Video: Graham reaches out to pro-choicers at SC GOP convention
posted at 8:05 am on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Not a message conservatives are in the mood for today, especially with opposition to abortion surging in Republican ranks. Even so, think of this as a counterpoint to The One’s treacle at Notre Dame. Graham’s not keeping an “open mind” on the subject and neither is anyone else; rather, he wants to set it aside completely and find common ground with pro-choice Republicans on issues like fiscal responsibility. A baby step towards remaking the GOP not as a party without social conservatives but with social conservatism as a lower priority than the economy and national defense.
You’ll be pleased to know the Paulnuts were there to greet him.
“You’re a hypocrite!” one man yelled.
“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham shot back. “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.”
“Ron Paul is not the leader of this party,” Graham said, prompting a few jeers. Some people yelled, “Yes, he is!”
“I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham finished, drawing most of the crowd to its feet.
Needless to say, opinions differ about which people can and can’t win. Nice tribute to Jim DeMint near the end, though.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Agreed. Great post.
zeebeach on May 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM
anybody that thinks the paulnuts can win, are completely out of their minds.
the MSM would destroy them, and rightfully so. They slander/mislead/lie about so much, whether repeating the far-lefts talking points about Iraq or “torture”, to claiming the founders were isolationist(far far from it) and so on.
which is why Mark Levin’s book is so important.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Thanks
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM
FIFY, Grahamnesty.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Ron Paul has gone around and told people if we got rid of almost all of our Military, CIA, FBI, etc….we could then “all afford Healthcare”
he ran ads on Spanish radio claiming just this during campaign and recently he’s repeated this dangeroud LIE and stated he thinks its more politically feasible than reducing the Govt. in other areas.
the guy is a Cancer and huge boom for the Democrats and our Enemies abroad.
He is the Ostrich and a complete FOOL
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Yes, the MSM would probably destroy them, and no the FFs were not isolationists; however, they were not nation builders either.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
First, I’m not even a Ron Paul supporter; I voted for McCain in the primary. But I’m not a neocon. Going into Afghanistan was fine. But we should not be using our military power to spread our ideals around the world. It’s funny that people like kelleyinva don’t want the government telling people what to do about abortion, but we want out government to invade other countries to do what we want them to do. It’s insane. And it has cost us an almost supermajority in the senate and Obama.
Social issues played almost no role in 2008. Actually, one of the few times Barack was on the defensive during 08 was at that religious forum. Fiscal issues (not being conservative) and neoconservatism killed us last year. And if we can’t learn that, then it’s going to take time to recover.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on May 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM
btw Allah, Ron Paul had a very high rating from NARAL for his past votes that empowered abortion. His pro-life supporters haven’t put alot of thought into the real world vs. Paul’s actual stance and history on the subject.
much like Free Traders haven’t either
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Uh-not quite. Paul is Libertarian on defense which is why he (and so many of his fringe) float ideas like sending bounty hunters to get bin laden etc. I myself want low taxes but I also want a strong national defense which does mean having a military presence in other countries. When I was a wild eyed libertarian I too thought we could “just mind our business” then I spent the 24 hrs after 9/11 not knowing if my wife and my mother were alive and realized the whole Libertarian dream of peace through ignoring the world just doesn’t work.
But anyway I’m a pro-choice Republican and though I’m not a fan of Lindsey I think he’s right on this. The GOPs baseline should be limited government and strong national defense. The social issues should be vigorously debated, but not used to purge the party.
Whittle away the moderates and social libertarians and what you’ll have is a recipe for Democrat dominance for the next 30 years. How’d sitting out this past election work out for Social cons? Is sitting on a moral high horse yelling “Don’t blame me I voted for Ron Paul” going to keep you safe from a terror attack at night?
Rob Taylor on May 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
CUT TAXES! WIN.
No tax funding for abortion anywhere. Leave moral issues LOCAL. Leave personal choice a personal matter, personally funded by the one making the choice. No federal involvement extending beyond Constitutional boundaries.
Gotta love that DeMint!
Go Conservative GOP
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
OK, I think I misunderstood your previous post. Yeah, I’m pretty much with you. I will say this. Even though going into Afghanistan was fine, we should fight to win and I’m not such a fan of propping up semi-Sharia governments just so we can say we kind of won.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
the taliban did not attack us on 9/11, they just had a similar relationship to Terrorist and Al-Qaeda that Saddam had. Though we had a longer history with Saddam, which I think was more justified. Point is the same logic applies to both wars, yet you never hear the Left(which includes Ron Paul) talk Afghan down, though from time to time Paul will lament conspiracy theories about building Oil Pipelines in Afghan is ‘the true reason’ for the war.
also, the Founding Fathers were not opposed to so called “Nation Building”, in fact Thomas Jefferson dreamed of sending the military into Cuba and Canada and taking it over. Washington dreamed of ‘this rising Empire” or an “Empire of Liberty” as Jefferson put it…..around the world we were feared by despots as a “dangerous Nation”.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I agree with you. Fiscal responsibility and individualism is what I think the core of conservatism is.
What I am asking, though, is where – if anywhere – should there be a place for social conservatism?
For example, Abortion is ALSO an economic (planned Parenthood is around to make money) and a government spending (subsidizing) issue, etc.
Not to be opening up pandora’s box here, and I appreciate the commentary.
You never lost me on the fiscal responsibility/individualism focus, though. I’m there.
bluelightbrigade on May 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
<3
Now, I suppose we are going to be labeled Paulbots or something…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
We should defend the right of private institutions to define the important philosophical questions as they see fit, and their right of free association. We can do this without the government themselves adopting a sectarian view on these issues.
Jews have a right to keep kosher, and the government should be allowed to go after food sellers who sell products falsely labeled as kosher. We should defend the right of Jewish business to tell pork producers to take a long walk off a short pier. This is a far cry from outlawing pork and chesseburgers.
Sekhmet on May 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
damn, maverick, you are right as always.
timtebow: no one wants to go invading other countries. i am a defense hawk, but i wasn’t excited about going in iraq even though i felt it was necessary. you see, my brother was there for the fall of baghdad. gives you a perspective that way. so in that case, i really did “put my money (so to speak” where my mouth is”.
kelley in virginia on May 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Well, the Taliban was much more intimately involved with AQ. Osama provided the O55 Brigade to the Talibs.
Also, national building simply is an expensive, and most of the time unsuccessful effort.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Yes, that was Jefferson. He also wanted to help his eh,erm “comrades” in France. I think there’s a good reason we didn’t get involved there – and I’d say apparently he wasn’t solely representative of the Founding Fathers’ views…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
OK, yes, you are right that abortion is an economic issue. My response would be that if we started making people responsible for their own individual choices instead of paying for them to have a quick expedient abortion, you might see somethings change.
Also, I think SoCons have a nice welcome spot in the conservative movement. I am repulsed when people talk of “kicking them out.”
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Ok, one last comment here. Many are saying “the party needs X, or Y, or Z”. But what we need is a candidate to appeal to “the party (GOP)”, but also enough independents to win an election. That means (for me), being flexible on the social issues (which should be decided by the states, anyway) and focusing on fiscal issues. The big question is where does the immigration issue fall? Well, that’s easy. Independents are for NO illegal immigrants, with a process available for LEGAL immigration.
zeebeach on May 18, 2009 at 9:41 AM
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/us-gov/congressional-record-on-choice/ronpaul.html
Paul claims to be Pro-Life
In reality, he doesn’t care about the here and now of it at all, and is more of a Neo-Confederate, invisioning a Federal Govt. with nearly no military and only enforcing 3 Federal Laws.
With very very strong State Govts. in its place. Because of that, when votes come up barring Minors from getting abortions across state lines for Example, he votes with the Abortionist instead.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:41 AM
We’ve been in Afghanistan for decades (CIA, tax dollar programs). Our fickle relationship with them has proven our own demise.
Obama’s involvement in Afghanistan is to recreate to the best of his ability the Vietnam social scenario of HUGELY TRAGIC personal losses for families and political losses for the nation. No better distraction than a horrible Afghan conflict (it’s been happening all the while without press coverage these many decades) while the Constitution is being dissolved behind closed Washington doors, legislation never reviewed prior to vote.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Everyone’s to blame. Rush, the GOP, soc cons, fisc cons, neo cons.
True_King on May 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Explain why invading Iraq was essential. You better not say oil b/c you’ll validate the dailykos kids. Blatantblue is right that AQ was mostly in Afghanistan, Saddam had very little if anything to do with them. So nothing about 9/11. WMDs, uh, you may want another excuse. Um, human rights/democracy? But then shouldn’t we be in Darfur, Congo (Zaire), Zimbabwe, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on May 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
though the MSM/left have swept it under the rug, Saddam was closely allied with Al-Qaeda throughout the 90′s, going as far as offering asslym to Bin Laden in 1999. Working with Zawahari when he ran Islamic Jihad and so forth.
Iraq was also a big prize, geographically, infrastructure, history…two main water resources in the Middle East, etc. Which is why Al-Qaeda funneled its worldwide recruits into Iraq, not Afghanistan, to make their stand.
taking it to the Taliban just made Al-Qaeda leadership that is there, flee to Pakistan(where they have Nukes to gain control over now).
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
about afghanistan: if bambi wants to send more of our young soldiers there, then he damn well better commit to protecting them with aircover & all other stuff.
and he better be prepared to fight to win; otherwise, no American blood should be shed.
kelley in virginia on May 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM
http://husseinandterror.com
read up on it, what the MSM/left/paulnuts have spread for years now, is a fairytale
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM
If the GOP is serious about leaving social issues to the states as the Constitution intended, then they need to remove the HLA and the Marriage Amendment from its platform. Anything less is hypocritical.
Chekote on May 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM
timtebow: i don’t know your military experience if any. the WMDs that Saddam had went to syria–that we know because even the officer corps in Baghdad knew it (not classified info). how much of it went elsewhere, i do not know.
there’s no need to debate this issue now. we are there whether we like it or not. we lost Americans onIraqi soil. and we damn well better hold Iraq against Iran, and any other terrorists of the region. otherwise, it would have all been in vain.
kelley in virginia on May 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Given all, it takes Ron Paul to balance the whole equation.
He being absolutely spot on most things as a purist, piling on Ron Paul is a mistake; he marks the tide, ‘mark twain‘. Take him for what he is, without tossing him out on his ear. His concerns are absolutely real (purist). His solutions are purist, and therefore fraught with unrealistic expediency. But he seasons the alliance, as do others of different stripes.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Paulnut! ///s
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Sorry Paulians,
I think the whole Ron Paul phenomenon was cooked up by the Democrats for two purposes: To keep antiwar voters from uniting behind an unelectable Democrat, and to resurrect the John Birchian type movement within the GOP that William F Buckley got rid of years ago.
Sekhmet on May 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Well, I think Saddam was much more closely involved with Islamist groups than we’ve been led to believe. His support of Hamas, involvement via intel services with Ansar al-Islam, working with banking organizations that were terrorist designates under D.o.D., etc, etc. I wish the US government would also look more closely into the reports of Iraqi intel facilitating meetings of 9/11 conspirators in places like Manila (but they won’t, so who knows). I also tend to think that Iraq did have WMD (no one, not even the Iraqi Survey Group can explain what exactly it was that was in those big military convoys that entered Syria before the US invasion). No one wants to touch the fact those convoys went into Syria in the months leading up to the war. Why, I don’t know. In addition, if Iraq surely had weapons in ’98, I don’t see why things did a 180 in 2002/2003. There is a lot of information out there, and I don’t pretend to know what exactly was there.
I honestly think that those in power were genuinely concerned with the nexus between rogue states, weapons, and non-state rogue actors.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
If Lincoln’s Republicans were “moderate” like Graham’s Republicans, we’d still have slavery.
ex-Democrat on May 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Wow, one of the first times I can say, agreed.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
aside from that, WMD was not the only issue for the war. It was a continuation of the Dems narrative they started in 1998 when the Senate made Official US Police “Regime Change in Iraq” with a unamious vote.
I wish someone on TV would have the balls to take this issue on, the Left have created an Emotion based Straw Man. a simple reading of the Iraq War Resolution shows that.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Well, if it was all cooked up, they may have made a mistake. I think it’s great to have the new generation interested in the Constitution, Monetary Policy, and Libertarianism in general. No one else on the GOP tickets seemed to be pushing this.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 9:56 AM
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
YES!
KickandSwimMom on May 18, 2009 at 9:57 AM
At the same time, there were people who were interested in hitting Iraq from the very beginning. This I don’t doubt one bit. The Project for a New American century definitely was the groundwork for action against the Saddam regime. They were a major force behind the Iraqi Liberation Act of ’98, and many of the signers were in the first Bush admin.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 9:57 AM
It would be hypocritical to grant your wish, since Marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation platform of the GOP, along with the abolition of slavery, aka Equal Rights, sustaining the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Republican Party has never been for REVISIONISM. To become revisionists would prove hypocritical for the Republican Platform. And this above all else, to thine own self be true.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
When will McCain and his obnoxious shadow, Lindsay Graham, go away? RINOS have destroyed the party and both McCain and Graham are RINOS.
Let’s hear from fresh fiscal AND SOCIAL conservatives like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.
sinsing on May 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Graham knows that unlike Specter he couldn’t quite pull of a Donk-switch…
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Hold up a sec. I need to get my definition straight, apparently…
…What exactly do we mean by “Social Conservative”?
1. A person who thinks conservatively on socail issues?
2. A big government (socailist) conservative?
I’m headed to Google right after I post this…
&& btw, this is a great discussion for me. I agree that giving people freedom and responsibility to choose what they pay for is the fundamentally driving issue behind conservativism; and that if people have to pay for abortions they wouldn’t. But how do we get rid of the funding for abortions w/o addressing the moral issues?
I’m asking b/c I honestly don’t know the answer.
bluelightbrigade on May 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
that whole movement has been closely tied with the far-left for decades now. When Murray Rothbard ditched Classical Liberalism for Anarchism(he rejected Social COntract theory), allied with the Birch Society Nuts and WFB had to kick him out of the movement. They allied with Foreign Policy with the Far-Left anti-war movement.
which is why at Lew Rockwell, you can read Far-Left views regularly on anything anti-american and basically the Political Lefts views on the subject, stupidly aiding the Democrats.
they are more dangerous(or helpful to the Left) thanks to the Internet, allowing this stuff to be aired more widespread and unchallenged.
This is how “Out there” they have been:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html
Ronald Reagan, Warmonger
written in 1983, calling for Reagan’s impeachment and every far-left Lie you can think of.
not to be forgotten, Ron Paul left Reagans GOP for the Libertarian Pary and ran for POTUS in 1988 talking about the CIA being behind Drug Dealing, etc.
REAGAN is not good enough for these people……REAGAN
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
My theory on Iraq is that we have known about Oil-For-Food for years before 2003, but the issue had been on the back burner. 9-11 brought it to the front burner, and we said, “Hey, Saddam’s no spring chicken—if we wait for him to croak, those bribes may keep us from being able to even effectively threaten his successor. Then what would keep Iraq in line?”
Remember, it was a whole 9 months between Hafez Assad’s death, and the 2000 Intifada, largely funded by Syria.
Sekhmet on May 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I’d say SoCons are more or less Traditionalists that don’t want to establish some ideological Theocracy.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
the issue of iraq is definitely deeper than we know (and i dont mean that in a conspiratorial sense)
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
By invoking the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The federal government simply has no right or power to confiscate tax money from the people to fund abortions.
Of course, then you might have to fight your state to make sure it doesn’t use state funds to pay for abortions, but that’s a much easier fight to win.
aero on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
yep, the key players that were against it Internationally and then in the US all in some way had their hands on what was the largest financial scam in world history.
Oscar Wyatt, Houston Democrat and OIl tycoon, is sitting in Jail today over this very issue related to the war.
funny how the MSM failed to mention him in the ‘news’
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I think we could say that clearly if 50% of the population finds abortion of some form to be morally reprehensible, then this is something we should not be funding with tax payer money. We could use the Obama argument that it’s above the “pay grade” of the gov’t to decide the validity of abortion via federal support. Even if it’s not a moral question, you could still argue that it’s something the government shouldn’t be paying for. Just like they shouldn’t be paying for your scraped knee bandages.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
KickandSwimMom on May 18, 2009 at 9:57 AM
You WOULD know the danger of a whirlpool, how best to avoid it, and that to reach shore against a tide, one must aim diagonally downstream.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Ron Paul needs to get the hell out of the Republican Party and start his own party. Way too many of his cult followers have nothing in common with Republicans,, especially vis-a-vis the social issues and defense.
rockmom on May 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
blatantblue—
I agree with you and kellyinva that if there were WMDs they probably went to Syria. But then, why didn’t we invade Syria in 2002-03. They had wmds; they were probably building that reactor by then. Syria has human rights abuses, along with funding terrorism, as you said about Iraq. But pretty soon, if you follow neocon philosophy, you’ll be invading country after country.
But let’s go back to my original comment which you didn’t like. You don’t think W was incompetent in managing the Iraq war? And why didn’t W bomb those convoys; he certainly could’ve. And not just foreign policy, W destroyed the party’s reputation on fiscal issues, which is probably the most devastating of all. As I said, social conservatism had nothing to do with this election. Here in FL, we passed a gay marriage amendment, even though Obambi barely won the state. Same with CA, though Obambi won big there.
Do you know anyone who voted on stem cells beside interested researchers? Terri Shaivo? Even here in FL, no one mentions her name much. Even my sister doesn’t know who she is three years later. The biggie, abortion, that only motivated some supporters on both sides, and more on our side than theirs. So under W, we lost our image on domestic competence, foreign policy competence, fiscal responsibility. We even lost our advantage on taxes, last election. We only have an advantage on social issues and national security. And now we want to dump the social cons?
TimTebowSavesAmerica on May 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
One of the 1993 WTC bombers(also done by Al-Qaeda and KSM was behind), fled to Iraq afterwards and received a Govt. Paycheck from Saddam for years. He’s at large today, though if you can find him there is a Bounty on his head worth millions.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
there is nothing paticularly, “neo” about it.
Syria was/is the puppet of Iran for one thing.
They also had not committed Multiple Acts of War against the USA for the last decade, violated Cease Fire agreements with the USA, tried to assassinate our POTUS, etc.
google and read, the “Iraq War Resolution” on what congress debated, authorized….it mentions all the key reasons, one of the big ones was Iraqs material support of Terrorism.
aside from that, invading Syria is next to impossible Logistically. With Saddam out of the way, it is now though. Before the only way to send in troops would’ve been through Israel, and for the Geo-politics of the area, that alone makes that not feasible.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me in terms of taking action on those convoys.
I think GWB and his admin had two mistakes:
Not taking the time to slow down on the advance to Baghdad
Also, misunderstanding the role of Islam in the Iraqi Nation Building Process. Although I think Islam is quite antithetical to Islam, I’m hoping that with the modernity brought to Iraq thanks to the US, rational forces in the country may be able to overcome.
As for fiscal responsibility, you’re right, GWB screwed it up royally in his closing years. His tax cuts did cut the projection time for deficit elimination by half, but he and the Republican party kept spending. We tarnished our name as responsible, spend-thrifty individuals.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Wow I’m an idiot
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM
&
This makes a lot of sense to me.
+1 (and thanks :])
bluelightbrigade on May 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
http://husseinandterror.com
for an idea of how much of a 180 the Dems/Left did on this, Fritz Hollins read on Sept. 12, 2002 on the Senate floor, in the Senate record an Editorial from Saddam’s newspaper from July 23, 2001. 2 months before 9/11
in the editorial, it praised Bin Laden, predicted 9/11 and not only that mentioned through symbolism all of the 9/11 Targets they ended up hitting.
Once a rational debate is possible on this issue, Bush will look fine. Especially if 50 years down the road Iraq looks more like South Korea or Japan, heck I’d settle for modern day Indonesian Govt.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
WFB was a staunch member of the JBS. Buckley took issue with Welch for privately criticizing Ike’s leniency with the USSR. Given the wrap up in Europe concluding WWII from Berlin onward, Welch’s point stands valid. Buckley was always horribly image conscious, certainly not a perfect mind, though I admire his well honed talents that were many. All in all, he was a rich prick as well as a great intellect.
WHAT IS THIS youthful progressive vengeance gone vendetta on conservatism dragging out the John Birch Society for the day’s whipping boy?
Argue specific topics rather than generalized ridicule. I’m not a Bircher, have never been. But beyond my earlier morning post when first seeing that group mentioned on HotAir, I have nothing more to say.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Why do those who put social issues first always think that if other members of the party want to put social issues in the back seat for awhile – or even just put social issues on an equal footing with fiscal and security issues – that we all want to “dump” all social cons or kick them out of the party? What insane idiot thinks the GOP can ever win again without social cons?!
The only way we’ll ever get any power to influence the social issues is if we win some damn elections again! And putting gay marriage in the driver’s seat ain’t gonna get us across the finish line, no matter what you say. It’s not enough. We need all three legs of the stool in more or less equal measure, with LIMITED GOVERNMENT in the driver’s seat. Always.
I share socially conservative values, but I often get lambasted by those who put social issues first because I think social issues are for the states and individuals and have no place in federal elections. Who exactly is trying to throw whom out? I share your traditional values; I agree with you; but you wouldn’t vote for me if I ran for office!
aero on May 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
people say Islam is incompatible with Democracy(why is Shinto religion capable, the answer is the US military but that is beside the point).
the largest Muslim Democracy already exist, its Indonesia
another large Muslim Democracy exist also, its called Turkey
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Thanks for the discussion. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. There is no reason our gov’t should be funding something that is as controversial as this AND should be left to the private institutions anyway.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Well, as per Turkey, they have a rather secular government that is struggling with Islamist groups.
Indonesia is not doing anything in my mind to stop Jemmah Islammiyyah, or the growth of other Islamic terror outfits in their sphere of influence.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Ah, see I believe Islam can co-exist with democracy. We’ve seen it in Gaza. I’m not convinced that a hyper-religious Islamic state is going to be pushing for the individual liberties we all enjoy though. No, Indonesia is not a good example of this…
There’s a reason Turkey took certain Islamic traditions out of its government – and is now fearing an Islamic uprising.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Let’s not even get into whether the government should be paying for medical procedures at all or the objections to abortion for now, but keep in mind an abortion is almost always an elective procedure in every sense of the word. This is not “elective” removal of a precancerous mole, or an “elective” hysterectomy for a woman with fibroids. These are only elective in the sense that the hospital is free to reschedule should they get overbooked with something higher-priority, such as appendicitis or gunshot wounds. If a woman fails to get a needed hysterectomy, her body’s function will continue to deteriorate. If she fails to get breast augmentation, her body will continue to function as designed. If she fails to get an abortion, her body will in all likelihood function as designed. Why should the government fund a truly elective procedure?
Now see here–this is an argument against funding abortions consistent with fiscal conservatism and common law. Not a Jesus to be seen. If social conservatives want something, they need to find sound arguments for or against it, not demand the government adopt their sectarian view.
Sekhmet on May 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Didn’t watch the video; can’t stomach listening to this whiny pansy.
But I agree completely with the point as paraphrased by Allahpundit. “I disagree with you on abortion – and so do the majority of Americans, apparently – now let’s talk about taxes, government spending,
immigration policy(oops), leftist Federal judges and national defense.”Jaibones on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Unfortunately, JP, Islam is a religion that brings with it a political structure in addition to it’s religious structure.
That is why Islam will always struggle with modern democracies/republics. They already have their entire structure within Islam.
blatantblue on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Yes, and unless Islam starts a Reformation similar to those that Christianity experienced, I see no way for Islam to integrate into a world that we’d want to live in.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM
WFB was a staunch member of the JBS. Buckley took issue with Welch for privately criticizing Ike’s leniency with the USSR. Given the wrap up in Europe concluding WWII from Berlin onward, Welch’s point stands valid. Buckley was always horribly image conscious, certainly not a perfect mind, though I admire his well honed talents that were many. All in all, he was a rich prick as well as a great intellect.
WHAT IS THIS? A youthful progressive vengeance gone vendetta on conservatism, dragging out the John Birch Society for the day’s whipping boy?
I’m not a Bircher, have never been. From what I’ve read of them, they are hard nosed right wing Constitutional conservatives. But beyond my earlier morning post when first seeing that group mentioned on HotAir, I have nothing more to say of them now.
Explain why you’re dragging out “John Birch Society” as if William F. Buckley was always opposed to them, because he was a long standing member. My limited impression is that his differences were based on political popularity, not philosophy.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
oh I know all about Sharia and Islam, but similar to Shinto religion in Japan. What is needed is a force for good(US Military) to put down the strong men that try to rise up and rule.
If we stay the course, this should continue the current trend in Iraq that moves the populace to being more Secular instead, gradually over time.
Christianity for example has advanced in South korea thanks to this.
When the strong men are gone and the common folk can get education and learn to read and write, its one of the worst things that can happen to the Despots.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM
the problem is we do not have alot of choice, we could not isolate ourselves from the Global Economy if we wanted to and continue life as we know it.
2 key reasons:
1) Islamic based Terrorism, the Global Sharia/Caliphate project
2) Oil, they simply have to pump their oil out of the ground and sell it to the world.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM
that said, Rumsfed was against the Democracy in Iraq thing(I think because clinton slashed military in half, not as capable) and the State Dept(Powell) was all for it.
they had a major disagreement over it. Source of most of the problems we had there. That and AQ and Iran wanting to give us headaches.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
If you don’t want to fund embryonic stem cells, start thinking about cloning. A clone of you is not you. It is more like a twin–if you think a twin is just another version of you, you don’t know enough existing twins.
Anything you can do to an embryo, you can do to a zygote-sized twin of yourself. This is not like the government funding space exploration, where the issues are non-controversial—like feeding, watering, cleaning, and supplying oxygen for astronauts. There needs to be a serious meeting of minds on the ethics of this issue.
Sekhmet on May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
That’s not happening and didn’t exactly happen under Bush. We funded and tolerated certain Sharia Laws to go into place.
No, some missionaries came and the SK’s liked what they heard. The military did not convert The SK’s to Christianity.
Agreed. This is why the US must insist on a strong education policy if they are going to remain in Iraq/Afghanistan. There has been troubling news about this recently.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
aero on May 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
That’s not my point. You never run social issues as you main issues. Even crazy Barbara Boxer in CA never has abortion as her main issues, though she’s in CA and probably the most liberal person on this issue. All I’m saying is social issues had nothing to do with 08, and it’s not the GOP’s current problem. Bad image, profligate spending, too many and too long wars, that’s the GOP’s problem.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on May 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
they made it possible, no way Christian missionaries could do anything in Kim Jong’s Korea, which is the alternative. US Military on the sidelines, acting when need be against despots is a key component in doing these type of things right.
the Younger generation in Iraq are trending very secular, that was my point.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Perhaps so. But let it be his doing. He seems to have become an independent anyway, since his POTUS campaign.
If the GOP were to excommunicate Ron Paul, it would only make sense to lop off the progressives for any balanced pruning. If one goes, so with the other; proportionate symmetry is the hallmark of effective stability, even if the structure is an organic outgrowth of static purity.
Ron Paul has his record that means almost everything to him. Though improbable, given his final years, it would be great for Ron Paul to determine how his last stand could avoid re-enacting Custer’s, and concert what efforts he has yet to make towards EFFECTING SMALLER GOVERNMENT, and prove himself a thorough educator of responsibility to his supporters, not merely an agitator.
But his purity means so much to him. He has managed to rationalize taking federal subsidies since his constituents contributed to the tax dollars base. He could at some point be brought to acknowledge that our strong national defense is what provides his security and his constituents security from international attack. As frustrating as he is, and for not finishing his responsibilities to inform his followers of more than what they want to hear, still I wouldn’t call him a “bad” person, though he isn’t at all what I wish he were. He’s taking the easy road of predictability, and his constituents have every right to re-elect him if that’s their choice.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Perhaps they did. Reagan also made it possible for people in Eastern Europe to more or less have their own personal religion. He didn’t invade either. I’m not coming down on the Korean War (although there were mistakes that we are still paying for today – North Korea comes to mind). The point is that the US cannot be expected to flex it’s military muscles every time we want to free a country.
I hope the younger generation in Iraq and Afghanistan is becoming more liberal, but I’m still somewhat concerned about the rise in fundamentalism in the region as a whole.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Tim 10:48
Okay. Sorry to go off on you, then. I’ve simply grown weary of socons claiming that everyone wants to throw them out of the party when there’s even the mildest suggestion of simply taking social issues off the front burner for a bit. Perhaps social issues are not the GOP’s main problem right now, but they are divisive, exclusionary, and not helping to reunite the party and propel it forward. As someone else already pointed out, all the factions within the party share some blame for our current disarray.
aero on May 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
depends on the situation, alot of Reagan was Jesse Helms to, in Eastern Europe. They intervened alot.
They invaded however, in easier places to invade logistically: See Central America and Carribean operations.
all options have to be on the table, flexible and willing to use. The isolationist want to take completely off the table any Military related interventions, not to mention things Reagan and Helms did in Eastern Europe.
They think, that Trade alone is Foreign Policy. Forgetting that Trade is also intervention, forcing one country to adopt the customs and Business Law of the other. Often times these countries hate what we are selling.
aside from that, Trade needs a strong military carrying the Torch of Liberty to make it possible globally. Effectively a police of the seas and ports. also, something to back up trade agreements
jp on May 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Calling RP fiscally conservative considering his stance on earmarks is ridiculous.
The guy has been in congress for over two decades (total) and hasn’t changed a damn thing. He talks a good talk, but his walk is almost completely “insider.” A man with his supposed “principles” would have left Washington years ago.
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Eastern Europe also has a rich Christian past, not so in the Far-East.
use to be so in the Middle East, but the original Caliphate got rid of those nations via the Sword and placed Muslim states in their place.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM
You fail to credit centuries of Christian missionaries who brought Christianity to Asia. Thanks to them, not to America or any one nation, the South Koreans have Christianity.
I do not argue against our troops, as our youth in service of our nation deserve our utmost gratitude. God bless our troops.
But the military are ruled by politicians, aka those who rose through the ranks by political appointments and favors. I am not detracting from the honor of our military by admitting that they are ruled from the top by politicians with political agendas. I am highly skeptical of our to military brass retiring into board positions in the military industry complex, lobbying for matters of self vs. national interest.
Ultimately, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have enabled fascism with the keys to Washington. There’s a problem when our military perform as law enforcement in the USA. There’s a problem when the Federal authorities deprive good, thoughtful and honest, hard working responsible taxpaying citizens of their Constitutional Rights and falsely arrest, imprison without legal representation, and prosecute said citizens with false evidence made of whole cloth. There’s a problem that must be corrected, because the US Constitution is the highest law of the land for US citizens, not the Patriot Act as it stands, and full rights of US citizens are NOT extended to non-citizens under the Constitution.
It’s as though our Constitution vs. political government vs. brass jostling against each other for industrial power grab vs. fascism are active plate tectonics at war IN America. We all suffer through the gyrations of the strong men.
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Perhaps social issues are not the GOP’s main problem right now, but they are divisive, exclusionary, and not helping to reunite the party and propel it forward. As someone else already pointed out, all the factions within the party share some blame for our current disarray.
aero on May 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
How is believing in, supporting and espousing a basic party platform item “divisive, exclusionary and not helping to reunite the party and propel it forward”?
“we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” – GOP platform
Social issues may indeed take a backseat, but saying they are anything but what they are is assinine.
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Do you mean fetus steps, or maybe embryo steps?
Or perhaps cluster-of-dividing-cells steps?
omnipotent on May 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Yes, they did. They didn’t invade though. Further, they fought to win and they weren’t worried about appeasing the moderate communists.
Yes, I’d say invading an island in the Caribbean is easier than building up 2 large Islamic nations.
I don’t necessarily disagree. But that doesn’t mean nation building, and we are necessarily doing what you are suggesting. Somalia comes to mind.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I clarified what I meant with Korea in next post.
Christinity is not advancing in North Korea, and if not for the Korean war, I’m willing to say the southern part which would be ruled by a stronger version of the NoKo regime, would be in the same shape.
same with Japan, we sat on sidelines, wrote their constitution and put down any Strong Men that attempted to rise up.
its not easy, no doubt. Today though, we are now able to buy Good Cars, electronics and so forth, from Japan and South Korea, which has grown Global wealth and prosperity.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM
my point was if Eastern European states were not land locked, creating a logistical nightmare, who knows what they have have done.
Reagan and Helms were very interventionist, and the current group of paleo-libertarians are very very anti-intervention, except with Trade(which I would argue leads to other interventions naturally, in some cases).
jp on May 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
++
angryed on May 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM
and of course, Reagan had the Soviets menace to deal with. Look at what Reagan’s Defense guys did after the Soviets fell: Gulf War
once Saddam dumped Oil in the ocean and set his oil wells on fire, with dreams of being a modern day Saladin, most realized he was not a rational actor and could not be trusted with sitting on large portions of the Civilized World’s Oil supplies.
Rumsfeld, wanted to take Saddam out and put in a new dictator who would be pro-american obviously.
anyway, point is these issues are not black/white, sometimes its needed other times should be restrained, key is US Interest which often times is Global Economic interest. after 9/11 I say it was a time to act
jp on May 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM
which is why Mark Levin’s book is so important.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Mark Levin and Lindsay Graham are neoconservatives. Neoconservatives ruined the GOP. Continue following the failed ideology, and continue failing.
popularpeoplesfront on May 18, 2009 at 11:33 AM
We stand by the traditional Republican platform or we reduce it to Democrat lite. If more party leaders would stand for the platform and vote like they stand for it, then we would be winning elections. We started losing elections when they abandoned (sorry, gave lip service to) the platform and abandoned (sorry, started chastizing) the base. How many of us quit giving to the RNC back in 2004-2006 and have never gone back? I will give to Jim Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, and maybe Tom Coburn (although he voted for TARP I), but never to the RNC until they stand for the platform.
Christian Conservative on May 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I am one who believes we need to put abortion on the back burner.. We need FISCAL conservatives at this time in American history.. The abortion AND gay issue should be moot…
reshas1 on May 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Clinton should have invaded Iraq in 1998, when Saddam first kicked out the UN inspectors. However he wanted to solve the Israel/Palestine issue and be known as the great peacemaker. Can’t do that while invading a Muslim country so Iraq was put on the back burner and there it stayed until 2003.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Graham is the RINO gold standard.
I would not call Levin a neo conservative. That is a moniker invented by RINOs for those who disagree. Levin is a Reagan conservative. He even worked for Reagan.
RINOs may prefer to incorrectly use the prefix ‘neo’ because ‘Reagan’ sticks in their craw
Neo conservatives did not ruin the GOP. RINOs ruined the last election when they maneuvered a RINO into the candidacy despite the fact no one but RINOs will vote for a RINO.
Bush lucked out running after Clinton and serving the anti terror needs well enough to gain a second term. That was not the luck of a RINO. That was dumb luck and good action after 911
entagor on May 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Graham has an 85% ACU rating, liberal for SC but he’s trying to be a National Figure.
Ron Paul has a lifetime 80 rating, with much of his platform very anti-conservative, Chomsky stuff.
a true neo-conservative, is a former liberal turned free market conservative who was ‘mugged by reality’.
jp on May 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Levin actually knows what he’s talking about when he invokes Constitutional Law and the Founders.
unlike the Rockwell clique
jp on May 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Can’t we walk and chew gum at the same time here? Why does anything need to be put on the backburner? The real issue behind abortion and gay marriage is the courts. The reason social cons are so fired up about abortion is because they feel this issue was stolen from the people by an activist court. That’s the fear they have about gay marriage…that an activist court will once again rule by fiat and subvert the democratic process on the issue. Can’t conservatives of all stripes come together about states rights, small government, and the need for strict constructionist judges in the courts?
frank63 on May 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Here’s the thing. You can either rely on the big-government, big-spending, big-war (but I repeat myself) beltway hack RINOs like Graham and watch the republic sink further into socialism whether they win or lose, or put an end to the GOP purging of the libertarian faction and together we can restore the republic and legalize the Constitution. Your choice!
My man Sanford defends the libertarian faction: Mark Sanford Fires Back At Lindsey Graham In Defense Of Libertarians
Chas Sisk (Gannett Tennessee): Tea party mobilizes libertarians, could reshape GOP
James Antle: Beyond the Paleos
Fixing conservatism without adding a prefix
Rae on May 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »