What's wrong with the Republican party? - Rev's Take

[Rev Prez]

What's wrong with the Republican party? - For Serious Folk Only

I was having a conversation with my parents (both Republicans, mom voted for Bush, dad voted for Kerry, neither liked either) yesterday about the Schaivo case and both shared exactly my opinion on the subject regarding the government's - specifically, the Republican party's - actions in the case (that they were out of line). My question is, Why?

Here's a better question. Why are you offended by policymakers intervening to save an innocent life?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

I've seen my party drift from true conservatism toward this religious/social conservatism with a complete disregard to their historic base--conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, and protecting the environment, and negotiating fair(not free) trade policies.

By your own admission, your key concerns are matching expenditures to revenues (with no apparent concern for either the absolute amount of expenditure or expenditature compared to GDP), government intervention in land and resource use, and government intervention in international commerce. Since your brand of conservatism was one that popped up no earlier than the 1890s and was appropriated by liberal statists by the end of World War II, exactly what makes you a conservative in any meaningful, modern sense of the term? And how did a "staunch conservative" like yourself arrive at an electoral choice wildly out of touch with those of other active duty and reserve officers and enlisted?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

First the Terry Schaivo thing. My answer is that it was a freebie. They *had to* have known, even before they made the resolution, that the 'law' would be struck down by judicial review.

Since the law wasn't struck down, that's a remarkable claim to make.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

While no candidate/president will ever have complete popular support, and while I am not therefore completely supportive of Clinton, I do feel he was a strong candidate and had real popularity in the elections he won. Reagan was the last really popular Republican president--more than Clinton, and on the spectrum, Clinton more than Dubya.

In what way? Bush received more votes than either Reagan or Clinton.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Interesting thread Russ...politically, I consider myself a bit illiterate, but from what I generally observe and what I *learned* in government classes in school is the Republican party is about separating government from church, about keeping government out as much as possible.

That's an incredibly crude way of putting it. A meaningful definition of Republican conservatism notes the tendency to limit the capacity of the state to determine and influence private interests. That has nothing to do with church-state issues, which in almost all cases deals with solely the internal dynamics of the state. In fact, it almost exclusively refers to the state's intersection with economic interests. A conservative view taken to its extreme logical consequence would eliminate state subsidy of education as far as possible, and then devolve responsibility and control of what remained to as close to the beneficiaries (the parents) as possible. Under such a scheme, the state would say nothing if the parents, through processes of their own, decided to teach Norse mythology as gospel in the curricula.

Doesn't seem to be going that way though in the last few years, then again, maybe this is just the Libertarian point of view?

The Libertarian point of view is a conservative one compromised by the willingness to let the state assume as much authority as possible to regulate church-state interactions and privacy matters. It is a highly illiberal, anti-freedom position that still invests tremendous domestic authority in the federal executive and judiciary. However, since church-state and privacy issues, in terms of raw dollars, are neglible compared to the economic ones, the two points of view share a great affinity for one another and a common enemy in liberalism.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

fundamentalists are intolerant of others views.

Everybody is intolerant of others views to some extent or another; considering that "fundamentalist" is no more or less an opprobrium than "secularist," I'd say anyone who flings it about as such is just as intolerant as Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell. That said, since we all except the same basic social contract that guides the transfer of power election after election, appealing to tolerance is not a constructive line of discussion.

once there were LIBERAL members of the GOP

There still are, just as their are conservative members of the Democratic party. Republicans have been far more successful at drawing together their coalition than Democrats, who in the 1980s and 90s hemorrhaged Congressmen like an open fire hydrant.

now moderates are scored as evil as there are very very few
old school liberals left to pick on in the GOP

Hyperbole, one that could've easily been replaced by noting the GOP is less beholden to its statists than the Democrats are beholden to its free marketers. Face it, the center migrated rightward over the past twenty years and for good reason; people don't need or accept wannabe know-it-alls who deny American exceptionalism and value minority advocacy groups, endangered species, and civil servants more than the taxpayers.

partys NEED balance and you can't fly long with only one wing
and NO center.

Really? Watch. The US spent the first third of the 19th century with only one significant party, fifty years of the postbellum period in the hands of Republicans, and then sixty years of Democrat congressional rule. The consensus changes all the time; a fact that Democrats continue to deny while Republicans have embraced in order to shape it to their vision.

the NEO-CONs don't play well with others

No, they don't, but since neoconservative interests are almost entirely focused overseas, this is a non sequitur.

as they think GOD IS ONLY ON THEIR SIDE

Neoconservatives are most certainly not defined by their religiosity and are typically more secular than other conservatives. Church doctrine and revivals aren't exactly the biggest concerns of DoD policy wonks.

Rev Prez

 

[Grogs]

Since the law wasn't struck down, that's a remarkable claim to make.

Rev Prez

I conclude that Pub.L.109-3 ("the Act") is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case...

I'm not sure what you would call that? If you want to say the law wasn't struck down fine, but by refusing to accept jurisdiction in the case (the very thing the law was designed to do), the Federal courts nullified the law. I'm not sure what's required to in fact 'strike down' a law, but since this was a one-shot law, the court's ruling had that effect.

 

[2CentsWorth]

In what way? Bush received more votes than either Reagan or Clinton.
Rev Prez

This means Reagan and Clinton were not popular presidents? Here is better reasoning:

Its worth noting that while Clinton was a popular President, he won his first election with perhaps (not sure) the least percentage of the popular vote ever - and didn't win either election with a majority.

Still after these tactics:

...The relentless pursuit of Whitewater and the attempt to smear Clinton, which was failing until he walked right into the trap...

Some how I think Clinton would have won against Dubya in 2000 if he could have gone for a third term--that's the point.

Back to the main topic of the thread – The Republican Party has been hi-jacked by the fundamentalists and “neocons.” Are they a minority, or will their agendas become the platform going forward? I believe there has been miscalculation with regard to a religious agenda, but agree with others that the neocon agenda is another matter. Hopefully fiscal conservatism will prevail if nothing else.

 

[Rev Prez]

I'm not sure what you would call that?

That's called a concurrence. To be more precise, the opinion did not address whether or not a law granting one person of the President's choice a de novo hearing on the merits of a civil matter. In fact, beyond a flippant statement neither did Birch's concurrence.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

This means Reagan and Clinton were not popular presidents?

This means Bush was more popular than Reagan or Clinton. Do the math.

Back to the main topic of the thread – The Republican Party has been hi-jacked by the fundamentalists and “neocons.”

"The Democratic Party has been hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American racists." Now that we've agreed on a level of maturity for our exchange, let's move forward.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Sure we are. In question why the GOP is doing what its doing, you invite views different from yours. One view takes great offense that you find anything wrong with an effort to save an innocent life.

I do not hold that view. My point was simply that a number of GOP leaders argued based on assertions that were straightforwardly, factually wrong.

Keep the threats to yourself and focus on the topic. I'm a grown man, I'd like to think I'm speaking to one.

That isn't a threat, simply a reminder that this forum has rules of etiquette and an observation that you are taking a hostile and defensive posture. It is not necessary.

 

[Rev Prez]

I do not hold that view. My point was simply that a number of GOP leaders argued based on assertions that were straightforwardly, factually wrong.

And it is my point that those who hold your view are wrong and I'm asking why. We can discuss this with or without you.

That isn't a threat

Yes, it is. To claim otherwise is the height of disingenuity. We've been through this before, and if necessary we'll go through it again.

...simply a reminder that this forum has rules of etiquette...

Ya don't say.

...and an observation that you are taking a hostile and defensive posture.

A laughable opinion you've expressed before. Seriously, can't you move forward on the discussion without taking time out to beat this dead horse to its futile end?

It is not necessary.

Neither are your threats. I strongly suggest you pay attention to the discussion at hand and stop wasting both your time and mine. Since I started posting here, you've contributed nothing.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The GOP has always had its religious bigots and its toxic super patriots.

William Jennings Bryan. 'Nuff said.

Rev Prez

 

[SOS2008]

This means Bush was more popular than Reagan or Clinton. Do the math.

Dubya is more popular than Reagan? Doubtful. Dubya would have won the 2000 election against Clinton? Who knows. But when you do the math, you need to hold the variables constant, for example higher voter turn-out in one election versus another, and remember that all the variables may not be calculated in the "math."

"The Democratic Party has been hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American racists."

Though we have already had this discussion in other threads (such as the thread on separation of church and state) to conclude that people of other faiths or those who are secular are "Godless" or that they, or even atheists are "Christian haters" AND to conclude that all of these people are Democrats...I'd like to see your basis for this...but anti-American racists? That takes the cake.

 

[Rev Prez]

Dubya is more popular than Reagan?

If we compare their vote counts, yes. George W. Bush received 50 and 62 million votes in 2000 and 2004 respectively. Reagan received 43 and 54 million in 1980 and 1984 respectively. Clinton's received 44 and 47 million in 1992 and 1996 respectively.

Doubtful. Dubya would have won the 2000 election against Clinton?

Who knows? You've got some data shedding light on the question?

Who knows. But when you do the math, you need to hold the variables constant, for example higher voter turn-out in one election versus another

Why? Popularity has nothing to do with the people who hate you, otherwise we'd be in schools across America right now slamming "popular" kids misappropriating the title. Even so, what does voter turnout add meaningfully to our understanding the question of popularity? Was George W. Bush more divisive than Reagan? Yes? Did he get more votes than Reagan did? Yes. Last time I checked, popularity counted more than divisiveness in high school.

...and remember that all the variables may not be calculated in the "math."

This fragment is meaningless.

Though we have already had this discussion in other threads (such as the thread on separation of church and state) to conclude that people of other faiths or those who are secular are "Godless" or that they, or even atheists are "Christian haters" AND to conclude that all of these people are Democrats...I'd like to see your basis for this...but anti-American racists? That takes the cake.

1. I did not say all atheists or all Democrats are Christian hating, anti-American racists. I said the Democratic Party was hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists. I most certainly don't believe that most godless people out there have the time, energy or prickishness to put on the village atheist act day in and day out.

2. It has just as much basis as the claim that the Republican party has been hijacked by people who merit the derisively applied label "fundamentalist" and "neocon." And to be honest, I don't like to personally hang out with a great many liberal or atheist cause heads, so I'm probably just as shocked and offended to hear you describe my peeps as I've described yours.

3. Eat dem apples.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Consider Bill Frist, who was apparently a reputable doctor before becomming a Senator. He disputed the diagnosis based on an hour's worth of home video. He has to know how wrong he was medically.

And how wrong is it medically? Really, I'm curious. People seek second opinions all the time, so obviously questioning a diagnosis is not beyond the pale.

The easy answer is "politics", but that isn't good enough, considering upwards 80% of the population disagreed with the actions.

I think you better look over the polling data again and reconsider.

I have two (related) theories:

First, party politics. The Post article suggests Frist (and I'm singling him out, but he's not the only one) is playing to the "Religious Right" faction that currently dominates the party.

You still haven't gone out of your way to explain in a quantifiable way what this religious right faction is, what it votes on, and exactly how it "dominates" the Republican party. These are things you'd expect in any half-way decent analysis of say Democratic party politics, and things easy enough to do when we're talking about minority, or union, or age constituencies. Data, data, data, russ.

That's a possibility - if towing that line is the best way to gain favor from the party, then maybe that's why they are doing it. They know it'll cost them votes in a general election, but ehh - they have votes to spare. The bigger hurdle may be getting nominated.

If this 2008 drives Schiavo reaction theory had any merit whatsoever, then why aren't the key players in the picture? Exactly how is Tom Delay's seat at risk? We're still about a year and a half from the next midterm election. In short, there's no evidence that midterm electoral politics is playing any significant role whatsoever in this affair; at least not on the Republican side.

Second, I believe the Republican party misunderstands the current political climate. With the Democratic party as weak as it currently is, it is clear that this country is moving to the right.

This country has been moving rightward for nearly thirty years. Between the Democratic failure to run consistently successful presidential races since FDR nodded off, the death of the liberal consensus during the Vietnam war, the loss of the South, the cutting of the top marginal rate from 70 to 40 percent, massive deregulation or airline and telecommunications, increased charter and private school attendance, and the increasing drop in the ratio of unionized to free workers, there's no doubt that conservatism is on the ascendent. You'd think that Democrats have more pressing things to worry about than the religious inclination of angry parents who shovel out thousands of dollars a year in property taxes.

However, what should be equally clear is that its mostly just the weakness of the Democratic party that is pushing the country to the right (and a little bit of mostly 9/11 related, temporary nationalism and other related feelings). I think the Democratic ideas (specifically, the victim mentality and entitlement mentality they pitch) are failing, but regardless, while that may indicate more people agree with conservative values/economic principles, that's not a mandate for the Religious Right.

Wow. So did Martin Luther King Jr. get or lose his mandate when the Democrats took back the White House in 1960? I'm curious, russ. Exactly what authority does the Left appeal to in order to deny the American faithful their voice in politics?

I think the EXIT POLLS bear that out. What is interesting to me is that while the exit polls do show that Christians voted more for Bush than for Kerry, the difference is not as stark as some people are implying - 59% (for Bush) for Protestants, 52% for Catholics. And while "moral values" ranks high, terrorism and the economy rank just as high.

You seem to be under the impression that they are separate issues in the minds of evangelical Americans. Or have you really not encountered someone like General William Boykin in your life?

Bush's "favorable" rating was 53% - while that's bad, Kerry's was 47%. Simply put, Bush didn't win because people like him, he won because people didn't like him less than they didn't like Kerry.

That does not follow whatsoever. The unfavorables count when you talk about dislike, not the favorable, and there it has to be pretty high to be terribly significant (because of the party loyalty breakdown). Either way, he has and continues to score better than 50% favorable rating. Since a good portion of the unfavorables are diehard Democrats, why would any Republican care how they feel?

Regarding the parties, consider that Clinton was a moderate and Kerry is only slightly to the left of him.

I won't consider either, since both claims depend entirely on your definition of moderate--one that is meaningless since you apply it to both Clinton and McCain despite the world of difference between them on the vast majority of a left-right issues.

5 years ago, the Republicans had a moderate (McCain) gaining power (which, IMO, reflected the real opinion of the typical Republican) and the Republican party more or less actively sabbotaged his campaign in favor of promoting Bush, who is pretty far to the right.

I'll ask this again on this board, what makes anyone think McCain is a moderate? If its that he talks less like an evangelical than Bush, then the distinct lacks substance. If it's he opposed one tax cut out of a wave of four, then you're doing better but still not cutting the mustard. If it's because he ran against Bush, well that speaks more to the Left's overly emotional preoccupation with symbolism than anything else.

Rev Prez

 

[SOS2008]

Last time I checked, popularity counted more than divisiveness in high school.

Now we're getting to the variables not calculated in the math...

1. ...I said the Democratic Party was hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists... 2. It has just as much basis as the claim that the Republican party has been hijacked by people who merit the derisively applied label "fundamentalist" and "neocon."

A movement to the right, including the increasing role of the religious right, as well as the "neocon" philosophy is well documented and very much debated. If there is "just as much basis in the claim" as the "Democratic Party being hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists," please source it.

 

[loseyourname]

If we compare their vote counts, yes. George W. Bush received 50 and 62 million votes in 2000 and 2004 respectively. Reagan received 43 and 54 million in 1980 and 1984 respectively. Clinton's received 44 and 47 million in 1992 and 1996 respectively.

Bush won with 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004. His best opponent garnered 48.26%. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote, 47.87% to 48.38%. This gives him a net percentage victory over his best opponent of 1.96%. He has been 2% more popular than his challengers in the two elections he's won.

Clinton won in 1996, 49.23% to 40.72%. In 1992, he won 43.01% to 37.45%. This gives him a net percentage victory of 14.07%, which is more than 12% higher than Bush's margins. He also defeated an incumbent, something that Bush has never done.

Reagan, in 84, won 58.77% to 40.56%. In 1980, it was 50.75% to 41.01%. The net margin for him is 27.95%, or 26% higher than Bush's.

Bush received more total votes because of more voters. By the same token, Hoover received more votes than George Washington. That doesn't make him more popular.

 

[Rev Prez]

Bush received more total votes because of more voters. By the same token, Hoover received more votes than George Washington. That doesn't make him more popular.

It does in any meaningful sense of the term. Otherwise, we'd be forced to acknowledge a guy with 100% favorables from a poll of two people as more popular than one who has the confidence of 50% of 100 million. These fractional arguments don't fly in a meaningful definition of popularity. Its the absolute number that counts. If you want to refer to percentages, we could talk about divisiveness.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Now we're getting to the variables not calculated in the math...

No we're not. I've gone through this argument a long time ago. You can continue it if you'd like with others.

A movement to the right, including the increasing role of the religious right, as well as the "neocon" philosophy is well documented and very much debated. If there is "just as much basis in the claim" as the "Democratic Party being hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists," please source it.

A movement to the left, including the increasing role of the Christian-hating left, as well as "communist" economics is well documented and very much debated. If there is "just as much basis in the claim" as the "Republican Party being hijacked by fundamentalists and neocons," please source it.

Rev Prez

 

[faust9]

By your own admission, your key concerns are matching expenditures to revenues (with no apparent concern for either the absolute amount of expenditure or expenditature compared to GDP), government intervention in land and resource use, and government intervention in international commerce. Since your brand of conservatism was one that popped up no earlier than the 1890s and was appropriated by liberal statists by the end of World War II, exactly what makes you a conservative in any meaningful, modern sense of the term? And how did a "staunch conservative" like yourself arrive at an electoral choice wildly out of touch with those of other active duty and reserve officers and enlisted?

Rev Prez

Ahh, the battle cry of someone who has little to no knowledge of recent history.

I'll respond to your little angry question(wow reverend you do seem to have your hackles up don't you) with a few for you:

Which president from1980-88 enacted fair trade legislation to prevent Japan from dumping cars into the US market?

Which president from 1969-74 signed to most sweeping environmental legislation?

Which president from 1952-60 managed to maintain a balanced budget and spoke out against the iron triangle?


Hint, they were all three of them conservative, republican, and recent.

Now, your brand of conservatism is reminiscent of the days of old salem--where a witch could be burned at the whimes of a child and the "court" system in place had no checks and balances. I wonder why the founding fathers wanted to keep matters of religion out of state business, and vice versa...

Oh, and as for my military service and my vote against Bush--why should I vote for a man who avoided service? I fought in a war. My father did. His father did. What has Bush done to benefit the military? Name something please. That is one reason I didn't for for him--he wears his patriotism on his sleeve.

Carry on.

 

[loseyourname]

It does in any meaningful sense of the term.

There are two ways we can interpret it that would both be meaningful. One way is to do as you do and count the absolute number that approve. By that token, any politician in India would be more popular than any politician in Britain. The other way is to do as I have and determine the proportion of the population that approves. That way, we can meaninfully say that George Washington was more popular than Herbert Hoover. In fact, by your framing of the word "popular," Ralph Nader is more popular than George Washington. Even though he never came anywhere near winning an election, he's received far more votes.

Otherwise, we'd be forced to acknowledge a guy with 100% favorables from a poll of two people as more popular than one who has thE confidence of 50% of 100 million.

That's a silly way of looking at it, don't you think? The population of the US increased from about 220,000,000 to 280,000,000 from the time of Reagan's first election until Bush's first election. That's about a 27% change. A little different from the 490,000,000% change in your example.

By the way, Kerry received the second-most votes of any presidential candidate in history. By your reasoning, that makes Kerry the second most popular candidate ever, right?

 

[Rev Prez]

Ahh, the battle cry of someone who has little to no knowledge of recent history.

You assume too much.

I'll respond to your little angry question(wow reverend you do seem to have your hackles up don't you) with a few for you:

I'm no Reverend. Once again, you assume too much.

Which president from1980-88 enacted fair trade legislation to prevent Japan from dumping cars into the US market?

Which president in 2002 enacted steel trade tariffs to prevent foreign dumping of steel in the US market?

Which president from 1969-74 signed to most sweeping environmental legislation?

Presumably the same one who instituted price controls in the face of inflation.

Which president from 1952-60 managed to maintain a balanced budget and spoke out against the iron triangle?

Definitely not the one who pushed through tariffs to prevent the Japanese from dumping cars.

Hint, they were all three of them conservative, republican, and recent.

Reaching back a half century for singular acts hardly qualifies as a recent trend of conservatism.

Now, your brand of conservatism is reminiscent of the days of old salem--where a witch could be burned at the whimes of a child and the "court" system in place had no checks and balances.

Really? What woman has the Republican party burned at the stake?

I wonder why the founding fathers wanted to keep matters of religion out of state business, and vice versa...

I wonder how someone who purportedly served in an institution that keeps religious chaplains on the payroll came to that conclusion.

Oh, and as for my military service and my vote against Bush--why should I vote for a man who avoided service?

I'm not concerned with who you personally vote for, just with the why insofar as you feel compelled to share it with us.

I fought in a war. My father did. His father did. What has Bush done to benefit the military?

Define "benefit the military." If we're talking pay, then he's fought for and gotten increased pay for those who serve. If we're talking modernization then we have transformation. If we're talking about some nebulous definition of "benefit" then there is really no reason to continue.

Name something please. That is one reason I didn't for for him--he wears his patriotism on his sleeve.

Which apparently didn't bother the majority of active duty and reserve servicemen and women--they did vote for him, after all.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

There are two ways we can interpret it that would both be meaningful. One way is to do as you do and count the absolute number that approve.

The only way to do that is to count numbers, and be specific and consistent about the domain. In terms of electoral success, Bush is more popular than Reagan and Clinton--he got more votes. At some point historians will poll the country to find out how is reputation fares after some long period of time, but at present, the only meaningful comparison we have are the vote counts.

By that token, any politician in India would be more popular than any politician in Britain.

Yes. What's wrong with that?

The other way is to do as I have and determine the proportion of the population that approves.

Which amounts to saying a guy who appeals to 100% of 2 people is more popular than a guy who appeals to 50% of 100 million.

That way, we can meaninfully say that George Washington was more popular than Herbert Hoover. In fact, by your framing of the word "popular," Ralph Nader is more popular than George Washington. Even though he never came anywhere near winning an election, he's received far more votes.

George Washington is more popular than Herbert Hoover today because more people today say as much. In the end, the absolute number counts.

That's a silly way of looking at it, don't you think? The population of the US increased from about 220,000,000 to 280,000,000 from the time of Reagan's first election until Bush's first election. That's about a 27% change. A little different from the 490,000,000% change in your example.

Not unless I resort to special pleading.

By the way, Kerry received the second-most votes of any presidential candidate in history. By your reasoning, that makes Kerry the second most popular candidate ever, right?

Yes.

Rev Prez

 

[loseyourname]

The only way to do that is to count numbers, and be specific and consistent about the domain. In terms of electoral success, Bush is more popular than Reagan and Clinton--he got more votes. At some point historians will poll the country to find out how is reputation fares after some long period of time, but at present, the only meaningful comparison we have are the vote counts.

I'm using vote counts. The word "approves" should not have been used. All I mean by that is that a vote was cast.

Which amounts to saying a guy who appeals to 100% of 2 people is more popular than a guy who appeals to 50% of 100 million.

It amounts to saying that a guy who received 58% of the popular vote for a population of 220,000,000 is more popular than a man who received 50% of the popular vote for a population of 280,000,000. If we take registered voters who actually cast votes to be a good sample of the entire population (the constitution clearly does), that is almost true even in terms of the absolute number of those who favor him, the difference being barely more than 1%.

George Washington is more popular than Herbert Hoover today because more people today say as much. In the end, the absolute number counts.

Again, by the same token, if we take the samples as representative, then Reagan would have received far, far more votes than Bush if his elections had the same number of voters. Washington would have received almost twice as many votes as Bush.

Yes.

Rev Prez

I guess that ends this portion of the discussion then. You've defined "popular" in a way that is clearly different from the way in which everyone else here uses it, a way that results in Bush and Kerry being the two most popular candidates in American history. If you don't agree that this definition is different from the one being used by everyone else, consider the original context. Questions were raised as to whether Bush could defeat Clinton or Reagan. According to consensus on the forum, he could not, because he is less popular. According to your definition of popular, if this same argument is applied, then Nader would have defeated Washington. I conclude confidently that the rest of us mean something far different from you when we refer to a president as "popular." As long as you're consistent and explain your alternate definition, however, I suppose that's all right - so long as you stop claiming that Russ was wrong, that is, at least about that one part of his assessment.

 

[faust9]

If the absolute number is what counts then Gore would be president. Gore absolutely got more votes than Bush. I Guess Gore is more popular.

 

[2CentsWorth]

That, of course, would be my first post. Is it your claim that this thread is meaningful absent the facts? If Russ is making an untrue claim, then why should we treat it as anything but untrue?

Rev Prez

I believe the point being made is that the discussion is deviating from the original post, and it has been mentioned by several people that some of these topics may best be debated under other threads.

 

[Rev Prez]

It amounts to saying that a guy who received 58% of the popular vote for a population of 220,000,000 is more popular than a man who received 50% of the popular vote for a population of 280,000,000.

But by no obvious method that distinguishes it from the 100% support from 2 guys case. And that's the problem. You're arguing that somebody shouldn't be more popular simply because they have more people to attract, but that speaks to personal traits--charisma, for example--rather than extrinsically defined state like popularity.

Again, by the same token, if we take the samples as representative, then Reagan would have received far, far more votes than Bush if his elections had the same number of voters. Washington would have received almost twice as many votes as Bush.

Which is quite possible, but that involves some measure of extrapolation. In that sense, Reagan is more popular than Bush. On the other hand, since this thread is concerned with the political implications of the Schiavo case, I would argue that a President's popularity during his tenure is more important than his popularity in retirement or death.

As long as you're consistent and explain your alternate definition, however, I suppose that's all right - so long as you stop claiming that Russ was wrong, that is, at least about that one part of his assessment.

He is wrong, for the reason I outline above.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

If the absolute number is what counts then Gore would be president. Gore absolutely got more votes than Bush. I Guess Gore is more popular.

Yes, barring the margin of error Gore was more popular than Bush in 2000.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

In any case, Russ hasn't a single piece of evidence to back up his claim that there is something wrong with the Republican Party, that the Republican Party took a fundamentally wrong step in its approach to the Schiavo case, or that there will be negative consequences in the future. If anybody else would like to take a shot defending the indefensible, be my guest.

Rev Prez

 

[2CentsWorth]

The topic is "what's wrong with the Republican Party." We're discussing that topic, including whether or not the OP is true. Deal with it.

Rev Prez

With regard to the numbers, loseyourname made a very valid post, which you seem to disregard with a differing opinion of the definition of "popular." As for your position, it is the kind of position the Dems are probably hoping for with glee.

 

[Rev Prez]

Your post #14 was an inappropriate personal question directed to one person and as such was not relevant to the topic.

In that case, I rephrase. Why are those who hold that the Republican Party is going off the rails so offended by an effort to save an innocent life?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

With regard to the numbers, loseyourname made a very valid post, which you seem to disregard with a differing opinion of the definition of "popular."

If by disregard you mean I don't accept, then yes. If by disregard you mean to dismiss, lyn and I've gone a few rounds on this subject already--I think that qualifies as giving the arguments and counter-arguments their fair share of sunshine.

As for your position, it is the kind of position the Dems are probably hoping for with glee.

I seem to recall similar sentiments expressed about the second through third Bush tax cuts and Bush's refusal to humiliate the US before Western Europe in hopes France and Germany would send troops to Iraq. They didn't amount to much in 04, so I will disregard these, too.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I attempted to clean up the thread and split it. If I mangled it too much or missed a post that should have been in the other thread, I apologize. Rev - I'll be back to comment on your points.

 

[russ_watters]

A number of points to respond to (and yes, I'll be covering some old ground because I didn't reply fully):

Why are you offended by policymakers intervening to save an innocent life?

While that was the stated justification, what "offends" me (not really the right word) is that their action was based on factually wrong premises (to be discussed in detail...) and that it was unConstitutional (also to be discussed in detail...) Not the least of which is the implication that there was a life to save: for all practical purposes, she was already dead (remember, that's legally the only way you can remove life support).

Since the law wasn't struck down, that's a remarkable claim to make.

Let's not get into semantics - no, it wasn't technically struck down. It was stated by the courts that it was unconstitutional, but striking it down would kinda be irrelevant. The similar law passed by Jeb & Co. in Fla, however, was struck down.

The main point there is that this law was unConstitutional. It and the similar law were a violation of separation of powers. The courts have been unanamous about this. It is simply not open for question.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/lazarus.schiavo/index.html

And it is my point that those who hold your view are wrong and I'm asking why...

And how wrong is it medically? Really, I'm curious. People seek second opinions all the time, so obviously questioning a diagnosis is not beyond the pale.

Well, you've provided the first clue: was that a second opinion? Was Frist qualified to present a medical opinion (he's a cardiologist, iirc, not a neurologist)? Did he do a full exam? Is his opinion shared by any actual experts in the field who have examined her?

The answer to all of those questions is an unequivocal no.

Next, other politicians used words like "handicapped" and "disabled" to describe her condition. Those words have specific meanings and do not apply here: she was not handicapped or disabled. She was in a persistent vegitative state. Politicians who characterized her condition in those terms were being factually inaccurate.

DeLay stated that she was "awake" - while it is true that she had periods of "wakefulness", she was not awake. There is a difference: being awake includes being conscious. She was not conscious.

DeLay accused one of the judges of "trying to kill Terri". Since the feeding tube was keeping her alive, all that happened was that she was allowed to die naturally instead of being actively kept alive via artificial means.

Jesse Jackson: "She was starved and dehydrated to death." Same as above.

Bush: " In cases where there are serious doubts or questions, the presumption should be in favor of life." There were no such doubts - serious or otherwise.

A good faq: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/schiavo.qa/index.html
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Politicians
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/otsc.cohen/index.html