Sassenach wrote:This is the common impression though. You're complaining about what you see us underhand political tactics by the Dems and their allies in the media but what you're missing is that the only reason these attacks work is because a lot of voters are genuinely frightened by the Republicans social agenda.

"Genuinely?"

If propaganda convinces them, is that genuine?

To an extent the Republican Party doesn't have to give a damn what non-Americans think (although it must make diplomacy more difficult), but I've spoken to plenty of young Americans who have similar opinions. I don't think the Republican Party can afford to let that image continue.

It only takes one politician to change it. I think the GOP has a better shot at the Presidency in 2016 than the Democrats. Go ahead, name the leading lights of the Democratic Party . . . old, white, boring.

danivon wrote:If the media is making these issues 'central', who was it who led efforts to get laws against same-sex partnerships/marriages onto the books of a dozen or three states?

What does that have to do with rape?

And, honestly, legally, I don't care about same-sex marriage. Morally, of course I do. Legally, I have always said this is a State issue.

Who was it who raised amendments to legislation at state and federal levels to cut funding or availability of birth control?

That's not how this was portrayed. Democrats and the media made it out like the Republicans would ban birth control.

Why should the government pay for it? It's cheap and readily available?

Again, it's personal responsibility vs. the nanny state. Maybe, eventually, Americans will realize the government doesn't have to dictate everything from what their doctor can do to what size of soda is permitted. For now, Statism is winning.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If the media is making these issues 'central', who was it who led efforts to get laws against same-sex partnerships/marriages onto the books of a dozen or three states?

What does that have to do with rape?

And, honestly, legally, I don't care about same-sex marriage. Morally, of course I do. Legally, I have always said this is a State issue.

It is related as another 'culture wars' issue. You don't think that people associate moral crusades with each other?

And while your position may be clear, we are talking about who it is that has been getting these laws on the books and pushing for constitutional changes in states to ban same sex marriage. Whether you did or not is hardly the point. The question is who did, because they didn't appear by magic.

Who was it who raised amendments to legislation at state and federal levels to cut funding or availability of birth control?

That's not how this was portrayed. Democrats and the media made it out like the Republicans would ban birth control.

Why should the government pay for it? It's cheap and readily available?

Well, not all forms of birth control are cheap, and not all are appropriate. And - this may shock you - not all of the applications of birth control are about controlling pregnancy. Sometimes it is for other medical reasons, with birth control as a side effect. The worry was that (as for the friend of the young lady who right wing blowhards liked to call a slut) those medical uses would be affected by allowing restrictions to be placed by employers on what was covered.

Again, it's personal responsibility vs. the nanny state. Maybe, eventually, Americans will realize the government doesn't have to dictate everything from what their doctor can do to what size of soda is permitted. For now, Statism is winning.

Actually, it's about individual choice. If you are getting health insurance, it should give the customers a choice of healthcare under cover. That choice should not be restricted because some people are uncomfortable with other people using birth control. If you don't want birth control, don't get it. But don't make it harder for other people to get it - especially when it turns out that it's more cost effective to cover birth control than to not cover it.

(so the Catholic organisations were not asking for an exemption, they were asking for a subsidy.0

Of course, there is also the widespread lying/ignorant bleating by some moral crusaders saying that Plan B (or other forms of the 'morning after pill') are abortifacients. They are not. They are in fact just stronger doses of the pill, and have the same effect. No evidence has been found that they prompt abortions. I think there's confusion because of the 'life begins at conception' concept hits the biological reality that conception doesn't happen during or straight after sex. It can take several days to occur.

The problem for the Republicans is that they've been heavily influenced by the moral majority/christian right crowd, and it has become something of a test of 'purity' in parts of it to have particular positions on 'moral' issues.

Yes, before you say it, the same applies to the Democrats.

danivon wrote:And while your position may be clear, we are talking about who it is that has been getting these laws on the books and pushing for constitutional changes in states to ban same sex marriage.

North Carolina. Who voted for it? Was it the right-wing, or 60% of the voters?

The worry was that (as for the friend of the young lady who right wing blowhards liked to call a slut) those medical uses would be affected by allowing restrictions to be placed by employers on what was covered.

30-years old and in law school, made out to be a celebrity, but could not afford $10 a month in birth control? Fluke was and is more of a socialist than she was a needy person.

Doctor Fate wrote:North Carolina. Who voted for it? Was it the right-wing, or 60% of the voters?

Who proposed it. Who campaigned for it. Who raised the money for the campaign?

It seems you are avoiding the basic question, because you know that Republican politicians had a hand in it somewhere.

The worry was that (as for the friend of the young lady who right wing blowhards liked to call a slut) those medical uses would be affected by allowing restrictions to be placed by employers on what was covered.

30-years old and in law school, made out to be a celebrity, but could not afford $10 a month in birth control? Fluke was and is more of a socialist than she was a needy person.

Every time this story comes up, the first thing that I always see is that the reaction is to smear Fluke as if she is the woman who was after the birth control, when she was not, and as if it was just basic birth control when it wasn't. It was hormone treatment for a medical condition (which also had a contraceptive effect). By the way, the cost was not $10 a month, it was $100 a month according to the testimony.

Seriously, it's not hard to find what was in her statement. I know that it's possibly easier to find the slander that Rush Limbaugh uttered and that has been swirling around since thanks to Bill O'Reilly and loads of people on the internet, but seriously?

Sandra Fluke wrote:For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old.

And I will tell you right now. I know a woman who has birth control prescribed for a medical condition. I would be absolutely livid if she was to be denied it because her employer/insurer didn't like the fact that it was birth control. Why? Because it's none of their business to moralise about her healthcare, and more importantly, her doctor already knows why.

You don't like doctors and patients having their choices limited? I would think you'd at the very least oppose the kind of situation that Fluke's friend.

Unless, to you, it's more important that employers and insurers be able to impose their morality than it is to ensure that everyone has the same access to healthcare.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:North Carolina. Who voted for it? Was it the right-wing, or 60% of the voters?

Who proposed it. Who campaigned for it. Who raised the money for the campaign?

It seems you are avoiding the basic question, because you know that Republican politicians had a hand in it somewhere.

Because it's irrelevant. Who voted for it?

Answer: a super-majority did, including a lot of blacks, who then turned around and voted for Obama.

Every time this story comes up, the first thing that I always see is that the reaction is to smear Fluke as if she is the woman who was after the birth control, when she was not, and as if it was just basic birth control when it wasn't. It was hormone treatment for a medical condition (which also had a contraceptive effect). By the way, the cost was not $10 a month, it was $100 a month according to the testimony.

Let's say you're right. Let's say she's telling the truth.

So, for the exception, every single woman should have her birth control covered?

You don't like doctors and patients having their choices limited? I would think you'd at the very least oppose the kind of situation that Fluke's friend.

Why didn't her friend testify? Btw, since it was not actually a Congressional hearing, was she under oath? Did she testify honestly when she said that 65% of the students at GU were "interrogated?" Was she telling the truth when she said birth control costs $1K a year?

Unless, to you, it's more important that employers and insurers be able to impose their morality than it is to ensure that everyone has the same access to healthcare.

Nope, and I don't like the Federal government imposing its morality on me either.

Here is what I think the House GOP should do for the next 4 years:

Not stop ANY democratic policy
Not vote for ANY Democratic policy, just abstain
Show America what happens with a fully Democratic policy.

Apparently the electorate wanted to go this direction, and the Dems are blaming the obstructionists for the economy. I, personally, would love to see the results.

If the Dems are right... so be it, Great!

If the economy has trouble; well, we would know where the blame would lie.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... anonymous/

I think that sums it up nicely.

fate

To be candid, the press and some Democrats made it seem like Akin was a prototype Republican. He was an idiot. The Democrats gave him about $2M during the primary because they thought (rightly) he was the only Republican McCaskill could beat.
What Mourdock said was misconstrued.
No matter. The issue really is this: why are Republicans being asked about rape and abortion? Why aren't Democrats?
For example, has anyone ever asked President Obama what restrictions on abortion he would approve of?
Those are just dumb questions. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. If it was NOT, then abortion would not be "illegal." It would be where gay marriage is--a State issue, which is where it should be

You seem to have forgotten that in the repiublican primary abortion was a major debate topic. Santorum particularly championed the religious view and flailed opponents who didn't display his utter commitment to ending abortion.
The reason republicans have been portrayed the way they have is that significant portions of them made them issue in the primaries.Not everyone has a long term memory problem.

The Wall Street Journal: Fewer Debaters, Plenty Of Heat
During the debate, Mr. Santorum sought to distinguish himself from Messrs. Romney and Gingrich, both of whom have favored varying forms of mandates requiring people to own health insurance, a position now anathema among conservatives. … At one point, Mr. Santorum questioned the other candidates' opposition to abortion rights, accusing all three of shrinking from fights to deny abortion services. As his rivals defended their records, a Santorum aide distributed copies of a 2002 questionnaire in which Mr. Romney said he supported the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and agreed that Medicaid should provide abortion services

(O'Connor and King, 1/20
http://www.news-medical.net/news/201201 ... ebate.aspx

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:North Carolina. Who voted for it? Was it the right-wing, or 60% of the voters?

Who proposed it. Who campaigned for it. Who raised the money for the campaign?

It seems you are avoiding the basic question, because you know that Republican politicians had a hand in it somewhere.

Because it's irrelevant. Who voted for it?

Either you don't get my point, or you are avoiding it. You say that it's all the media and the Democrats making a big issue out of the Republicans' social conservatism, trapping them into saying dumb stuff?

So, if that's the case, who is it that pushes ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage?

If it is Republican social conservatives, then surely they are themselves helping to make these things big issues.

Let's say you're right. Let's say she's telling the truth.

So, for the exception, every single woman should have her birth control covered?

Actually, the thing on this issue is becoming clear to me. It's not the policy stance that turned women off. It was the reactionary leap to attack Fluke for speaking out.

By the way, my answer is 'yes'. For the one thing, it is a very good way to prevent abortions. However, what is interesting is not the position that you and the Republicans have taken, it's the way it's expressed.

Why didn't her friend testify? Btw, since it was not actually a Congressional hearing, was she under oath? Did she testify honestly when she said that 65% of the students at GU were "interrogated?" Was she telling the truth when she said birth control costs $1K a year?

Here we go again. Rather than listen, it's a load of questions to undermine her as a person. A few lines ago you wrote "Let's say she's telling the truth.". That lasted how long?

Perhaps had the Republicans on the committee had accepted her as a witness, they could have cross-examined her, and asked those questions, or got some research done. Instead, they denied her as she's no 'expert'. Chance gone, so hey, let's blame her and assume she's a dirty lying liberal like we know they all are.

I don't know why her friend wasn't there. Frankly, I don't see why it's relevant, or why the fact she's talking about someone else makes it open season to call her (Fluke) a slut. If you have evidence that her figures were wrong, please present it.

I repeat, I really do think that the attitude displayed to her by the Republicans in Congress (go away, little woman, men have important stuff to decide about women here), and by people who, like you, are going for her personally is part of the reason why a lot of moderate voters, particularly women, are finding it hard to support the Republicans.

I guess the problem is that while many will gleefully join in a slut-shaming, and proclaim their morality on such issues, and cheer on the social conservative stances of some Republicans, a lot of people will not be so vocal. Doesn't mean they are not taking good notice, and forming opinions.

And while it may score points to attack the messenger, and for Rush to call her a slut or for you to call her a socialist, it's a pretty shoddy way to discuss the issues.

Unless, to you, it's more important that employers and insurers be able to impose their morality than it is to ensure that everyone has the same access to healthcare.

Nope, and I don't like the Federal government imposing its morality on me either.

Don't claim for birth control then. They aren't making you take it. They aren't making women take it. They are saying that it should be part of standard healthcare plans (as one part of a section about women's health, mainly preventive). When it's included in healthcare plans, they are cheaper, so it's not a case of forcing people to buy something they don't want. If they don't want it, they can still take the coverage and never use it.

Doctor Fate wrote:http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/07/obamaholics-anonymous/

I think that sums it up nicely.

Seeing the source, I didn't read this straight away. Now I see it's a classic piece of writing. Basically, the problem is the electorate.

Interesting to see that article (and DF, who appears to be stating agreement for it) taking a similar line to the East German communist government parodied by Brecht, wishing to dissolve the people and elect a new one.

I tell you what, it's a novel idea to try and convince people to support you by saying they are too stupid / addicted to know what's best for them. Apparently it's not just liberals who feel the need to nanny.

But the best part of the article was the way it said that the problem we 'messaging' and outlined the solution. To an extent I agree with the diagnosis. The messaging was atrocious - too much on social conservatism which obscured the message on fiscal/economic policy, an almost palpable disgust with the poor and too close an affiliation with the rich (while not intended for a wider audience, the 47% statements were seen as an example of this) and towards the end a kind of arrogance in the assumption that the polls were wrong and that the Republicans would win easily.

However, the solution? Nothing about the messaging itself at all. It was to pick a Latino so the party could get that community's votes. Basically, he's saying it's not the message (becasue the people are too stupid to listen), it's not the messaging (because that is ignored), it's the messenger that is needed. Essentially, to pander to one ethnic group and by such intrigue win so that the real policy (including, perhaps, changing how people think so they are not too dumb/addicted to support the GOP) can be put in place.

Shorter version: let's not even bother telling the people where we stand, or why, just find a suitable brown accented candidate and get them to like us via them. They are too stupid to support us on policy, but hopefully enough Latinos are stupid enough to fall for that trick.

danivon wrote:So, if that's the case, who is it that pushes ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage?

If it is Republican social conservatives, then surely they are themselves helping to make these things big issues.

I perfectly get your point. I don't think you get mine.

As to your point, consider North Carolina. Did the Republican Party put that marriage initiative on the ballot?

No.

Did blacks vote for it?

Yes.

Did blacks then vote for Romney?

No.

So, are such issues determinative?

Let's say you're right. Let's say she's telling the truth.

So, for the exception, every single woman should have her birth control covered?

Actually, the thing on this issue is becoming clear to me. It's not the policy stance that turned women off. It was the reactionary leap to attack Fluke for speaking out.

Based on what?

Look, single women bought the lie that Romney was going to wave his hand and ban abortion. I know a lot of single women (at a distance). I don't know more than a handful who actually follow politics. They are either establishing careers or going to school. Superficial knowledge begets superficial voting--and that goes across the voting spectrum. However, there is no evidence that what Limbaugh said about Fluke was somehow a factor in beating Romney.

By the way, my answer is 'yes'. For the one thing, it is a very good way to prevent abortions. However, what is interesting is not the position that you and the Republicans have taken, it's the way it's expressed.

I know you believe that. That doesn't make it correct.

However, we are far removed from the country we used to be--and I don't mean in terms of demographics. I am talking in terms of toughness. I watch the response of the residents of NY and NJ to Sandy. Now, the damage is catastrophic; the loss of life horrendous. However, there is a "someone should be doing something for me" attitude that would not have existed 80 years ago. My point? I don't believe we could transport our current national psychology to the Great Depression/WW2 and come out on top. We have ceased to be a nation that says, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

Free birth control is just the illogical extension of our dependence.

Why didn't her friend testify? Btw, since it was not actually a Congressional hearing, was she under oath? Did she testify honestly when she said that 65% of the students at GU were "interrogated?" Was she telling the truth when she said birth control costs $1K a year?

Here we go again. Rather than listen, it's a load of questions to undermine her as a person. A few lines ago you wrote "Let's say she's telling the truth.". That lasted how long?

Perhaps had the Republicans on the committee had accepted her as a witness, they could have cross-examined her, and asked those questions, or got some research done. Instead, they denied her as she's no 'expert'. Chance gone, so hey, let's blame her and assume she's a dirty lying liberal like we know they all are.

She's not an expert. She provided hearsay, not evidence.

I don't know why her friend wasn't there. Frankly, I don't see why it's relevant, or why the fact she's talking about someone else makes it open season to call her (Fluke) a slut. If you have evidence that her figures were wrong, please present it.

I have no evidence that anything she said was true, do you? The whole thing could have been a fairy tale. You don't know.

I repeat, I really do think that the attitude displayed to her by the Republicans in Congress (go away, little woman, men have important stuff to decide about women here), and by people who, like you, are going for her personally is part of the reason why a lot of moderate voters, particularly women, are finding it hard to support the Republicans.

I guess the problem is that while many will gleefully join in a slut-shaming, and proclaim their morality on such issues, and cheer on the social conservative stances of some Republicans, a lot of people will not be so vocal. Doesn't mean they are not taking good notice, and forming opinions.

All said with no evidence. Who slammed Fluke? What elected Republican, or Republican running for office, or anyone other than Limbaugh said what you said?

And while it may score points to attack the messenger, and for Rush to call her a slut or for you to call her a socialist, it's a pretty shoddy way to discuss the issues.

And, using one man who makes his living as an entertainer (primarily) to disparage an entire party is "a pretty shoddy way to discuss the issues."

Don't claim for birth control then. They aren't making you take it. They aren't making women take it. They are saying that it should be part of standard healthcare plans (as one part of a section about women's health, mainly preventive). When it's included in healthcare plans, they are cheaper, so it's not a case of forcing people to buy something they don't want. If they don't want it, they can still take the coverage and never use it.

It's a violation of the First Amendment. There is another case coming up on that. We'll see how it goes.

This kind of petty analysis of the minutiae of an old story is pretty tedious guys. It was boring the last time you talked about it, and since then we've had other news stories. I believe there may even have been an election....

Doctor Fate wrote:I perfectly get your point. I don't think you get mine.

As to your point, consider North Carolina. Did the Republican Party put that marriage initiative on the ballot?

No.

The North Carolina State Legislature did, and it is majority Republican. The bill to do so was SB514. The sponsor of that bill was Peter S. Brunstetter (R). The two previous bills that had been raised were also sponsored by Republican state Senators or House Reps. When SB514 was voted on, the majority of those in favour were Republicans and the majority of Republicans in the chamber voted in favour (the reverse is true among Democrats, even though some of them did vote in favour).

[url=ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)]source - ballotpedia[/url] and links off

So, your answer is incorrect. The Republican Party in North Carolina did put it on the ballot. Had they not proposed it, or voted for it, it would not have gone onto the ballot.

Furthermore, several Republican state politicians campaigned in favour of the proposition, as did Newt Gingrich, and the Durham County Republican Party.

I will assume you were not aware of where the ballot initiative came from.

So, are such issues determinative?

I didn't say that they were. I am sure that there are Democrats who oppose gay marriage and there are Republicans who support it. I'm sure there are various stats on different ethnic or demographic groups. The question is who is leading the charge on the social conservative side, and how are they doing it?

My point was that for many people who aren't opposed to gay marriage or gay civil unions, it appears that it's the social conservatives who are making this an issue, not just the Democrats and the media.

Take your example of North Carolina. Gay marriage was already illegal there. Proposition 1 was about amending the constitution of the state, to 'lock in' an existing law, and also likely bar legislation to allow civil unions.

Furthermore, it's not that the Democrats are trapping socially conservative Republican politicians into saying things that offend people, and while you may think the media is biased to report it or ask questions that they answer, it's completely down to them what words they use.

So, when you have a Republican mayor who ended up getting recalled after using facebook to insult people and responding to students who raise bullying by suggesting that they are mentally ill, it will reflect on the party. When you have a Republican politician (State Rep Roger Rivard, Wi) who talks about how 'some girls, they rape so easy', or a candidate for the Senate (Tom Smith, Pa) conflates consensual sex out of wedlock with rape, it reflects on the party.

Sassenach wrote:This kind of petty analysis of the minutiae of an old story is pretty tedious guys. It was boring the last time you talked about it, and since then we've had other news stories. I believe there may even have been an election....

To be honest, I mentioned it obliquely at first because I didn't think there was a need to go into the detail, but it was an example of what I was talking about. Sorry I got sucked into responding when DF responded with an attack on the person of Sandra Fluke, but it really was a copper-bottomed example of the kind of misinformation and nastiness that I think put a lot of women voters off when the issue blew up the first time.

While much of it did not come from Republican politicians, it certainly came from prominent (and numerous less prominent) supporters of the Party, and the Republicans hardly did much to distance themselves from it.

And yes, there was an election. This thread is about whether the party that lost it has a future, and what it can do to avoid losing again. Which will include why they lost this time. And, sorry, but I believe that the debates on social 'moral' issues, and in particular the way that the right (whether officially Republican politicians, or just their allies) behaved during those debates is relevant.

Here's my point: blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, right? This is true in a State like North Carolina, right?

And yet:

Yet a Pew Center poll released in April showed that the African-American community has softened in its opposition to gay marriage: In a 2008 survey, 67 percent of respondents said they didn’t approve of it, but in 2012 that number had dropped to 49 percent.

And, in fact, the ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in North Carolina.

A few months later, those same voters, in a State besieged by economic woes, nearly voted for Obama again.

Was it because they changed their minds on gay marriage in 6 months? I doubt it.

So, what was it? Not economics; not social issues . . .

My take? I think Obama could . . . if he wanted do just about anything and still win. It is the cult of personality.