« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Jim DeMint is a tent builder

By: realityunwound (Diary)  |  May 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1979, he was running at the tail end of the big government, big spending, high tax, energy shortage years of the Carter administration (sound familiar?). One of Reagan’s principles was the “Big Tent” of conservatism, with room enough for all of us.

One misconception about the Big Tent is that we will change to fit you, no matter what you believe or stand for. That misconception fueled much hand wringing from moderate Republicans when Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania defected from the Republican party this week. Voices like Lindsey Graham, and Olympia Snowe pouted to the media that the party has become too ideologically narrow, too regional, too out of touch.

The reality of Reagan’s big tent, is that it wasn’t built by compromising principles and giving everyone whatever they wanted. That’s liberalism. Reagan’s tent was built because he was a gifted leader, and was able to prove once and for all that conservative principles truly work. Reagan’s conservatism laid the foundation for the last 25 years of prosperity in America. The slow drift from those principles by 2 Bushes and a Clinton have led us to the place where we are flirting with a European Socialist Democracy.

Jim DeMint is a Republican Senator from South Carolina Republican, a staunch conservative voice, and a rising voice of leadership in the Wilderness years of American Republicanism. His excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal addresses what a big tent can look like in today’s political landscape.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party… must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions…

DeMint’s Big Tent has room for New England Moderates, Western Moderates, and Southern Moderates, as well as traditional conservative fundamentalists. Jim DeMint just might be the voice of one, calling in the wilderness.

Crossposted with updates at Realityunwound

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jfpurdue01

    Here’s how I view the “Big Tent” party trumpeted by Reagan. As you said, it doesn’t mean the party changes to fit moderates. Instead, it means that moderates are accepted into the party by the all-around conservatives. If you don’t take ANY conservative positions, you probably won’t be a good fit. However, if you are Rudy Giuliani and your biggest issue is the economy, fiscal issues, and a strong military but you are also in favor of gay marriage and abortion, you can find room in the big tent of the republican party without the party becoming a proponent of gay marriage and abortion! The thing we all need to remember is that when someone like Rudy comes along, we shouldn’t get all pissy and call them names because they don’t subscribe to all of the same policy stances that you do. Rather, accept him as a republican and be proud of the conservative issues he trumpets. Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion about the areas where that person is wrong, but at the same time there’s no need to bash him as a RINO. In my opinion, that is where the party needs to change. Tell Rudy he’s wrong on abortion (I’m not picking on Rudy, just using him as an example) while still respecting him. If Rudy runs for President and you see someone better than him in the primary, vote for the other person and explain why without taking personal shots at Rudy and calling him a RINO. If Rudy were to get the nomination and was running against an Obama, vote for Rudy and explain to people that his views are more closely in line with your own on the majority of issues even though you strongly disagree with him on certain issues.

    GWB had many flaws. We didn’t call him a RINO and try to run someone against him in 2004 because of his spending insanity. No, we said “We may not agree with the guy on everything, but he’s better than the alternative so we’re going to vote for the guy.” That’s the approach we need to be taking at the grass roots level. When we do that, we’re a “big tent party.”

    That said, MARK SANFORD 2012!! :-)

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      We need more Polish folks in the Party – after all, a big tent requires Poles to hold it up! ;-) Yes, a joke! Yes, I’m part Polish, so just get over it if the joke bugs you ;-)

      … but seriously now…

      The Abortion point, regardless of the few people higher up the Party ranks that are NOT 100% Pro-Life, their election still aids in Republicans having control of Washington DC – The PRO-LIFE Party as opposed to the INFANTICIDE Party the Democrats are and NO Pro-Life Democrat EVER changes that fact. The Pro-Life Democrats effect ZERO change in their Party Platform and stance and to what legislation gets put forth (always, PRO-ABORTION ON DEMAND) and the same holds true in the Republican Party, no PRO-CHOICE Republicans are EVER going to change the fact that the Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party and that will remain in our Party Platform. While we Pro-Life advocates will not be real happy that the Pro-Life agenda may not move forward at a speed we’d like, one has to admit it isn’t really advancing much of ANYWHERE as it is even when we had more high-profile Lifers in positions of Republican Power – while ANY SLIPS, like the election of Pro-Life Democrats has put the Abortion on Demand Party in a position to remove the small progresses of Partial-Birth-Abortion ban and Prohibiting Federal Funds be used for Abortions.

      Obama used an early Executive order to over-turn Bush’s Prohibition of using Federal Funds for Overseas Abortions. I do NOT believe even a Pro-Choice Republican would have done that out of the RESPECT for the other Platform ideals/concepts of Individual Responsibility and that those things that some “choose” (as it is continued to be insisted it is just a choice) that they PAY FOR THEIR OWN DECISION!!!!! Nor do I think a Pro-Choice Republican would have worked to over-turn the Partial-Birth-Abortion ban!

      It saddens me that some don’t grasp these distinctions. What is the more Pro-Life position? is the real question. Results of moving the Pro-Life agenda forward? or allowing Pro-Life Democrats to be elected and deferring the matters to the Infanticide-Party hierarchy and the Pro-Life movement actually LOSING GROUND?!?!? Convictions measured by NET GAINS!!!!! or the loses now being suffered.

      • Diogenes314

        I realize many here think one’s orthodoxy on the subject of abortion has to be a litmus test on one’s value as a candidate, but at this point that is just silly. As long as there is a pro-Roe majority on the SC (and thanks to those who sat out the election because the GOP candidate was less than perfect, we’re going to have at least two 80 year olds replaced by 50 year olds of the same ilk-good job, geniuses) the effect any POTUS can have on the subject is nil. What should be the focus is whether they will nominate Constitutionalist justices, period. It would be nice if they respect parental consent laws and oppose partial birth abortion, but again, as long as there is an activist SC majority it won’t really matter for any practical purposes. And there is a difference between being the Party of Principle and the Cut-Off-Your-Nose-To-Spite-Your-Face-Party.

        As far as this in the original post…

        The reality of Reagan?s big tent, is that it wasn?t built by compromising principles and giving everyone whatever they wanted. That?s liberalism.

        Assuming by ‘liberalism’ you mean leftism, you’re absolutly wrong. The predominate feature of the left is their inability to compromise. Leftists are by nature utopian, whether it is Lenin saving the world from the Evil Capitalist, Hitler saving Germany from the Evil Jew, or Obama saving America from the Evil Americans. Holy Warriors never comptimise.

      • kaym1246

        I vote republican for the business issues not the social ones.

        I’m a gun owner, I believe in capital punishment, I believe in aggressive interrogation techniques, I believe in personal freedom, I don’t care about gay marriage just as I don’t care about unmarried men and women sharing an apartment together and having occasional sex. I am pro-choice but understand that the this is not the higher calling for humanity, it is instead a reflection of reality. I am only in favor of abortion if its done within the first 2 months as the woman better have the responsibility to know whether or not they’re going to have that baby – not waiting until the 8th month which is infanticide at that point. I’m definitely for the Plan B pill which will alleviate many abortions if, again, the woman knows what they’re doing. And I’m definitely for making women empowered to say NO to sex in grammer school and high school, which is why we’re in this state.

        Women, girls, who think to find love if they put out for the guy, are only going to find themselves alone and feeling less of a person. Pro-Choice is more a comment on the lack of men/boys stepping up to the plate and keeping it in their pants, then it is about women.

        How to get rid of abortion?
        Teach your boys how to remain chaste until marriage. Teach them to just say NO.

        • Doc Holliday

          “Women, girls, who think to find love if they put out for the guy, are only going to find themselves alone and feeling less of a person. Pro-Choice is more a comment on the lack of men/boys stepping up to the plate and keeping it in their pants, then it is about women.”

          when is your next NARAL meeting? it takes two to tango dear. And you say you are pro-choice, does the baby get a vote?

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            new term I’m trying to get out “Partial-Choicers” for Pro-Choice Republicans, so maybe we can focus on some of that common ground and get some Pro-Life agenda accomplished.

            As for the Comment Title…. I do not know IF I know any Partial-Choicers! The reason? For just what you did here Doc. Too many of us, IMO, may LOSE OUR COOLS/MINDS at times. It is why we don’t really have any discussions around here, any PARTIAL-CHOICERS are too intimidated to have the dialog as they know they will be SHOUTED DOWN and driven away rather than allowing them to focus on the areas they can/will cooperate with us. PARTIAL-CHOICERS know to just keep quiet about it in Republican company, and that is a shame IMO.

            I ran for Office as a 100% unapologetic Pro-Life Republican against one of those Pro-Life Democrats and had a lot of support from RTL members because they understood, like I contend, many Pro-Life Democrats are really PLINOs (Pro-Life In Name Only, because they have to BOW to the Democrat Infanticide Platform position when push really comes to shove to insure they get the Democrat campaign funds/help)…. The Democrats talk Pro-Life in the light and vote to provide Public funds behind the Legislature doors. We can/should work with Partial-Choicers to end that.

            Doc, my friend, please understand that it is NOT my desire to call you out in any way…. Just trying to respond to your comment IN A GENERAL FASHION/MANNER to all my fellow Pro-Life Republicans. To any PLINOs – you are ON THE WRONG SIDE AND YOU KNOW IT!!!! You can pretend to be furthering the Pro-Life agenda but you know we are not getting any results because those PLINO Democrats don’t get anywhere in the JackAss Party.

            Can we have a CALM DISCUSSION?!?!?

          • Doc Holliday

            I am for repeal of Roe Wade and let the states decide. I don’t think the diarist was trying to have a serious discussion, that is my take. I highlighted her absurd text and responded to it.

            I do think you are serious and I do think we should be able accept “partial wins”. Meaning I am open to ending partial birth abortion before deciding the hole issue. I am open to discuss with anyone of good faith on any subject.

          • Doc Holliday

            nt

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            but wouldn’t want to have put words in your mouth…. I’m not sure why you took her as disingenuous. Again, wasn’t trying to call you out but to make the point that I hope we can have polite/respectful conversation with Partial-Choicers!

            Take care friend!

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            relates in the sense of a more appropriate description and directly to Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban issue ;-)

            People see the words Pro-Choice and lose their cool/temper…. just looking for us to have thoughtful engagement and having people being to properly identified as being absolute Pro-Abortion (Pro-Choice) or Partial-Choice and willing to work with us.

          • Doc Holliday

            that we have trouble having rational discussions on abortion. I actually understood Rudy’s argument when he was running for president. He implied that if he was forced to check a box, he would be pro-choice. He also said Roe v Wade was bad law and should be rescinded. He also gave concrete examples how his policies reduced abortions, not by banning them all, but by offering counseling, pushing adoption, and other methods to reduce abortion numbers.

            Now most pro-lifers say if you are not pro-life, then you are a non-starter. Yet many absolutist pro-lifers never put policies in place that actually reduced as many abortions as has Rudy. So the question is, who is better, the person with ideological purity or the one who actually helped save lives?

            I look at this issue as a matter ultimately between a woman and God. Although many of us have strong views, God is the ultimate judge. I think the federal government should get out of the abortion business and leave these decisions to the states. I am personally pro-life, but I don’t see how we can ban it outright. If a state decides to ban the procedure, then I support that.

            This is a touchy subject Jlenard. I even contradict myself at times on this subject because I have conflicting views of liberty, governmental power, etc. I think in the end we need to come together as Federalists who support local decision making that fits best with a given culture. I think it is a mistake to ostracize any Republican with differing views. We must come together on the RIGID view of liberty and Federalism and then debate, discuss, and work together on the issues through that prism.

            I know many will be aghast and say I am wrong. That response will only further your point and mine. At this time the only way we can get the government from funding, even promoting abortion, is to get Republicans back in control. The only way to accomplish that feat is to focus on what unites us, then work together to fix the scourge of so many abortions.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            you and I agree…. I ran for Office against a Pro-Life Democrat (who did nothing more than speak at RTL rallies, where was his Legislation to actually do anything and his votes? were my questions and therefore is he really doing anything?) which is why I put forth the notion/contention during the campaign and here over the PLINO thing. Who really moves the agenda?!?!? I think a Partial-Choice-Republican is a better and more reliable ally than a PLINO-Democrat.

            Now most pro-lifers say if you are not pro-life, then you are a non-starter. Yet many absolutist pro-lifers never put policies in place that actually reduced as many abortions as has Rudy. So the question is, who is better, the person with ideological purity or the one who actually helped save lives?

            What provides the Results and what is effective as a strategy at actually getting some positive Pro-Life policy… Too many react only on the Emotion, like a Liberal, I just want people to relax, think, and let us have reasonable strategy discussions and look at what gets results!!!

            Rudy does provide an effective case-study of the Point here…. Partial-Choicers who effectively move the bar where-as many of some of our (in their minds) staunchest of Pro-Lifers FAIL – in so far as Results!

            The bar is going to be moved slowly – it isn’t going to go the complete other direction – at least, I don’t think anyone can honestly think that!?!?

            It is the knee-jerk Jekyll/Hyde when the term PRO-CHOICE is heard! We need to get past the knee-jerk reactions and be able to talk with and work with PARTIAL-CHOICERS.

          • mom2oneson

            JLD I saw in your post below about making adoption easier and your take was from a couple seeking to adopt. If parents want to place a presumably healthy newborn for adoption it is not difficult for them to do so. (I do disagree with some of the garbage they make adoptive parents go through, so I’m not saying it’s ok for the agencies to treat adoptive parents the way they do before placement. ) We shouldn’t be pro-life or partial choice or thinking R vs W should be overturned and left to the states or any combination of leaning away from abortion because infertile couples deserve a newborn from the US. That shouldn’t be part of our argument.

            Doc adoptions being pushed or “rewarded” by financial incentives by the government has had tragic horrible effects due to child welfare tearing apart families and children being abused by the state. I believe we should be work to take these incentives away.

          • mom2oneson

            BTW I know that isn’t why are your pro-life. Sorry I read my post again and I didn’t want you to think I thought you think that. I’m saying newborns for infertile couples shouldn’t be part of our argument. It’s not difficult for birth parents to place a newborn. That should be an available option to them and it is. :)

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            as you should recall from the other thread!?!?! :P lol

            I did NOT take offense. Would you like me too? ;-) lol Maybe we can have a Flame-war, seems to be all the rage around the Threads yesterday.

            /SARCASM OFF

            I slay me with this lame humor

            To the casual reader…. another example of how terminology can be misread as a tone other than intended. Please remember to not be so quick to jump off the deep end and be all EMOTIONAL (like a Liberal) ;-) Remember, that people have bad days – remember that the Poster could be having a bad day or that you yourself could be having a bad day and not recognize it yet, and be SLOW to butt-heads over what may be nothing at all. — Remain calm and step away from the keyboard ;-)

          • Achance

            was the Democrat disease from ’68 until ’04 or so. From ’68 Leftists systematically took over the Democrat Party and purged centrist and conservative Democrats. The litmus tests varied by locale, but you had to pass them. I was a Democrat in those days and worked for the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education. We had a McGovernite group called the Ad Hoc Democratic Coalition that by ’74 was the most powerful force in the Party which heretofore had been a fairly conservative western Democratic sort of party; pro-labor but pretty conservative on national defense and the like. The saw here was that the Democratic Party was composed of Liquor, Labor, and Natives. Labor provided the organization, the Liquor industry the money, and Native (aboriginal) Alaskans the votes. Interestingly, while public employees gained collective bargaining rights in ’72, organized labor really didn’t want much to do with white collar public employees and they all remained in independent associations until the late ’80s.

            The Democrats lost their last statewide seat in ’80, Mike Gravel’s US Senate Seat. The Republicans had held the Governorship since Jay Hammond defeated Alaska icon Bill Egan. But while Hammond was a Republican and had been something of a conservative and maverick when he was in the Legislature, the key to his beating Egan was some very interesting vote counting and the support of the Ad Hoc Democrats who bolted the “old boy” Democrats. The ’76 Democrat Convention literally broke down into fisticuffs between the old boys from organized labor and the new hard lefty twenty-somethings that were taking over the Party.

            The reward for backing Hammond was that he was practically the only Republican in his Administration. People who a few months before had had finding a place to score a bag of dope as their first priority cut their hair, trimmed their beards, bought a suit or two and became directors and commissioners. The Ad Hoc Democrats also came to dominate the Legislature during a pivotal time in the State’s history. Most of Alaska’s very liberal social policy was crafted in this period and the progeny of the political appointee ranks from that period still dominate the bureaucracy.

            After the ’80 loss, the Democrats convened a “workshop” at a lodge out in the woods near Wasilla to contemplate the loss and the future. I should have been smart enough to figure out why I was being “sent” to it and none of the people I worked for were going, but I was still pretty naive back then. It was a bloodletting! We in organized labor were the first and fattest target. We were too well off, too conservative, and just not attuned to the “real issues,” so we didn’t turn out to support “real” Democrat initiatives. There was no place for any less than 100% positions on a variety of things, foremost among them was abortion. If you did not support a woman’s unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, and without so much as a by your leave to anyone, there was no place for you in the Democrat Party. There was a good long list of Alaska issues that you had to be 100% on; they’re not relevant to this discussion really but suffice it to say you had to be a full blown socialist to be 100%. I still vividly remember my “Zell Miller Moment” as a legislator friend of mine and I sat with glasses of whiskey, something also frowned on, the cool people smoked dope, before the fireplace discussing our mutual conclusion that we really didn’t belong there and certainly weren’t wanted there. I stayed a registered D for a while longer, but that was the last Democrat Party function I went to or will ever go to unless they get everything they want and attendence at Party events becomes compulsory for all citizens.

            The 100% Crowd caused the ’76 nominee to be an ineffective compromise and largely caused the losses in ’80, 84, and ’88. Bill Clinton more or less made peace with them because they were tired of twelve years in the Wilderness and organized labor was a different kind of force from the earlier times having come to be dominated by public employees, especially by the teachers’ unions. The Clinton crowd had to compromise with the 100% crowd which led to two more terms in the Wilderness at the hands of GWB. I think the HRC bunch thought they had a handle on the necessary compromise but the 100% crowd dumped her for one of their own. The one thing they have done that makes them something other than a marginal group and BHO a one term’er is compromise at the State level. They’re putting in fake conservatives and even a few sorta, kinda moderate Democrats in State and Congressional races and tolerating them so long as they remain a caucus vote. As we’re already seeing with Specter, they’ll kill anybody who bolts the caucus. With a 100% ‘er as President, and the Leadership in both bodies requiring 100% fealty, this is a dangerous, dangerous lot.

            But, to the point of this meandering piece, we cannot become a 100% party. Having general principles that you must adhere to is a vital necessity for without them, you’re a social club, not a political party, but “in or out,” “are you a party of the solution or a part of the problem” litmus tests will both tear us asunder and keep us in the minority for a very long time; it may have done so already.

          • Achance

            link to all my diaries got put in with just my screen name. Need More Coffee!

          • IJB

            What you’re saying is that the Dems were taken over by 100%’ers.

            Well, guess what – they *won*!

            I see nothing in your story that says the GOP shouldn’t be thinking about doing the same thing. If it worked for the far Left, it will work for the Right.

          • Achance

            to be writing long things. We’re getting new living room, hall, and MBR carpet today and I was up until nearly 2AM moving furniture and tearing out old carpet and pad and I really don’t know why I’m awake this early. And I REALLY don’t know why I didn’t pay somebody to do that awful job!

            The 100% kept the Ds out of power for a long time and right now they’re schitzophrenic. The state and Congressional Democrats seem to be modelled on the Clinton/Rahm Emmanuel compromise of do and say what’s necessary to get elected. Yet somehow the 100% managed to take over in the Presidential process and they did it precisely the same way they did so many years ago in the McGovern Era by mastering the caucus states.

            We have never had the kind of party that can be that focussed. Since the Republcan Party has become the conservative party, our platform has always been stopping or undoing what the Democrats have done or want to do. We’ve never been about the doing stuff, but rather the undoing. The only activisism has been on strenghtening the Nation’s defense and even that is often predicated on undoing Democrat weakening of our defense.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            here at RS for that very reason. Fellow Conservatives often are reduced to acting like Liberals getting Emotionally jacked and incapable of calm discussion when the topic comes up. I’m hoping this can provide in a small part a change to that. IMO, we can/will get further faster if we work with Partial-Choicers than acting alone – and certainly won’t garner any help if they are always immediately ATTACKED and/or snide remarks made every-time they try to chime into the discussions – it has become its own form of PC here at RS to squash the debate. We have gotten so used to attacking Trolls/Mobies that it has crossed over into almost every conversation and Cannibalising fellow Republicans (and even fellow Conservatives) often.

          • kaym1246

            OK. I stand corrected. I’m not “pro-choice” but I’m a Pro-Choicer.

            That’s 100% right.

            And I would hope that the RNC, who constantly sends me those inane surveys, would start breaking down the macro question about abortion into segments.

            Are you for “partial birth abortion?” My answer would be no.

            Are you for a repeal of Roe v. Wade? My answer would be a hedged. Are you repealing it because its bad law? or are you repealing it to get rid of abortions 100%?
            Do you want to get rid of RvW to send it to the states? Whats the intent? I’m all for federalism and having states decide based on voters (that are registered and alive vs. registered and dead who vote twice).

            Are you for the Plan B pill to be sold over the counter? No, not really as then a woman’s health can be severely compromised if she’s popping the pill every 3 days. Come on ladies, keep your legs together. On the other hand, do I want to have to get a prescription for it on a Saturday night after an indiscretion when I’m 30 years of age? Its not like I’m 17.

            Again, with no hilarity involved: Teach your boys to take charge of this issue – keep it in their pants. Men have way too much laxity in this area and need some control.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            Problem with partial choice is that “partial” is never a stable end point: you want it all. So people are not going to want to call themselves a supporter of “partial choice” because it’s going to make them feel like failures or one who has fallen short.

            “Bounded choice” is probably the most precise term, I think. It means that there is a boundary to choice – which is what we face in all areas of our lives, Within that boundary, thought we have freedom of movement.

            “restricted choice” seems like something imposed one you rather than something you embrace

            “limited choice” doesn’t quite work, probably for similar reasons

          • kaym1246

            I like this term also.

            Again, the comments here reflect that we need to get away from the autocratic macro slogans and get down to the micro.

            I like the conversation that started with my post.
            Thank you for all your thoughtful input.

          • DONTREADONME

            let me just echo what JL said, many around here do get a little flustered with the conversation because they see it as no argument do to their belief that what is being aborted is a human life.

            Now, I agree with them on the human life aspect of it; however, I seek to have the right to live in a state that chooses to not allow abortion. Unfortunately, I can not do that since the Federal Government or more specifically the Supreme Court has chose it for me.

            I think you will find a number of people around here that get uptight about this subject would be willing to accept the first step to get rid of Roe vs. Wade. Plus, overturning the decision is all that can be done, the Supreme Court can not make law; however, they could extend the non-infringement of the civil rights protection of the unborn child. That said, if Roberts is any indication Roe v Wade would be overturned and then it would be sent back to the States of which subjects like this are reserved by the Constituion.

            BTW, I call it post choice for a reason, the choice was made to engage in sexual intercourse which according to the liberals in this society should be taught at Kindergarten and these K-12ers know that sex leads to children. Enough said, we can argue about the other subtle arguments made but that is where I stand on the issue. BTW when you can not have children you soon grow up to learn the miracle that it is, and being in your 30′s does change perspective.

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          but seriously though, I think your post with Dio’s brings my point together in that until such time as a SCOTUS does ever get to a point where RVW would be overturned and allow these things to go back to the States, we as cooperative Republicans can/will/should be able to, at least, accomplish some things rather than the almost abject failure of any advances made will always be overturned flip-flopping between Republican and Democrat controls.

          If we can have and maintain control long enough to insure Partial-Birth ban, insistence that Abortion be defunded (in so much as it come from Tax funds, Abortions being funded by the person getting the Abortion and/or Planned Parenthood having to ENTIRELY raise its funds Privately not being able to obtain funds under one pretense for the others), etc… If we can/could maintain control long enough and keep such prohobitions in place people will see it is not some inhuman position and unreasonable. We must understand that Incremental-ism is at times acceptable – but one must be able to HOLD that ground once it is taken and then work to change minds beyond that point. The Left always does this, Increment anything/everything Left and HOLD GROUND while continuing to yank people Left by any means necessary. I don’t advocate the any-means-necessary, as I think that people will come around over time seeing the merits of the positions/arguments by exposing the Left’s absolute unwillingness to compromise ultimately hurts them and helps cycle control back around to us (it is all far more complex than this, of course, but I’m just not going to get into it at this point).

          • Diogenes314

            Thsi statement…

            Women, girls, who think to find love if they put out for the guy, are only going to find themselves alone and feeling less of a person.

            …is equally applicable to women who have undergone abortions. Currently neo-nazi groups such as Planned Nonparenthood are under no obligations to inform their female victims of the possible physical ramifications of their favorite procedure, let alone the possible long-term psychological ones. A lirrle more concern for the women victimized by abortion advocacy groups would add more credibility to the anti-abortion movement than mobbing outside of clinics with posters of dead fetuses

          • mom2oneson

            but there are many women involved in post abortion ministries. Most crisis pregnancy centers have information and I guarantee you in any pro-life group there are several women involved in a post abortion ministry. I know Rachel’s Vineyard even has an outreach for men, and even for men that are married to a woman that had an abortion but the child wasn’t theirs. I’m not involved but there are plenty of pro life people that are.
            Not everyone that goes outside of a clinic has dead fetus pictures either. I have refused to go if a group was visiting that had graphic pictures. I think first it’s disrespectful to the dead and secondly not appropriate to show graphic pictures like that in public and third I sure don’t want my kid seeing pictures like that.

          • Diogenes314

            Since we’re on the subject of things I ‘don’t know about’, I don’t know anything about the number of anti-abortion types who help with adoption and foster care. I could mention other subjects I ‘don’t know about’, but I donm’t know what they are.

            The point was that by exclusively focusing on the fetus, anti-abortion types allow pro-abortion groups to portray them as extreemists who are unconcerned about the welfare of the women said groups are victimizing. If the same amount of effort was put into passing laws requiring said groups to advise distraut women about the possible long-term physical and psychological effects of abortion, not only would it possibly cut down on the number of procedures being performed, but it would reverse their propaganda efforts.

            I would also love to see a class action lawsuit by those who have had said problems after getting misleading advice against Planned Genocide et al. It is the American pasttime, after all.

          • mom2oneson

            trying to be rude to you writing you don’t know about it. I just meant it like you didn’t know about it but they are involved in it. Sorry if that came across as rude I wasn’t trying to be. They don’t focus only on the fetus. They have put energy into what you are saying, and other things too like the mother being informed of all choices available, utlrasounds and waiting periods.

          • mbecker908

            That’s my job. And, if there is someone you’d like to be rude to but just can’t bring yourself to do it, email me privately and I’ll be happy to handle it for you.

          • mom2oneson
          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            would be nice if he/she would participate in his/her Diary ;-)

            there was simply no reason for Dio to be testy with you, as I defended you above.

          • mom2oneson

            thanks :)

            I think you phrased it better, nothing I wrote after you don’t know was heard. I will use your “you may not be aware” of next time. I’m learning !

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            is that we CAN and should be working together with people like KAYM here/above, if she is sincere and at this point I have NO REASON to believe that she is not sincere, to work on all these things we have talked about and can improve the situations of things. Some of our fellow Conservatives reduce themselves to that of an Emotional Liberal incapable of polite discussion when the topics come up if anyone that is not on the 100% Pro-Life IMMEDIATELY stance. Some want to use the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT (we are suppose to be against) to impose on others as Liberals impose everything via force of Government. All I ask is that my fellow Conservatives try to CALM DOWN and have discussions without turning into raving lunatics (read: acting like a Liberal) and let us discuss and WORK TOGETHER (COOPERATING) with those “PARTIAL-CHOICE” Folks that are/will work with us!!!!!

            I agree with the Informed Consent issue and can’t believe it didn’t come to mind (I was tired and half asleep) when I first posted. Most Liberals don’t want any Consent as absolute as they are against any discussion of Abstinence with kids (they love to go on and on about Bristol, and ignore the facts that it is OBVIOUS that some kids can/do give in to PEER PRESSURE as it is 2 Parents against EVERY Teacher in their Indoctrination Factories pushing promiscuity as well as fellow students).

            We really must SERIOUSLY do something about making Adoption easier. Why it is that friends of mine can and did adopt out of RUSSIA cheaper, quicker, and easier, than they would be able to a Child from within their own country IS JUST PATHETIC!!!!!

            BTW: Another new term for all those supposed PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS that really don’t ever move much of the Pro-Life agenda forward because their PRO-INFANTICIDE Party WILL NOT allow them to do so. PLINO (Pro-Life In Name Only)! I should add that to the Red-Dogs vs RINO (DINO, BLUE-DOG) Diary.

          • kaym1246

            This was a NO BS post.

            I wasn’t setting out to tweak anyone or to do a rope a dope situation.

            What I said, I believe.
            Thank you.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            relax, remember that you said

            A little more concern for the women victimized by abortion advocacy groups would add more credibility to the anti-abortion movement than mobbing outside of clinics with posters of dead fetuses

            So she agreed with you and was informing you of what you indicated/implied you might/probably not be aware of (at least, first hand).

          • skorrent1

            Always get turned on the socons, and a socon discussion always devolve to abortion?

            There are plenty of voters who hate the “pork” but love the “bacon.” Do they get invited in?

            How about the Paul/Buchannan type “conservatives” who think if we just curl up inside our borders the rest of the world will leave us alone? Can they rewrite our platform?

            Then there are the pro-life types who favor gun control, love PC campuses, and think the Fairness Doctrine would be hunky-dory because they hate Rush.

            There are a lot of “pro-choice” voters who hate PBA, dislike public funding of abortion, and think parental notification is proper. They certainly have no voice in the donkey party. Do we want them under our tent?

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            As I said in the discussion above, YES I think Partial-Choicers should be welcome and we should be working with them on COMMON GROUND!

            This always blows up into Abortion, as I said above too, because that is the ONE topic that Republicans jump off the deep end and act like Democrats in an Emotional fashion ONLY.

          • Karina

            You might want to rethink the term “partial-choicers”. It sounds too close to partial birth abortion and might be taken to mean people in favor of it. I understand and agree with the concept though. I think it’s a great idea to move past the yelling and find a workable solution. As a pro-lifer myself, I would really like to see the decision moved back to the states, closer to the people.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and helps to start to form a distinction…. I touched on the fact that it does, in part, address the Partial-Birth-Abortion issue just up this Diary (I hope you’ll check out the whole long discussion). It is just the opposite though, in that a Partial-Choicer would-be/is – against Partial-Birth-Abortion. Why? How do I know? It is my term and I’m setting the definition ;-) but really, it does at least help create a distinction between full on out-right Pro-Abortion folks (that insist on calling themselves Pro-Choice) and those whom we can distinguish from that and have common-ground to work with.

            I thank you for joining in the discussion – I hope you’ll join in, or at least read, from the starting point here (comment 27 of this Diary) on the topic.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          • Karina

            I understand what you’re saying. My point was just that using that term might make over emotional people (left and right) explode and not listen to what anyone has to say right off the bat. We want a discussion, not another finger-pointing, name-calling screamfest and I think there might be a better term to use. You’re welcome to come up with one!

          • Lammo

            :-)

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and many of our fellow Pro-Life Republicans lose their minds and act like Jekyll and Hyde – Abortion is mentioned and they LOSE THEIR MINDS and immediately seek the deep end to jump off of.

            I think you are being sensible. We do not get anywhere, IMO, being THAT confrontational (the Pictures and ranting-and-raving in people’s faces)…. We have to provide and show the LOVE that it is we profess to have for our LOST (as we should see them) neighbors/countrymen.

            SOME OF THESE FOLKS WE CAN WORK WITH!!!!! And we have to make sure that those going into the PP, etc…. can come to us later for comfort when they have that epiphany – they won’t feel that way if we are ranting/raving! That is all I am saying… I don’t want people to lose their Passion, but to control and focus the energy comprehending the best LONG TERM STRATEGY! Not just to act like a Liberal by going out, ranting/raving, then going home – are we doing this to have success or (like Liberals) just to FEEL GOOD about ourselves?!?!?! We MUST deal in effective strategy! We must be able to sit down and calmly think about the strategies and exam RESULTS for effectiveness over FEEL GOOD politics like Liberals.

            God Bless you all my friends!

          • Kyle-MI

            Part of the reason it is emotional is because pro-lifers have been entirely cut out of the political system because of Roe-v-Wade. It has created an impossible political wall to climb. All that pro-choicers need is to elect a simple majority and their issue get passed. Pro-lifers need to pass a fricken constitution amendment just to be heard. We have already been closed out of the Democratic party. Forgive us if we worry that pro-choice Republican want to squeeze us out as well. Am I paranoid to worry that pro-choicers want to cut us out of both parties so we have no where to go? I just don’t have any sympathy for pro-choicers have an entire party of their own and a court-imposed (false) constitutional right with which to slam their opponents.

          • Jack_Savage

            And very true. One issue pro-choicers have ample room in the Dem party.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            to be in the Republican Party? Jack/Kyle – are you suggesting a concerted effort to infiltrate and try to change from within the Party of Pro-Life?

            It is not about ME, it is not about either of you (Jack/Kyle), it is just that you’re (and I THANK YOU VERY MUCH for) deciding to take part in this conversation. It is my BIGGEST CONCERN/POINT – that we have these conversations calmly and coolly without it degrading to DailyKook/HuffPooPoo level banter. We are NOT going to change anyones minds shouting or calling names at each other, we may never change any minds being respectful either, but at least we CAN/WILL find the common-ground (maintaining a Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban, no Govt. Funding of Abortion, improving the Adoption situation, etc…) that we can achieve in order to reduce Abortions. It is the topic that is Emotional, and understandably so, but if it were spending we’d agree that it can/should be FROZEN (numbers) and then worked to be reduced. Again, about successful/useful and/or workable strategies that people can be on-board with. We will NOT get from where we are to ZERO on the Life/Abortion or the Spending issue!

            The Republican Party Platform is NOT going to change, in relation to the Party of Life. We are not going to let it! Partial-Choicers come to the Republican Party, IMO, because of other reasons and are open/willing to work with us on common ground. The key is how we approach and treat each other – some of you may prefer to treat them badly/rudely and maybe you’ll send them over to the Pro-Abortion Party where they help keep the Democrat Majority rather than help the Republican Party return to Majority status. Your Choice! (no pun intended)

            This is NOTHING PERSONAL, and that is where the trouble is to some degree. Some people automatically try to make it, or take it all, Personal – Acting like Liberals and solely running on Emotion rather than trying to be objective over strategy decisions. Some people hear the topic of Life/Choice, however it is couched and LOSE THEIR MINDS and are incapable of discussion, just shout-fests to help them feel good about their position while accomplishing NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO, etc…. I am trying to get people to calm down so we can have honest and open discussions about the topic and what common-ground we have that we can work toward.

            This is all opinion and a discussion of strategy… now, many people may with to continue to be purposefully and openly advasarial to those in a form of our own PC to keep others quiet. I prefer having a real conversation, rather than Republicans acting like Brainless Liberals immediately having to resort to shout-downs over dialog. Again, if you think confrontation (I’m not talking about against those committed Leftist 100% Pro-Abortion types, I am expecting no dialog or any chance to work with them, but that against Partial-Choicers isn’t helpful at all) as the strategy, I would ask you to take a look at the NOT so stellar results. Are we in the movement of Pro-Life to feel good about ourselves (like Liberals, happy to have an issue rather than have some solutions) or to GET RESULTS? Working with PLINOs sure hasn’t provided anything, they just keep the Pro-Abortion Party in charge!!! Rather than trying to drive out/away Partial-Choicers try getting those PLINOs over to the Party of Life rather than helping the Party of Abortion!?!?!?!

            It is about end results. PLINOs result in more Abortion, the opposite of what they claim to believe in but their Party doesn’t allow them to ever accomplish anything in regard to the Pro-life agenda they claim to care about. It is the same as voting for a Blue-Dog expecting Spending to be Reduced, it doesn’t happen because the Democrat Party leadership doesn’t allow it to happen. It is about calm examination, not Emotional reactions that actually lands up yielding exactly the OPPOSITE of what is trying to be accomplished!

            If the desire is to be like a Liberal Democrat and rant and rave and Feel Good about ourselves over the movement…. then by all means, some may help themselves feel better – but I look at things from a RESULTS oriented strategy and the strategies thus far aren’t yielding much. With this current crop of Democrats in charge again we will be again losing any ground that was gained that will need to be taken back – and Partial-Choicers will be helpful to that end, IMO.

          • Diogenes314

            Having an emotional attachment to a particular issue is no excuse for failing to approach it intelligently. A good example is all of the geniuses who decided to sit out the election because McClown wasn’t ‘conserative enough’.
            Thanks to them, we are probably going to replace 3 or 4 80 year old activist SC justices with younger clones who will be around fior a generation.

            Being passionate is no excuse for being stupid.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            though I am trying to get it across politely and with calm conversation. That is another part of the point. Trying to get people talking politely rather than confronting each other to focus on our goals. Cannibalising within our own Party (and we really have no REAL alternative to go to) is NOT helpful!!!!

            There is a difference between a full-out 100% Pro-Abortionist and a Partial-Choicer – let us work together on that common-ground area!

            Again, we must examine other issues to remind us that it is about effective strategies we are discussing and RESULTS – not what makes us feel good today (that’s for Liberals, that Feel Good crap) – we are about creating some solutions that actually help and are effective. We can and should work with others on issues to reach common-ground (but before you take my words too far and thinking something I’m not saying) if any BI-PARTISANSHIP is to take place, it has to be in OUR DIRECTION (for a change). No more compromise with Liberals to GIVE Liberals more Liberal-Incremental-ism. It is time we insist the concede some to our direction. No more McCainism (as I say in my sigline), they have to help US for a change to Reduce Spending, Reduce Abortions (Adoption policy improvements, Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban, and beyond)….

            TONE MATTERS as to whether someone is going to listen or just ignore you for being constantly confrontational or harsh.

            Save the nastiness for the out-right Liberal Ultra-Lefty Trolls/Mobies that show up, but give the benefit of the doubt until we know they are that for certain. The Republican Party and the Conservative movements are not a monolithic 100% you agree or you don’t – there are degrees. We need to talk up are similarities and stop trumping up the differences – if we are GOING TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING – but, again, some don’t really care, they just want to rant/rave as it makes them feel good about themselves (seems to me that makes them more like a Liberal than a Conservative, IMO) …. I HOPE THAT ISN’T ANY OF THOSE IN THIS DISCUSSION!?!?!?

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            and could their numbers have overcome the huge amount of new democrats and independents?

            And furthermore, what makes you think that McCain would have nominated anyone good?

            I am tired of this meme of blaming people for sitting out an election if they don’t like who is on the ticket.

            I reluctantly voted for McCain only because he chose Palin. But I wont ever vote for another squish again. If the beltway republicrats insist that only they can run the party, then they can have it. It wont be worth fighting for.

          • Diogenes314

            But considering the drop-off of GOP votes since 2004, the number is probably significant. If not enough to defeat The One, it would have swung a few congressional races and maybe prevented a filibuster proof Senate. As far as the calibre of candidates McClown would have selected, it would have had to be better than what we are going to get. I’m old enough to remember how badly Ford sucked. And to realize that mediocrity is preferable to Jimmy Carter.

            Bottom line-too many people look at voting as a right, as opposed to a responsibility. Which is fine. But those individuals have absolutely no right to complain about anything for the next four years, including my absolute contempt for them.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            I actually think it will be much better to have an Obama Administration. At least now the Democrats and liberalism will be blamed for liberalism. If we had to go through another bout of conservatives being blamed for liberalism then there might not be any party left at all.

          • Diogenes314

            Have nothing in common. As far as the rest, we’ll just agree to disagree.

            Enjoy your new SC Justices. Fot the next twenty years.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            In fact, I suspect that our most zealous advocates for conservatism in 2006 and 2012 will be those that feel betrayed by Obama.

          • AKSteveB
          • kaym1246

            when everything else is aligned with conservatism?

            Wow.

            I’m a woman without a party and a citizen without a country it seems.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            To learn more about the Partial-Choicer concept that I created back in April visit here: Partial-Choicers and PLINOs….. Whether you would/should be met with open arms by Republicans into the Party will depend on how far you believe the “Choice” thing goes….

            I don’t know you and haven’t read this whole thread so I am answering SOLELY upon your last comment.

            The “Partial-Choicer” term in and of itself leaves alot of room for things to be decided for each Life/Choice related fight items, and whether you come down on either the Choice or Life side. If your positions are like this:

            1. Infanticide is wrong in any circumstance – a child that survives an Abortion procedure and is Born Alive and Breathing — That child should be required by law for anyone and everyone having anything to do with that Abortion should be held responsible to keep that Baby alive and get it the care it needs (That is the LIFE position) (The CHOICE side wants to be able to have zero responsibility for that Baby and it is allowed to just be discarded and left to suffocate or by other means die off on its own w/o any regard from attendants.

            2. Partial Birth Abortion – LIFE position is, of course, that it is NEVER acceptable because the Child can be and is being born but an instrument taken to the Baby to terminate its life before the complete Birthing procedures are completed. Whereas, the Birthing process could be performed and the Baby given an opportunity to Live (it may still die as it would be birthed early, but it would have a chance to LIVE) CHOICE position is that at any point this Partial Birthing of the Child in order to kill it is okay.

            If for NO OTHER REASONS than you think the LIFE of those Babies must be protected (that the birthed child would then be a ward of the state – the mother still has NO CHILD following the procedure, but the Child has the chance to Live…. If you believe those 2 positions are procedures that should NOT be allowed but that earlier in term procedures you would continue to still consider allowing the woman THE CHOICE….. Meeting us just that far, and perhaps going one step further to say that ADOPTIONS SHOULD BE MADE EASIER so that Baby’s that are saved have families that will take/love them….

            YOU SHOULD BE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WORK TO HELP US TO AT LEAST GET THOSE THINGS YOU ARE WILLING TO AGREE WITH US ON ACCOMPLISHED…… Can you imagine the LIVES you will help us save?!?!?!?

            You may, or may not, then agree with wanting to work with us on Stopping all Public funding of Abortions…. If Planned Parenthood wants to help people have ABORTIONS then PP should be the ones to raise the funds through private donors keeping the Abortions FREE – but not forcing those who for Religious reasons do not want any of their money to go to such procedures — That is another question…. Is that NOT REASONABLE?

            And then each and every other sub-issue there is in regard to LIFE or ABORTION….

            YOU WILL NOT AGREE WITH US ON ALL THINGS, but together we can and should work together to at least get the most horrific Infanticide and Partial-Birth Abortion procedures/policies STOPPED!

            Other will want to go on and do more…. you are not and would NOT be bound to go past any point you are uncomfortable going past.

            Help us to stop the most horrific deaths of these Children to the point you are comfortable.

            I can only speak for myself, and for a few others I know that I have had these discussions with, that we would WELCOME you joining the Party with NO illusion that it won’t take some time to get the alliance to become able to work together…. Many Lifers have grown a HATRED for anyone that considers ANY CHOICES as acceptable AND we have to work with each other to get past these things FOCUSING ON THE FACT THAT TOGETHER WE CAN SAVE SOME CHILDREN THAT WE WILL NOT IF WE DON’T JOIN FORCES!

            I put that together hastily… I hope it makes sense….

            If you are really interested, we can exchange some information and have a detailed phone conversation (734) 282-0643 — WE CANNOT WAIT, BECAUSE BABIES KEEP DYING WHILE WE DO!!!!

          • kaym1246

            You wrote:
            The ?Partial-Choicer? term in and of itself leaves alot of room for things to be decided for each Life/Choice related fight items, and whether you come down on either the Choice or Life side. If your positions are like this:

            1. Infanticide is wrong in any circumstance – a child that survives an Abortion procedure and is Born Alive and Breathing ? That child should be required by law for anyone and everyone having anything to do with that Abortion should be held responsible to keep that Baby alive and get it the care it needs (That is the LIFE position) (The CHOICE side wants to be able to have zero responsibility for that Baby and it is allowed to just be discarded and left to suffocate or by other means die off on its own w/o any regard from attendants.

            My response is that once its born, its here. Anyone harming that baby needs to be brought up on charges.
            Next hoop I have to jump through to prove ProLife is a concept of Prochoicer.

            2. Partial Birth Abortion – LIFE position is, of course, that it is NEVER acceptable because the Child can be and is being born but an instrument taken to the Baby to terminate its life before the complete Birthing procedures are completed. Whereas, the Birthing process could be performed and the Baby given an opportunity to Live (it may still die as it would be birthed early, but it would have a chance to LIVE) CHOICE position is that at any point this Partial Birthing of the Child in order to kill it is okay.

            My answer would be, as I posted in the original blog entry: Partial birth abortions are horrendous. Give me a break here!

            If for NO OTHER REASONS than you think the LIFE of those Babies must be protected (that the birthed child would then be a ward of the state – the mother still has NO CHILD following the procedure, but the Child has the chance to Live?. If you believe those 2 positions are procedures that should NOT be allowed but that earlier in term procedures you would continue to still consider allowing the woman THE CHOICE?.. Meeting us just that far

            Yes, I never said I wouldn’t meet you more than 1/2 way. I believe my original post said: I believe in Plan B and a woman should know her own body well enough to realize if she’s pregnant with 1 missed menstrual cycle and if she doesn’t run out to the freakin drug store to buy a pregnancy test to find out and DO SOMETHING about it before the beginning of the 3rd month, she’s honor bound at that point to grow it and deliver it. If she doesn’t want it – she puts it up for adoption. End of story.

            Never said I was pro-NARAL. I said I was pro-choice with the above parameters.

            “…and perhaps going one step further to say that ADOPTIONS SHOULD BE MADE EASIER so that Baby?s that are saved have families that will take/love them?.”

            Well, I don’t know about ‘easier’ – I would hope that people do have to have background checks and such. Adoption of pets have a background check and a follow up visit from the animal welfare people. I should think that’s the least we can do, but it may not be ‘easier’…see what I’m getting at?

            “YOU SHOULD BE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WORK TO HELP US TO AT LEAST GET THOSE THINGS YOU ARE WILLING TO AGREE WITH US ON ACCOMPLISHED?? Can you imagine the LIVES you will help us save?!?!?!?

            Since I vote conservative I don’t know what else I can do for you. I don’t give to Naral, NOW, or planned parenthood.

            “…You may, or may not, then agree with wanting to work with us on Stopping all Public funding of Abortions?. If Planned Parenthood wants to help people have ABORTIONS then PP should be the ones to raise the funds through private donors keeping the Abortions FREE – but not forcing those who for Religious reasons do not want any of their money to go to such procedures. ? That is another question?. Is that NOT REASONABLE?

            Agree 100%

            And then each and every other sub-issue there is in regard to LIFE or ABORTION?.

            YOU WILL NOT AGREE WITH US ON ALL THINGS, but together we can and should work together to at least get the most horrific Infanticide and Partial-Birth Abortion procedures/policies STOPPED!

            Other will want to go on and do more?. you are not and would NOT be bound to go past any point you are uncomfortable going past.

            Help us to stop the most horrific deaths of these Children to the point you are comfortable.

            I can only speak for myself, and for a few others I know that I have had these discussions with, that we would WELCOME you joining the Party with NO illusion that it won?t take some time to get the alliance to become able to work together?. Many Lifers have grown a HATRED for anyone that considers ANY CHOICES as acceptable AND we have to work with each other to get past these things FOCUSING ON THE FACT THAT TOGETHER WE CAN SAVE SOME CHILDREN THAT WE WILL NOT IF WE DON?T JOIN FORCES!

            I put that together hastily? I hope it makes sense?.

            It does and the entrenchment each side feels is the problem.

            I guess I would be classified as a “moderate” by Rush Limbaugh, who I have listened to since I was 20. He always wants to know what “moderate” means when it comes to an issue such as abortion. This is my moderate position and he goes on about being responsible as an individual. Well, I think that 2 months for a woman to decide and get her freakin act together is as responsible as one could get.

            I’m also very much in favor of the drop off areas for new borns. Better to have the baby placed in one of those “containers” (for want of a better term) then having the baby and then trying to flush it down the toilet or throwing it the garbage.

            Look, I’m all for the tag line: Once you’re 3 months – its yours till its 9 months and alive.

            I’m still in favor of teaching young men to keep their zipper zipped! It should not be a 1 way street. Even if the girl says she’s got it taken care of, teach the boy to put a rubber ducky condom on.

            Until we teach boys the reprecussions of their actions they won’t stop trying to ‘get some’ with a girl.

            Look at that idiot that Bristol Palin had a baby with. He was the jock of the hockey team and she was the pretty smart girl. Yes, she should have had more sense but its a 2 way street. Where were his morals? Not to be found obviously as he’s getting paid to disrespect the mother of his child on every democratic channel/program there is and he’s being paid for it. Does he even have the IQ to understand he’s being played? His coach for hockey, on day 1, should have called the team together and told them point blank: you should wait until you’re older but if you have sex, use a CONDOM.

            Is that so freakin hard for people to meet the pro-choicers half way regarding men and boys and their responsibilities in this process?

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and the need/point here is to have this be about any/all “Partial-Choicers” in general.

            The Democrat Party has been and will always continue to be the NARAL extreme Pro-Abortion Party. IT IS THAT SIMPLE…. If anyone is truly a “Partial-Choicer” and therefore believes some procedures go too far – for even the Pro-Choice mind/believer – the Democrat Party will NEVER agree with you.

            Remember when we were first able to get some Partial-Birth-Abortion restrictions, that the Democrat/ObamAgenda seeks to Abort the Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban Acts and keep them from being possible in States or Federal level…. I am sorry, I forget the “Act” name being touted by Democrats and therefore can’t provide a link – but keep your eye on RS and a Diary will pop up as the ObamAgenda gets to it…..

            The Point…. Anyone as a “Partial-Choicer” only gets their concerns worked toward by working with Pro-Life Republicans to have “any limitations” that meet with your beliefs/positions. Democrats will ALWAYS ignore any “concerns” you have and don’t care that you would “allow” some limitations. They will take your money and vote and keep Infanticide and other 100% NARAL style PRO-ABORTION positions. Only voting/working with Republicans will you get the limitations you see as “reasonable!”

            Now, some may ask… But won’t Pro-Life Republicans want to go further than what I want to. The honest answer is YES… BUT…. again let me remind you how nearly impossible it was for us to get the Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban that many of you “Partial-Choicers” agree with. Very few Democrats FINALLY came across the aisle to support it ONLY because they new it was a done deal with Republican Control and they voted to save their hind-side for re-election campaigns (as strategy). The Democrat Party that would otherwise threaten to take away their re-election support, money, etc, LET some of them vote for the Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban as a matter of strategy to just HOLD THE SEATS so as to work the next Elections to overthrow Republicans and return a Democrat Control where they would OVERTURN via legislation or through Judicial/Court Activism any ground NARAL lost. Democrats will ALWAYS be there to stop ANY REFORM possible and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE that things would ever get to the point quickly that the “Choice” related items you do support will be challenged. You would then have the “Choice” (sorry, bad pun intended) to then support the PRO-ABORTION Democrat Party again at that time (again, won’t be needed any time soon)…

            FOR NOW…. If any “Partial-Choicer” does believe some aspects of the PRO-INFANTICIDE agenda goes too far – there is only one place/people (Republicans) you can turn to to work with. Again, now there are some CINO/PLINO Democrats, but notice (with the one Partial Birth Act exception) they NEVER do anything to halt the 100% PRO-INFANTICIDE agenda of the Democrat Party…. They are Pro-Life In Name Only (PLINO) and are that way to get elected in Districts where Pro-Life is the primary position, but they do NOTHING about ending INFANTICIDE because the Democrat Party Extorts their silence/inaction by letting them know their re-election will not be supported, in fact challenged, and they will get no funds, support, Party positions, chairmanships, etc…..

            So, bottom line…. To bring an end to those things you consider TOO FAR…. a “Partial-Choicer” can/should support Republicans.

            I’m Pro-Life and I am more than happy to work with “Partial-Choicers” toward achieving “common ground” goals, and others I know personally are willing to work with you also without calling you names beyond knowing you are a “Partial-Choicer” not “Pro-Choice” in the NARAL PRO-ABORTION manner the term more or less is these days (which is why I created the term “Partial-Choicer” to make the distinction)…. It IS how we got the Partial-Birth-Abortion ban and will be the only way we will end Infanticide and Public Funding (Pro-Abortion groups can and should raise their own funds to pay for peoples Abortions they want to help, not all Taxpayers)….. I urge my fellow Pro-Lifers and fellow Republicans to welcome the chance to work with “Partial-Choicers” in this regard….. We can and should avoid badgering each other over other things and stay focused while together on the Goals before us. Discuss your other Political positions/plans at other gatherings!

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

            ?

        • mom2oneson

          you should first try to stop the public schools from inviting PP into the schools telling the kids how to have relations before you blame the boys. I don’t know if you have teens but society gives them lots of freedom without responsibility and they don’t always use their brain. Pregnancies are going to happen.

          • mbecker908

            They tell them how to have sex. And I’m sure you know the difference :-)

        • JadedByPolitics

          you sound like someone who has issue’s with men….now if women would just keep those legs closed then the men wouldn’t have to think about keeping it in their pants now would they? prochoice is really a comment on availiablity NOW ISN’T IT? if it were not so easy to just go to the local Planned Parenthood and just have them scrape that baby from your body perhaps more women and men would think TWICE before bedding down or perhaps they would consider birth control or condoms! This 30 second sound bite society allows young people to not think ANYTHING through to its logical conclusion.

          • kaym1246

            Why is it always the woman?

            Why can’t it be the man?

            I don’t have problem with men. I have problem with the attitude of: good looking woman giving a “go” sign, the guy sticking it in and afterwards, its goodbye.

            Teaching boys early to be respectful of their participation in the creation of life, being knowledgeable about woman who they should be protecting by saying “No”.

            I see tons of father/daughter chastity dances and promises to remain virgins, but I don’t see the BOYS taking those same vows.

            That’s not right! Not if you want to limit the number of abortions each year to whittle it down to zero.

            Best regards.
            Kay McCann

          • OccamsRazor

            .

          • mom2oneson

            Men will always try stuff, even the “nice”ones. Reality is that it is up to the women to say no. I don’t even think woman should put themselves in situations where they are alone. I agree with you, we should teach boys about being respectful. I have I told my son that God made young women very attractive so their (future) husbands will be with them and they will have Christian children.

            They have father/daughter dances because girls are different. Young men seperate from their mothers and learn how to be providers. Their drive is to become a man. Also girls love to dress up and be beautiful and do events like that. Girls love attention! :-) Boys would be more interested in doing a project or camping or fishing together and obviously they can talk there about remaining chaste to their state in life.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine