I was excited about the ticket and I don't even plan on voting for it. I thought he would likely open the door to a discussion of fiscal issues that has largely been ignored or soundbited to death at this point. Not everyone's excitement is due to loving every aspect of the candidate.
I could see thinking this, but I don't understand why we would think a GOP candidate would lead to this discussion. The swept the 2010 election promising JUST such a discussion. And we did not get it. I feel like this is once bitten twice shy.
True, but you can't really put people like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle in the same category as Paul Ryan. I think 2010 was more about who would be willing to "stand up to Washington insiders" versus a sound understanding of fiscal issues that they hoped to push through. Even if you don't agree with his policy, he is more well-read than many politicians. The ticket would be making a huge mistake to ignore that. Of course, I still roll my eyes at certain points during his speeches, but it is not because I think he doesn't know what he is talking about. I think given the current economic conditions Obama will then be forced to get back to specifics as well. His ability to do that when John McCain couldn't was a big selling point for me in 2008.
This is ridiculous. You are telling me the people on this board weren't excited about Obama in 2008? I mean, he didn't support gay marriage then, so surely he must have just been a candidate you accepted as the best of bad options, right? No celebration necessary, just somber acceptance?
Post by cookiemdough on Aug 14, 2012 10:43:44 GMT -5
No, maybe I am using the term well-read incorrectly? I just mean that unlike a majority of the politicians I actually think he reads and participates in researching his positions. While others were complaining that the ACA was too long and was impossible to read, he actually asked questions and brought up a dialogue that indicated that he spent time with the document. Not the omg death panel kind of discussion of Palin, but the you have x, y, and z in here but how does that control costs kind of discussion. I may not be making sense here, lol.
This is ridiculous. You are telling me the people on this board weren't excited about Obama in 2008? I mean, he didn't support gay marriage then, so surely he must have just been a candidate you accepted as the best of bad options, right? No celebration necessary, just somber acceptance?
He supported moving the ball forward. He wanted to get rid of DADT, he wanted civil unions, he wanted benefits and legal rights for partners. And I think you saw plenty of people saying they wished he'd go even further and suspected he would (which he did). So, yeah. Not the same.
So what you're saying is that it's ok to celebrate a candidate who you don't entirely agree with, or who doesn't go far enough in every way you'd want them to, as long as they hit it out of the park on the stuff that you prioritize.
I was excited about the ticket and I don't even plan on voting for it. I thought he would likely open the door to a discussion of fiscal issues that has largely been ignored or soundbited to death at this point. Not everyone's excitement is due to loving every aspect of the candidate.
I could see thinking this, but I don't understand why we would think a GOP candidate would lead to this discussion. The swept the 2010 election promising JUST such a discussion. And we did not get it. I feel like this is once bitten twice shy.
So we're all just supposed to give in to our cynicism and give up? Or assume that the Democrats will have this discussion by themselves?
The biggest problem with the Tea Party was that it was completely disorganized and decentralized. Ultimately those folks couldn't even agree amongst themselves as to what they stood for. Initially they seemed to have a unifying theme but a LOT of infighting ensued. What started as a reaction to the economy ended up being a hodge podge, with (per usual) the most extreme voices being the ones that got the press and ended up running the show. Economic theory is boring and requires detail and concentration; it's more interesting to point fingers.
With Ryan, there is a figurehead who has basically staked his career on economic issues. I don't care if he's been doing this for 10 minutes or 10 years, anyone who is familiar with him associates him with economic issues, and it's pretty clear that this will be his talking point during the election. This isn't some decentralized movement, it's one person who actually discusses this boring stuff in detail. I do see reason to be optimistic that we might have this conversation. Frankly, if I can't get optimistic about possibly having this conversation now, I have no reason to ever be optimistic. I'm cynical, but I'm not quite ready to give up completely.
And cookie nailed it - for me personally, the excitement comes from the possibility of a renewed discussion, precisely because I was so incredibly disappointed with what happened to the Tea Party. I've been paying minimal attention to the ins and outs of the campaign, but suddenly it's very, very interesting to me. It doesn't mean my vote is sealed, not by a long shot.
It's my life you're compromising. This isn't a let's all take a hit together for the good of the country kind of scenario. You are compromising MY rights with no ill effect to yourself. Pretty easy to do when it doesn't impact you, no? Talk is cheap and compromises are always easier when it's someone else you are selling out.
::deep breath::
Llama. I am seriously trying to take an objective look at your perspective. I am trying to imagine where you're coming from and seriously taking into account, as best as my limited experience and perspective are able, your life and the effects our societal stances have upon it.
I DO think any compromise of your rights will absolutely effect my own. I think gay rights are essential - and I'm NOT just thinking about you. I'm thinking about MY kids - where my universe centers around - and what if, someday, one/both of them come to me and tells me they are gay/lesbian. If that happens, I absolutely want them to have every single last right any other person in this country should have.
But I would really, truly appreciate it if you'd take a step back and consider one thing with regard to your paragraphs of angst and accusation lately:
You are expending energy and time against people who are already on your side. I am on your side. I want you to have your rights recognized and included in legislation. I voted for it, dammit, sitting amongst thousands of Republicans, hoping there were at least some who'd do the same. I talk about it with my circle of friends and family, and even with people at my church. (And no, let me preemptively say I don't expect a liberal cookie for all that - I'm simply sharing for the sake of perspective.)
So this merry-go-round of wash-rinse-repeat that I need to stop throwing your rights under the bus is IMHO time you could better spend on people whose minds aren't changed yet - people who don't give one rat's ass about gay rights and are gung-ho to prevent choice/rights for gays, women, etc. That type of person is not representative of most of the cons who post on this board, and who live daily fighting to convince other conservatives/independents to have a more socially moderate stance.
You said I think it's really ridiculous for you to be pissed off that I take issue with your voting strategy. OK. Because you're not pissed off at us? Pissed that I'm excited the economy is going to get some attention during election season, if never again? Because, getting back to my little centers of the universe, my hugest concern for them is that they will have utterly no viability to provide for themselves when they come of age because of the craptastic fiscal policies (from both sides of the aisle) which are setting them up for one hell of an economic quagmire.
I guess if you still want to be pissed that I prioritize that concern slightly ahead of gay rights, have at it. I still maintain your wasting your energy attacking someone who has empathy for your issue vs. someone who doesn't give a shit about it.
GBCEP for today... I must work. But I'll check back tonight.
The only time the board crossed the line was the ohvonovo days. This? This is child's play in comparison. It's politics during a big election. Things are bound to get heated. That's to be expected. And frankly, that's why we are all here, right? And some of us, not naming names, have been here for years. This is how Brides Decide/E08/PCE/CEP butters our bread!
It must be nice to never have to choose between two competing priorities when choosing a candidate.
I think you should talk to your party about that. I mean, if you can find time between your "rah rah" chants for Ryan.
Putting aside your tone to continue the conversation, I vote for socially moderate candidates in primaries, I vote for socially moderate planks in party platforms, I give money and time to a PAC designed to support republicans who support gay rights, my husband works for a political consulting firm that works on conservative issues, but turns down social conservative work.
What exactly are you suggesting I should do to take this up with my party? We do the best we can with the choices we have.
I'm pretty sure I even posted somewhere on Saturday that my excitement was that the focus would be on the economy due to the Ryan pick... ON BOTH SIDES. And that I thought that discussion would be a good thing for the entire country. I even admitted that was probably idealistic, but for the moment I was glad that the guy whose name recognition = budget/economy was chosen and not some assclown whose only resume and name recognition was being a well known social conservative.
But I'm sorry that my excitement about that is so off putting. I'm sorry that for one moment I was actually not entirely cynical about where this country is going. I just wish that people could take the time to understand it from this position instead of chastising us and telling us that our voting priorities are some kind of character deficit and that we should only be resigned to it. Even though we feel like we've been FINALLY, FINALLY thrown a fucking bone and that this country might not actually go bankrupt while we argue about abortion. The focus on the economy opens a nationwide discussion, and I don't see how that isn't good for all of us. It doesn't get much "grosser" than that, does it? How dare we be happy about that!
No one has to agree with me - in fact, I don't even want people to, because I come here for debate. However, I don't come here to be told my priorities are "wrong," that any excitement I have absolutely must be tempered because it doesn't gel in some people's minds, or that my actions are "gross." Maybe I can become a hipster - they're all depressed and apathetic about shit, right? Maybe if the cons on this board do that, we can convey the appropriate level of unexcitement.
(also thanks to cookie for her posts - I really agreed with a lot of what she said)
Putting aside your tone to continue the conversation, I vote for socially moderate candidates in primaries, I vote for socially moderate planks in party platforms, I give money and time to a PAC designed to support republicans who support gay rights, my husband works for a political consulting firm that works on conservative issues, but turns down social conservative work.
What exactly are you suggesting I should do to take this up with my party? We do the best we can with the choices we have.
Again, my problem isn't that cons have to vote for him, my problem is the enthusiasm with which so many of them apparently are able to do so. Which was my original statement that, if you'll remember, is what led us down this conversational path. You were offended by my suggestion that the celebration over Ryan was weird from people who profess to be social liberals. I stand by that.
But you concede that it's possible to be excited about a candidate even though that candidate isn't your be-all-end-all perfect candidate on every issue, as Libs certainly were about Obama in 2008.
There was no VP choice in the realm of possibility that I would have been more excited about than Ryan. He's a great match for me on fiscal issues, and he doesn't really talk much about the social ones at all, which frankly is about as well as I can do with a GOP candidate right now. Am I not supposed to be excited about that because there is some hypothetical better candidate who doesn't exist?
It's my life you're compromising. This isn't a let's all take a hit together for the good of the country kind of scenario. You are compromising MY rights with no ill effect to yourself. Pretty easy to do when it doesn't impact you, no? Talk is cheap and compromises are always easier when it's someone else you are selling out.
::deep breath::
Llama. I am seriously trying to take an objective look at your perspective. I am trying to imagine where you're coming from and seriously taking into account, as best as my limited experience and perspective are able, your life and the effects our societal stances have upon it.
I DO think any compromise of your rights will absolutely effect my own. I think gay rights are essential - and I'm NOT just thinking about you. I'm thinking about MY kids - where my universe centers around - and what if, someday, one/both of them come to me and tells me they are gay/lesbian. If that happens, I absolutely want them to have every single last right any other person in this country should have.
But I would really, truly appreciate it if you'd take a step back and consider one thing with regard to your paragraphs of angst and accusation lately:
You are expending energy and time against people who are already on your side. I am on your side. I want you to have your rights recognized and included in legislation. I voted for it, dammit, sitting amongst thousands of Republicans, hoping there were at least some who'd do the same. I talk about it with my circle of friends and family, and even with people at my church. (And no, let me preemptively say I don't expect a liberal cookie for all that - I'm simply sharing for the sake of perspective.)
So this merry-go-round of wash-rinse-repeat that I need to stop throwing your rights under the bus is IMHO time you could better spend on people whose minds aren't changed yet - people who don't give one rat's ass about gay rights and are gung-ho to prevent choice/rights for gays, women, etc. That type of person is not representative of most of the cons who post on this board, and who live daily fighting to convince other conservatives/independents to have a more socially moderate stance.
You said I think it's really ridiculous for you to be pissed off that I take issue with your voting strategy. OK. Because you're not pissed off at us? Pissed that I'm excited the economy is going to get some attention during election season, if never again? Because, getting back to my little centers of the universe, my hugest concern for them is that they will have utterly no viability to provide for themselves when they come of age because of the craptastic fiscal policies (from both sides of the aisle) which are setting them up for one hell of an economic quagmire.
I guess if you still want to be pissed that I prioritize that concern slightly ahead of gay rights, have at it. I still maintain your wasting your energy attacking someone who has empathy for your issue vs. someone who doesn't give a shit about it.
GBCEP for today... I must work. But I'll check back tonight.
I actually really appreciate your response a lot. This issue is clearly not one I have the luxury of stepping back from, so I can't promise I can do that completely, but I can promise I am listening to what you and the other conservatives on this board have said. Yes, in every single thread. Yes, even when my responses come across as me not listening. Yes, even when I am frustrated by the responses or don't agree with them.
I spend literally all day every day in my professional life coalition building across different faiths, races, geographic regions, and yes, political parties trying to grow support for LGBT rights. Rights of which marriage is but one very small part. I do this well in real life. I know my shit and I am articulate and I get this job done and I am good at it. Believe me when I say I spend time and energy every single day trying to build support among people who do not already support these goals.
I also sometimes need to spend a significant amount of time lobbying people who, in essence, already agree with me. People who think LGBT rights are important, or agree with at least some portion of the collection of rights I am dealing in. A lot of these people are gay Republicans and Democrats. One of my jobs is to discuss with them what votes in favor of non-LGBT friendly politicians can mean for the reality of LGBT peoples' lives. In my anecdotal experience, very few LGBT-identified Republicans actually understand how their votes affect their lives. Not to say they aren't educated, but their expertise tends to be mainly in economics which drives their votes. My job is not to convince them to vote differently, but rather to educate about the effects of votes for politicians that want to roll back LGBT rights. A lot of these people do end up going on to vote 3rd party, and a lot of them continue to vote for these Republicans who want to stop LGBT rights from happening - and that is their right. My job is to ensure that they do it knowing the importance of what they are voting for and its consequences. When I hear conservatives on this board say that these issues are irrelevant for presidents and vice presidents that is a huge sticking point to me. Because, my and large, I am sure you know better. There is a difference between prioritizing economic issues over social ones and understanding the potential consequences, and trying to absolve one's self from blame by saying positions on social issues don't matter.
I also spend a significant amount of time trying to sway vocally supportive Democrats who do not prioritize progressive social issues into voting more aggressively on them. And of course trying to educate and reason with Democratic and Republican candidates who don't support LGBT rights, and when they don't come around trying to unseat them in primaries with better candidates (regardless of party.)
I am not pissed that the economy is getting attention this election season. I am not even pissed that it is getting more attention than social issues in this election. What I am pissed about is the assertion that Ryan's (or Romney's) positions on social issues are irrelevant or do not matter. Because those positions very well may end up having an immediate impact on my life, and they very much do matter to me. I am not saying that you specifically have said that, because I honestly don't recall, but it has been said.
Remind me to avoid this board come October. Holy shit.
Were you here last time? This really is no different than 08. I dont remember an issue with Obama vs Hillary, but remember the Clinton and Palin sexism crap. I also think we had a horrible over the line a few weeks ago and that is all but overlooked?(for lack of a term).
I think cookiemdough, as usual, makes some good points.
In the spirit of playing nice, I will say this. Given that the GOP primaries appeared to have been dominated in large part, by larger-than-life personalities and not real candidates for governing a country (which was, to some extent, a spillover from Palin and some of the 2010 races), it's a relief to see huge portions of the country rallying around more capable candidates and not nutters (sorry, Palin, Cain, Angle, O'Donnell, Trump, Bachman, and Gingrich are nutters. FACT.) I do have some hope that this election will be actual economic ideas and plans, and that social issues will take a backseat during the election.
That said, I still sincerely doubt that this is a ticket that will remain neutral on social issues if elected, and I question the over-the-top joy on this guy given his record on social issues. I don't expect people to stop being excited for a likeable candidate, and I know few people have a candidate that aligns with them precisely. I don't have a problem with how people choose to prioritize or what they think is most important today. But, I'm just puzzled by the attempts to dismiss his voting record on social issues as not important or otherwise make excuses for it, like the bill was meant to die, so therefore it doesn't count as a real position, or otherwise just keep insisting that this is going to be a ticket that doesn't actually do anything to rock the boat on social issues once elected.
Given that the guy has a super-social-conservative voting record, and not exactly a dream deficit hawk/anti-entitlement program guy voting record (supported the largest expansion of Medicare by voting for the prescription drug benefit), I don't think liberals here are being unreasonable in arguing the guy isn't all that he seems, and that his voting record suggests social conservative first, fiscal conservative on occasion.
Also, I absolutely do think that the issues I mentioned will come up in congress in the next 4 years. Employment discrimination, repeal of DOMA, and definitely the continued existence (or not) of executive-level LGBT protections or decisions that have been passed or made under Obama's administration, especially in the areas of employment, immigration, and DOJ directives.
The latter will ABSOLUTELY come up. The others are large bills that will depend on the composition of Congress, but do seem to have somewhat of a chance of passing, especially ENDA. DOMA may or may not come to a vote because the constitutionality of one of it's sections is the subject of a case that may be reviewed by the Supreme Court next term. I don't think that they will be introduced or passed because Democrats are saints who love LGBT rights (because I definitely don't think that!) but because they have a HUGE amount of support among Democratic constituents and actually among conservatives as well (some recent polling seems to suggest that the socially liberal and moderate conservatives on this board are not quite as much as an exception as the Republican party leadership would make it seem ) They are also in the process of being added to the Democratic Party platform for the first time, which is not insignificant and I hope will give the party more discipline over rogue Blue Dogs who won't get in line on social issues.
The fact that a Romney/Ryan administration would veto those two major bills is a very big deal indeed. It is at least as fathomable to me as a liberal that these will become major issues in the next 4 years as it is that Romney/Ryan are going to find a silver bullet to fix the economy the way conservatives would like it to be fixed. I really think that both scenarios should be considered true for the purposes of voting, and if you don't fit neatly into a liberal or conservative box that is fine but acting like it doesn't matter is pretty disingenuous.
Also, I absolutely do think that the issues I mentioned will come up in congress in the next 4 years. Employment discrimination, repeal of DOMA, and definitely the continued existence (or not) of executive-level LGBT protections or decisions that have been passed or made under Obama's administration, especially in the areas of employment, immigration, and DOJ directives.
The latter will ABSOLUTELY come up. The others are large bills that will depend on the composition of Congress, but do seem to have somewhat of a chance of passing, especially ENDA. DOMA may or may not come to a vote because the constitutionality of one of it's sections is the subject of a case that may be reviewed by the Supreme Court next term. I don't think that they will be introduced or passed because Democrats are saints who love LGBT rights (because I definitely don't think that!) but because they have a HUGE amount of support among Democratic constituents and actually among conservatives as well (some recent polling seems to suggest that the socially liberal and moderate conservatives on this board are not quite as much as an exception as the Republican party leadership would make it seem ) They are also in the process of being added to the Democratic Party platform for the first time, which is not insignificant and I hope will give the party more discipline over rogue Blue Dogs who won't get in line on social issues.
The fact that a Romney/Ryan administration would veto those two major bills is a very big deal indeed. It is at least as fathomable to me as a liberal that these will become major issues in the next 4 years as it is that Romney/Ryan are going to find a silver bullet to fix the economy the way conservatives would like it to be fixed. I really think that both scenarios should be considered true for the purposes of voting, and if you don't fit neatly into a liberal or conservative box that is fine but acting like it doesn't matter is pretty disingenuous.
Really? Because I am still pissed that Dems didn't get behind Obama when they had the majority. Many were too worried about their personal elections back home and found it politically expedient to cast a vote that they thought would be good for their individual campaign against a republican rather than standing up for certain principals that the party is supposed to uphold. Making a move on healthcare has been a long-held platform of dems for years and years and that was a clusterfvck of ridiculous proportions in getting people in line. I am hopeful that they will be more united if given another chance, but the reality is that while acceptance has moved forward there will still be plenty of dems in states where doing the right thing for the party and the overall good of the nation regarding LGBT will take a back seat to their personal ambitions. Dems aren't the only ones guilty of this by any means but as you can see I still haven't let some of my anger go from the first two years. Maybe things will settle down if re-elected and they are willing to take more chances but I don't think it is a slamdunk that change is coming especially in a platform they are just starting to embrace. Other social issues that have been tried and have the clear support overall like abortion, planned parenthood, etc. I think you will see more fight.
I do think reversal of certain executive orders are a concern, although I have not seen Romney take a position on the immigration one. Outside of Obamacare has he overtly commented on what he wants to reverse on day 1?
I am hopeful that they will be more united if given another chance, but the reality is that while acceptance has moved forward there will still be plenty of dems in states where doing the right thing for the party and the overall good of the nation regarding LGBT will take a back seat to their personal ambitions.
This is true of all parties. Not just Democrats.
I completely agree. The very next sentence from my post says this:
Dems aren't the only ones guilty of this by any means but as you can see I still haven't let some of my anger go from the first two years.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, "this is true of all parties" =/= "Dems aren't the only ones guilty of this." lol.
In this instance, I believe it is equal. Not true of all parties means that it is more than just Dems that act a fool. Republicans, Independents, Green, whatever all have foolishness.
Also, I absolutely do think that the issues I mentioned will come up in congress in the next 4 years. Employment discrimination, repeal of DOMA, and definitely the continued existence (or not) of executive-level LGBT protections or decisions that have been passed or made under Obama's administration, especially in the areas of employment, immigration, and DOJ directives.
The latter will ABSOLUTELY come up. The others are large bills that will depend on the composition of Congress, but do seem to have somewhat of a chance of passing, especially ENDA. DOMA may or may not come to a vote because the constitutionality of one of it's sections is the subject of a case that may be reviewed by the Supreme Court next term. I don't think that they will be introduced or passed because Democrats are saints who love LGBT rights (because I definitely don't think that!) but because they have a HUGE amount of support among Democratic constituents and actually among conservatives as well (some recent polling seems to suggest that the socially liberal and moderate conservatives on this board are not quite as much as an exception as the Republican party leadership would make it seem ) They are also in the process of being added to the Democratic Party platform for the first time, which is not insignificant and I hope will give the party more discipline over rogue Blue Dogs who won't get in line on social issues.
The fact that a Romney/Ryan administration would veto those two major bills is a very big deal indeed. It is at least as fathomable to me as a liberal that these will become major issues in the next 4 years as it is that Romney/Ryan are going to find a silver bullet to fix the economy the way conservatives would like it to be fixed. I really think that both scenarios should be considered true for the purposes of voting, and if you don't fit neatly into a liberal or conservative box that is fine but acting like it doesn't matter is pretty disingenuous.
Really? Because I am still pissed that Dems didn't get behind Obama when they had the majority. Many were too worried about their personal elections back home and found it politically expedient to cast a vote that they thought would be good for their individual campaign against a republican rather than standing up for certain principals that the party is supposed to uphold. Making a move on healthcare has been a long-held platform of dems for years and years and that was a clusterfvck of ridiculous proportions in getting people in line. I am hopeful that they will be more united if given another chance, but the reality is that while acceptance has moved forward there will still be plenty of dems in states where doing the right thing for the party and the overall good of the nation regarding LGBT will take a back seat to their personal ambitions. Dems aren't the only ones guilty of this by any means but as you can see I still haven't let some of my anger go from the first two years. Maybe things will settle down if re-elected and they are willing to take more chances but I don't think it is a slamdunk that change is coming especially in a platform they are just starting to embrace. Other social issues that have been tried and have the clear support overall like abortion, planned parenthood, etc. I think you will see more fight.
I do think reversal of certain executive orders are a concern, although I have not seen Romney take a position on the immigration one. Outside of Obamacare has he overtly commented on what he wants to reverse on day 1?
Well, given that Romney does not support the repeal of DOMA that makes the executive orders Obama has passed necessary, I would assume he would reverse those as well. Perhaps it is a wrong assumption, but given how anti-LGBT Romney is at this point in his career I can't imagine him keeping those provisions. Other things are not even as clear-cut as executive orders. A lot of the immigration stuff is just directives from the DOJ, which obviously would have a change in leadership. If Romney appoints DOJ people who are in line with his social policies (which is something I would expect from any president) they will certainly not continue to enforce the Obama-era directives.. especially with immigration being a hot-button issue for conservatives. A lot of the same-sex couples in question end up being undocumented immigrants due to discrimination in the visa process and the inability to access spousal visas, so I think it is safe to assume that would go poorly for us.
As for the other points, I 100% share your disappointment in the way Democrats handled these issues in 2008, 2009, and early 2010 before they lost congress. Part of the blame is on Obama for not being vocal about the need for these bills, part of the blame goes to weak Democratic party leadership (party discipline is always an issue with the Dems), part of the blame goes to individual Democrats who were too pathetic and afraid to take a stand, and part of the blame goes to the public which is woefully uninformed about LGBT issues in general, particularly the issues that aren't marriage. When people are spoonfed the details of what the bills mean, there is HUGE support for ENDA and even for the repeal of DOMA, and certainly the support is most strong among Democrats.
However, although I am a HUGE pessimist (no, really), I don't see it going down in 2012 quite the way it did 4 or even 2 years ago. Public support has had massive, unprecedented shifts. The Democratic Party itself, tentative as it has been over the years, is finally formalizing support for LGBT rights. And the critical mass of LGBT activists, lobbyists, and constituents, both LGBT and allied, has been gathered. Again, I don't just trust that Democrats will do the right thing because they say they well. What I do trust is that the necessary movement has been made that these bills will be ripe within the next 4 years. I'd hate to see all of that painstaking work be thrown away by a veto. It could put us back a very long time because sometimes when our bills die they die for a while. Who the President is and whether they promised to veto the bills (Romney has not said in so many words that he will veto, but emphatically opposes both the repeal of DOMA and the passage of ENDA, and I assume he would need to veto to stay in good standing with his party) will have a huge impact on whether the bills are even introduced, number of votes to pass notwithstanding. Even I can't see why Congress should put their necks out on these bills if they are guaranteed a veto.
While I appreciate that there can be different perspectives on the importance of social issues, it is undeniable that the coming election is going to have a huge effect on them. To say otherwise doesn't make any sense. At the bottom of it that is all I am trying to say. If it's a trade-off people are willing to make that is one thing, but it does actually make a difference either way.
It doesn't work the flip way, because there is no flip way. Regardless of your political position, if you think you care more about people than the other side, you're wrong.
This is ridiculous. You are telling me the people on this board weren't excited about Obama in 2008? I mean, he didn't support gay marriage then, so surely he must have just been a candidate you accepted as the best of bad options, right? No celebration necessary, just somber acceptance?
He supported moving the ball forward. He wanted to get rid of DADT, he wanted civil unions, he wanted benefits and legal rights for partners. And I think you saw plenty of people saying they wished he'd go even further and suspected he would (which he did). So, yeah. Not the same.
That's what I meant before by "we all make compromises", as in "the candidate agrees with me on A, B and C and meets me halfway on D". Not "I really, really agree with his fiscal ideas, so I'll overlook that I disagree with him about everything else." I mean, surely there are other fiscal conservatives with more attractive social positions, no?
I don't begrudge Republicans for being happy that a "serious" candidate was chosen. He's not a Palin or Quayle gaffe machine who will distract from the campaign. I happen to think he's most attractive to Republicans who were going to vote Republican anyway, but whatever. I also think he's overrated as a fiscal conservative who's serious about busting he deficit. Might be able to do that a lot quicker if you weren't giving subsidies to Exxon or taxing multi-millionaires like Romney .82%!
I mean, surely there are other fiscal conservatives with more attractive social positions, no?
No, there really are not. Not in the mainstream of the party, where they could be selected for a role this prominent. Ryan's positions on these issues are completely normal, and I've held my nose and dealt with them many times before for candidates i didn't love nearly so much on fiscal issues
That said, Ryan is better in a lot of ways, because he isn't out talking about social issues, or advocating votes on them. He's an acceptable choice to social cons, but he would never be their first choice. That's about the best win people who think like I do in the party could get right now.
Paul Ryan, social con crusader, is a figment of the left's imagination. That's not how he's behaved in many years in office or campaigned--his social con record is a handful of token social con votes that virtually every mainstream conservative also took, and a paper about how he believes life begins at conception and that ties into freedom. Contradicted by a vote to end employment discrimination for gay people, which is the only position we're discussing where he stands out from the GOP mainstream, and in a way I fully support.
I am fascinated that the board thinks they know a completely different Paul Ryan than I do, and I've been following his career closely for nearly 10 years now. Really strange, bizarro world stuff.
I mean, surely there are other fiscal conservatives with more attractive social positions, no?
No, there really are not. Not in the mainstream of the party, where they could be selected for a role this prominent. Ryan's positions on these issues are completely normal, and I've held my nose and dealt with them many times before for candidates i didn't love nearly so much on fiscal issues
That said, Ryan is better in a lot of ways, because he isn't out talking about social issues, or advocating votes on them. He's an acceptable choice to social cons, but he would never be their first choice. That's about the best win people who think like I do in the party could get right now.
Paul Ryan, social con crusader, is a figment of the left's imagination. That's not how he's behaved in many years in office or campaigned--his social con record is a handful of token social con votes that virtually every mainstream conservative also took, and a paper about how he believes life begins at conception and that ties into freedom. Contradicted by a vote to end employment discrimination for gay people, which is the only position we're discussing where he stands out from the GOP mainstream, and in a way I fully support.
I am fascinated that the board thinks they know a completely different Paul Ryan than I do, and I've been following his career closely for nearly 10 years now. Really strange, bizarro world stuff.
He supported moving the ball forward. He wanted to get rid of DADT, he wanted civil unions, he wanted benefits and legal rights for partners. And I think you saw plenty of people saying they wished he'd go even further and suspected he would (which he did). So, yeah. Not the same.
That's what I meant before by "we all make compromises", as in "the candidate agrees with me on A, B and C and meets me halfway on D". Not "I really, really agree with his fiscal ideas, so I'll overlook that I disagree with him about everything else." I mean, surely there are other fiscal conservatives with more attractive social positions, no?
If you find one (like y4m said, eligible on this level) please let me know. I've been looking for a while now, and every time I think I find a good fiscal conservative who is silent on social issues, I find out they've got some position statement or personhood bill or whatever token piece that toes the party line.
We have a Republican ticket made up of a Business guy and a Budget guy - well-rounded while squarely focused on the economy. The Romney campaign has a huge enthusiasm problem that could have been solved with a standard-bearing Conservative and he chose to ignore social issues to the extent it's possible in today's GOP. That's an important statement. Maybe in four years there will be a socially liberal option.
I mean, surely there are other fiscal conservatives with more attractive social positions, no?
No, there really are not. Not in the mainstream of the party, where they could be selected for a role this prominent.
right... But it's not that they're some mythical creature, a unicorn that doesn't exist. If this board is any indicator, they exist in huge numbers, and are smart and capable. Historically, they've existed and risen to power within the R party with pretty good regularity.
They don't exist now because the right of the party destroys them.
...and I'm not just talking about Huntsman not being able to get the nomination.
You may think I'm the biggest liberal commie pinko on the board, but I actually worked to elect Bill Weld governor of Massachusetts. What the national R party did to his career was some serious bullshit. IMHO, it was the first big-time flexing of that muscle, and it's only gotten worse since then.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. The religious right was brought into the big Republican tent in order to bring votes, and aren't going to be tamped down until the sense is that they cost more votes than they bring.
...but every person who's a "budget guy" who caters to those wackadoos feeds into it, gives them power. Part of the problem now is that it seems like nobody is willing to stand up and tell them all to pipe down. Right now, my hopes are with John McCain, who's kind of gong there, but who nobody is really listening to.