Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In watching the Presidential race and paying close attention to Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin I came to the conclusion that they represented two different Republican parties. Senator McCain was never portrayed as a deeply religious man, but rather as a man who simply had faith in God and attended church. Governor Palin's faith on the other hand played a major role in her policy stance.
In 1999 Senator McCain publicly stated that he would not support a repeal of Roe v. Wade but rather looked forward to a time when abortion would simply not be necessary, but then changed his position in 2007 stating that he would ban abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the immediate threat to the health of the mother. Finally, during the final debate with Senator Obama McCain again modified his stance to wishing to ban abortion in nearly all cases stating "Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything." In my opinion it was a slow progression in order to modify his stance to fit what the GOP thought was most in line with Republican voters. Governor Palin on the other hand from the very beginning has been opposed to abortion in all cases except when the mother's life is in immediate danger.
Senator McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and Governor Palin does not. These positions were both plainly stated by both candidates numerous times throughout the campaign and Senator McCain voted for ESCR on more than one occasion in the Senate. In any event, it is clear that the two candidates are fairly divided on these two related issues.
Senator McCain stated that he would leave the definition of marriage to the states with regard to same sex unions, but Governor Palin definitely opposes not only any form of marriage (she supports a Constitutional ban) but also any benefit sharing for same-sex couples. McCain supports a "legal arrangement" to allow benefit sharing, etc...but does not support gay adoption. Still, Governor Palin's positions are a bit more rigid than Senator McCain's.
With regard to immigration, Senator McCain supports a "path to citizenship" for currently illegal aliens, the H1B Visa program, and a guest worker program. Governor Palin supports closing the borders entirely and does not support any form of amnesty or path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
I chose the positions of Senator McCain and Governor Palin that seemed the most "stark," but it is entirely fair to say that Governor Palin represents a further right and more ideological wing of the Republican party. McCain on the other hand, though he decidedly moved further right in the run up to the election, represented a more centrist or independent leaning wing of the GOP. Now that the election is over and the GOP must go back to the drawing board, what will it look like? Many have said that Lincoln would not recognize the Republican party of today, but I would argue that not even Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower would recognize it either. Where will it go from here? Will Senator McCain readjust his positions to where they were before the election, or will Governor Palin's stances become more status quo for the GOP?
First, as for any schism in the republican party, none more so the democrats. Within each party there are conservative to liberal viewpoints. To that end, party platforms are always fluid.
So, should the republicans abandon the rights of unborn children to stay politically viable? My answer is ‘no’. The debate over the sanctity of human life itself will always be such a lightning rod that one party or the other will always champion the rights of children. That said, it may be the republican party may modify their position to include cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in eminent danger as their core group of politicians fluctuates.
So, will the republicans abandon their current stance supporting the life of children? I really doubt it. The republican party has recently stood fast for family values, strict morality and the right to life. If they abandoned those views, the party would essentially disappear. And that always could happen as it’s happened before in American politics- I just don’t think it will.
The Republican party picked up the Evangelicals and should have dropped them about 20 years ago. They did not. They wanted the cash. That is a problem. This led to the battlecry the last election of how Bush dropped the ball for them (Evangelicals).
I would almost lay money that it will come out that McCain was pushed into picking Palin or that Palin was chosen for him. She was a marketing ploy that ultimately failed. McCain was really good in 2000 and none of that man was in this election. I think that McCain was faced with several challenges this election and one of those was that his values took a back seat to the party line.
I hope that he retires and he begins writing. I think that essentially what he says in those books will be an eyeopener to the push shove match and loss of control. I hope that if he provides that information that it will help to bring back the exceptional qualities of Republicans. They have several moves that they need to make in the real near future and they need to go out and truly identify with the total population.
The Republican party picked up the Evangelicals and should have dropped them about 20 years ago. They did not. They wanted the cash. That is a problem.
No disrespect intended, but how in the world do you support that statement? If I adopt your logic, then the democrats should have dropped unions and plaintiff attorney associations 20 years ago as well, but needed the cash. Do you see the absurdity?
No disrespect intended, but how in the world do you support that statement? If I adopt your logic, then the democrats should have dropped unions and plaintiff attorney associations 20 years ago as well, but needed the cash. Do you see the absurdity?
No. This is specific and has been recognized by those in the Republican party. Taking Over the Republican Party
Start here. I will try to come back on tonight with some other books. If not, tomorrow. Although, you can equally run a search and that way you could read from left to right.
First, as for any schism in the republican party, none more so the democrats. Within each party there are conservative to liberal viewpoints. To that end, party platforms are always fluid.
So, should the republicans abandon the rights of unborn children to stay politically viable? My answer is ‘no’. The debate over the sanctity of human life itself will always be such a lightning rod that one party or the other will always champion the rights of children. That said, it may be the republican party may modify their position to include cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in eminent danger as their core group of politicians fluctuates.
So, will the republicans abandon their current stance supporting the life of children? I really doubt it. The republican party has recently stood fast for family values, strict morality and the right to life. If they abandoned those views, the party would essentially disappear. And that always could happen as it’s happened before in American politics- I just don’t think it will.
I used the abortion issue not to say that the GOP should abandon it, but rather as an example to show how Palin represents a more ideologically driven wing of the party. There are still socially moderate/fiscally conservative Republicans, they're just derisively called RINOs by the more ideological wing of the party. I also take issue with the fact that the Republican party would disappear if they didn't continue to emphasize family values, strict morality, and the anti-abortion stance. What about small government, fiscal restraint, and personal liberty? These were core values of the party long before evangelicals became a major component of the GOP.
No. This is specific and has been recognized by those in the Republican party. Taking Over the Republican Party
Start here. I will try to come back on tonight with some other books. If not, tomorrow. Although, you can equally run a search and that way you could read from left to right.
And that brings me all the back. One can argue the undue influence & money any special interest invets into a political party. NOBODY would deny the undue influence, money and corruption of the democratic party by unions, environmental lobbiests, and plaintiff attorney associations. Religous groups the same with the republicans.
What I am getting at is that over the last 30 years political parties have become special interest dominated.
And that brings me all the back. One can argue the undue influence & money any special interest invets into a political party. NOBODY would deny the undue influence, money and corruption of the democratic party by unions, environmental lobbiests, and plaintiff attorney associations. Religous groups the same with the republicans.
What I am getting at is that over the last 30 years political parties have become special interest dominated.
Nobody is arguing that special interest groups have shifted the focus of both parties, but I think what we're seeing with GOP is that religion is a more powerful influence than any other at least for one wing of the party. Unlike a special interest such as trade unions, environmental lobbies, the oil and gas lobby, the gun lobby, etc...there is no wiggle room with the religious lobby. God is perfect therefore there must be no deviation from what God mandates with relation to evolution, creationism, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gay rights, etc... When God is directly involved in the legislative process there is no compromise as there could be in the case of any other special interest. However, not all Republicans are evangelicals, so they have more flexibility on these issues. This is where I see the split occurring within the party.
Nobody is arguing that special interest groups have shifted the focus of both parties, but I think what we're seeing with GOP is that religion is a more powerful influence than any other at least for one wing of the party. Unlike a special interest such as trade unions, environmental lobbies, the oil and gas lobby, the gun lobby, etc...there is no wiggle room with the religious lobby. God is perfect therefore there must be no deviation from what God mandates with relation to evolution, creationism, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gay rights, etc... When God is directly involved in the legislative process there is no compromise as there could be in the case of any other special interest. However, not all Republicans are evangelicals, so they have more flexibility on these issues. This is where I see the split occurring within the party.
The religous lobby is no different than any other, in my opinion. The reason is that they more splintered than any of the other groups. I thin this is base speculation and a stab at religeous groups that is somehow a personal vindiction.
I also will say this- as a born again Christian, the Bible is very clear that Christians are not called to be political activists, but model citizens. I will therefore argue that religous groups that hire lobbists and try to influence politicians fail the test of being a "model citizen" and they stand out as nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing.
I also will say this- as a born again Christian, the Bible is very clear that Christians are not called to be political activists, but model citizens. I will therefore argue that religous groups that hire lobbists and try to influence politicians fail the test of being a "model citizen" and they stand out as nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing.
That's an interesting position and I'll admit, not one that I thought many born again Christians had. To me it sounds more like the traditional Republican mindset that faith was important but government was separate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
