Video: “We Are Republican”

posted at 3:15 pm on January 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

New from Justin Germany, former online video guru for Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin. It’s as slick as the rest of his work and fully representative of the GOP mindset these days insofar as it’s consumed with personality: Lots of Reagan, lots of big-tent racial diversity, not much beyond small government and lower taxes on the policy front. See also Mitch McConnell, chewing out the RNC at its annual meeting in D.C. today: “We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives. America is diverse. The two major parties should be too.” As well done as this is, it speaks volumes that the GOP identity crisis is in such a state that it’s necessary.

Exit question: Did I miss it or, aside from the single mention of “family,” is there absolutely nothing here about social values?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m 23 years old and do not care about the abortion or gay marriage issues. I don’t see how you can be the party of individual liberty and freedom, and still dictate what people do on these issues. You should at least recognize that there’s room for people with both views.

therightwinger on January 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM

When the Republican party worked to end slavery, where they dictating what people were allowed to do with their freedom and “property”? After all, there were people on both sides of the issue. Social issues are often considered “dogmatic” until enough people wake up to the unacceptable reality they address. The issue of life, like the issue of slavery and the Jews in WWII, is about human beings that because of their skin color, ethnicity or gestation age, are afforded less basic rights than the rest of us.

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

More of what’s wrong with the GOP/RNC, most don’t know what Conservatism is. Why does the GOP/RNC bother to create a platform at every convention if few of their candidates are going to bother following the platform?

It looks like the GOP is AGAIN, going to fail to learn ANYTHING.

If you do the right the right thing EVERY time, you WIN, it’s such a simple concept that my KIDS can understand yet idiots running the GOP and idiots like Gramnesty, Snow, McCain, etc don’t get it.

Understand this GOP/RNC, I will NEVER vote for another RINO for ANYTHING and neither will MANY conservatives.

nelsonknows on January 29, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Mommy-

I’d like to see the converse. Nobody says they are the supporters of injecting scalding saline solution into forming babies with brains and limbs and eyes and a heartbeat and ability to feel pain. Nobody says they are for the sissors they inject into a half delivered child and the vacume with sucks out the brain while the child just goes freaking LIMP in the doctor’s hands while the mother is still physically CARRYING it’s head inside her.

–These things don’t happen until about 18 weeks into the development process by the pro-lifers own admissions and there are partial abortion laws that apply at that time. So if your point is that early abortions need to be criminalized, you need to make different points.
——————————————-
It’s Pittsburgh, by the way, not Pittsburg.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Somebody please explain this big problem with the “values” voter. We have to drive them away from the party in order to compete? You can’t be pro-life and run for President as a Democrat — is that making room at the table? Obama paid lip service to the abortion issue by saying he wanted to reduce abortions to the lowest levels possible and he wasn’t lambasted for it — of course no one believed him — but none-the-less, it was okay. I don’t know of anyone who fled the Democratic Party as a result. But, if you mean it, then you have to be stopped at all costs. So where’s the tolerance and diversity here?

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Stand up and say it out loud, no principles, no peace!

Speakup on January 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM

I’m 23 years old and do not care about the abortion or gay marriage issues. I don’t see how you can be the party of individual liberty and freedom, and still dictate what people do on these issues.

therightwinger on January 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM

I take it then that you support my right to bust into a liquor store, shoot the clerk in the face and empty the cash register.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM

IIRC, Carter was pro-life and he got elected just fine, and he’s a DEMOCRAT. The myth that the republican party needs to stop taking sides on social issues to remain competitive is fabricated by a small minority of libertarians who can’t have all their views represented by a major party and resort to lying and manipulation to make people think they can’t win if they don’t cater to their every will. Screw-em.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM

When the Republican party worked to end slavery, where they dictating what people were allowed to do with their freedom and “property”? After all, there were people on both sides of the issue. Social issues are often considered “dogmatic” until enough people wake up to the unacceptable reality they address. The issue of life, like the issue of slavery and the Jews in WWII, is about human beings that because of their skin color, ethnicity or gestation age, are afforded less basic rights than the rest of us.

–You’re right. The fact that an eight week old fetus (which is 1/4 of an inch long approximately) can’t breath, feel pain, think or talk just means that people are improperly discriminating against short, stupid human polywogs and that there should be laws to prevent that.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM

I take it then that you support my right to bust into a liquor store, shoot the clerk in the face and empty the cash register.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Yes, because that’s the equivalent of being in favor of gay marriage.

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Again, here’s the point: if you value smaller government and individual freedom, you may want to consider making room at the table for folks who DO care more about life than taxes. You don’t have to wave that flag, but they aren’t bothering you sitting in their homes minding their own business and then coming out once in a while to vote for YOUR candidate, right?
littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Look, I agree. As things stand now, we’ll work together and take any conservative candidate who can get elected.
But let’s be honest, these hypothetical individuals aren’t just minding their own business “not bothering me.” Their voting on issues and for candidates; those votes affect me. Just like votes for obama or for abortion affect you. That’s why we care about elections.
I think you guys are on great footing with regard to abortion. I mostly disagree for policy reasons (i.e. if you think crime and poverty are bad now, imagine things without abortion, making it illegal doesn’t mean that it would stop, it just means that the procedures would be performed by amatuers, which will create more problems, right to use your body as you see fit).
However, I’ve yet to see a justification against gay marriage that resonates. Sorry, but references to the Bible have no affect on me. Yes, marriage might be thousands of years old, but it has not been the static during that time. Sometimes marriage involved multiple partners, often it was much more of a business transaction than a romantic affair and as recently as 70-80 years ago, in this country, part of this holy union (women) had no legal standing before courts and more or less served a subservient role.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Here in the U.S., property taxes are used to support the public school system. There are some of us that would NEVER even consider subjecting our children to SUCH a FAILED travesty of an educational system. Thus, school vouchers are an important social issue that is frequently overlooked.

In fact, some of us on the more extreme fringes believe that there should be NO SUCH THING as a public school. ALL schools should be private.

CyberCipher on January 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM

On this we are in total agreement. If I can possibly afford it, my child/children will be in private school, unless I find out that the school in my district is in the top 1% of the state.

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Yes, because that’s the equivalent of being in favor of gay marriage.

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Actually I was thinking of abortion. You know that of course, you just pretend my example was analogous with gay marriage because you know you’re beat. The issue of gay marriage is completely different. What I find hilarious are supposed fiscal conservatives who want to extend a government entitlement program like marriage. Just goes to show how ideologically hollow you people really are.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

On this we are in total agreement. If I can possibly afford it, my child/children will be in private school, unless I find out that the school in my district is in the top 1% of the state.

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Most private schools, especially the really good ones, have financial aid of some sort. And of course there are student loans. I know, it seems crazy to take those out for high school, possibly middle school AND college, but I know individuals who’ve done it and it is possible.
I not sure I agree that “there should be no such thing as public schools,” but in there current condition most of them are jokes.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

You know that of course…

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

No, I didn’t. Maybe you should have been more specific, and less confident in your mind-reading skills. Additionally, you’re so overdramatic with your hyperbolic comparisons that I would not be surprised at all to find you comparing the two.

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I don’t need to be more specific, if you had read the post I quoted it would be pretty simple to find the connection between one type of murder (abortion) and another type of murder (shooting a clerk in the face) and thus easily figure out why “some of us” (and by “some” I mean the overwhelming majority of conservatives) oppose abortion.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

What I find hilarious are supposed fiscal conservatives who want to extend a government entitlement program like marriage. Just goes to show how ideologically hollow you people really are.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

That’s hilarious. If your only reasons for opposing gay marriage is opposition to more spending, here’s an easy solution: get rid of all “government entitlements” for everyone, leave only visitation and intestate rights and allow marriage for all. That would be truly fiscally conservative.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

–You’re right. The fact that an eight week old fetus (which is 1/4 of an inch long approximately) can’t breath, feel pain, think or talk just means that people are improperly discriminating against short, stupid human polywogs and that there should be laws to prevent that.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM

There are all kinds of reasons people have had to deny rights to other groups of humans beings based on sex, race, etc. And in all of those cases the ones denying the rights used the same tactic: dehumanize the other group as much as possible.

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Dump this video.

The GOP needs to hook up with Zo. Here’s what it means to be a Republican.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Look, I agree. As things stand now, we’ll work together and take any conservative candidate who can get elected.
But let’s be honest, these hypothetical individuals aren’t just minding their own business “not bothering me.” Their voting on issues and for candidates; those votes affect me. Just like votes for obama or for abortion affect you. That’s why we care about elections.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

I may not be typical, but I’m willing to find common ground and not dictate that anyone should be excluded out of hand. There were things McCain advocated and still does that I hated, but I voted for him anyway. All I’m saying is those “values” voters also want smaller government and freedom just as much as you do.

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM

I don’t need to be more specific, if you had read the post I quoted it would be pretty simple to find the connection between one type of murder (abortion) and another type of murder (shooting a clerk in the face) and thus easily figure out why “some of us” (and by “some” I mean the overwhelming majority of conservatives) oppose abortion.

Darth Executor on January 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

You referenced busting into a liquor store and emptying the register. Many like you have stated that gays are trying to “steal” marriage from you. Either way, the egregious way you jumped on the guy, not after he said he was pro-abortion, but after he said he didn’t care, shows you’re over the edge.

And for the record, I don’t like abortion either. I like how you proclaimed me “ideologically hollow” without even knowing my stance on the issue. Tell me, how wobbly is that cardboard pedestal?

MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM

And in all of those cases the ones denying the rights used the same tactic: dehumanize the other group as much as possible.

–neuquenguy
——————————-
It’s tough to argue that Blacks, Jews, even gheys aren’t human because of their color/race/religion/sex preferences/whatever. But they were breathing, thinking, walking, feeling people. Fetuses aren’t, so there is quite a bit of justification for treating them differently up to some point.

Unless, of course, you want to give my toenail clippings equal rights.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

It’s tough to argue that Blacks, Jews, even gheys aren’t human because of their color/race/religion/sex preferences/whatever. But they were breathing, thinking, walking, feeling people. Fetuses aren’t, so there is quite a bit of justification for treating them differently up to some point.

Unless, of course, you want to give my toenail clippings equal rights.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

In 1974 Roe called that point “viability”. At the time that was assumed to be at 5 months. What would you say?

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Probably about then, give or take a bit.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Probably about then, give or take a bit.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Then we both have a great deal to lament, given the current views of the “pro-choice” crowd.

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

This is quite good.

Bob's Kid on January 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Then we both have a great deal to lament, given the current views of the “pro-choice” crowd.

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

–I don’t think so.

I think you could get most of the US to agree to a compromise fairly quickly: Make abortions somewhat difficult (waiting periods, parental consent or notice, perhaps even a certification of contraceptive use for women with multiple abortions) but without other restrictions up until 12-16 weeks. After that, limit it to serious physical health issues for the motehr and serious defects in the feturs.

The “radical” pro lifers wouldn’t like it. Neither would the “radical” pro choicers.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

I left the Republican party more than 2 years ago because their leaders, especially in the Congress demonstrated by their actions that they didn’t really believe in limited and smaller government, or in fiscal responsibility. The only thing that makes me more likely to vote for a Republican at this point is demonstrated concern for the life of the weakest in our society: the unborn and the aged and infirm who some want to euthanize. (Have you all caught that the Democrats’ “stimulous” bill includes the forerunner of rationed health care?) Those who think the party needs to drop these social issues may be right for the crowd they’re trying to attract. But they won’t get people like me back as a party member and contributor, and they’ll lose my vote as well.

RClark on January 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Probably about then, give or take a bit.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

This is my point. We deny a class of human beings the most basic right based on an arbitrary “give or take a bit” point in their development. Even if we accept that it is morally acceptable to assign a certain level of development as the threshold for human rights, can we unequivocally determine that point so that we can guarantee that no innocent human being is denied their rights? If not, what margin of error is acceptable? Would it be OK if only 10% of abortions are in fact murder because we could not accurately determine the viability of the babies in question?

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Then we both have a great deal to lament, given the current views of the “pro-choice” crowd.

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I really don’t like how people insinuate that Pro Choice equals anti conservative. When really, I think it takes conservatism to recognize that the government won’t solve the abortion problem. I sincerely hope to live to see a day when the abortion rate drops to zero, but I’m not under the delusion that an even more bloated government will aid in that quest.

You don’t have to look farther than how silly it is to think that government restrictions = fewer abortions than latin America. Abortion is largely illegal there, yet they have a much higher per capita abortion rate than the U.S.? Why is that, exactly? Because we have a better economy and better educational system than they do.

It comes down to this, overturn Roe vs. Wade, and you will almost no change in the abortion rate (if global examples are any guide). But if you improve our education through voucher systems and improve our economy through tax cuts, you will see the abortion rate plummet. Remember, whatever the government can do, the free market can do twenty times better.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

But why should the Republican party march in lock step the way Democrats do? I’m a solid Republican, but I’m also not a Christian (thus gay marriage doesn’t bother me) and believe there’s a 3-5 week window before a fetus is alive (I don’t believe in automatic ensoulment) so I support Civil Unions and first trimester abortions.

I otherwise lean further to the right than mst of you. I supported New York’s loyalist party and the United American Committee, believe in unrestricted gun ownership except for felons, and think that it is fascism for the state to even be involved in marriage. But by “Conservative” standards I’m some sort of Che loving Democrat because I could give a crap if two dudes “got married” to each other.

I’m a big tenter. I make room for Libertarians as well as Conservatives in the GOP. So-called values voters helped Obama get elected by staying home and in Evangelicals cases voting for the man even though he’s basically a Socialist and then claim me and the Paulnuts and anyone not whining effeminately about gay sex are ruining the GOP? Ironic.

Rob Taylor on January 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

I really don’t like how people insinuate that Pro Choice equals anti conservative. When really, I think it takes conservatism to recognize that the government won’t solve the abortion problem. I sincerely hope to live to see a day when the abortion rate drops to zero, but I’m not under the delusion that an even more bloated government will aid in that quest.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I agree with you that the government will not solve the abortion problem, the same way that the government will not solve the murder, theft or child abuse problems. But why would you apply this logic only to the abortion issue?
I can understand people arguing against legal protection for the unborn because they do not recognize them as human beings. But the logic you are using applies to many laws we accept, even as conservatives.

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

This is my point. We deny a class of human beings the most basic right based on an arbitrary “give or take a bit” point in their development. Even if we accept that it is morally acceptable to assign a certain level of development as the threshold for human rights, can we unequivocally determine that point so that we can guarantee that no innocent human being is denied their rights? If not, what margin of error is acceptable? Would it be OK if only 10% of abortions are in fact murder because we could not accurately determine the viability of the babies in question?

–So, if you think the point ought to be, say, 20 weeks, why not make the cutoff 18 weeks. Taking it back to conception is way too cautionary. If you applied that logic, no one would leave their beds because they might get hit by a car walking across the street.

–And by the way, then you should never be for the death penalty because there’s never a 100% guarantee in life or law.

jim m on January 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Trying to separate the social and fiscal aspects of a political philosophy is a fool’s errand. The dominant ideology of the American ruling class, liberalism, is expressly presented as a set of social, moral demands which trump financial considerations. This is why it’s so dangerous to give liberals control of the economy – the profitability of any given sector is irrelevant to them, as long as their social objectives are met.

As Rush Limbaugh illustrated with his stimulus plan this week, a liberal will *never* respond to the suggestion that tax cuts stimulate the economy by endorsing tax cuts. Their concern for economic health is entirely based on the conviction they’ll be voted out of office if the voters get too angry over the economy, and on the belief that economic prosperity gives them more money to spend on social causes. The economy is a donkey pulling the government cart, and liberals don’t believe that donkey has a right to life.

Abortion is the focus of the American social debate, because it is the perfect expression of liberal methodology: the unborn baby can’t vote, and won’t protest or donate money to the liberal’s political opponents. It offers no political power to the liberal, while feminist women have a great deal of it, so it’s no contest. The feminist movement may be in tatters post-Bill Clinton, but it was a very powerful force in Democrat politics through the 70s and 80s, perhaps *the* supreme force. Abortion is the sacrament of extreme feminism because it’s the ultimate assertion of the woman’s rights over the man, the child, and society. It is an expression of pure social and political power: the individual woman has no responsibility to the child she carries, her family, or the father of the child, and no responsibility for her own previous actions… and while it seems like an act of individualism, it’s implemented through the most coercive, undemocratic power exerted on the American people since the end of slavery. Roe vs. Wade was the outright denial of state and local rights to participate in the discussion over abortion, cobbled together with the most absurdly tortured legal reasoning, wrapped in laughable nonsense about “penumbras” and “emanations.”

Whatever your feelings about the abortion issue, there’s no doubt it was “settled” in the most undemocratic manner possible, as an exercise of pure political power by an entrenched elite. This is not something that should sit well with *anyone* who considers themselves conservative or libertarian. I’m not a pro-life absolutist myself, but I cheer every victory by the pro-life cause, because conservatives should view generations yet to be born as a treasure to be protected, while liberals see them as a resource to be exploited, or an inconvenience to be avoided.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

I can understand people arguing against legal protection for the unborn because they do not recognize them as human beings. But the logic you are using applies to many laws we accept, even as conservatives.

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

If I had reason to believe that making laws against theft wouldn’t actually prevent the robbery rate, I would oppose laws against theft. But that’s not what we see. Stronger laws there generally correlate to less theft. That isn’t the case with abortion. Worldwide, there is no corrlation between the legality of abortion and abortion rate. In fact, countries that restrict abortion, such as Laos, Mexico, and Venezula, consistently have higher abortion rates than us. I agree that we need to end abortion, but there is little evidence to suggest that more restrictions on abortion will actually decrease abortion. If you overturn “Roe vs. Wade” you won’t be protecting the unborn in the slightest. If you improve the economy and education system, you will.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Abortion is the focus of the American social debate, because it is the perfect expression of liberal methodology: the unborn baby can’t vote, and won’t protest or donate money to the liberal’s political opponents. It offers no political power to the liberal, while feminist women have a great deal of it, so it’s no contest.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

I wish people would stop with the generalizations. Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re a monster. Liberals are your neighbors and your countryman, not boogymen. Grow up. We can beat them on policy, we don’t need ridiculous ad hominems.

On to the substance of your post. Do you think the average voter supports abortion because they don’t want more voters in the pool? That’s crazy.
Likewise, I think we all agree that the vast majority of aborted children are black. Blacks vote democrat at rates of 9:1 even when The One isn’t on the ballot. Thus, if the law makers only cared about voters, they’d be anti-abortion.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 6:24 PM

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

So if it was demonstrated that laws restricting abortion would be effective in the USA you would support them?

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

So if it was demonstrated that laws restricting abortion would be effective in the USA you would support them?

neuquenguy on January 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Not necessarily. Once you can show that more laws actually decrease the abortion rate, you still have to demonstrate that more laws is the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to reduce abortion as opposed to free market solutions. But like I said, there is no reason to think that in the first place. It’s wishful thinking to think that you can make something go away by making it illegal. I’m all for reducing abortion, but reducing abortion through bigger government has proven to be a profound failure worldwide. I don’t see any reason for the US to pursue a policy on abortion that hasn’t worked anywhere else.

justfinethanks on January 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Wow! Way to vent that spleen.

The issue is not what the Democrats are or do, but what the Republicans are — whether there is any room for those who are fiscally conservative but not necessarily socially conservative in the Republican party, or whether the party should drive them to the enemy camp to preserve some idea of moral purity.

I do not think that anyone is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion or any other issue, just to not make those issues a litmus test for Republican candidates. Many feel that the Republican party can broaden its appeal by focusing on fiscal conservatism and strong national defense if only it can avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant overly religious planks.

Its no accident that the Republican debate questions sounded like CCD class discussions, because the moderators knew those topics were divisive to the party and drove voters away.

tommylotto on January 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

I wish people would stop with the generalizations. Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re a monster. Liberals are your neighbors and your countryman, not boogymen. Grow up. We can beat them on policy, we don’t need ridiculous ad hominems.

On to the substance of your post. Do you think the average voter supports abortion because they don’t want more voters in the pool? That’s crazy.
Likewise, I think we all agree that the vast majority of aborted children are black. Blacks vote democrat at rates of 9:1 even when The One isn’t on the ballot. Thus, if the law makers only cared about voters, they’d be anti-abortion.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Apologies if I was unclear about this, but the beliefs of individual Democrat voters have nothing to do with the positions of the Democrat party. The mindset of the elite determines everything. If there is a groundswell of anger over the abortion-on-demand zealotry of party among its black constituents, it has not yet registered on the political or cultural Richter scale. After all, they just voted in near-unanimous proportions for a man who supports abortion not just in the womb, but in the hospital storage room.

Suggesting the Democrat’s constituents support abortion-on-demand because they want less voters is silly, and has nothing to do with what I wrote. They support abortion-on-demand for three reasons: because it frees them from responsibility for sexual license, because they sincerely believe restricting abortion rights is an unreasonable restriction of the woman’s personal freedom, and because they absolutely hate the people on the pro-life side. The middle reason is not an unreasonable one, but draconian restrictions of the sort the Democrats endlessly rail against are not on anyone’s radar screen… if the pro-life conservatives got their fondest wish, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and all those blue states would promptly pass laws to preserve abortion-on-demand.

I’m not especially fierce on the pro-life side myself, I’m just interested in why abortion remains such a hot button issue on both sides. If we cannot debate the motivations of the opposing leadership without being accused of “generalizing,” we won’t have much of a debate, and when it comes to analyzing the American Left, the beliefs of its individual constituents matter much less than the beliefs of its leadership. The modern Left does not see Roe v. Wade as a law to protect the rights of women – they worship it as a law to restrict the rights of pro-life religious wackos.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Conservatism is by definition supporting the values of our founders, such as the “right to life”.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I’d like to see that definition….got a link?

From Wikipedia:

Conservatism is a political and social term whose meaning has changed in different countries and time periods, but which usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.

Part of our heritage is The Right To Life.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Its no accident that the Republican debate questions sounded like CCD class discussions, because the moderators knew those topics were divisive to the party and drove voters away.

tommylotto on January 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

I guess that means we need better moderators. I don’t need my candidate to be sainted, I just need them to not be antagonistic toward my faith.

littleguy on January 29, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I am an American. I am a fiscal conservative.

SouthernGent on January 29, 2009 at 8:06 PM

I didn’t think this was all that good… I hope Sarah doesn’t hire him… We’re going to need to bring our A game and a clear concise message…

CCRWM on January 29, 2009 at 8:22 PM

I do not think that anyone is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion or any other issue, just to not make those issues a litmus test for Republican candidates. Many feel that the Republican party can broaden its appeal by focusing on fiscal conservatism and strong national defense if only it can avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant overly religious planks.

tommylotto on January 29, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Not to pick nits, but if “no one is asking social conservatives to change their views on abortion, or any other issue,” then why do you think the Republicans must “avoid chasing away so many voters with what are perceived as intolerant, overly religious planks?” It sounds like you do indeed want them to change their views, or at least shut up about them. And, of course, the social conservatives are not inclined to offer fervent support to people that think they’re embarrassments who should just be quiet and vote.

Squaring this circle is no easy task. The Republican coalition is a fragmented after a political defeat – so much for those who thought a good drubbing at the polls was just the ticket to bring the party closer together. I find it useful to consider the opposing side on these social issues, to learn they don’t have the problem of social and fiscal liberals fighting each other for control of the party. They were united by the lust for power, their hatred of Bush, and the brutally simple philosophy that a powerful central government can settle all problems through wise leadership.

We often find ourselves wondering why notably religious constituencies, such as blacks or Hispanics, vote overwhelmingly Democrat when their religious beliefs should compel them to flee in the opposite direction. Worship of the State unites them: they believe liberal policy is a moral imperative, not the most efficient way to run a sound economy. We can only win them back with a similarly unified, moral case for conservatism, and the social conservatives are an indispensable part of such an effort. High taxes, a debased common culture, the devaluing of human life, open hostility to the traditional family, oppressive regulation, political corruption, and government support for the bizarre religion of environmentalism are all part of the same unhealthy system, which must be fought in total, not piecemeal. Trying to nibble away at one component of the liberal behemoth never works very well, because the Left always aborts the attempt by asserting the importance of another part – you can’t have lower taxes because we need that money to save the environment, you can’t embrace traditional values because that would turn back the clock to the Fifties, when they had segregation.

To be honest, I’d identify myself as more of a fiscal conservative than a social one, but I can’t help but notice the social cons never seem to demand fiscal conservatives set aside small-government principles as a precondition for political unity. Only the social cons seem expected to swallow their pride and march into the booth to vote, unless of course you think the social cons are just itching to get a prophet-candidate into the Oval Office so they can impose their theocracy.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Allahpundit, without the principles in the video can your social agenda go anywhere? Let’s build a firm foundation on which social values fit naturally. The contrasting Democratic party values rip apart and impoverish the family, destroy initiative, enrich the criminals, and destroy the nation. The Democratic party values place criminals in charge. All the social laws you can dream of won’t help when that happens.

{o.o}

herself on January 29, 2009 at 9:41 PM

In this country we make it illegal to destroy the eggs of migratory birds. We can not hunt deer, turkeys, or other game during the time when the females are pregnant or could become pregnant. Why do we protect unborn eagles? Clearly the embryonic eagles are not viable, yet try getting close to an eagle nest. Better yet, destroy a mud swallow’s nest. A mud swallow is not endangered, nor is it the symbol of this country. Yet in all these cases, our government recognises the life and the potential of life and protects it. The fines for hunting out of season or destroying the nest of a migratory bird is huge. Yet we do not protect embryonic humans. Seems to me that a human life is more valuable than a mud swallow or even an eagle.

I believe there is room in the party for those who do not share my views on life, however, I think we can have a reasoned discussion about the issue. How about a small government idea, no tax money goes to subsidize abortions.

How about exposing Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for what she was — a racist eugenist who thought white people were more valuable than people of color. That is an image that would help to recruit blacks and hispanics.

We have much to work on. Our last big idea was defeating communism, once we did that, we have been searching for a message. Time is short. We need to roll our sleeves up and get out with a positive message.

I think the message is going to be smaller government and less spending, but there is room in that message for choosing life without running people off.

armygirl on January 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

chunderroad on January 29, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Ditto. I’m 24 and the ideas of fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual freedom are the main draw to this party. Dogmatic views on gay-marriage and (to a lesser extent) abortion don’t seem to jibe with individual freedom and I think that’s the case for a lot of people our age.
Call us RINOs or whatever you want, but there should be room for us at the table. that is unless you want us to go elsewhere.

Trent1289 on January 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM

How do you exercise your individual freedoms if the government allows you to be murder in your mothers womb?

And yes people that murders babies are evil. Planned Parent hood is ever bit as evil has Hilter’s Nazi party. Did Hitler kill 40 plus million children?

Kjeil on January 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Armygirl that’s exactly my point. There isn’t a Pro-Choice republican that would object to what you laid out, and ultimately we’d all lie to end the desire for abortion (as opposed to the population control inspired Democrats) but there has to be room in the party for everyone to disagree on points.

I’m against late and second term abortion, but because i don’t believe in automatic ensoulment I just don’t think aborting a 1-week old fetus is the same as aborting a baby that can survive outside the womb. This shouldn’t mean I have to join the ‘Blue Dog” Democrats because some people can’t bare the thought of sharing the same candidate as me.

Rob Taylor on January 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM

I’m against late and second term abortion, but because i don’t believe in automatic ensoulment I just don’t think aborting a 1-week old fetus is the same as aborting a baby that can survive outside the womb. This shouldn’t mean I have to join the ‘Blue Dog” Democrats because some people can’t bare the thought of sharing the same candidate as me.

Rob Taylor on January 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM

One doesn’t have to believe in “automatic ensoulment” to believe that killing even a 1-week old fetus is murder and that that fetus is already a (potential) person.

That being said, why don’t you keep your pro-abortion views to yourself and join the Party’s party in all other respects instead of expecting them to acknowledge and conform to your personal pro-abortion views?

Jenfidel on January 30, 2009 at 2:57 AM

But why should the Republican party march in lock step the way Democrats do? I’m a solid Republican, but I’m also not a Christian (thus gay marriage doesn’t bother me) and believe there’s a 3-5 week window before a fetus is alive (I don’t believe in automatic ensoulment) so I support Civil Unions and first trimester abortions.
Rob Taylor on January 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

You don’t have to be a Christian to have “gay” marriage “bother” you.
Same-sex marriage is a travesty and the destructor of traditional marriage and families, not to mention providing a sanctioned place for the spread of STDs, including HIV and AIDS.
Look all around you for proof.

Re: “3-5 week window before a fetus is alive”? Says who? Based on what evidence?
Because everything I’ve ever read, seen or heard shows that life begins with conception.

Jenfidel on January 30, 2009 at 3:08 AM

How about this for why I’m a Republican: My life is mine. The product of my efforts is an extension of my life.

(The scope of) The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and the number one right is property rights.

Quetzal on January 30, 2009 at 3:12 AM

Great recovery. Remember, it is about the basics that we are responsible for our future, not the government. The governments role is simple, protect us from “enemies foreign and domestic” so we can fulfill our goals and dreams.

MSGTAS on January 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2