Cynical Nation

I never believed the Reps could have a limited government. The president with the highest known deficit in history was Reagan. I know he had to deal with a Dem controlled house and senate, but all that debt did not come from them. Also, I believe all the "burnout" from Reps will be running back to the party once they see a Dem pres., house and senate in action. There is no guarantee, esp since we truly do not know how Hillary would run, that the Dems will be their party of choice.
And, to be honest, I don't want the Dems to be Republican-light. As more and more rich folk vote Dem, will the party continue to help the middle and lower classes? or will they be more worried about the AMT rather than health care? for a better breakdown of my opinion, here is an op-ed from the la times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-kotkin2dec02,0,3533253.story

I have not been happy with the "my way or the highway" mentality of my party the past seven years, but I choose to claim a part in it. No one group will push me away unless they threaten me with death.

The other development is that McCain seems to be passing Guilliani to move into second place in New Hampshire. Now that McCain has received the endorsement of the state's only newspaper.. he is perhaps the one who could benefit if Romney loses Iowa to Huckabee.

The other development is that McCain seems to be passing Guilliani to move into second place in New Hampshire. Now that McCain has received the endorsement of the state's only newspaper.. he is perhaps the one who could benefit if Romney loses Iowa to Huckabee.

If the social conservatives do take over the Republican Party, do you think the party would splinter and we would actually have a three party system? I wonder if that could happen to the Democratic Party as well? And if so, do you think that a Libertarian Party would wind up being the biggest? Or would it *shudder* be the social conservatives that wound up on top?

"If the social conservatives do take over the Republican Party....."

Where have you been? They already have. How do you think GWB was elected? The religious right controls and decides the nominees of the republican party.

It'd be interesting to see something like that happen, but I can't help but wonder if the two-party dynamic is just too entrenched to allow such a development.

And while I'm cautiously optimistic that libertarian thought seems to be enjoying a bit of a boomlet of late, I think the Libertarian Party is forever doomed to single digits, no matter how much the major parties might fracture.

PE, I hope you're right. I saw that about the Union-Leader endorsement too. I wonder how big an impact it will have?

I've been telling people that I thought Huckabee would emerge as a contender for months now and my reason for doing so is that evangelical Christians make up about 25-30% of the Republican Primary voters. For months now, this "block" have been expressing displeasure regarding the choices. There was only one candidate who was one of them and that was Huckabee but they thought that he couldn't win. Well, in a five man race, 25-30% makes him a contender and Iowa voters have a history of not caring who is ahead in the polls. Therefore he is now a contender.

The danger for Huckabee is that if he oversells himself to evangelical Christians, he won't be able to broaden his base and therefore won't ultimately win the nomination. At the moment, however, he is benefitting from the fact that voters like you have two choices (McCain, Guilliani) while evangelical Christians only have one candidate who speaks in their language and who has been consistently pro-life.

>I've been telling people that I thought Huckabee would emerge as a contender for months now....

I remember, and I thought you were nuts at the time. I wish you had been.

"Everyone likes to belong to a "team," but I'm about this close (holding fingers very close together) to going free agent on their ass." (BNJ)


That "team sports mentality" is a big part of the problem with American politics today, Barry.

In my view, you SHOULD go "free agent."

I've always tried to vote for the most socially Conservative (tough on crime, against race/gender preferences, etc) and economically Libertarian candidate available.

I COULD NOT support George Bush Sr after he broke his "no new taxes" pledge and I couldn't support Bob Dole either - they were both "Moderate (socially Liberal) Republicans." Even Bill Clinton, a Moderate ("Harold Ford Jr styled Democrat) ran to the Right of both those guys.

I'd have gladly supported a Zell Miller, a Jim Webb or a Harold Ford Jr over any such Republican.

The "enemy" ideology to me is American Liberalism or "Euro-socialism." BOTH major Parties have their share of adherants of this horrific ideology, though the Dem's version are far more vociferous.

The "Evangelical Christians," for better or worse comprise about a quarter of the OVERALL Electorate with appx 50 to 60 MILLION of them nationwide.

Heath Schuler and a few others are leading the vanguard of that movement into the Democratic Party.

I say "Good for them," on that score. They SHOULD seek to expand their influence in both Parties.

That's far too big a group to be silenced, so we've got to be able to forge the best possible comprises with them.

What areas do I disagree with them on?

Abortion?

Well, I not only believe in abortion, I'd mandate birth control and when necessary abortion for all "wards of the state" (incarcerated felons, institutionalized physically & mentally handicapped and those dependent upon public assistance), so we disagree over abortion, BUT I acknowledge that 2/3s of the country supports unrestricted first trimester abortion, while 2/3s also oppose Third trimester or "Late Term"/"partial birth" abortion....I could live with that compromise - all but third trimest abortions allowed. I'd consider the mandating of birth control and abortion for "wards of the state" to be an independent issue.

ESC research?

Well, that issue has been rendered moot by recent advances in science that allow adult skin cells to be used the same way ESC are used. Adult skin cells can be transformed into muscle, nerve tissue, etc., rendering the ethical considerations of that issue pretty much superfuous.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071120/ts_nm/stemcells_dc_3

On immigration?

Like over 75% of Americans I support an Enforcement First approach to ERADICATING illegal immigration. Fine, and when necessary, jail the illicit employers, kill off the illicit jobs and the vast majority of the illegals here will self-deport.

On race/gender preferences?

Hell, even BLUE state Michigan passed the 2004 Referendum banning the use of race &/or gender as positive or negative considerations in things like College admissions by better than 2 to 1. Who today, doesn't oppose such preferences?

On crime?

Again, I believe the vast majority of Americans favor PUNISHMENT over the failed policies of REHABILITATION.

While rehabbing felons is a laudable goal, it is generally ineffective (only 1/3 change their ways after therapy), puts the general public at undue risk and is, for the first reason, NOT a "cost-effective" approach to criminal justice.

I think some very amicable compromises can be made with the Christian Right.

It's sad to say, but the same thing CAN'T be said about the far Left in America.

JMK: "The "Evangelical Christians," for better or worse comprise about a quarter of the OVERALL Electorate with appx 50 to 60 MILLION of them nationwide.

Heath Schuler and a few others are leading the vanguard of that movement into the Democratic Party.

I say "Good for them," on that score. They SHOULD seek to expand their influence in both Parties."

Uhh, I seem to recall reading somewhere that those evangelical christians kind have already expanded their influence within one of the parties. Been happening for, oh, the past quarter century or so. One of their snake oil salesmen ran for President in 1988. Karl Rove had many of their names on his rolodex.

I hate to say that JMK is right here but Evangelical Christians do register at about one-quarter of the overall population. That said, Evangelical Christians have been known to stay out of politics and many still do. In recent decades that has been changing and of those who are politically active, more have found themselves joining the Republican party, but not all.

That said, I don't know see how people like Barry are surprised that Evangelical Christians are looking for a candidate that best reflects their values. Evangelical Christians tend to greatly care about a person's moral character. (Reportedly, many turned against Nixon only when they heard him speak swear words on the tapes.) Given that, I have always thought that they just wouldn't go for a man like Guilliani, given his views on abortion and how he behaved while married, unless he became born again. (Laugh at that, if you will, but I don't think the Evangelicals would.)

The reasons why Barry I guess supports Guilliani: tough on spending and lower taxes are not the #1 issues for many Evangelicals. Even though Huckabee has signed a no-tax pledge, Barry doesn't appear to trust him on that issue. So why do you think Evangelicals should trust Guilliani on abortion?

I personally don't share many of the priorities of the Evangelical Christians who are active in the Republican Party. (I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage.) Nonetheless, I try to understand, to the best of my ability, how other people's thinking differs from my own.

There are people in your party who think differently than you do, Barry. I'm surprised that you're surprised that these voters are looking for a candidate who speaks to their interests like you are doing for your own interests.

I don't blame evangelicals for boosting a candidate they like, and I could even get behind the right "compromise" candidate. But I think *any* other candidate in the field would represent a better compromise than Huckabee.

And if there are so few folks like me in the GOP that we can't have any more influence than that, I'm bailing on them. I don't hate them or blame them, but I don't belong in a party for which Huckabee is representative. It's not just him, of course, it's more the culmination of things. But a Huckabee nomination would definitely be the icing on the cake, so to speak. ;-)

Barry,
I thought that you are libertarian. Or at least you have been claiming to be so. There is a real libertarian in the race. His name is Ron Paul, in case you missed it :-)

So, why dont you support the libertarian candidate? Why do you feel obliged to chose among the rest? You would vote for a religious fundamentalist over a libertarian candidate? I think you should re-evaluate where you stand. You are ready to support someone whose candidacy is slowly collapsing (RG) because of the corruption and scandals of his close associates, or someone who can barely think straight at his age (JM) and seems to have essentially lost it the last couple of yers. I dont believe you are a libertarian. You are just a right-wing republican without purpose. Just my opinion, of course :-)

>You would vote for a religious fundamentalist over a libertarian candidate?

Funny, I believe I said the opposite of that.

BTW, Ron Paul is a cool guy and all, but for the moment at least, he stands about zero chance of winning the nomination. Besides, I'd have to point out that he's more of a religious conservative than Rudy Giuliani is.

"Besides, I'd have to point out that he's more of a religious conservative than Rudy Giuliani is."

But he does not suffer from the corruption that Giuliani does. I think Giuliani's campaign is essentially over. Using the NYPD as a personal taxi service for his girlfriend is not particularly appropriate. Even by right-wing republican standards.

"I personally don't share many of the priorities of the Evangelical Christians who are active in the Republican Party. (I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage.) Nonetheless, I try to understand, to the best of my ability, how other people's thinking differs from my own." (PE)


I don't pretend to know WHY Evangelicals support all the causes they do (opposing illegal immigration, tough on crime, anti-abortion and against gay marriage)...only the last two would seem to carry any religious reasons for doing so, BUT with 2/3s of Americans opposing gay marriage, the majority of those opposed are NOT Evangelicals or even religious people, so their are people who see that as a common sense issue, as well.

Favoring a PUNISHMENT model over the failed rehabilitation methods for dealing with violent thugs and supporting an ENFORCEMENT FIRST approach to illegal immigration are simply common sense approaches to those issues.

On abortion, I am decidedly NOT "pro-choice." I doubt many would call my fervent support of mandated birth control and, when necessary, abortion for those "wards of the state" (incarcerated felons, the institutionalized handicapped and those dependent upon public assistance) a "pro-choice" stand, but I certainly believe it is a very common sense stand.

And that's why while I can understand Evangelicals and even devout Catholics and Orthodox Jews being appalled by my stand as it violates a central tenet of their beliefs ("the sanctity of life"), I don't hold to any "sanctity of life," I can't understand why any non-religious people would oppose that common sense viewpoint.

I know that some people who are non-religious, even anti-religious still claim to believe in the "sanctity of life," but that doesn't make ANY sense at all! I mean, how can you reject religion, but still cling to religiosity? THAT ("the snctity of life") is a fundamentally religious viewpoint!

And it's one that I don't remember ever believing in. When I was eight I was taught a very valuable lesson while out at an Uncle's ranch that summer. Two trespassers were brought back to the bunk house by some of the ranch hands and after determining, among themselves, that they were there to poach from the herd and possibly waylay the stray rancher, they were hung...right there over one of the beams in the bunkhouse.

That was the first time I ever saw someone die and I did not handle it well at all. It was the most horrific thing I'd ever seen up to that point in my life and I trembeled at the spectacle and pissed myself...I can still feel shame over my reaction to that whenever I recall that event, which is relatively often.

I remember an older cousin of mine coming over to carefully explain how death is a natural part of life and that all living things are in a constant struggle for survival. I remember him telling me how most large mammals (lions, wolves, etc) will kill another one of their own kind for moving in on their territory, but none of that made it any easier to reconcile that within my Catholic Schoolboy mind.

I turned nine the next February and I remember that that was the first year I ever felt something like depression - a deep and unabating sadness, coupled with a vague awareness that life ultimately means nothing.

I would struggle through that for the next few years and by age eleven I had given up any semblance of faith or belief in any religion and I knew, I KNEW that there was absolutely no sanctity of life, at least not in this world.

I have never looked at death the same again and that has served me ill at times, earlier on in my life, and it's served me well in the Fire Dept as I've never reacted viscerally to any death, no matter how horrific, and that has enabled me to go about my job without any sentimental reactions. I have come to see death as natural and inevitable and in some cases (for those suffering from the ravages of cancer, emphysema, for terrorists, for communists/communalists, etc.) it's actually preferable, as it puts those pitiable people out of their earthly miseries.

But while I understand the objections of the religious over “the sanctity of life” issue, I DON’T understand how or why any non-religious people could object to my common sense view of mandated birth control/abortion for “wards of the state.”

As I noted, there’s a deep chasm on that issue between where I and religious Conservatives stand on that issue, and I can respect their viewpoint on “the sanctity of life” and accept a compromise of allowing unfettered abortion up to the third trimester. Although that’s not a perfect compromise for them, even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, it’s extremely doubtful that many, if ANY states would outlaw abortion outright...not even states like Alabama, Mississippi or Utah, so such a compromise might be the best they could do.

But what about those who don’t believe that America’s oil interests abroad are not worth defending, or that the current military war against the global adherents of Sharia-based Islam is not justified, or those who believe that higher taxes and more social programs are a good way to go???

It would seem that there's absolutely no way to compromise with people who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

"BTW, Ron Paul is a cool guy and all, but for the moment at least, he stands about zero chance of winning the nomination." (BNJ)


And he's also dabbled in those "9/11-Truther" Conspiracies, making him, in effect, the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.

I liked Rep. Ron Paul better when he was defending the Gold Standard and voting NO on almost every spending Bill that came up for a vote, but like Rudy and Hillary, the closer you look, the less likable (and in Paul's case) the kookier he looks.

If only it were someone dynamic like a Walter E Williams running instead of Ron Paul, MAYBE the most Libertarian candidate in the GOP field would be doing better.

I think Huckabee's surge is due to the fact that the vast majority of the country DOES NOT think at all the way our MSM types do. They DON'T like Hillary, or Rudy and they don't much trust Romney or Edwards, so Obama is surging on the Democratic side, while Huckabee is surging on the GOP side of the fence.

There is consternation over that within the MSM because they LOVE Hillary, Rudy and their second choices are Edwards and Romney.

Ultimately I don't see either Huckabee or Obama getting the nod, but I'm glad that the MSM's annointed candidates are getting smacked around.

I know you'd prefer Rudy to most of the GOP, while I'd prefer Hunter or Tancredo, but would prefer Romney over those with any chance to win the nomination.

Would I vote for Rudy over a Hillary, Obama or Edwards?

Without question. I just wouldn't prefer him...and corruption isn't the reason. Rudy's "corruption quotient (46) stands at about the same as the Clinton's (49). We could live with that. You could say, we already have. No, it's his judgment that troubles me - Kerik, von Essen, insisting on locating the city's emergency command post in Bldg 7 of the WTC against the advice of Fire & Police brass, things like that.

"Uhh, I seem to recall reading somewhere that those evangelical christians kind have already expanded their influence within one of the parties. Been happening for, oh, the past quarter century or so..." (Fred)


Old news, Fred.

The "new news" is that many Evangelicals are moving into the Democratic Party, Heath Schuler's election is an indication of the success of that move.

In fact, 2004 was a watershed election for CONSERVATIVE Dems. They won that election for the Democrats!

Both Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel recruited Conservative candidates (including a few Evangelicals like Schuler) to run out West and down South and the result is that today these Conservative "New" Democrats hold over 20% of the Democrat's seats in Congress.

Those dolts who'd wish that "the Christian Right would just go away" are whistling in the dark.

For better or worse, they're a huge part of America right now.

Would you prefer perhaps 60 million Americans who thought exactly like myself?

I know I would, but since common sense isn't all that common, I have a feeling that's a ways off.

"Funny, I believe I said the opposite of that."

So, would you vote for Paul over Huckabee, Hunter, Tacredo or Thompson? They are all the same. Religious fundamentalists (to various degrees). I dont think you would have to worry about voting about Rudy, because my guess is that he will withdraw of the race probably before even Iowa.

>So, would you vote for Paul over Huckabee, Hunter, Tacredo or Thompson?

Yes, I would vote for Paul over any of them. Thompson, however, does not belong with the others. I don't like him, but he's hardly Huckabee material.

>...my guess is that [Rudy] will withdraw of the race probably before even Iowa.

You are nucking futs.

"You are nucking futs."

Dont make me bet with you again. You have a history of losing such bets :-) Remember me, Rudy will drop off the race within 2-3 months at the latest. He has too many scandals and corruption associated with him. His campaign is already imploding (he is behind Huckabee in the NATIONAL polls). That says it all.

>Remember me, Rudy will drop off the race within 2-3 months at the latest.

Well, that's quite a bit different than dropping out before Iowa. I won't take that bet. ;-)

I always enjoy BW's cockeyed optimism.

Iowa isn't even a primary, it's a straw poll. NOBODY on either side is bailing out of anything before New Hampshire, let alone Iowa.

Besides, both Clinton and Giuliani trail in Iowa but BOTH still lead in the national polls.

In Iowa it's Huckabee 27, Romney 24 and Rudy 13, and Obama 32 to Clinton & Edwards 25.

In the NH polls it's Romney 31 to Giuliani and McCain at 18, and Clinton 35 to Obama's 29 and Edwards' 17.

The LA Times/Bloomberg national polls have Giuliani at 23 to Huckabee's 17 and Thompson's 14 and Clinton leading 45 to Obama's 21 and Edward's 11.

Rudy's using the NYPD as security for Judy Nathan doesn't even have the legs of Bill Clinton's "Troopergate"...and that's a scandal that went nowhere.

Again, Rudy's corruption quotient (46) is about on par with Bill Clinton's (49)...THAT'S not going to be Rudy's problem.

He's got the same major problem that Hillary Clinton does - the more you see of them, the less you like. Neither one is a particularly nice, or even decent person.

It's a looooong way to November 2008 and a lot can and will happen between now and then...lots of good and bad for the "team players" on both sides.

The only thing I'm relatively sure of, at least at this point, is that Liberalism isn't going to make a comeback.

The Dem gains in 2004 were virtually all due to Conservative "New" Democrats and virtually every ballot referendum went the Conservative way from race/gender preferences going down in MI, to Eminent Domain restrictions passing in 11 of 12 venues to gay marriage being defeated by better than 2 to 1 overall and in 8 of 9 referendums.

Take that to the bank, no matter what your personal beliefs are, that's a very good trend for America!

Who's calculating this 'corruption quotient'? Is this a Pew Research thing or some JMK-oriented scientific survey? And speaking of surveys, where are these surveys constantly thrown out there (with no challenge from anyone here) that:
a) "2/3s oppose Third trimester or "Late Term"/"partial birth" abortion
b) "over 75% of Americans I support an Enforcement First approach to ERADICATING illegal immigration."
c) "2/3s of Americans opposing gay marriage"

Cite RECENT polls, and multiple ones (a single poll tells little), and from different organizations. I keep reading about these overwhelming majorities favoring this or opposing that, but can't recall seeing anything in the last year or so to back up those claims.

A fair enough complaint, Fred.

Here are some of the accepted stats compiled by Public Agenda (on the abortion issue) and Rasmussen (on illegal immigration). Since gay marriage lost on 8 of 9 ballot referendums in the 2004 elections and by 2 to 1 when those contests were all tallied together, THAT is where the 2/3s of Americans opposing gay marriage comes from.

On Abortion:

"People frequently ask us what we think is particularly interesting or surprising about public opinion surveys. In Quick Takes, we point out facts or findings where there might be a new wrinkle on a trend; where we think public opinion is particularly noteworthy; or what may have gone unnoticed or been underreported.

MORAL -- Slightly more Americans say they are pro-choice than pro-life, but slightly more than half say abortion is morally wrong. Yet half also say they personally know someone who had an abortion and two-thirds say that person considered it the right decision.

ROE -- Attitudes about abortion have changed relatively little in the 30 years since the Roe v. Wade ruling. Only 36 percent say Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but the public is divided over whether the ruling went too far.

REASONS -- Most Americans say abortion should be legal if the woman's life is endangered (85 percent) or in cases of rape or incest (76 percent). Far fewer, however, say abortion should be legal if the baby may be physically impaired (56 percent) or the family cannot afford more children (35 percent).

TRIMESTERS -- While two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, only one-quarter say it should be legal in the second trimester. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1998, nearly nine in 10 abortions were performed in the first 12 weeks.

RESTRICTIONS -- About three-quarters of Americans support parental consent laws (73 percent), mandatory waiting periods (78 percent) and mandatory notification of the husband (72 percent). But six in 10 would oppose a near-complete ban on abortion.

PARTIAL-BIRTH -- Seven in 10 Americans say they support a ban on late-term "partial-birth" abortions, but survey responses can change based on how the question is phrased.

RU-486 -- Most Americans say they don't know enough about the "abortion pill" to say whether it is safe and effective or not.

TEENS -- The birth rate among teenagers has dropped substantially, from 62.1 births per 1,000 adolescents in 1991 to 45.8 in 2001. About 30 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

GENDER -- The sexes are not divided on the legality of abortion: about the same number of men and women say abortion should be generally available (44 percent of men, 42 percent of women); available but under tighter restrictions (34 percent men vs. 35 percent women) and banned outright (21 percent men vs. 22 percent women).

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles.cfm?issue_type=abortion



On ILLEGAL Immigration:

"Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/poll_voters_want_smaller_steps_to_immigration_reform_with_focus_on_enforcement

Americans For Legal Immigration came up with the same numbers.

"When asked what the best way is to deal with illegal immigration, 64% supported the House bill's approach of enforcing immigration laws and encouraging illegal immigrants go home over time while only 30% supported the Senate bill, which would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and coupled with a doubling of legal immigration.

"Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

"Seventy-three percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen out terrorists and criminals if there is a mass amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S.

"The American people recognize illegal immigration is a serious issue, and enforcement of our immigration laws must be our first priority.

http://www.alipac.us/article1206.html

I don't hear any kind of groundswell of support for a more open immigration policy, BUT I do hear a lot of rumblings about how we need to get illegal immigration under control and how "illegal immigration is NOT part of the immigration debate."

The abortion polls look to be kind of outdated--4 and 5 years old.

8 of 9 states and a combined 2-1 margin (In 2004's whipped-up gay marriage frenzy)) does not equal two-thirds of AMERICANS.

The abortion polls look to be kind of outdated--4 and 5 years old.

8 of 9 states and a combined 2-1 margin (In 2004's whipped-up gay marriage frenzy)) does not equal two-thirds of AMERICANS.

As for immigration, for some reason that issue is not even on my radar screen. I don't care about it, I find it to be at times mildly racist and xenophobic when the Tancredos (sorry JMK!) of the world starting foaming at the mouth about it...maybe some day I'll get a pulse about the whole issue, but right now, it ranks about 101st on my personal list of top 100 policy isuses.

Some news for Lou Dobbs and his ilk:
One-third of Americans want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to illegal immigrants, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Still, in a sign of ambivalence among voters about the emotionally charged issue, a strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements [...]

The poll indicates that while most of those surveyed viewed illegal immigration as a key concern, it was not the most important issue on their minds.

"The abortion polls look to be kind of outdated--4 and 5 years old.

"8 of 9 states and a combined 2-1 margin (In 2004's whipped-up gay marriage frenzy)) does not equal two-thirds of AMERICANS." (Fred)


I am a little disappointed that you haven't come up with any poll results of your own, as I sought out the most non-partisan polls I could find - Rasmussen and Public Agenda, are hardly NARAL or the RTL Foundation.

At any rate, the polls on abortion have not changed much in the three decades since Roe was decided.

While appx ONLY one third of Americans OPPOSE early abortion, ONLY appx one third SUPPORT third trimester abortion.

That makes absolute inviolate sense. A child in the third trimester is a fully-formed human who could live outside the womb. Actually I'm surprised that fully one third of Americans have thought that through enough to see the wisdom of that majority opinion Fred.

As for gay marriage, even CBS recently noted that opposition to gay marriage is actually INCREASING!

Even to me, that's amazing!

"(CBS) According to a CBS News poll, most Americans oppose gay marriage - and opposition appears to be increasing.

"However, support for a constitutional amendment rises and falls with the way that the amendment is worded. The issue seems likely to play a role in the fall presidential election, particularly for those who are opposed to same-sex marriages.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

In a CBS News poll conducted immediately after President Bush endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 59% of Americans said they would favor an amendment to the Constitution that would "allow marriage only between a man and a woman," up slightly from 55% last December."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

In Europe "gay marriage" has been used by radical, anti-social gays to sue Church's over denying them the right to marry in their Churches.

Sure, that pesky old 1st Amedment would get in the way of that here, but many people feel that "gay marriage" undermines the institution of marriage and points to Europe's declining marriage stats after gay marriages have been sanctioned.

I think there are a lot of homosexual and bisexual people out there who'd like to see (even force, if possible) religions preaching that "homosexuality is a sin and an abomination."

I don't know why they care so much about that, but I do support every religion's absolute and inviolate RIGHT to preach what it believes to be "the word of God."

“As for immigration, for some reason that issue is not even on my radar screen. I don't care about it, I find it to be at times mildly racist and xenophobic when the Tancredos (sorry JMK!) of the world starting foaming at the mouth about it...” (Fred)


Don’t be sorry Fred, people who don’t care about that issue generally don’t care about poor Americans and the impact that the illegal alien (off-the-books) workforce has on wage rates for America’s low-skilled and unskilled labor. Apparently they also don’t understand how lowering the wage floor, which the use of illegal alien labor does, puts a profound negative pressure on all prevailing wage rates.

I understand that many “Country Club” Republicans support the status quo because they perceive that they benefit from cheap labor, but I think that’s a poor excuse on which to surrender the principle of the rule of law.

The MOST ignorant folks on the matter are those who consider illegal immigration to be a part of the overall immigration debate.

I can ONLY discuss illegal immigration in terms of crime, economics and national security/terrorism, as it’s NOT really a part of the larger immigration debate.

It MIGHT have been, had proponents of open borders actually made a more compelling &/or passionate case for that view, but since they haven’t (maybe too few really cared enough) we can’t really discuss ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as part of the overall immigration debate, because it’s NOT part of our existing immigration policy. Therefore, it can only really be discussed in terms of crime, national security (terrorism), and economics.

Suffice to say, among those Americans who do consider that issue and care about it at all (it’s about number five for me) they’ve largely got it right, in that “When asked what the best way is to deal with illegal immigration, 64% supported the House bill's approach of enforcing immigration laws and encouraging illegal immigrants go home over time while only 30% supported the Senate bill, which would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and coupled with a doubling of legal immigration.

“Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

“Seventy-three percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen out terrorists and criminals if there is a mass amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S.”

http://www.alipac.us/article1206.html

It’s a non-partisan issue with almost 60% of Democrats and a clear majority of Hispanics supporting the Congressional “Enforcement First” approach to this problem.

In that regard, I’m glad you’re not all that interested, nor engaged Fred, I like the prevailing numbers as they are and would find it nothing less than tragic if they softened in any way on this issue.

TYPO:

"Actually I'm surprised that fully one third of Americans have thought that through enough to see the wisdom of that majority opinion Fred."

SHOULD READ:

"Actually I'm surprised that fully one third of Americans have NOT thought that through enough to see the wisdom of that majority opinion Fred.

The 'recent' CBS poll you cite was from early 2004. Which I guess qualifies as recent if looked at in the context of world history.

I failed to cite any polls because I wasn't the one who's been touting them repeatedly. Just wondering where you were getting these outdated figures from.

There are a slew of polls from more recent times (i.e., this year/post-Rove) that show more of a roughly 40 (yes)-50 (no)-10 (?) split on the marriage question--hardly a two-thirds super-majority.

Fred you challenged the numbers I gave, I showed you where I got them.

You've yet to prove those numbers have changed.

It is clearly my contention that they haven't. I've seen no evidence that that is not the case.

It would seem that by a fairly wide margin, Americans feel, as I do, "Gay marriage NO, civil unions YES."

There's a huge difference between the two. In backwater places like Western Europe (France and Germany have just woken up from their post-Keynesian nightmare...we woke up after the Carter debacle) homosexuals have been able to sue Church's and religious organizations for bias (over refusing to Marry them in Church) and in some quarters have outlawed Church's preaching that homosexuality is a "sin," as "bias against homosexuals."

The irony is that these same places are now catering to hardcore Muslims who also see homosexuality as "an abomination worthy of death."

I don't know what explains that phenomenon except that many Western whites feel even more guilty about contradicting those from "other cultures," then they do about supporting things like homosexuality. I think that some of that is due, at least in part, to their mistakenly believing that they themselves are "part of the Western Christian tradition," so they feel more of a right to challenge that orthodoxy.

I believe that it's incumbent upon devout Christians and Jews to make sure that "fallen, or former Christians and Jews," atheistic and agnostic Christians and Jews don't feel "part of that tradition" and don't feel so comfortable challenging it.

I'm an agnostic, former Christian, but I don't see it as my place to challenge Christian or Orthodox Jewish orthodoxy, any more than it is my place to challenge what Muslims believe, EXCEPT when it comes to any of their promoting violence against non-believers.

I do not see where Churches and Synogogues that preach that homosexuality is a "sin," are promoting or even condoning violence against homosexuals. Most preach "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

But I'm an agnostic, free to believe that "other" is often bad, because I DON'T and never have believed in any of that "brotherhood of man" BS.

"There are a slew of polls from more recent times (i.e., this year/post-Rove) that show more of a roughly 40 (yes)-50 (no)-10 (?) split on the marriage question--hardly a two-thirds super-majority." (Fred)


Really?

I wonder why they couldn't get gay marriage passed in Massachussetts, then?

I've considered the issue thoroughly and I'm not one of those conned into believing that "civil unions and "gay Marriage are the same thing."

They're not.

If they were, why wouldn't gays be fine with Rudy's and Hillary's position, of "civil unions YES, gay marriage NO?"

I think civil unions are the best possible compromise available, so it's incumbent upon gays to accept civil unions and not push for Marriage.

Could you imagine the fiery backlash here if even a single lawsuit were brought to force, say the Catholic Church to Marry gays?"

Hell, intifada and jihad would pale by comparison!

Those devout folks don't take kindly to people trying to force them to go against what they believe.

And you know what?

In THAT case, the religious zealots would be RIGHT! The 1st Amendment guarantees the inalienable RIGHT of any Church, or any religion to preach that homosexuality is "sin," to refuse to Marry homosexuals, even if the right to Marry is guaranteed by some secular government.

Look, if there were any reason for us to feel that "religionists need to be reined in," or that "organized religion poses some real threat to Americanism," I believe I'd see it, but it's just not there and that's probably a large part of the reason why so many Americans (far more than the number of devoutly religious people in the country) oppose gay Marriage, while supporting civil unions.