« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Are Democrats Smarter Than Republicans?

The Headlines say it all “Boehner offers debt-ceiling increase in cliff compromise” or “Boehner Reported to Offer Millionaire Tax Rate Increase.”  Yet behind the headlines the meat of the stories shows House Speaker Boehner once again folding like a house of cards before President Obama and the Progressive juggernaut.

Concerning the debt ceiling, while Mr. Obama wants a blank check Mr. Boehner offers to push any debate over the federal debt limit off until 2014.  This is a concession effectively depriving Republicans of any leverage in the current budget battle over the looming fiscal cliff.  However it is said to be breathing new life into stalled talks with the triumphant Obama Outfit that has taken control of America.  Nothing like surrendering your best cards before the game is over unless it’s accepting the opponent’s major demand before serious negotiations really begin as in the case of the tax rate increase.

According to news reports Speaker Boehner has offered to let tax rates rise on higher incomes.  However, the trusty Republican negotiator isn’t offering that without demanding something in return.  He is demanding unspecified changes in the entitlement spending that is sinking the government in red ink.  Increasing tax rates now for promises of spending cuts later; how could that ever go wrong?  Except for every time it has ever been tried, besides being exactly what the Obama Organization offered, this same bait-and-switch scam tripped up President Reagan in 1982 and Bush the Elder in 1990.

Like Charley Brown trying to kick the football over and over again only to have Lucy pull it away; each time the Democrats keep running the same play and the Republicans keep falling for it.  This brings us to the question of the day, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?”

I was a fourth generation Republican who cut my teeth in Barry Goldwater’s failed Presidential bid and then in Nixon’s first presidential campaign back in 1960.  I worked for Goldwater, Reagan, and all the following Conservative flag wavers who tried to rally the country to a return to limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom.  That is I did until Trent Lott’s Republican Senate Majority gave us the impeachment debacle and the explosion of government growth and spending under Hastert, Lott, and Bush.  When the Republican Senate refused to impeach President Clinton for crimes he later admitted and when they and their House brethren became Democrat Lite as the party of power, I mailed my membership card to the party that was no longer the Grand Old Party of my great grandfather and became an Independent.

For most of my life I was a party man: accepting some things I didn’t agree with for the greater good of electing a party with a platform I could agree with.  However, once it became apparent that as far as the budget went we had elected the foxes to watch the hen house, that the conservative social agenda received a tip-of-the-hat during elections followed by no action, and that the only victims of the impeachment were those brave enough to bring the charges the scales fell from my eyes.  Once I saw that the Republicans had lost their moorings and were swilling at the public trough, I realized the platform we conservatives battle so hard for and hold so dear is merely a mirage held in front of social and fiscal conservatives to keep them loyal to a Party captured by the Progressives.

Back in the Dream Time, when my mind was still locked in the glow of Ronald Reagan and all his example and message meant to America, even then I wondered, “What’s wrong with these leaders of ours?  Why do the Democrats always seem to outsmart them at every turn?”

Even Reagan, the best of the best, was hoodwinked by Tip O’Neal in the amnesty bargain: we would grant amnesty and then seal the border. The problem is the illegal immigrants got the amnesty; however, America’s border was never sealed.  He also signed several tax deals with the Democratic majority.  We the People lost many deductions in exchange for lower rates.  The deductions never came back even though the rates started rising again as soon as the Gipper said good night and George the First forgot to read his own lips.

George Bush the Elder was out maneuvered by the Progressives so many times that 20% of his base ran to Perot opening the door for Clinton and the first attempt to ram national health care down America’s throat.  That time they overplayed their hand and the last great strategist among the Republicans, Newt Gingrich, was able to sell a Contract with America and bring the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years.

Newt kept the promises and brought some fiscal sanity back to Washington.  Within a few short years the Republican led Congress ended welfare as we had known it for generations and balanced the budget.  Unfortunately the Party of Lincoln then nominated someone who campaigned as if he had voted for Lincoln.  The 1996 Republican campaign would have had to improve several thousand percent to make it to dull.  Suddenly, with an assist from the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media it was Clinton, who had been dragged kicking and screaming to the benefit and spending cutting table, who was the author of everything positive Congress had accomplished.  The Republicans had been outmaneuvered and outsmarted again.

According to every one of the serial re-counts Bush the younger won Florida and legitimately the presidential race of 2000.  Yet, to this day people talk of him being selected not elected.  After the dastardly deeds of 9-11 the rhetorically-challenged George captured the hearts of America and the admiration of the Western world by taking a bullhorn and talking to a crowd at ground zero.  Yet by fighting and winning America’s first preemptive war and then losing the peace through the lack of planning he soon lost the PR campaign which led to the Pelosi-Reid Congress in 2006 and eventually to the absolute triumph of Progressivism in 2008.

Once their secular messiah was enthroned at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the Progressives with their filibuster proof majority took the reins of single-party rule and imposed their radical agenda to transform America into a Nanny-state based upon the re-distribution of wealth.  This wanton destruction of the traditional American society based on limited government and free enterprise sparked a vast rebellion of the silent majority resulting in the teanami of 2010 which brought a Republican majority back to the People’s House and an expanded minority to the Senate.

And what is the first thing these political savants do?  They reaffirm the same tired leadership and strike a deal that anyone who was paying attention could see was tailor made to save the discredited Obama presidency and set the stage for him to follow in Mr. Clinton’s footsteps taking credit for anything good the historic election might have made possible.  What were these so-called leaders thinking?  They turned the victory of the grassroots into capitulation.  Not only did they sign a deal that extended uncertainty and raised estate taxes, they gave the Administration cover for a stealth stimulus filled with pork designed to help re-elect the President.

Along comes 2012 and the Republican establishment and their friends in the Progressive Media engineer the nomination of the one man who couldn’t beat the worst president in American History with the worst economy since 1932.  They surrender the issue of a massively unpopular Obamacare by nominating the author of its prototype.  Mr. Romney spends the last debate agreeing with the President’s handling of foreign policy and ignoring the raging controversy over the debacle in Benghazi.  If he didn’t throw the election he tossed it away.

So, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?”  The answer is they aren’t.  It isn’t a matter of intelligence it’s a matter of people with dedication to something larger than themselves, as opposed to people with dedication to seeing themselves as something larger than they are.

The leadership of the Democrats is committed radical Progressives.  They have a long term agenda to transform America into a socialist welfare state with an unlimited government, and they never lose sight of that goal.  They’re willing to commit political suicide, or more accurately they’re willing to encourage their follow travelers who do not occupy safe seats to commit political suicide.  They never take their eyes off the ball.  They’re constantly pushing to move closer to the goal line even if it’s one inch at a time.

By comparison, the leadership of the Republicans is composed of professional politicians. They’re pragmatists who do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to retain their seats, their power, and their perks.  They believe the inside the beltway press who tell them how visionary they are to compromise, losing sight of those back home in fly-over country who instead believed the campaign promises and expect their representatives to stand up for principles.

The Party of Lincoln over-and-over chooses to be on the receiving end of Pickett’s Charge instead of behind the spit-rail fence firing point blank as their enemy wastes itself in a senseless charge against an immovable barrier.  The Republicans still control the House.  They could be that immovable barrier holding back the advancing forces of bankruptcy and collapse.  Instead the Progressives of the right have once again embraced the Progressives of left in a bi-partisan campaign to continue the spending, increase the debt, and fool the public.

Paraphrasing the first Republican President, Historian Will Durant once wisely observed, “It may be true that you can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • WmCraig

    Smarter, no, playing by a different set of rules and playing them smarter yes. If the debt ceiling is allowed to lift, then raising a few billion in taxes will appear to have solved the fiscal crisis, because it is only the risk of government shut down that makes the “average Joe” notice that things are broken. It is straight out of the education program Obama managed with Ayers. Stop testing and people stop noticing how little the kids know. Same thing, stop testing for budget control and everyone thinks Obama got the budget under control.

  • joshinca

    So, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?” The answer is they aren’t. It isn’t a matter of intelligence it’s a matter of people with dedication to something larger than themselves, as opposed to people with dedication to seeing themselves as something larger than they are.

    I generally agree with this statement but think that the last bit is slightly off.

    With the structure of the federal government, it requires consistent effort over a prolonged period of time(2-3 decades) to effect real change. Which is a real problem for people that want government to do less or leave them alone because they get frustrated by setbacks and the overall slow pace and so move on to other more personally productive endeavors. Jim DeMint leaving the Senate is a good example of this factor in operation. It’s why I think that it is a major mistake for conservatives to unilaterally term limit themselves/

    Contrast that with the behavior of socialists, who are all to happy to get into an elected office and sit there forever, biding their time with pork spending until an opportunity to pass a portion of their agenda presents itself.

    The situation is aggravated by the fact that left leaning organizations that want government money and action exert constant pressure and agitation while small government groups exert only intermittent pressure to oppose specific actions.

    In a parliamentary system the Gingrich revolution of 1994 and the Tea Party elections of 2010 would have resulted in serious and immediate cuts in government spending and regulations. But in our system the reformist wave dissipated before it could make any substantial changes.

    There isn’t any magic solution to this problem. We just need to keep consistently applying pressure, create more lobbying institutions and pressure conservative politicians to stay in their seats and not give up when they get frustrated by setbacks.

  • avgjo

    Yes, they are.

    They are also more disciplined than us.

    They understand that focusing on institutional takeover and change pays much bigger dividends in the medium-term and long-term. Sure, they play the GOTV (get out the vote) game, too, and especially in 2012, they played better than us. But they’re constantly working behind the scenes, consolidating control over education, media and pop culture. We on the right seem to think that just tweaking our message (whether pandering or making it more conservative) and increasing our GOTV efforts is all that is needed. Meanwhile, the left owns the institutions, and is indoctrinating more and more people, so in reality, we continue to fight for a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate, and many are coming to the realization that soon, there won’t be enough conservatives left in the country to get out to vote for a win. I’ve been telling people for a while, GOTV is great, but all the GOTV in the world won’t do you any good if you don’t have enough people to ‘get out’ to win the election.

    I’ve also noticed a cultural issue among conservatives (since I’m one, and most everyone i’m friends with is, too). We’re always encouraging our kids to grow up to get jobs that make lots of money. About the only exceptions to that are law enforcement and military jobs. I hardly have met any who encourage their kids to become professors, teachers or ground-pounding journalists. While these jobs may not be as LUCRATIVE as others, they are, especially right now, much more ESSENTIAL to the country’s survival.

    We also play far too nice with these people.

    We are at a true crossroads as conservatives. We have to decide whether we are serious about winning our country back. The usual excuses (‘I work too much to be an activist’, ‘I don’t want to lower myself to the level of the left with boycotts/rhetoric/what have you’, etc) will have to be re-examined, VERY CRITICALLY. We must quit looking for short-term, easy solutions (just elect conservatives and THEY’LL fix the problems – how’s that worked out for us?) and realize that WE ourselves have to get involved, not just at election time, and not just in the electoral process, and that we will have to SACRIFICE time, money and even relationships (for instance, alienating our liberal relatives by standing for truth).

    Many in the tea party like to talk like, and, at rallies, even dress like the Founders. Many conservatives like to quote those guys. Howzabout we start ACTING like them?

    • commonsenseobserver

      On the contrary, Conservatives are horrible tools for big, artificial projects. For them, almost naturally and instinctively, they do best when they do the little things in life well, working hard, raising a family, being kind to others, and participating in their community (without having a goal of manipulating the culture and ridiculing opponents). And it’s the little things that matter most in the end, that keep the darkness at bay.

      • avgjo

        Nothing personal sounds like exactly the sort of excuse making ive referred to. I don’t know either what you’re referring to as ‘artificial’; either we join or die and we either make it clear we are not to be tread upon or we wear our chains and deservedly so. This nice guy stuff and excuse making clothed in self-congratulatory language (‘we’re just so gosh-darned nice and hardworking that we don’t make good political fighters’) are key ingredients in a recipe for disaster and defeat. Count me out.

        • commonsenseobserver

          Well, do you suppose that we, like the Democrats, don’t have a life?

          • avgjo

            I have a life. I work a LOT. I admit I am fortunate that I can read and post at work. That said, I’ve had to treat activism/staying informed as a second job before. I’d do it again.

        • commonsenseobserver

          In any case, the purpose of politics is not power, control, manipulation, propaganda, or demagoguery, it’s meant to be an orderly process of vigorous civic participation, without making it sound all sinister like you do, all confrontational and all. There is a time and place for confrontation, but it can only be the means, never the end. And lots of other things must come before politics. Culture, society, family, education, commerce- these things are meant to enrich politics and be enriched by it, not become a mere instrument.

          And when Conservatives do well in such things, without politics as the only overarching, ultimate goal, well, they will end up succeeding in politics too. Any attempt to make the other facets of life subject solely to politics, being only tools to achieve political aims, will surely fail. Which is why Stephen Colbert is far more potent than Rachel Maddow- because he, unlike her, is not a servant to ideology, no, ideology is just a part of life. It’s not all that sinister and dark.

          • avgjo

            The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

            If the political situation goes out of control, family, material security, church, EVERYTHING else will be eventually lost.

            I am amazed at how many conservatives (rightly) pride themselves on providing for their families, but fail to understand that keeping Washington under control is part of that process of material security.

            I don’t know what all your comments about ‘dark’ this and ‘dark’ that mean exactly , but I’m pretty sure that the seriousness of the current
            Situation canNOT be exaggerated.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “They understand that focusing on institutional takeover and change pays much bigger dividends in the medium-term and long-term.”

      HUZZAH! Someone who really gets it! Suggest you make a diary out of this brilliant point.

      • avgjo

        I’ll probably do it, but I know I’m going to get the usual,

        ‘What are you talking about?! We just need to do more GOTV.’
        ‘You’re crazy, we can’t take those back from those liberal meanies. They might yell at us.’
        ‘We’re just so gosh-darned nice and hardworking, you can’t expect us to do that kind of thing.’

        While everyone on our side is talking about the next great technology/database/consultant, the left is indoctrinating our kids through schoolbooks, radio, tv and the Internet, all of which they dominate.

        I don’t know if I can say it any clearer: GOTV don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got the votes to get out. Let the leftist indoctrination continue, and American conservatism as we know it will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

    • Sir Aaron

      You’re exactly right. Progressives are dedicated to their goals and they’re in it for the long term. Worse is that they’ll do anything to win.
      The founding fathers risked everything for liberty. The same is true for many Southerners in the Civil War (setting aside the slavery issue). We conservatives talk a great game but as of yet, we’ve been unwilling to make the necessary sacrifice. The time is coming where we wont be able to sit on the sidelines anymore.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      avgjo,
      You should expand this comment into a Diary.
      Thank you.
      CW

  • jmm313

    The Republican party needs to become the party of limited government again.

    The Neocons and Religious Right have destroyed the party!

    The Neocons talk like fiscal conservatives but there actions are big government. They lower taxes but increase spending which causes massive deficits and more debt. They increase the size of government. They start unnecessary wars and give out all this foreign aid.

    The Religious Right have driven the party so far right on social issues. There about big government since they want the federal government regulating people’s personal activities. There authoritarians. They have turned the party into a religious organization that has alienated people.

    • avgjo

      Oh yeah, Romney really ran to the right on social issues. He tried a purely ‘fiscal-conservative’ message. How’d that work out for him?

      Oh, yeah, you might wanna go back and read your history. Never had a country that was socially liberal that stayed prosperous.

      By your use of ‘neo-con’ and ‘Religious Right’, methinks ye a liberal troll. If not, you’re a libertarian nut, and you need to go back and read that Constitution you guys love to give so much lip service to. Until the Court, through judicial activism, abused the 14th Amendment, States had the right to establish religions, have religious requirements for office, regulate behavior, censor obscenity, etc.

      BTW, it’s ‘they’re’, not ‘there’.

      • lawstudent

        Totally Agree. Romney’s complete focus on fiscal issues without any discussion of social issues left his campaign hollow and lifeless. To win, we need to present a vision for the country, one that reverses the tragic breakdown of the two parent family and the decline of religion in America. If we buy into the leftist elites’s conception of what the republican party should be, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative like those crazy tea party types) and socially liberal (Mike Bloomberg style), we are surely doomed to be caricatures as the Montgomery Burns party by of and for the rich people. No thanks.

        • avgjo

          EXACTLY.

          Thank you for putting more clearly than I did.

          And I’m really glad to see a conservative is also a law student! We need more of you guys.

        • commonsenseobserver

          Michael Bloomberg is fiscally Conservative?

          I assure you that the only thing that would be gained by adding a “family” agenda to a “freedom” agenda, without making clear that they are consistent with a “fairness” agenda (they are, but are we getting the message out?), would be to make us the party by, of, and for the rich Christians.

          • lawstudent

            He is fiscally conservative to the extent that he cares about balanced budgets, wanting high taxes to pay for his expansive social programs. He is fiscally to the right of the Keynsian liberals who want confiscatory taxes on the successful which will still not be sufficient to pay for their absurd socialist welfare programs.

            It is not the same as our fiscal conservatism, which wants low taxes and minimal social programs, leading to a lean and balanced government.

            Without a strong social focus we are just a rudderless party of libertarian plutocrats, the elitist type who denigrate the “47%” and despise blue collar working Americans. We need less of Romney and more of Santorum.

          • commonsenseobserver

            There’s nothing preventing us from being a rudderless party of theocratic plutocrats, the elitist type who denigrate the “47%” and gays and Muslims and women, and despise blue collar working Americans and gays and Muslims and women, either.

            Really, it’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone in our party despises blue collar working Americans (and there are different “47%”s, which may overlap at times but aren’t the same, which Romney conflated), thank you. And we don’t need the abrasive Father Santorum either.

            Have you thought about Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal?

            They can be firm without being nasty, and they’re probably better messengers than Huckabee or Santorum or even the father of compassionate Conservatism himself, W.

          • lawstudent

            This is where we part ways. I’m not interested in becoming the kumbaya party which loves everyone, and has no belief in right and wrong. It’s not denigrating homosexuals to believe that the only moral relationship can be between a man and a woman. It’s not denigrating muslims to support Guantanamo bay and oppose jihadism. It’s not denigrating women to believe that men and women have different roles in society, and women don’t belong on the front lines. That’s not denigration – that’s morality, and that’s my proud Republican Party.

            It’s also exactly why people like Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan just aren’t good enough for me. Jindal is busy trying to play nice on social issues with the left – and ignore the tragic decline of the family and religion in American society, which is literally dooming society, and condemning generations of kids to grow up in dysfunctional one parent families. Paul Ryan is more of my speed, but he also seems to have become uncomfortable talking about social issues, although perhaps that was Romney muzzling him to run his wildly successful tax cuts for rich people campaign.

            No, Santorum is my guy, we need to stop fearing how the left and the elite media will laugh at us when we talk about religion and morality. We need to stop being ashamed of our religion, ashamed of our beliefs, ashamed of our traditional values. We need to proudly stand up and advocate for our positions, and do our utmost to reverse the decline that this greatest of nations among men has undergone since FDR and since Woodstock. Baby steps and surrender aren’t going to cut it.

            Step 1 in doing this is refusing to extend the tax cuts for ANYONE until they are extended for EVERYONE. To do that we need our representatives to stop fearing King Obama and the knights of the round table, and to start fearing us – the conservative base which sends these guys to Washington year after year.

          • commonsenseobserver

            You just hit tax cuts for the rich before playing right into that narrative.
            You can stick with Rick Santorum.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            “He is fiscally conservative to the extent that he cares about balanced
            budgets, wanting high taxes to pay for his expansive social programs”

            Most liberals who are honest about it will own up to that. It’s only the pandering lying liberals in office and are worried about losing who will pretend to be for lower taxes. What a farce. Every dollar a govt spends is a dollar (or more) in eventual taxation.

          • samuelshuang

            You forget Romney was an incompetent campaigner who gaffed and failed GOTV so badly (project orca anyone) also that Obama has the power of incumbency it was nothing about social conservatism

          • commonsenseobserver

            Boston was just a horrible place to run a GOTV operation from. They clearly lacked expertise and technology, and the centralization only made it much worse.

          • samuelshuang

            Exactly, I have no idea why he wouldn’t pick Ohio where he was outnumbered 3:1 in campaign offices if I recall correctly and was agreed upon by both sides of the political spectrum as the most important state to win.

          • avgjo

            The only GOTV that a lot of social conservatives care about is that they can trust the candidate on social issues. While we can question the wisdom of doing so in this election, I would not be surprised to find that many of them stayed home.

      • jmm313

        Nope I’m no liberal I’m just another Republican who thinks the party has gone off path and lost its way.

        Why are you bringing up Romney? I’m not talking about him I’m talking about the party in general.

        I’m not saying the party needs to become socially liberal. I’m saying the religious social conservatives have driven the party too far right on social issues. They have made the party a big government party since they want the federal government to regulate people’s activities. The party use to be about small limited federal government and strong state governments. Whatever happen to “states rights?” Issues like abortion and gay rights should be left up to the state governments they should be states rights but instead the party has tried creating federal constitutional amendments to ban these. Some current Republicans and others who left the party and became independents due to there dissatisfaction with the path of the party have said the party has become too authoritarian and I agree. The large rise in independent voters over the last few years is because of people leaving the Republican party and becoming independents. Even the author of the article said they left the party and became an independent.

        You don’t think Romney was to the right on social issues? He opposed abortion. Opposed gay rights. Had a strict stance on immigration that talked about self-deportation and he ended up with only 27% of the Latino vote because of it. And speaking of Latino’s the party has to change it’s stance on immigration to get more Latino’s into the party or else the party will constantly lose in the future since Latino’s are the fastest growing demographic.

        You can easily tell the party has gone farther right by watching the Republican presidential primary debates. The candidates have to have ultra conservative positions on every single issue or else risk losing. McCain and Romney both had to move considerably to the right. Then during the presidential election Romney had to flip flop his positions on some issues because he had to appeal to the ultra conservative base and then to the independent voters who are the keys to winning. If your too extreme then you end up alienating independents. A recent poll said the majority of America think the GOP has become too extreme.

        The religious right started gaining influence in the party in the 80′s and “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater did not like the religious takeover of the Republican Party and was highly critical of it.

        Goldwater said: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and
        governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are
        acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know,
        I’ve tried to deal with them.”

        Goldwater was right! Today the Republicans play anti-compromise politics that makes them look extremely irrational. Do you know what the opposite of compromise is? Extremism!

        Some other quotes from Goldwater about the religious takeover of the Republican party:

        In 1994 he said: “When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye”

        He told Republicans: “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”

        In 1996, Goldwater told Bob Dole: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” Basically Goldwater was commenting on how far right the party went.

        Goldwater was absolutely right. I’m catholic and I agree that Religion should not be put into politics. It’s not fair to make a law based on what a certain religion says because not everyone has the same faith or even follows a religion. The religious social conservatives stand for MORAL FASCISM and not true Conservatism.

        • Bill S

          You don’t listen well. Bye.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          “Issues like abortion and gay rights should be left up to the state governments”

          So not only do you peddle leftist fallacies, you are ignorant as well. The ‘Religious Right’ position is to allows state governments, by overturning Roe v Wade, to protect unborn human life.

          It’s a rational and reasonable solution, allows states to do these things, and you claim to agree with it, but engage in ad hominem.
          Really shameful of you. Stop your hate-ranting.

    • Bill S

      As I’ve warned others, use of “Religious Right” as a slur is going to buy you a very short life-span here. And I see you have a history of it. Once more and you’re gone.

      • jmm313

        History of what?

    • commonsenseobserver

      Nonsense.

      I would argue, however, that while our hearts are in the right place, Bush had the right goal. instead of attacking broken families, tackle the problem of family breakdown. Instead of focusing on narrow issues and prejudices, apply Conservative values which are relevant in every situation, to everyone- decency, respect, honesty, responsibility, love etc.

      And it’s nonsense that Romney didn’t talk about fiscal issues, he spoke eloquently about “culture”, about the importance of education and marriage. Unfortunately, that only scraped the surface.

      And anyone who thinks that the problem with Romney’s campaign was that he didn’t talk enough about abortion and gay marriage is a blithering idiot. No, the problem is that he did not talk enough about solutions to prevent the need for them in the first place.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “The Religious Right have driven the party so far right on social issues.
      There about big government since they want the federal government
      regulating people’s personal activities.”
      Your absurd and fallacious ad hominems alienate people. This is leftist tripe. For the record, social conservatives are more reliable on limited Govt that most anyone else, because they are really about smaller Govt and stronger social instituations outside of govt – like family, church, community, etc.

      You could not be more wrong. And btw, does the laws against murder, child rape and kidnapping imply support for ‘big govt’.

  • Viet71

    “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?”

    In scoring political points, definitely yes.

    In the 1960s, the Left (mostly left of mainstream Dems) caught on to the importance of controlling language and visual images. Long hair conveyed sharp, distinct, well-understood messages, for examples.

    In the decades that followed, the 1960s Leftists moved into Establishment positions. James Fallows to the Atlantic. Todd Gitlin to Columbia Journalism. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne to the U. of Chicago. Now they really got to dictate the use of language.

    Republicans never got hip to all this. To use a 1960s expression. It’s as if Republicans want to talk about serious matters; and the Democrats want to talk about having fun here and now. The public generally prefers fun here and now, regardless of the consequences.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Well, so Mitt could have won if he’d dyed his hair purple :P