell because he’s no moderate and no Republican. After betraying Bush and Cheney by not telling them about Armitage being Novak’s source and letting his bosses get pilloried in the press about Plame, Powell endorsed and voted for a socialist Democrat over John McCain.

Don’t say John McCain because he is not whining, just compiling one of the more conservative voting records in Congress this year, voting against the confirmtion of Geithner, Kagan and Sibelius to their respective Obama Administration positions and voting against every Obama bailout and budget bill, publicly denouncing the latter as “generational theft.”

The problem with the Clouthier article and some conservatives is that they are spending way, way too much time attacking other Republicans when the attacks should be on Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans need to have a conservative message; work on that also. But this business whining about moderates is a distraction serving Obama and the Democrats.

May 16, 2009 - 6:00 pm 35. RE:

34. Phil Byler

OK then, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins all seem prone to compromising on our founding principles and growing government even bigger. For this, they should be in the doghouse.

May 16, 2009 - 7:33 pm 36. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Jazzzzzzzz, Jazzzzzzzz, Jazzzzzzzzz! Spoken like a true RINO. What a bunch of crap wrapped in scientific-philosophic pretentiousness.

May 16, 2009 - 10:26 pm 37. Phil Byler:

To RE: Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Susan Collins are certainly no conservatives and the Maine Senatorial liberal duo of Snowe and Collins deserve harsh criticism for making Obama’s budget possible. But Snowe, Schwarzenegger and Collins are not out there scolding social conservatives about how to win elections. Schwarzenegger has his hands full with California’s financial crisis, and you don’t hear much if anything from Snowe and Collins about anything. As to all three, though, conservatives should not waste time far better spent on attacking Obama and developing the conservative message.

Lindsey Graham is different because on many issues he is conservative and he is a defender of the military; he could not be elected from South Carolina otherwise. Graham was a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but so was George W. Bush. In any event, Graham is not out there scolding social conservatives. He has expressed concern about the GOP losing the Hispanic vote, but so what?

Consideration of your reference to Graham, Collins, Schwarzenegger and Snowe, then, only reinforces my point that some conservatives are spending way, way too much time attacking other Republicans when the attacks should be on Obama and the Democrats and when time needs to be spent on developing the conservative message that the GOP needs to deliver.

May 17, 2009 - 4:50 am 38. Fred Beloit:

“…way too much time attacking other Republicans when the attacks should be on Obama and the Democrats…”
Sorry, Mr Byler, I believe the evidence shows that most of those who comment here have proven that the vast majority of their “attacks” have been against the Social Democrats now in power.
What elicits these attacks of which you speak are articles like the one above by Mr/Ms Shaw that lecture us to support Republicans like Romney, who favor socialistic proposals instead of market forces to contain medical costs, or like McCain, who has his name on an anti-free speech bill that should have been declared unconstitutional. You have the right to support them, happy wishes for you, but don’t look to me to aid you. Let’s all turn Left, then we can be joyful Socialist Republicans together. “Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

First we get the money…then we get the power…then we get the women. (H/T Oliver Stone)

May 17, 2009 - 7:04 am 39. Aaron:

“If your major concern is the environment, the Democrats will provide you a comfortable home with many like-minded souls. But the key point is that there really isn’t a big pro-pollution group out there to oppose you.”

Right . . . As if the Greenies and the Unions aren’t in direct opposition on this. It was just personal difference that led John Dingell and Henry Waxman to competition for the chairmanship of the House Environment Committee, nothing at all to do with their respective constituencies.

The real difference between the parties is their basis: The Democrats are a party of identity (black, gay, jewish, female? It doesn’t matter what you believe, you belong in the Democratic Party). The GOP, on the other hand, is a party of ideology (if you have center-right views on most issues, you belong in the GOP).

Tree Huggers vs. Unions is only one point of contention. For another, look to Prop. 8 The Democrats have now decided to use the Mormons as convenient scape-goats, but in the early aftermath of the election, it was apparent that Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists. Are gay activists likely to be card-carrying members of the KKK? No (No member of any particular group is actually likely to be such, anyway), but they did use some language one might expect to hear from an Aryan Brother after they weren’t allowed to get hitched in Cali anymore.

May 17, 2009 - 11:36 am 40. Delia:

39. Aaron,

“Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists.”
~

Yeppers. That really messes with the Lib insanity when one ‘victim group’ punishes another ‘victim group’.

May 17, 2009 - 3:27 pm 41. G Alston:

#39 — …Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists.

Which is precisely why social issues belong at the state referendum level and not as a national party plank.

May 17, 2009 - 7:14 pm 42. JED:

Comparing science to politics is like comparing sanity to madness. Sanity can easily waste its energy in trying to analyze or predict chaos, when in effect it can only limit chaos in a relative way. Try Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for the prediction of the ever constant fatal flaw. That 3% can radically change the outcome of the entire equation.

May 18, 2009 - 9:41 am 43. WhyamInotsurprised?:

#39 Aaron – Post election analysis determined that blacks had a “high” voter turnout and was Pro-prop. 8? Sorry but this doesn’t jive with the fact that blacks are only 6.7% of California’s population.

(Seehttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html)

I know it is popular to credit blacks for everything these days but I doubt their capability to carry a statewide proposition so convincingly. Face it, “most people” are in favor of a traditional definition of marriage.

May 18, 2009 - 9:49 am 44. Pastor of Muppets:

20. Ms. Attitude: “I am a Christian but I don’t want the government pushing my religion on anyone nor do I want another religion pushed on me. Creationism should be taught a long with all theories, heck, even the dadgum alien, planet x, theory. Let the parents stress their preference at home.”

Sorry, but you don’t have a complete understanding of what a “theory” is, which is exactly what is part of the problem with non-scientists trying to influence science, especially science that is taught in school.

In the world of science, a “theory” is not just some guy’s idea of the truth; it is beyond just a hypothesis. A “theory” must stand up to scientific scrutiny in order to be named as such, and therefore a “theory” in the science world is held up to much higher standards than a “theory” in the layperson world. What you are attempting to do is change the language of science so as to give your idea of Creationism some merit, although it has earned none.

Evidence of evolution can be observed and reproduced in a lab. Creationism cannot.

The bigger picture here is that there are some ideas that are better than others, because some ideas actually have been generated by years and years of research, observation and testing before arrving at a conclusion. The actual theory of evolution has been observed and researched, whereas the hypothesis of Creationism has not been tested, nor can it be supported by any data.

To say that “all theories” should be presented is just wrong and shows how little you care about fact, science, and education. NO teacher should be allowed to present non-scientific, unprovable hypothesis as equal to a supported, provable scientific theory.

The right wing rails about the evils of a public school education, but sees nothing wrong with discrediting science in order to force religious views into the science classroom. It is an insult to science and robs our children of an education.

Once you begin teaching kids that any harebrained hypothesis has equal weight with obervable science, you may as well just not educate your kids at all, because you’re bascially telling them that there is no truth, that you can just make it up and let kids decide what they want to believe.

Don’t like atomic theory? That’s fine, you can just believe that our atoms are really made of up tiny heavenly cupcakes!

….but good luck getting into any molecular physics program at any accredited school spouting that crap.

May 18, 2009 - 10:13 am 45. Warren Bonesteel:

As a metaphor, think of our struggle
for liberty as the same struggle the
media has endured in the marketplace
of ideas. If we marginalize half of
the Americans who might ‘purchase’ our product and then insult most of the rest, we cannot expect to be successful. Left, right or center,
ideology attempts to define who should and should not be free. The
definition of ideology is that it is a socio-political program, that is, it is a form of group think. Socio-political programs and group think are not the foundations of a rational or freedom-loving society.

 The minute we think that there should be a law restricting what others may or may not do in the privacy of their own homes and with and on their own property, we have embraced tyranny. Regardless of our political party, our rationalizations or our excuses and reasonings, when we use the government to decide what others may or may not do with or on their own property, we have become tyrants.

For nearly one hundred years, as a people and as a nation, we’ve used
the government to engage in such tyranny over others and yet we are offended when the government we’ve
created is used to engage in tyranny over ourselves. That is irrational behavior. If we think the government is acting insanely or irrationally, we need only look in the mirror. We’ll see our government looking back at us – We the People…

To embrace ideology over the ideals of reason, and over those of freedom and liberty, is to embrace tyranny. This is why the Republicans have failed and will continue to do so. This is also why the Democrats will also fail – rather spectacularly, I might add.

May 19, 2009 - 12:30 pm 46. WhyamInotsurprised?:

#44 Master of Puppets – Don’t be such an intellectual bully. Ms. Attitude is just expressing her “opinion” which is valid even if she is not a scientist.

In fact, your definition of “theory” would have her believe that when you use the word “theory” that you are stating “fact.”

Below is the definition for “theory” that I found on Wikipedia:

“A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.”

The following is also stated:

Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are ‘rigorously tentative’, meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.

The key word used above is “tentative.” Theories are open to change over time based on new data. They are not fact but suppositions made on a set of observations, e.g. flat vs. round earth. (don’t nitpik, I know the earth is not really “round”), but you get my drift.

Beyond that, creationism is based on the Bible. Accepting the “theory” of creationism is, in the case of believers, an act of faith. It is belief in a God who created all. So as a liberal, your mind is made up … based on current theory. Gravity is a fact. Maybe someone will come up with a different explanation of what it is, but that, everyone accepts as not just theory but fact. Evolution is still open to dispute. But this argument will never be settled. Ms. Attitudes’ point is that there are still differing “theories” about how we came to be. You just don’t want to discuss it because it is a “religious” belief.

Did you know that while there are things in the Bible that have yet to be proven, or where contradiction may occur with current scientific thinking, nothing, and I mean nothing, has ever been disproved or shown to be inaccurate in the Bible. Over time, discovery and research has only augmented the documents veracity. There is more proof for the “reality” of the Bible than for Shakespeare’s works, original manuscripts, in the orginal Greek and Aramaic.

So don’t be angry and don’t be a bully. I know that is the liberal fallback position but it is very uncivil and you degrade yourself.

May 20, 2009 - 9:23 pm