The Splintering GOP Base

Only the liberals and weak Repubs think this is a issue of concern...personally I believe that very few care what Homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes...Weirdos keep bringing it to the forefront!
Yeah, but those weirdos have been embraced publicly by your party for over 20 years now. They're considered a core constituency. And whose fault is that?

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I suggest that the repugs are in dire need of a sheep dip. :p
 
Not my party..........

Yeah, but those weirdos have been embraced publicly by your party for over 20 years now. They're considered a core constituency. And whose fault is that?

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I suggest that the repugs are in dire need of a sheep dip. :p



I am a Independent of the ultra conservative ilk...I find both sides of the aisle catering to each others fantasies...like I said who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes...just don't bring it to the schools,brag about it or try to convince me it is a right!
 
And another reason for the democrats not to nominate Hillary Clinton. This could be the election that breaks up the always-fragile coalition built under Reagan between the economic conservatives and the religious conservatives.

I believe what is in here also applies to Mitt Romney. They are either going to field a third party candidate, splintering the gop base vote, or they are going to stay home.

The only thing that might get them out? Hillary Clinton.

September 30, 2007, 2:38 pm
Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort
By David D. Kirkpatrick

Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”
The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.
A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major portion of Republican primary voters. But the threat is risky for the credibility of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters could still choose to support even a pro-choice Republican like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are worried about war, terrorism and other issues.
In recent polls by the Pew Research Center, Mr. Giuliani has received a plurality of support from white evangelical Protestant voters despite a rising chorus of complaints from Christian conservative leaders about his liberal views on social issues and his unconventional family life. Some players in the movement not present at the meeting may be open to Mr. Giuliani as the lesser of two evils.
Rev. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network, for example, has provided relatively generous coverage to Mr. Giuliani and his campaign. Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate and a Republican primary candidate eight years ago, said that, speaking by phone to the meeting, he urged the group to proceed with caution. “I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Mr. Bauer said.
Still, he added, “But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life— and if we nominate some who is hostile on one of those three thing it will blow up the GOP.”
In response to the Christian conservatives, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Mr. Giuliani, saying, “Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs.” Calling Mr. Giuliani strong on fighting terrorism and “fiscal discipline,” Mr. Sessions said Republicans want a candidate who “can beat the Democratic nominee.”
For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ves-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?hp

dar

if the gop splits, and i expect the dems to follow, then we will have 4 major parties - fun fun fun
 
Tom doesn't run on anti-gay. This only shows a minimal idea of what he is about.

here: http://teamtancredo.org/

Read his site, see how much he talks about homosexuals. There isn't even one article about it.

He does rather heavily promote border security, but talks zero about homosexuals. If you note the hot button religious issues appear to be missing from his campaign...

Hmmm....

Maybe your winky was simply uninformed.


Read his site, see how much he talks about homosexuals. There isn't even one article about it.

I went to his site, and within 5 seconds, on his issues page, I ran across an entire article devoted to amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. He's against gay adoption, gays serving openly in the military, and gets a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition.

In short, Tom is part of the problem of wingnutters you seek to change in the GOP
 
Link it. I did.

Also, where here did you see that he was against Gay Adoption?

Federalism concerns make a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage an avenue of last resort, Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice.

Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.

Anyway, anywhere else? What do you see in his press releases? What does he focus on?

His focus does not lie here.

I said, and I quote, "Tom does not run on anti-gay." And I stand by that as I listen to his speak, rarely if ever would he mention this topic.

And if this is your only evidence then it is weak evidence. You, he and I all know there is going to be no Constitutional Amendment. He doesn't run on this issue, his is border security. You know it as well as I do.

And lastly, when did I ever say I supported his Presidency run?

He knows I am likely to vote Libertarian. However, there is no likely libertarian to run in this district.
 
Damo, he's practically the poster child of everything you said you are against in the GOP


Tancredo on the issues:

Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007)
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm
 
Damo, he's practically the poster child of everything you said you are against in the GOP


Tancredo on the issues:

Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007)
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm
This all started with, "Are you not going to vote for him again?"

My answer, "He knows that I am likely to vote libertarian." (I notice you didn't bother noticing that).

Anyway, I notice that he has nothing in any press announcements, in any speech he has made during the 'race', nothing in any way that suggests that this is what he "runs on". Which is what I stated to begin with.

What Tom runs on, is border security. It is why he joined the Presidential race, he felt that nobody was talking about it.
 
And another reason for the democrats not to nominate Hillary Clinton. This could be the election that breaks up the always-fragile coalition built under Reagan between the economic conservatives and the religious conservatives.

I believe what is in here also applies to Mitt Romney. They are either going to field a third party candidate, splintering the gop base vote, or they are going to stay home.

The only thing that might get them out? Hillary Clinton.

September 30, 2007, 2:38 pm
Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort
By David D. Kirkpatrick

Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”
The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.
A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major portion of Republican primary voters. But the threat is risky for the credibility of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters could still choose to support even a pro-choice Republican like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are worried about war, terrorism and other issues.
In recent polls by the Pew Research Center, Mr. Giuliani has received a plurality of support from white evangelical Protestant voters despite a rising chorus of complaints from Christian conservative leaders about his liberal views on social issues and his unconventional family life. Some players in the movement not present at the meeting may be open to Mr. Giuliani as the lesser of two evils.
Rev. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network, for example, has provided relatively generous coverage to Mr. Giuliani and his campaign. Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate and a Republican primary candidate eight years ago, said that, speaking by phone to the meeting, he urged the group to proceed with caution. “I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Mr. Bauer said.
Still, he added, “But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life— and if we nominate some who is hostile on one of those three thing it will blow up the GOP.”
In response to the Christian conservatives, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Mr. Giuliani, saying, “Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs.” Calling Mr. Giuliani strong on fighting terrorism and “fiscal discipline,” Mr. Sessions said Republicans want a candidate who “can beat the Democratic nominee.”
For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ves-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?hp

More millionaires than ever before. :clink:
 
This all started with, "Are you not going to vote for him again?"

My answer, "He knows that I am likely to vote libertarian." (I notice you didn't bother noticing that).

Anyway, I notice that he has nothing in any press announcements, in any speech he has made during the 'race', nothing in any way that suggests that this is what he "runs on". Which is what I stated to begin with.

What Tom runs on, is border security. It is why he joined the Presidential race, he felt that nobody was talking about it.


To be honest, I have problems with my own senator - DiFi.

So, I can see you having problems with Tancredo. Regardless of what he runs on, his voting record is 100% Christian Coaltion. And not believing in evolution, is a non-starter for me. No one gets my vote, if they are that ignorant and anti-science.

In Cali, I sure wish we had a more progressive senator than DiFi. But, I do love Barbara Boxer though. ;)
 
Tom doesn't run on anti-gay. This only shows a minimal idea of what he is about.

here: http://teamtancredo.org/

Read his site, see how much he talks about homosexuals. There isn't even one article about it.

He does rather heavily promote border security, but talks zero about homosexuals. If you note the hot button religious issues appear to be missing from his campaign...

Hmmm....

Maybe your winky was simply uninformed.
George W. Bush didn't "run on" being a liar and a narrow minded ideologue but he was both of those things . . . and more.

What a candidate chooses to "run on" is a political decision. It's up to us to look beyond that.
 
To be honest, I have problems with my own senator - DiFi.

So, I can see you having problems with Tancredo. Regardless of what he runs on, his voting record is 100% Christian Coaltion. And not believing in evolution, is a non-starter for me. No one gets my vote, if they are that ignorant and anti-science.

In Cali, I sure wish we had a more progressive senator than DiFi. But, I do love Barbara Boxer though. ;)
I couldn't care less if they "don't believe in evolution". Those votes do bother me. When he is around, not much nowadays, we talk on that. I would only care if they attempt to change the schools to teach their religion rather than scientific theory.

If I don't believe in Plate Techtonics theory, it doesn't make me anti-science or wish to change the books. (I do, BTW, believe in Plate Techtonics).
 
George W. Bush didn't "run on" being a liar and a narrow minded ideologue but he was both of those things . . . and more.

What a candidate chooses to "run on" is a political decision. It's up to us to look beyond that.

a big AMEN on that.
All should remember that political advertisements are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.

Look at what they have done, not what they say they will do.
 
I couldn't care less if they "don't believe in evolution". Those votes do bother me. When he is around, not much nowadays, we talk on that. I would only care if they attempt to change the schools to teach their religion rather than scientific theory.

If I don't believe in Plate Techtonics theory, it doesn't make me anti-science or wish to change the books. (I do, BTW, believe in Plate Techtonics).
I do care. Very much. People are entitled to not believe in evolution if they wish but the choice has consequences.

I can never, under any circumstances, vote for any Creationist. I quite literally equate it with insanity. That's somewhat judgmental of me, I know, but it's also true.

As for plate tectonics, it would depend on WHY you didn't believe in it. Science leaves plenty of room for dispute so long as the reasons for the dispute are sound.
 
wm

since when have our elections been fair?

buying votes is a national tradition since its inception

It's not that it would buy votes.

With 4 different competitive parties, the election results would be unfair. Our voting system is only supposed to be used with two pieces - throw a third one in there, and the results are nonsensical. How does the fact that two liberals are running suddenly mean the one conservative running deserves to win more? But that's how our voting system works.

If the people prefer something around the area of liberal, they should get a liberal. And the voting system should take that into account.
 
It's not that it would buy votes.

With 4 different competitive parties, the election results would be unfair. Our voting system is only supposed to be used with two pieces - throw a third one in there, and the results are nonsensical. How does the fact that two liberals are running suddenly mean the one conservative running deserves to win more? But that's how our voting system works.

If the people prefer something around the area of liberal, they should get a liberal. And the voting system should take that into account.
The original constitution was designed without parties. The parties began just after George Washington took his first Unanimous votes for President, and he only ran a second time in an attempt to stave off the power of the parties. This, of course, didn't work.

The Democratic-Republicans, who believed that the states should hold more power with less going to the Federal system, began working towards gaining the Presidency.

The way it was at the beginning put the opposing party in the VP seat in almost every election after George Washington left office, until they added an amendment that created the party system we have today. It would take another amendment to get proportional representation in the government, but it would take power from the parties. You will find little support for this in the government.
 
We don't necessarily need proportional representation. Rated voting - mathematically speaking - is just a lot more sensible for elections with more than two people. Even runoff voting would work better. I'm just saying, it's not right to BLAME third parties for bad election results. Blame and replace the election system, or else ban third parties, I wasn't trying to plug PR again. I know I'd pretty much be preaching to the choir there.

Proportional representation could be done at the state level. It would just be more difficult... especially since some states have 2 or less seats. It'd be easier to just pass an amendment that sorts the house of representatives into a bunch of 5 member proportional districts throughout the nation. And even that would be difficult. Think about it, Damo, who in Wyoming would want there own congressional district to be merged with the 5 states around them, even if it were proportional and they could still band together and elect a member of their own? The idea of state tribalism still reigns supreme in the US. We're a nation obsessed with geography, not individual voters. Chapdog doesn't even understand why we apportion districts to individual people in the district instead of making them all the same size in land - apparently he thinks what we're trying to represent here is trees and acorns, not human beings.

I've really started thinking that the entire existence of political parties came into being in order to bring order to the chaos that is using a two-person voting system to select amongst more than two candidates. Since it doesn't work with more than two parties, naturally some organization is going to arise to take advantage of and abuse that fact.

But back on point, I'm getting off topic. Multiple parties running candidates all around the place wouldn't mean that you'd get more options under our system, it would just mean that practically no one would be represented by anyone they actually agreed with.
 
Did you know, Watermark, that Electors were supposed to put two names on their ballots and then the top two were elected as President and VP in the original constitution?

Your proportional counting was actually rejected later as it was found to cause problems with the Executive branch.
 
Back
Top