(7-1-09): "GOP Platform should be one line." (Kudlow Report) What do you think?

[Suzan]

I caught just a few minutes of the Kudlow Report earlier tonight and a commentator named Michelle made an audacious and I thought, brilliant, statement. They were discussing what ails the GOP and she said (paraphrasing) the party should forego the heavy-handed emphasis on family values and streamline their platform to just one line:

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

Sorry, I don't have a link or video. I checked the CNBC site, but found nothing on the show, including the woman's full name. I think she may have been standing in for Larry Kudlow. I'll see what I can find on YouTube. I'd love to know what else she said.

So, do you agree with Michelle? Disagree? Have some planks of your own you'd like to add?

[VotingHillary]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

Short, sweet and to the point. Unfortunately, considering the state of their "
bedrooms", they will be demonized for it. Especially since they can't stay out of the gay community's bedrooms.

[The_Basseteer]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook, out of your private life and work to have the smallest federal government possible."

[jlynne]

Now that is change I can believe in!

[TheTaoOfBill]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

That line would continue to say "as long as you are straight and believe in Jesus."

[The_Basseteer]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

That line would continue to say "as long as you are straight and believe in Jesus."

We have Jews and Muslums in the Pima County Republican Party,I'm sure we have homosexual Republicans there too...but ya know...it's not how they define themselves.

[AngusAwesome]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

That line would continue to say "as long as you are straight and believe in Jesus."

I think the fact that it's not that, reflects what the Republican party needs to do. Yours is what it is now.

[Suzan]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."

That line would continue to say "as long as you are straight and believe in Jesus."
No, that's the point of the line, Tao. It leaves out the family values plank.

What do our social conservatives here think? Would you stick with the party without the family values plank? If not, would you be willing to have it modified at all? Or do you even consider the emphasis on that issue part of what's ailing the GOP today?

We need input!! I'm not a Republican, but I believe in fiscal restraint and I'm really interested. Which way do you want to see your party go?

And what do Dems and Indies think? I have a strong hunch, but surprise me. :)

[Suzan]

We have Jews and Muslums in the Pima County Republican Party,I'm sure we have homosexual Republicans there too...but ya know...it's not how they define themselves.
What does this mean, Bass?

I hope you don't mind that I shortened your screen name. It's wicked hard to spell!

[Suzan]

bumping for more input

[smiledr]

What do our social conservatives here think? Would you stick with the party without the family values plank? If not, would you be willing to have it modified at all?

I think for the sake of the party, the GOP needs to step back a bit from the family values. I think this would give the GOP a bigger tent. The GOP won't loose those votes; a social conservative is not going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. This is just as Obama has figured out with the LGBT community. No matter how he treats them he really has no fear of loosing their votes.

These are just my feelings on what I think the party needs to do to position itself in upcoming elections.

[smiledr]

...and this is my 100th post.

[Suzan]

...and this is my 100th post.


CONGRATS ON THE 100TH POST!!!

And thanks for your input.

But ... I wonder if it's true that the social conservatives will stick with the GOP no matter what. What are their choices?

1) Hold their nose and vote Republican
2) Vote third party
3) Not vote at all

Wouldn't 2 or 3 be fatal to Republicans or would they pull in enough Independents by going Big Tent to make up the difference?

[smiledr]

But ... I wonder if it's true that the social conservatives will stick with the GOP no matter what. What are their choices?

1) Hold their nose and vote Republican
2) Vote third party
3) Not vote at all

Wouldn't 2 or 3 be fatal to Republicans or would they pull in enough Independents by going Big Tent to make up the difference?

I think 1 and 2 are much more likely. Many social conservatives hold dear their right to vote and I think they would hold their noses before they would stay away from the polls. They certainly could be swayed by the right third party candidate. This of course is just my opinion

[sojourner]

What do our social conservatives here think? Would you stick with the party without the family values plank? If not, would you be willing to have it modified at all? Or do you even consider the emphasis on that issue part of what's ailing the GOP today?

If your are using "family values" as code for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage then I would say they should be left out.

But our social structure has be centered on the family and I believe it should remain so and be supported.

[Suzan]

If your are using "family values" as code for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage then I would say they should be left out.

But our social structure has be centered on the family and I believe it should remain so and be supported.
It was Michelle who used the term "values" or "family values." I was paraphrasing her, but didn't catch all of her comments, so I don't know how she defined the term, but I suspect it was the two hot-button anti- issues you mention. I wish I could have found some video! I'd love to have known what else she said. I've never heard it put quite so succinctly as she did. But I really wonder if it's a realistic strategy for the GOP.

[Suzan]

I think 1 and 2 are much more likely. Many social conservatives hold dear their right to vote and I think they would hold their noses before they would stay away from the polls. They certainly could be swayed by the right third party candidate. This of course is just my opinion
Good points. The social conservatives that I personally know would not give up their right to have a vote--and a voice--in the process. Nor should they, imo.

[Laura Cereta]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."



I think it's a great line; I just wish it were true. The GOP would have to seriously soften their stances on several social issues in order for that line to be close to honest.

They also need to start standing for fiscally conservative policies again, as they didn't for the past 8 years.

[mack20]

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."


My stance (as a VERY liberal registered Independent) is that I would have a lot more respect for the Republican party if this was their motto and they actually abided by it. If they were the party that truly wanted smaller government/more states rights/more individualism rather than the party that just said they wanted less government (unless you're gay, or pregnant, etc etc) then I could genuinely respect that platform, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with it all.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I do not see the moral right detaching itself from the republican party anytime soon.

[smiledr]

I do not see the moral right detaching itself from the republican party anytime soon.

Which is why the GOP should stop pandering to them.

[Jobu86]

My stance (as a VERY liberal registered Independent) is that I would have a lot more respect for the Republican party if this was their motto and they actually abided by it. If they were the party that truly wanted smaller government/more states rights/more individualism rather than the party that just said they wanted less government (unless you're gay, or pregnant, etc etc) then I could genuinely respect that platform, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with it all.

Exactly

[jlynne]

There are approximately 102 million people in America who identify themselves as evangelicals. That is far more than the 62 million people who elected George Bush in 2004 and the 65 million people who elected Barack Obama in 2008. So I see no reason to silence their voice if they want to be heard.

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6] There seems to be a small long-term increase in the number of people reporting themselves in this category with 34 percent in election year 1976 and 45 percent in election year 2000. Using a different methodology and set of definitions, Barna Research has found that 41 percent of the population identifies as Born-Again using a broad definition, but only 8 percent accept all the tenets in a list of strict conservative doctrinal beliefs.[7]

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html

[NativeSun]

I think it should stay as it is: Join us and bask in the racism!

[Spang]

I think it should stay as it is: Join us and bask in the racism!

I agree. It'll be easier for liberals to win elections.

[Suzan]

Using a different methodology and set of definitions, Barna Research has found that 41 percent of the population identifies as Born-Again using a broad definition, but only 8 percent accept all the tenets in a list of strict conservative doctrinal beliefs.

This is interesting. Thanks for the numbers, jlynne. I'm guessing by "strict conservative doctrinal beliefs" that might mean a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.

IIRC, Karl Rove used to say that he/they could deliver a voting bloc of somewhere between 30 and 40 million Evangelicals for George Bush. Because Bush so openly shared Evangelicals' beliefs, he was able to galvanize them in ways that possibly only Sarah Palin could these days.

There's debate about what happened to Mitch Romney, but one theory is that he ran into trouble because the Evangelicals didn't back him.

Obviously, all Evangelicals don't think as one and it's not clear whether any of today's politicans would bring out the numbers that Bush did, but you can bet they're thinking about it. Also, I suspect that Obama got a large percentage of black Evangelicals and possibly Hispanic as well.

[NativeSun]

I agree. It'll be easier for liberals to win elections.

Especially when families start seeing their energy bills increase as well as their taxes.

[Suzan]

I think it should stay as it is: Join us and bask in the racism!
You, troublemaker, you! ;)

Please, let's not go there!!!

[Suzan]

If you guys derail this thread, I'm going to hunt you both down and waterboard you!! [-X

[Suzan]

Wow, I just made Poster Rank #10!

Busy bee, me.

[The_Basseteer]

What does this mean, Bass?
I hope you don't mind that I shortened your screen name. It's wicked hard to spell!

Well just Basseteer works for me.

People define themselves, who they are, how they view themselves by many different things, with some it's their religion, with some it's what they do for a living (before I retired from the fire department I viewed my self as a firefighter THAT WAS my identity). Some.... not all..not most...people in the homosexual community define themselves by their sexual orientation, Perez Hilton, immediately comes to mind. We have good friends whose one son is gay, first and foremost before everything else he is gay, his partner is a staunch Republican, that makes them sort of the James Carville/Mary Matalin of the gay community.

So, as I said I'm sure there are gay republicans they do not identify themselves by their orientation.

BTW, sorry it took me so long to respond to this.... I had to run errands this morning as I was completing it and didn't get it posted until now.

[The_Basseteer]

If you guys derail this thread, I'm going to hunt you both down and waterboard you!! [-X

I'd rather be "Beer-Boarded".

[Spang]

If you guys derail this thread, I'm going to hunt you both down and waterboard you!! [-X

It's not torture so it won't be a problem. :cool:

[Suzan]

Originally posted by Basseteer
Well just Basseteer works for me.

ROFL! It wasn't the "The" part that was hard to spell.

[Suzan]

It's not torture so it won't be a problem. :cool:
Yeah, we'll see about that.

<rubbing hands and preparing to measure Spang's head for the bucket>

[Suzan]

People define themselves, who they are, how they view themselves by many different things, with some it's their religion, with some it's what they do for a living (before I retired from the fire department I viewed my self as a firefighter THAT WAS my identity). Some.... not all..not most...people in the homosexual community define themselves by their sexual orientation, Perez Hilton, immediately comes to mind. We have good friends whose one son is gay, first and foremost before everything else he is gay, his partner is a staunch Republican, that makes them sort of the James Carville/Mary Matalin of the gay community.

So, as I said I'm sure there are gay republicans they do not identify themselves by their orientation.

I probably won't get this right, but I believe CGP has said it's not limited to a sexual orientation or even a lifestyle, it's who he is. But he can explain this much better than I can. Meanwhile though, you cleared that up for me, thanks.

[Spang]

Yeah, we'll see about that.

<rubbing hands and preparing to measure Spang's head for the bucket>

Don't waterboard me! Waterboard someone who doesn't think it's torture!

[Alces95]

:

"We will stay out of your pocketbook and your private life."





This would make me happy however neither party can live up to it; those two things keep them in power (people's money and hot button issues.)

One of the hidden rules of business is UPOD; under promise, over deliver. Our elections force them to do the opposite. I would love to see an election that had honest debate (ended with Kennedy and Nixon's ugly mug for tv imho) and they were just getting votes but doing what was right.

The phrase would be great, if anyone had any credibilty left. I think there are a few other indys that may agree with me...

[Suzan]

This would make me happy however neither party can live up to it; those two things keep them in power (people's money and hot button issues.)

One of the hidden rules of business is UPOD; under promise, over deliver. Our elections force them to do the opposite. I would love to see an election that had honest debate (ended with Kennedy and Nixon's ugly mug for tv imho) and they were just getting votes but doing what was right.

The phrase would be great, if anyone had any credibilty left. I think there are a few other indys that may agree with me...
I agree with you.

Good point on the UPOD in reverse. That's exactly what's going on, but it seems so much worse now. Maybe because the situation is so dire, but the politicians can take their fair share of the blame for that too.

[NativeSun]

If you guys derail this thread, I'm going to hunt you both down and waterboard you!! [-X

Ooohhh la la! I love water sports! As for that gay ranking thing: If people were to ask me to identify myself, homosexual would probably be the around the 4th or 5th thing I would say. Of course 'precious' would be first. :)

[Suzan]

Ooohhh la la! I love water sports! As for that gay ranking thing: If people were to ask me to identify myself, homosexual would probably be the around the 4th or 5th thing I would say. Of course 'precious' would be first. :)

:rotfl: :rotfl: So, do we get to call you "precious" now?

[NativeSun]

:rotfl: :rotfl: So, do we get to call you "precious" now?

Why haven't y'all been doing so already???:thinking: