Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Quote:

The world is full of problems - most of them are NOT amenable to government solutions.

ROFL

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Blatham, this is a good example of the unnecessary and intrusive bureaucratic meddling in the affairs of others so favored by liberals. The unstated presumption here is that without specific direction and enforcement from government (accompanied by forms, reports and the unnecessary baggage that invariably attends this crap) the necessary information will neither be requested by the patient nor provided by the doctor. This is an unwarranted assumption. Next we will have government regulation telling egg-suckers how to suck eggs.

The relationships between doctors and patients are just that - between doctors and patients. Government direction here is redundant, wasteful, and intrusive. It is an assault on the freedom and individual choices of both doctor and patient.

If Republicans oppose this nonsense the response will invariably be that Republicans oppose providing victims and patients information they need at a critical moment. The truth is they oppose only the government interference in the private, voluntary professional relations between doctor and patient. The world is full of problems - most of them are NOT amenable to government solutions.

Actually, this is good example of how a Liberal, defying his post-modernist foundation, can presume to know, with absolute certainty, what the ethical and compassionate course of conduct in a given situation should be.

Nevermind that a hospital made possible by the Catholic Church might hold firm to two notions: Life begins at conception and all life is sacred. The hospital should be compelled to advise a rape victim of a means that will clearly violate its principles if it is to be judged compassionate, because the Liberal is convinced that along this route the ethical and the compassionate will be found.

It is a facile argument that blatham makes. Surely the innocent victim of a rape should be provided with every means to mitigate her suffering. What sort of uncompassionate lout would argue otherwise?

Of course this argument presupposes that the innocent fetus that is the by product of the crime is undeserving of any consideration at all, and to argue otherwise may be many things, but it is surely not compassionate.

What blatham and like minded individuals will not accept is that it is possible that it is compassion that drives anti-abortion sentiment.

0 Replies

Quote:

What blatham and like minded individuals will not accept is that it is possible that it is compassion that drives anti-abortion sentiment.

What Finn and like minded individuals will not accept is that it is possible that it is compassion that drives pro-choice sentiment. A child does not ask to be born. And no child needs to be forced into this world without a willing and able mother to care for it. Some compassion the anti-abortion sentiment folks have. HA!

0 Replies

And there's the distinction in a nutshell. The pro-abotion crowd count it as compassion not to force an unwanted child to be born into the world. And the pro-life crowd counts it as compassion not to force a child to die because the parents don't want it.

(Edited to insert a missing word)

0 Replies

Lola, my take is that the notion that compassion lies behind abortion-as-birth-control advocacy is absurd. In fact, calling abortion-as-birth-control "pro-choice" is absurd - a misdirection worthy of Mao.

Certainly, abortion for clear medical necessity or terminatin' a pregnany resultin' from non-consensual sex are legitimate, and merit protection as basic rights. Abortion for convenience - and that is what abortion-as-birth -control is - is morally and ethically indefensible. It may be convenient, but covenience is no measure of the principle involved.

No, no child asks to be born, any more than any child asks to not be born. The party most negatively impacted by your argument has no say in your argument. Your argument does nothin' to impove life for anyone, while debasin' its worth for everyone.

But hang in there with your argument, and lobby forcefully to keep it a central plank of the Democratic Party platform, right along with same-sex marriage, tax increases, unrestricted immigration, and wavin' the UN flag. The work you folks have put into that sorta thing over the past few years is deeply appreciated by the supporters of the swellin' number of Republicans who have been elected to counter such notions. Thanks for all the help, and please, keep it up. We're countin' on you folks.

0 Replies

Timber writes

Quote:

Thanks for all the help, and please, keep it up. We're countin' on you folks

Yes. The GOP has been so efficient in shooting itself in the foot lately, its going to take all these highly committed Democrats to keep us in power I think. Smile

0 Replies

You've prolly gotta point, there, Fox.

0 Replies

I posted this in another forum...

I honestly want to see the Democratic party return to greatness. Some observations...
1. Being a senator is a real liability. Complex senatorial votes can be seen as flip-flopping or pandering.
2. IMO, being seen as aligned with the irreligious left is a huge liability. Like it or not church-going Christians outnumber atheists. The Dems have taken steps more recently to disassociate themselves with the irreligious left but it has to continue in that direction. Ignoring the church-going Christians as Kerry did until the 2nd debate, won't cut it.
3. Can we get someone who's more energetic? Not a screamer like Dean but not a lecturer like Kerry.
4. Rove did a couple of things; Typecast Kerry early and viciously with the "flip-flip" and "anti-veteran" rhetoric and mobilize the evangelicals. The Dems need to typecast their opponent in 2008 early and viciously. A particularly contentious primary usually makes that job easier. As for mobilizing the evangelicals, this ties in with #2. Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns. Yes, there is a price to pay to get voted into office.

I don't see 2004 as a minor loss for the Dems. It should have been an easy one. Have we ever had a president so hated? How the hell did he win? It can't just be campaign tactics. It was that "values" thing. The Dems have to figure out how to reclaim it. And explinations aren't going to work. They need to show that they're different now. They need to reclaim the values on the peoples' terms. That means making the Dem in 2008 look more Christian and more patriotic than the opponent.

0 Replies

Great ideas there, ye110man; imagine what the Democrats could do with a Presidential ticket made up of a Catholic war veteran and a Southern Methodist - by golly, I betchya Ammurrica would just eat that right up.

Oh ..... waitaminnit ....

Damn! Never mind.

0 Replies

ye writes

Quote:

I don't see 2004 as a minor loss for the Dems. It should have been an easy one. Have we ever had a president so hated? How the hell did he win? It can't just be campaign tactics. It was that "values" thing.

Awhile back I incurred a good deal of ridicule with an observation that it is the conservatives who are the progressives these days. Right or wrong, popular or not, the GOP is the party of ideas and the party putting out proposals to deal with the issues. The Democrats have campaigned on and have exercised their role as the opposition in a steady mantra of condemnation, obstructionism, judgmentalism, and ridicule. In so doing, they come across at best as petty sore loser, at worst as radical anti-American values nuts with no constructive ideas of their own.

You can have the most brilliant marketing strategy in the whole world, and it will be all for nothing unless there is also a product that people want to buy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola, my take is that the notion that compassion lies behind abortion-as-birth-control advocacy is absurd. In fact, calling abortion-as-birth-control "pro-choice" is absurd - a misdirection worthy of Mao.

You see here, Timber how you're putting words in my mouth? I said nothing about "abortion-as-birth-control" Who in their right minds would use such a painful, expensive alternative when there are so many other forms of birth control available?

My concern about abortion has nothing to do with birth control. I'm concerned about the poor. If abortion were illegal in this country and through some mistake or other chain of events one of my daughters needed an abortion, I'd be able to get it for her. I have the money and would be able to take care of my daughter's needs. But the poor have no such recourse. If they need an abortion, there is no money, and it's illegal. Young women in third world countries are abused and dying from having too many children, too close together. They leave orphans behind when they die. U.S. policy about birth control and abortion affects foreign policy. During the Reagan years......after the deal Reagan made with the Pope......the beloved John Paul II, countries giving out birth control aid or information (not just abortions) were denied foreign aid. And these were the very countries who were struggling with the need for effective population control. Now that's compassion.

Abortion is a big subject, made stupid by a narrow minded approach. If you could learn to leave your judgement out of the discussion, you might see how much more there is to understand about it than you can see from your judge's chair.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, no child asks to be born, any more than any child asks to not be born. The party most negatively impacted by your argument has no say in your argument. Your argument does nothin' to impove life for anyone, while debasin' its worth for everyone.

This point goes both ways too, Timber. My argument does improve life. You don't seem to be able to see that. And I am not clear on how exactly you think I'm debasing the worth of life. I encourage you though to keep it up because we're happy to have your help in the next elections.

0 Replies

I ain't puttin' any words in your mouth, Lola, you just refuse to recognize and acknowledge the words already there. With current, readily available, extremely low cost medical technology, the case for abortion-as-birth-control has absolutely no merit - whether in Manhattan or in some garbage-strewn, rat-infested Third-World slum. If you actually cared about a woman's right to choose, you would put your energy and resources into givin' women world-wide the choice to not become pregnant involuntarily. I accept that abstinence is an unrealistic alternative, but cheap, safe, effective contraceptives are available, and if they and appropriate education in their use were widely promoted, abortion-as-birth-control would cease to be an issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

You can have the most brilliant marketing strategy in the whole world, and it will be all for nothing unless there is also a product that people want to buy.

This, foxfire is the "better-mouse-trap" theory and is extremely naive. Following your principle, many a non-profit hase gone down in flames. It's only with the right direct mail and marketing techniques, in a world competing for a chunk of charitable giving, that survive much less thrive.

Quote:

Right or wrong, popular or not, the GOP is the party of ideas and the party putting out proposals to deal with the issues. The Democrats have campaigned on and have exercised their role as the opposition in a steady mantra of condemnation, obstructionism, judgmentalism, and ridicule. In so doing, they come across at best as petty sore loser, at worst as radical anti-American values nuts with no constructive ideas of their own.

This is a very large dose of the party line. It's time to go back to your source and get a new one......this one has been sung too many times lately to have the impact I'm sure you wanted. Actually, if you look at your paragraph above, it says nothing of substance. It's simply a list of declarative statements, with no examples and no details. You might as well say, "blah blah blah." And above all, it's such a positive statement. No condemnation, obstructionism, judementalism or ridicule there. HA!

0 Replies

No matter how ya market it, Lola, an Edsel is still an Edsel.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I ain't puttin' any words in your mouth, Lola, you just refuse to recognize and acknowledge the words already there. With current, readily available, extremely low cost medical technology, the case for abortion-as-birth-control has absolutely no merit - whether in Manhattan or in some garbage-strewn, rat-infested Third-World slum. If you actually cared about a woman's right to choose, you would put your energy and resources into givin' women world-wide the choice to not become pregnant involuntarily. I accept that abstinence is an unrealistic alternative, but cheap, safe, effective contraceptives are available, and if they and appropriate education in their use were widely promoted, abortion-as-birth-control would cease to be an issue.

Timber,

I don't think you were paying attention when you read what I wrote. My point exactly is that birth control is easy and cheap in this country. So why on earth would anyone use abortion to accomplish the same task? Abortion is not about birth control. But it's clear to me that you have no idea how very condescending and outrageous you are sounding. You have no real idea about the multiple reasons a woman may need an abortion besides the simple ones you've laid out. In the case of rape or for birth control. There are many reasons why an abortion might be necessary or wise. Your argument is so narrow, it's useless.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

No matter how ya market it, Lola, an Edsel is still an Edsel.

"We'll see," said the marketer to the farmer.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Lola, my take is that the notion that compassion lies behind abortion-as-birth-control advocacy is absurd. In fact, calling abortion-as-birth-control "pro-choice" is absurd - a misdirection worthy of Mao.

Certainly, abortion for clear medical necessity or terminatin' a pregnany resultin' from non-consensual sex are legitimate, and merit protection as basic rights. Abortion for convenience - and that is what abortion-as-birth -control is - is morally and ethically indefensible.

Yes. Now if you reread the quote Blatham provided here, and which started this particular subthread: Do you notice that the Colorado congress passed, and governor Owens vetoed, a bill that was specifically targeted at rape victims -- and not at what you call "abortion for convenience"? That said, I agree with George that it isn't the law's business to tell doctors what to tell to their patients. I don't like that Texas law requires them to tell their patients that abortion increases their risk of breast cancer (a claim that isn't based on reliable evidence); and I don't like the Colorado bill that would have required them to tell them about emergency abortions. Medicine ought to be practiced by doctors, not politicians.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

I don't see 2004 as a minor loss for the Dems. It should have been an easy one. Have we ever had a president so hated? How the hell did he win? It can't just be campaign tactics. It was that "values" thing. The Dems have to figure out how to reclaim it. And explinations aren't going to work. They need to show that they're different now. They need to reclaim the values on the peoples' terms. That means making the Dem in 2008 look more Christian and more patriotic than the opponent.

A compact expression of what I perceive to be the central Democrat reaction to the election so far. Nice goal, but I don't think it is possible for the Democrat party, as currently constituted, to achieve it. The key interest groups that drive the party remain unable to agree on either a platform or a candidate that will express these "values".

In 1992, confronting a Republican President who seemed oddly unable to define even his own policies, and gifted with a largely unknown, but superficially attractive candidate who very skillfully presented himself as a new type of centrist or conservative Democrat (with a wink and a nod to the party stalwarts), and ably assisted by Ross Perot who took over 20% of the vote, the Democrats won. The problem is that effective third party candidates are a rare occurrence and gifted prevaricators like Bill Clinton don't emerge from the woodwork very often. This in not a formula that will win for the Democrats more than a few times per century.

All the talk about how the evil Karl Rove cleverly figured out how to paint the noble John Kerry as an opportunist flip flopper is a delusion. Kerry did that himself, despite significant support and cover from the mainstream media. The real concern for Democrats here should be their so far demonstrated inability to cultivate and agree on a candidate who isn't fatally compromised. It is the discordant demands of the Democrat single interest groups that stand in the way of the goal stated above. Yhe Democrats will have to abandon some of their loonie base and forge a new constituency if they expect to win.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

.... it isn't the law's business to tell doctors what to tell to their patients. I don't like that Texas law requires them to tell their patients that abortion increases their risk of breast cancer (a claim that isn't based on reliable evidence); and I don't like the Colorado bill that would have required them to tell them about emergency abortions. Medicine ought to be practiced by doctors, not politicians.

Nicely put. I wish I said it that way.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know