@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote
Quote::"I would like to think that whatever party is designed, it would not marginalize people purely on their opinion on these sticky wicket social issues. I would like to think there could be healthy debate, and all points of view could be heard. Again I do not want a litmus test re abortion, gay marriage, etc. as I think these issues should be left to the individual states and communities to decide. Where individual rights are concerned, Roe v Wade as it was originally intended adequately dealt with that allowing for self determination by the mother but also allowing consideration for the life she allowed to be created."
Yes, but my intent is not to marginalize such people but to convince them that even a perceived radicalism in this area by voters would hurt conservatives since the Dems are quite good political opponents and know how to use issues like this to their advantage (I don't know, is this just semantics on my part?). Personally I thought Roe vs. Wade was kind of settled in my mind but the more I think of both side's argument the less sure I am. To deny choice in one instance damages or even kills an individual to so grant the same choice denies another its very existence. It’s even worse than the legalization of drug thing (I feel no problem with Mary Jane but if alcohol why not recreational use of Morphine and Cocaine--Sherlock Holmes seemed responsible, I know, I know a fictional character but still.) Many experts have said that the USSC decision RE Roe v Wade made things worse because it made an end run around many people's desires therefore making it a states' rights issue but then...
RE your thought on immigration I agree fully especially about the disrespect of our laws and how that should not be tolerated. But I'm sure you noted in my spiel the time line which demands Secure Borders first (Really--resolve the correct metrics and insist that they be met) THEN we can deal with the 12-20 million inside our borders. However, you probably noted my thoughts in that post were geared towards campaign tactics that would advance a stratagem working towards party success in presidential and congressional elections. So the talking point would mention the necessity of secure borders before such amnesty could be granted but emphasize and dwell on the fact that we would be welcoming those already within our border with a generic term such as 'Immigration Forgiveness' or Alternative Immigration Acceptance Program--get my drift? No need to be real specific since the actual legislation will have many inputs anyway. This too must be negotiated within the party so that we will cut down on a divisive Amnesty/Not Amnesty debate. Can that be done? Can we have a Michael Steele that earns his pay? Actually I thought the Bush plan was pretty harsh but certainly fair. The Danger was always if too harsh no illegals would come forward and if too soft it would not to be acceptable to MACs, especially from Border States. The secure border part is an absolute must and this may take 3-5 years or longer to accomplish but no legislation should be passed without it. It has to be firm and conditional and maybe this can be a 2 part law the second part enacted only after the first has clearly been satisfied, but, then who measures the metrics? Also there must be a stern provision that would encourage, somehow, illegals to take the Amnesty or leave or...? Then there is the side of small businesses here. They should be co-opted with some type of worker program. Larger businesses, especially tech firms could use a much greater number of Visas granted. Given they have skin in this game, we could get their support also. But I’m off topic here.
Quote:This one[education] deserves a discussion all by itself. Some fascinating concepts here. Unless you object, I will repost it later and hope to generate some discussion on the various points.
I have no objection. This is, in my mind, far and above the debate in National Health Care in importance and has been neglected for over 20 years. The founders saw no right for health care or education but I have encountered the definite belief, in their writings, that an educated citizen was an extremely desirable participant in the type of government they envisioned. Other than the "skin in the game" concept we have seen as an argument against those that do not pay Federal tax having a vote, I think they recognized that, more likely than not, those who were originally allowed to vote (the wealthy and propertied) were going to be educated to a degree that their votes would be better informed.
A quick word on the Health Care thing: The best the Repubs can do now is to block passage of any package until the next congress. This should be done by demanding a debate on it so that we can hold it in our hands turn it around and look at it. This is a fair request since many voters are disappointed that the last few things this congress rushed thru with out much public scrutiny. Obama's reasoning that we need to do this now because the country is in dire straits, etc is much less likely to work since Tax and Cap has also been postponed (Card check is still out there too). I read somewhere that Obama, in a meeting with his disciples, wanted this pushed thru by august I suspect I know why The longer the public hears about Obama's grandiose plans the less they seem to like. Regarding cost reduction and support of government socialization we might ask Obama why he is avoiding the real elephants in the room: Medicare and SS. This also will work in our favor further down the line when conservatives, at election time, actually can compare their financial responsibility to a now concrete Obama policy via his past efforts RE big government expansion. All things wear away with time ,as will Obama's halo. However, Ican's nervous exhortations about timing are legitimate and spot on.
JM
