Republicans take first steps toward ruining their party

[Daniel]

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader saysStory Highlights
Family Research Council official says conservatives always beat moderates

GOP should champion conservative values like those of Ronald Reagan, he says


(CNN) -- A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles.


Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says the GOP must return to conservative principles.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.

Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.

"There was clearly no mandate to shift the country to the left on social issues," Perkins said. "What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view." Watch what went wrong in the McCain campaign »

Perkins' comments come after a post-election conservative conclave met at an undisclosed location in northern Virginia on Thursday.

Don't Miss
GOP faces identity crisis in months ahead
Pelosi: Obama should govern from the middle
Palin camp fires back at McCain aides' sniping
One of the prominent conservatives who attended the meeting, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, said the group's goal was to rebuild the conservative movement in all 50 states.

"There's no one leader. There are many leaders," Norquist said. "One of the things that the meeting decided is they wouldn't decide something. They won't endorse a candidate. It was the first meeting of a series of meetings of how do we structure, how do we increase building."

Perkins also said the meeting was meant to get the various wings of the conservative movement talking again.

"What has made the conservative movement strong is when you have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives working together," he said. "This was the first step in what will be a long journey in rebuilding that communication and that common vision." Watch the fighting between the McCain and Palin camps »

Norquist said one of the lessons the conservatives took away from Tuesday night's results was that they focused too much on the presidential race and not enough on helping congressional candidates.


In addition to Sen. John McCain, a Republican standard bearer, losing his bid for the White House, House Republicans will have at least 26 fewer seats in the next Congress, and Republicans could have a few as 40 seats in the Senate.

"As a national movement, a conservative movement, as a national Republican Party, it was certainly a mistake to focus on the presidency. It would be a mistake to focus on the elected officials in Washington," Norquist said. "So we rebuild, not just in Washington, but in all 50 states."

[Atlanteax]

If anything, McCain should had picked a moderate VP.

The far right (of the middle) would come out and vote against Obama anyhow, particularly in light of the hype of the Obama turn-out.

McCain probably had a very solid chance of winning if he had gone with someone else like Tom Ridge.

The RNC (not McCain's doing) picking Palin was effectively a roll of the dice (gambling for Hillary voters) that ended up craps (the more John Q Public learns about her, the ever more unimpressive she appears).

[Necromancer]

I think the Republican party is going to realize this, next election Atlanteax. The religious right, up until the last three elections, was always a fringe group to which candidates paid lip service but nothing more. That sort of changed recently.

But the reality is that these people will ALWAYS vote Republican in overwhelming numbers as long as they have a reason to vote. In the same way the Dems have historically paid lip service to, but have done very little for, minorities and the LGBTQ population in order to avoid alienating moderates, I think we're going to see Republicans begin to distance themselves from actively courting the religious right.

The big task ahead for them is to nab the moderates without fully alienating their religious right base as opposed to attempting to activate the religious right without fully alienating their moderates. Now, the irony is that in this last election they lost a LOT of their moderates in Congress, making this a more difficult task to achieve in the next election. So the good news is we may have paved the way for 8 years of Democratic control.

I guess in sum: BOOYAH!

[Ogreslayer]

Wow. Wow. Moderates are to blame? Um.. No. The hardcore right, and the Republicans catering to them by picking hyperpartisan, caustic candidates like Palin that alienate moderates and independents, that seek to get people out to vote by demonizing and scapegoating gays, are the problem.

This looks like regurgitation of Democrat talking points and has little resemblance to the truth. In what way was Palin hyperpartisan or caustic? She had a tremendous appeal in her home state, enjoying the highest approval rating of any state governor. That suggests to me that she was not hyperpartisan and that she worked across party lines. Her record shows that she did not try to force her religious beliefs upon the citizens of Alaska. And while her speeches were often attacks on Obama's positions and red meat for the Republican base, that is typically the role of the VP candidate.

To specifically address her "demonizing" of gays, she is on the record as supporting civil unions but not defining marriage to include gays. Her position on this is the same as Obama's and is hardly out of the mainstream.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49212F20081003

As presented by many here on these boards, and supported by many in the media and certainly the Democratic party, if a Republican politician is a devout Christian, then that politician must be full of hatred, intolerance, and meanness. Undoubtedly such politicians are "polarizing" with their "controversial" views. It is apparently a self-evident truth.

To be sure, Palin has had her missteps, some of her own doing, some that I would attribute to a mismanaged campaign. Regardless of the reason for her missteps, each misstep was magnified by a slavering media and partisans on the left wishing to cast her as incapable or unready for the job. Of her failures, though, causticness or intolerance of those who do not share her views are not attributes that can be fairly ascribed to her.

[Daniel]

Yea. She totally "tolerates" the gays.

[TheWitch]

I used to think I was a Republican.

Then I began to realize, the Republican party was more about maintaining white male dominance than it was anything else and the farther into legislating beliefs and morality the got the farther away I got.

So then I thought I was a Democrat, since I couldn't possibly be a Republican.

Then they got all caught up in their underwear with political correctness and semantics, I decided I couldn't be one of those either because they seemed completely unable to see the forest for the trees on so many issues, and seemed so hell bent on rewarding lazyness.

So now, I remain a registered Democrat, but I vote whatever seems right and appropriate. Since becoming a parent, homeowner and taxpayer, I have a hard time voting Democratic because I still take huge issue with entitlements just for different reasons.

I forget if I had a point or not. Oh yea, the GOP is killing itself.
That guy's holding the gun.

[diethx]

This looks like regurgitation of Democrat talking points and has little resemblance to the truth. In what way was Palin hyperpartisan or caustic? She had a tremendous appeal in her home state, enjoying the highest approval rating of any state governor. That suggests to me that she was not hyperpartisan and that she worked across party lines. Her record shows that she did not try to force her religious beliefs upon the citizens of Alaska. And while her speeches were often attacks on Obama's positions and red meat for the Republican base, that is typically the role of the VP candidate.

I read an article yesterday that spoke about what was next for Palin, and spoke about her heading home to Alaska on Wednesday and how she had people come greet her. It also had some comments from an Alaska fisherman who was a Palin supporter but who was now looking at her in a new light after this election. Apparently he had no ideas about her strong views on abortion, gay marriage, etc., because I guess it never came up in her campaigning up there? He said he still liked her but he definitely didn't agree with her views on all of that and it made him want to think things over. Whatever that means.

So maybe most of those people in Alaska never really saw that side of her until she got picked as VP? I'm not saying this is fact, but it's just a thought from what was stated in this article.

And no, I don't have a link to it. I don't even remember where I read it, but i'll try to find it.

[Valthissa]

Yea. She totally "tolerates" the gays.


Maybe you can articulate the actual policy differences between Biden and Palin on gay marriage. It would be most helpful if you confine your arguments to the politician’s actual statements.

Biden didn't seem to be able to separate his position from Palin's during the debate (there is video available for your review if you would like to refresh your memory).

The fact of the matter is that, based purely on their policy statements, there was no substantive difference between the candidates on this issue.

My opinion is that those who believe gay marriage should become a right are pinning their hopes on Obama and Biden taking their campaign positions strictly to court votes and now that they are elected expecting them to back gay marriage. They may be right (it's a far better bet voting for Obama over McCain if legalizing gay marriage was one's big issue). It is certain that Palin has a much more restrictive view of gay marriage than Obama or Biden. The judges Obama will appoint are more likely to find gay marriage to be a right than judges McCain would have appointed.

So I would say that from a stated policy perspective, your "tolerates" the gays comment applies equally to the candidates from both parties in this election cycle.

One might suspect that, given the California prop 8 results, the democrats will somehow not have the time or will to take on the gay marriage issue anytime in the next four years.

C/Valth

[Daniel]

Maybe you can articulate the actual policy differences between Biden and Palin on gay marriage. It would be most helpful if you confine your arguments to the politician’s actual statements.

Biden didn't seem to be able to separate his position from Palin's during the debate (there is video available for your review if you would like to refresh your memory).

The fact of the matter is that, based purely on their policy statements, there was no substantive difference between the candidates on this issue.

My opinion is that those who believe gay marriage should become a right are pinning their hopes on Obama and Biden taking their campaign positions strictly to court votes and now that they are elected expecting them to back gay marriage. They may be right (it's a far better bet voting for Obama over McCain if legalizing gay marriage was one's big issue). It is certain that Palin has a much more restrictive view of gay marriage than Obama or Biden. The judges Obama will appoint are more likely to find gay marriage to be a right than judges McCain would have appointed.

So I would say that from a stated policy perspective, your "tolerates" the gays comment applies equally to the candidates from both parties in this election cycle.

One might suspect that, given the California prop 8 results, the democrats will somehow not have the time or will to take on the gay marriage issue anytime in the next four years.

C/Valth

Do you really take the time to color all of your posts?

Gay Rights is an extremely explosion issue and I don't begrudge any politician for treading that ground lightly. However, I saw a marked difference between the way Biden addressed the issue, with empathy and concern vs Palin's where it seemed like she was going out on a limb to say that "I tolerate gay people".

[Ogreslayer]

What a curious response. Sarah Palin is in favor of some rights for gay couples and she is not in favor of gay marriage. Obama, darling of the left and among the most liberal of senators, also does not support gay marriage. The initiatives to define marriage as being between a man and a woman passed in every state that had it on the ballot this cycle, even in that rightwing stronghold of California, which suggests to me that her position is very much in the mainstream and not just Republican talking points.

Yes, she is clearly "unbelievably divisive and partisan"; labeling reserved for anyone who doesn't completely agree with a San Francisco liberal's position on abortion or full recognition of gay marriage. The only acceptable position for a Republican to take is the one the Democrat holds. Tolerance for thee, but not for me, no?

[Daniel]

You realize there are other issues besides Gay rights, correct?

[Valthissa]

Do you really take the time to color all of your posts?

Gay Rights is an extremely explosion issue and I don't begrudge any politician for treading that ground lightly. However, I saw a marked difference between the way Biden addressed the issue, with empathy and concern vs Palin's where it seemed like she was going out on a limb to say that "I tolerate gay people".

So your position is:

I was able to detect a nuance in the democratic position based on Biden's tone, facial expression, and <fill in the blank>. I agree that the actual words they used were the same. Gay rights is a difficult issue so if a politician ducks that one, it's good with me.

Let me know if I left anything out.

If I knew what you meant by coloring all of my posts I would answer.

C/Valth

[Ogreslayer]

This is rich. The people of California have voted to amend their constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but it wasn't because they actually understood what they were voting for, it was that they were misled! Deceived! Inflamed by those radicals in the Mormon church!

Of course it couldn't be that they actually agreed with what they voted for, for that would be divisive and hyperpartisan.

Good Lord.

[Necromancer]

This is rich. The people of California have voted to amend their constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but it wasn't because they actually understood what they were voting for, it was that they were misled! Deceived! Inflamed by those radicals in the Mormon church!

Of course it couldn't be that they actually agreed with what they voted for, for that would be divisive and hyperpartisan.

Good Lord.

It WAS a very misleading campaign actually. Rumors were spread that Churches would be sued if they denied gay couples access to their space for marriage ceremonies. Fear-based campaigns were used to convince people that gay marriage would be mandated as a part of education curriculum.

Of course people agreed with what they voted for- they just weren't necessarily voting for what the amendment really did.

[Stanley Burrell]

Pointing to measures in California, Florida and Arizona barring same-sex marriage that passed Tuesday, Perkins said President-elect Barack Obama's election did not mean the country had embraced liberal social views.

This is fucking retarded. McCain attempted a jump start on the gay vote, then tried to cater to Hillary fans with a female VP.

All this assures me of is that there still is no unified congressional voice.

These guys/girls should; in a beyond perfect world: Shut up + sit on their law degrees (with unofficial performing arts qualifications) + have more time to laugh on the way to the bank... in order to relieve stress and make less gay-ass commentary as a direct result of their policies as if they could touch set-in-stone Oval Office policy in the first place.

Fuck you and die of pancreatic cancer. Bye.

[Ogreslayer]

Again, what does California have to do with Palin's hyperpartisan campaign, beyond that she doesn't support gay marriage?

I'm simply illustrating that, your allegations notwithstanding, Palin's position was not hyperpartisan and was very much in the mainstream. All you have to hang your hat on is that she doesn't support gay marriage or broadening the rights of civil unions. Because you disagree with her position, she is labeled as hyperpartisan and divisive.

To support your original allegation, I'd love to see a quote where she "demonized" anyone.

[Daniel]

So your position is:

I was able to detect a nuance in the democratic position based on Biden's tone, facial expression, and <fill in the blank>. I agree that the actual words they used were the same. Gay rights is a difficult issue so if a politician ducks that one, it's good with me.

Let me know if I left anything out.

If I knew what you meant by coloring all of my posts I would answer.

C/Valth

Not exactly.

It was the connotation that it was expressed.


Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

Vs.


but in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

If you can't notice the difference then I feel sorry for you.

[Valthissa]

Not exactly.


If you can't notice the difference then I feel sorry for you.

I'll quote a different portion of the exchange:

Ifill: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

Biden: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

Ifill: Is that what you said?

Palin: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.




I bolded the text where Biden says he and Palin and agree. Please don't feel sorry for me. I don't believe either Biden or Palin would actually say what they really believe on this particular issue because it is a very difficult and they both just wanted to get elected.

C/Valth

[g++]

Since when is Tony fucking Perkins leading the republican party? That article is disingenuous at best, outright propaganda at worst.

[Daniel]

I bolded the text where Biden says he and Palin and agree. Please don't feel sorry for me. I don't believe either Biden or Palin would actually say what they really believe on this particular issue because it is a very difficult and they both just wanted to get elected.

C/Valth

Notice how Biden qualifies his statement with the "If" that is her position.

Also, notice the way in which Palin says "She would not propose anything to take away people's rights". However, the issue at hand is not proposing things that would take those rights away, because they don't exist.

Whereas, Biden said he would ensure that they did have those rights, Palin said she wasn't against them. Leaving one to conjecture as to whether or not she would actually do anything to ensure that people have those rights.

[Stanley Burrell]

Since when is Tony fucking Perkins leading the republican party? That article is disingenuous at best, outright propaganda at worst.

I was thinking the same thing, but then again, he probably carries around more swing than, say, Pelosi, so long as he continues to be an R-team consigliere yesman of Oval Office policy.

[Parkbandit]

I'll quote a different portion of the exchange:

Ifill: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

Biden: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

Ifill: Is that what you said?

Palin: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.




I bolded the text where Biden says he and Palin and agree. Please don't feel sorry for me. I don't believe either Biden or Palin would actually say what they really believe on this particular issue because it is a very difficult and they both just wanted to get elected.

C/Valth


God.. Palin is a fucking gay hater. Biden on the other hand, as well as Obama, are the ones that champion the inclusion of gays and really show the greatest leap forward for gay rights ever.

/sarcasm

[Daniel]

Is this where you remind people that the Republicans were the ones really behind the civil rights act and thus give a shit about black people?

[Parkbandit]

Is this where you remind people that the Republicans were the ones really behind the civil rights act and thus give a shit about black people?

B-b-b-b-b-but black people~!!!!!!!!

[Daniel]

....

fail.

[Parkbandit]

....

fail.

Because you say so? While I realize you are the expert on all things that fail, I'll politely have to disagree and simply call you a fucking dipshit.

[g++]

I was thinking the same thing, but then again, he probably carries around more swing than, say, Pelosi, so long as he continues to be an R-team consigliere yesman of Oval Office policy.

I mean seriously quoting a white supremacist who ran for national office once and got absolutely destroyed because he tried to buy mailing lists from David Duke as a leader of the republican party? Im sure I could find a nut job registered democrat to get some nice quotes too. He is president of a christian conservative think tank thats only loosely affiliated with the republican party at all. I almost accepted David Perkins was a republican politician too until I saw his quote about not pandering to moderates. What politician is ever going to flatly say they wont pander to anyone? Thats when I looked him up lol.

[IorakeWarhammer]

bump just to make republicans lulz

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

bump just to make republicans lulz

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/1971/firemotivator.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Lulz