Brooks

In a column today, Ann Coulter (yes, I know, she can be a wee tad sensationalist, sarcastic, rude, etc.) makes some points similar to yours, Brooks. It is at this address:

http://townhall.com/Columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/11/05/the_reign_of_lame_falls_mainly_on_mccain

I will second what Brooks said.. many people I know decided not to vote, and others like me voted third party. I would say only half of the people I know that voted for Bush voted for McCain.

Brooks,I have a question for you? Why is it that the evangelical right cannot make the distinction between someone that is against "organized religion" injected into our public institutions and between someone that is completely against religion altogether? I don't know ANY people that identify themselves as the latter! I am a rational person, I am Jewish and am extremely proud of my faith. I have a strong belief in God. I have no problem with prayer in school and references to God in our government institutions after all "We are one Nation under God" as long as the prayers are NON-DENOMINATIONAL. I am quite certain that is Mr.Obama's position as well. The problem with the debate in this country is the evangelical right "demonize" people that have this position as being against religion. The reality is that Evangelicals want not just prayer or God injected into our institutions but their "brand" of faith injected into our institutions and as a Jewish American I do not want "Christian" prayer forced upon me or my children ,just as you would not want Jewish prayer forced upon you. And what about people of other religions that are not Judeo-Christian should we force our prayers on them? It seems to me a non-denominational prayer or a "minute of silence" that allows individuals to pray as they choose is a common sense answer and I don't understand why that does not satisfy "Evangelicals" . There are some left wing nuts out there that are probably "Anti-God " but they are a small few and don't represent 90% of the Democratic Party.

I hear my Republican Friends all the time make statements" like we need judges that don't "legislate from the bench". What you and them are really saying is that we need Presidents' and Judges that interpret the constitution from a conservative Republican point of view and anyone that does not share that view or has a different interpretation of the constitution is "legislating from the bench" or "breaching the Constitution". It is ironic that The Republican Party who is for supposedly for limiting the power of The Federal Government and Federal Courts and giving more power to State Governments and State Courts had no problem at all in 2000 when the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court that had ruled in favor of Gore with respect to allow votes to be counted, and gave the election to Bush. Can you tell me with a straight face, that if an election came down to one state like in 2000 in which a Democrat tried to keep votes from being counted, and oh by the way his brother happened to also be the Governor of that state, and that State's Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Republican Candidate that counting of votes should continue and then were overruled by The US Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin with the 5 more liberal judges ruling in favor of the Democrat giving him the election what you guys on the right be saying right now? Where was the so called "conservative" ideology" with respect to State's rights then? The answer is obvious ,but the conservatives lost a lot of credibility with many independents after that but because it became clear that The Republicans and Conservatives were more interested in gaining power and were willing to just throw their own ideology out the window to do. Brooks, I live in Virginia which has voted Republican in every Presidential Election since 1964 until this one. I've met Senator George Allen many times thru my job and voted for him in 2006 and he lost to Jim Webb. We are on our 2nd straight Democratic Governor in Tim Kaine and Mark Warner our former governor just won The Senate Seat vacated by Republican John Warner(no relation). If you had told me 8 years ago that in 2008 that Virginia would have 2 Democratic Senators and a Democratic Governor I would have never believed it. In every one of these elections the GOP used the same old Karl Rove type of tactics, but since 2006 , it hasn't worked and you saw what happened 2 days ago. I am not a “liberal” but I am telling you the reason the Republican’s are losing so badly in this state and , you won’t want to hear me say this, but it is a fact, is that The Republican Party in this state has become too far right. Whether you like it or not most people in this country are more towards the center than far right or left, so I am not some”liberal” trying to tell “conservatives” how to define themselves or run campaigns’. When I say most people are in the center I mean they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did notice in your pic you are wearing an Alabama hat and as an Alabama Alum I think we can at least agree on one thing “ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!”

Brooks, Rush Limbaugh would be proud of your broad brush definition of moderates. Yes, I listen to him on a regular basis, but there is a lot of mental filtering required. I think that it is a correct definition in some cases, but not the majority. Many people are (or claim to be) moderates because they don't want to have to defend their point of view, or haven't thought it through enough to have a solid position on many issues. Others just want to avoid confrontation at all costs. I think most call themselves moderates because they agree with parts of the arguments both sides use, and don't want to label themselves in a way that would give people an excuse to pigeon-hole them with a stereotype. Party politics demand labels and class warfare... both sides do it, with Rush leading the charge on the right and MSNBC on the left. We would all be much better off without any of these labels. We could then take a more honest look at candidates and issues on their merits.

First off Brooks, Nobody has tricked me into thinking anything. Like, I said in my post I have no problem with a non-denominational prayer in school as do most people.

today's 'moderate' is nothing more than a liberal who doesn't want to be lumped in with the crazies on the left. McCain's mistake was thinking he had any chance of securing their votes

McCain would have had my vote until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP. And I do consider myself a Moderate and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. Your comment "todays moderate is nothing more than a liberal who doesn't want to be lumped in with the crazies on the left" is the exact type of rhetoric that is driving people away from the GOP in droves. The truth is anyone who doesn't share your point of view you label "liberal". You guys on the right have demonized the word "liberal "but here is The Webster"s Dictionary meaning of the word:a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded . I guess by that definition you could call me liberal. Having said that let me give you an insight of my ideology, I am for lower taxes, strong military, pro- choice(not pro abortion), believe in the right to bear arms, for non-denominational prayer in school and those are just a few. Your generalization about a moderate is really just a liberal is the type of rhetoric from the right that is driving people away from your party in droves. If I were to label you I might say that you and the extreme right are narrow minded bigots. Like Joshua said in his post, this type of labeling and name calling does not get us anywhere or solve any problem. So I ask you a question Brooks, If a woman is raped or her life is danger in your world would abortion be an option? In my opinion it is the narrow-minded, intolerant views of the right that are driving people away from your party and look at Virginia as proof. The centrist Dems are dominating The Republican Party in this state and it is because the GOP has become to extreme. Whether you like it or not, most people are in the middle and if The Republicans don't realize this soon your party is going to continue to become more and more irrelevant. Just look at how diverse the crowds were at Obama Rallies, old,young ,black and white and compare that to the McCain rallies 90% white. Considering that US Census bureau has projected that by 2050 white will be a minority in this country that does not bode well for the GOP since their core base are white evangelical Christians. You said that the "left" do not want to compromise but neither do the "right". That is why so The Democrats are winning these elections because they are governing from the center and not cow-tailing to the extreme elements in their party the way The GOP is to the evangelical right. And your characterization "allowing a million babies to be murdered each year for the sake of vanity and inconvenience" is that exact kind of shameful rhetoric from your side that again is driving people away in droves.

I would like to add that women fought so hard for equal rights so why do they insist now that they should have more rights than anyone else. Why doesn't the man in that same situation get his rights to that same child. Why can't he have a say in whether or not his child lives or dies. I personally know many women that do use it as a form of birth control. It makes me sick.

There are very strong feelings/opinions on both sides of the abortion issue. It is unreasonable to think that you will be able to change someone’s mind on this issue, much less in the confines of a internet social network. Can we make such a divisive issue a means of coming together? I ran across an article by Dr. Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. It is written as an open letter to Barack Obama. Here is a portion (full blog at http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3592 ):

Mr. President-elect, Southern Baptists remain unalterably committed to the protection of unborn human life. The vast majority of Southern Baptists believe that a pre-born baby is a distinct human life, according to both science and the Bible.

You have said you want to unite us as a nation. An excellent place to work for such unity would be for you to put your full support behind the Democrats for Life initiative known as the Pregnant Women Support Act (its goal is to reduce abortion by 95 percent over a 10-year period).

This bill would:

• Establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support during and following their pregnancy.

• Provide child care to low-income and student parents.

• Provide parenting education in maternity group homes.

• Make the Adoption Tax Credits permanent.

• Ensure that pregnant women are not denied health care by insurance companies and that coverage is continued for newborns.

• Codify the regulation that extends coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to low-income pregnant women and unborn children.

• Increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program.

• Provide grants to institutions of higher education to fund pregnant and parenting student services.

• Provide new mothers with free home visits by registered nurses.

All of these measures would help fulfill the pledge made in the 2008 Democratic Party platform, which “strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”

Very few people are “pro-abortion”. Most people would like to create a society with fewer abortions. Making abortions illegal will not make abortions go away, but will make them more dangerous. If you want to quote the New Testament of the Bible, remember that Jesus spent a lot more time loving people and caring for them than he did condemning them. Remember the woman caught in adultery to whom Jesus said “I don’t condemn you either, go and sin no more.” The church has spent too much time condemning and too little time loving and caring and seeking to resolve the problem in a more “Christian” manner. I would also remind folks that a complete “pro-life” stance would include supporting decisions that support all life, not just the pre-born ones.

Thanks David for putting that piece by Dr. Land in here. You bring up a great point about extending care vs condemnation.

I don't want to put in my perspective on the issue, as it will add little to the discussion, but I want to make an important distinction in Gillian's argument. She says that the government shouldn't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I agree. However, the clarification is in what defines the woman's body. I think many would argue that the baby to be aborted is a distinct life form and is not a part of the woman's body. Therefore, their argument would follow that the government can't tell you what to do with your body, but that the government can tell you what not to do to someone else's body. Once again, I don't want to inject my opinion, I just wanted to point out a possible flaw in the logic.

Brooks,

Conservative Republicans need to do 3 things:

1. Return to the basic principles of true conservatism and limited government

2. Frame that message in a communications vehicle voters currently aged 15 to 30 will find compelling.

3. Deliver that message effectively using the 21st Century tools the Obama campaign used so effectively

For more on this and my upcoming book "Rebuilding the Republican Party Despite the Brain Dead Luddites Who Run It" go to http://www.michaelpatrickleahy.com or my blog at http://michaelpatrickleahy.blogspot.com

Joshua,

Don't leave out this one...

Deuteronomy 27:25 Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.