Or maybe just political journalists:Last weekend, 18 days after Barack Obama decisively defeated their candidate for president, a mostly Republican crowd of self-described conservatives received their first introduction to someone many prominent members of the GOP think could be the party's own version of Obama.You don't say. Obama was the next Kennedy. Then he became the next McGovern. Or was that the next Stevenson? Now he's the next FDR. And Jindal is the next him--because he's, you know, swarthy. The thing about Obama that people, apparently, still don't get is that thus far he has proved himself a damn good politician. He is not simply the eloquent black dude who won--although he's that too. He's the dude who reinvented campaign fundraising, who pioneered the use of social networking, who won Virginia and North Carolina, who ended 50 plus 1.
Obama's also the dude who's turned universal healthcare, massive public works projects, and an office of urban policy into the machinations of a centrist or a center-right Democrat. But most importantly Obama opposes dogma. He is a progressive pragmatist trying to tackle issues by creating the broadest coalition possible. Jindal meanwhile.....social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions; his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research; his and his wife Supriya's decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state; and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of "scientific design" and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.So let's see we have, covenant marriages, outlawing abortions--no exceptions--creationism, and banning stem-cell research from the public sector. Sounds pragmatic to me and exactly the sort of issues to build a broad coalition around. Why not resurrect Terri Schiavo while we're at it. This dude isn't Barack Obama. He's George W. Bush--he's a more competent George Bush.
I think that oversells Obama's centrism. Just to take an example that Ta-Nehisi uses, did Obama make some compromise on the Democratic Party's no-restrictions-on-abortion-at-any-time-no-shut-up-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA platform? Because as far as I know, he's still toeing the party line there. And that's just about as extreme, as far from the average American's opinion on abortion, as Bobby Jindal's.
On the other side, I don't see anything wrong, or "EXTREMIST", about Bobby Jindal being a devout Catholic who wants to enter into a covenant marriage. He hasn't indicated any plans to stop Ta-Nehisi and I from living with our partners without benefit of the marital sacrament, or from getting married, should we choose, the good old-fashioned way, with its 50% divorce rate. I think the option for covenant marriage is a good thing for the government to provide, but then I'm a libertarian. I like people to have as many choices as possible, as long as those choices don't hurt others.
Besides that, I'm willing to bet that Ta-Nehisi has never seen Jindal in person. I have. And while "swarthy" may play a small role in the Obama comparisons, it's mostly along the lines of thinking that the Republican Party's first non-white candidate would help heal the party's image a bit. The reason that they're comparing Jindal to Obama is that, in person, he comes off a lot like Obama. He's extremely positive, he's personally charming, and he's kind of skinny and his ears stick out. Like Obama, Jindal is something of an odd duck; he looks like the president of the Paramus, New Jersey High School Chess Club, and talks like a good old boy with a plantation somewhere back in the Bayou. The combination is disconcerting for northern journalists, and a little bewitching.
But once you're past that, well, the guy just has skills. His message, like Obama's, is one of hope and actual change; he tends to emphasize the work he's done reforming Louisiana's notoriously corrupt political culture. And like Obama, he has the charisma to put it over. Nearly all prominent politicians are extremely charismatic. Being in a room with them is like being in a room with the sun; you can't really look anywhere else. But some have it more than others, and Jindal has a lot of it.
He's also a really good political organizer, which is how a Republican carries Louisiana (to be sure, the Democratic governor's monstrously incompetent performance during Hurricane Katrina helped quite a bit.) And on the other metrics by which Obama stands out--his academic chops, his meteoric rise--Jindal actually betters Obama. The guy was accepted to both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, but decided to go for a political career, and accepted his Rhodes Scholarship instead. At 25 he was appointed Lousiana's Secretary of Health and Hospitals; at 28, he became the youngest-ever president of the University of Louisiana system.
You can say many things about him--he's written some nutty things about Protestants, and participated in an exorcism, which means he's gonna have some 'splaining to do if he runs for President. But he is not George W. Bush, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or any of the other range of uninspired sons of the gentry who have graced our political landscape recently. He is phenomenally smart, and phenomenally talented, and phenomenally likeable. And I'm sure that complacent Democrats dismissing him as a goober with a God complex suits his current plans just fine.
what exactly is an Ardle? what is a McArdle?
Obama is only eloquent when in front of a tele-prompter.
And he's white btw.
Good thoughts on Jindal though. Besides, we need some other name to toss and banter about with Gov. Palin.
"which is how a Republican carries Louisiana"
You've got to be kidding me. Jindal was appointed to those posts you mention by a two-term Republican Governor, W carried the state twice, and McCain beat Obama here 60% to 38%. We only have one major Democratic elected official left, Senator Landrieu, who was widely expected to be knocked off this past cycle until the GOP's brand went south nation-wide.
Nothing against Jindal on this point - a partner at McKinsey where he worked after the Rhodes called him the most impressive associate he had ever worked with, so as you say, the fellow has skills. Still, don't let your enthusiasm rob you of your perspective - we already have Andrew to do the overboard infatuations. :)
In that same regard, the conventional wisdom now is that Governor Blanco's response to Hurricane Katrina was quite OK all things considered. Much of the Blame Blanco narrative has since been discredited (snopes even has an article about it, referencing the "erroneous statement by an unnamed Bush administration official, as reported in the Washington Post" which was and remains the source of much of the misinformation about the handling of the storm).
As such things matter quite a lot to some of us Louisiana natives, it would be nice if you would either better inform yourself on this last point (Breach of Faith, a book by the Times Picayune writer Jed Horne who won the Pulitzer for his Katrina reporting might be a good place to start) or refrain from throwing it in there every time you discuss Jindal, which I imagine you will be doing quite a lot in the coming years. Imagine if every time someone discussed Senator Clinton they threw in misinformation about a tragedy that upstate New York had suffered - it's an emotional topic still, and so to see it thrown in every time you discuss Jindal really rankles.
[D]id Obama make some compromise on the Democratic Party's no-restrictions-on-abortion-at-any-time-no-shut-up-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA platform? Because as far as I know, he's still toeing the party line there. And that's just about as extreme, as far from the average American's opinion on abortion, as Bobby Jindal's.
100% restrictions on choices are identical to 0% restrictions? Since only a small minority support 100% restrictions, the 0% position of the Democrats overlaps much more with the average American than does Jindal's.
Why would Jindal have to explain what he said or did when he was in college? I don't remember anyone questioning Obama about his drug use, and my understanding is that talking about a non-white candidate's church/religion/pastor is racist.
from KM: And he's white btw.
The denialism on the right is astounding. In 1950s Deep South, Obama still would have been lynched. And in a lot of communities all over the country, a guy like him still gets pulled over for DWB.
"the Democratic Party's no-restrictions-on-abortion-at-any-time-no-shut-up-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA platform?"
Megan, you're going to have to cite something on this. I'm not aware of any official language, party line, or view of Obama's that even closely resembles this.
"Why would Jindal have to explain what he said or did when he was in college? I don't remember anyone questioning Obama about his drug use"
Because a very large percentage of college students use recreational drugs. Participating in an honest-to-god exorcism, and as far as I can tell, still holding such nutty beliefs, is at least as far as out of the mainstream as black liberation theology and very likely more so. So, when he runs, it can get the same amount of coverage Wright did. Deal?
Running Jindal is just a more divisive way for the Republicans to lose in 2012. The Republicans need to face facts: most people like science, particularly science which makes their lives longer, better and less prone to disease and untimely death. Marriage, too, is falling into disfavor as people figure out that there's really nothing practical other than health benefits in the arrangement. In fact, many relationships are better without marriage when the other person can just walk anytime. People have to put effort into that kind of relationship. They can't rely upon unsympathetic laws to keep the other person trapped.
If the Republicans want to win, they cannot play the Democrats' game and they cannot replay a game they have already lost. They need to squarely oppose the Democrat platforms which correspond to Republican strengths. Oppose public works and universal healthcare as being big-government boondoggles. Return to traditional conservative positions of limited government, financial responsibility, and maximum personal freedom.
Otherwise, the choice presented to the voters will be: easygoing, gload-handing, gift-giving democrat versus no-fun, killjoy, democrat-wannabe. That's not much of a choice.
Very well said, Megan.
And I'm sure that complacent Democrats dismissing him as a goober with a God complex suits his current plans just fine.
As is your wont, you are complaining about things that no one is saying.
Adam: Megan regularly murders irony on her blog. She rails against uninformed posters (often calling them idiotic, asses, etc.) and then goes and does precisely the same thing herself.
Isn't Jindal the "next Obama" because he's a minority?
....and has Obama REALLY accomplished ALL that you list.....I mean, he isn't even president for another month and a half......
I think Bobby Jindal can be a strong national candidate. It's just that the political moment is incredibly important. Obama would have been a disaster in 2004. Bob Dole would have won in 1988. Who knows what the situation with be like in 2012, 2016, 2020... who knows?
"In that same regard, the conventional wisdom now is that Governor Blanco's response to Hurricane Katrina was quite OK all things considered."
I work in emergency management and was a part of the Katrina response and that is not part of any conventional wisdom I have ever heard. Blanco was a disaster. The State of Louisiana had no workable plan to evacuate New Orleans or any idea what to do if the levies broke. I also worked on Hurricane Gustav and I can tell you the difference between the preparness of Louisiana this fall versus Katrina was night and day. I don't know how much Jindal had to do with that, but the state had its act together this time.
Jindal is a Rhoades scholar and a very bright guy. But since he is a Republican, he will be dismissed by the Dems and media as a moron guber. So I am not sure his being a Rhodes scholar will do him much good. The other problem he will have is that there is not the guilt associated with racism against East Indians that there is with racism against blacks. This will leave the Dems free to run a completely racist campaign against him just like they were free to run a sexist campaign against Palin. I wonder what crackpot theory Sullivan will latch onto with Jindal since he won't be able to demand Jindal's OBGYN records.
.. did Obama make some compromise on the Democratic Party's no-restrictions-on-abortion-at-any-time-no-shut-up-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA platform
Didn't he publicly talk about promoting "abstinence" programs vis-a-vis abortion policy? Maybe that is not a big deal but what makes you think that the Democratic party is regimentally pro-abortion? While I accept that a majority of democrats are pro-choice, there are heck of a lot of prominent democrats (including their Senate leader) who are pro-life. What infuriates me more is this false equivalent about the two camps. The opposite of pro-life is NOT pro-choice. You can be pro-choice without being pro-abortion. The pro-choice group wants abortion to be legal for a woman who "chooses" to have one. They don't seek to legally mandate that every pregnant woman should by law be required to abort. The pro-life folks (barring few) want to ban the abortion "choice" for all because of their personal deep moral objection to it. Therefore I see Jindal's abortion orthodoxy to be much more dangerous than Obama's consistent pro-choice position. Obama is not forcing people to have abortions while Jindal clearly would prefer to force every woman to have a baby. The two things are not the same.
Being in a room with them is like being in a room with the sun; you can't really look anywhere else
Now really! Seems like Megan is having her "starburst" moment! Ta-Nehisi’s point was that GOPers think Jindal is Obama because of superficial similarities. Seems like Megan’s enthusiasm for Jindal (like her now non-existent Obama-crush) is also based largely on the superficial. He is sooo smart and bewitching…
And on the other metrics by which Obama stands out--his academic chops, his meteoric rise--Jindal actually betters Obama
Yeah, Jindal becoming governor of Louisiana is certainly more meteoric that Obama becoming President and the one and only leader of the fricking free world! I’m not saying Jindal cannot become President in the future (he is younger than Obama) but do you guarantee he will become President? And how can you compare Obama to Jindal? Jindal grew up in a secure household cared for by (as far as I know) loving Asian parents. Obama grew up rootless, shunted from place to place, deserted by his father (and for a time even his mother), unsure of his identity. To me just the fact that he turned out to be a normal regular guy is a marvel, let alone his meteoric rise.
Note that I am not a Jindal hater. As the only son of immigrants from India, I find a lot to admire in Jindal and his achievements. I of course disagree with his positions. In time Jindal might become all that Megan and GOP believers hope he is. But he is not Obama yet. And while it might be very hard for a super-conservative republican to win the Louisiana governorship (I am obviously being sarcastic), it is considerably harder for said super-conservative Republican to win the Presidency.
I think Ms. McArdle has given us a precursor of Sullivan's anti-Jindal campaign: he's a religious nut who is unfit to hold office in a secular democracy. And add: He's not really a minority. He got into college via affirmative action. He betrayed his parents by changing religion, thereby disobeying the Fifth Commandment and making a mockery of family values. These are not bigoted ravings, but Oakshottian philosophy which you are too stupid (being a bigot yourself) to understand.
Sigh. To those who think, life is a comedy....
Mike: "100% restrictions on choices are identical to 0% restrictions? Since only a small minority support 100% restrictions, the 0% position of the Democrats overlaps much more with the average American than does Jindal's."
----Yes, Mike, identical in their extremism. Most Americans support abortion only in the first 3 months and support parental notification and oppose partial birth abortion. The Democratic party is opposed to all of those things. The position of the Democrats is just as extreme as Jindal's.
Thomas: "I don't remember anyone questioning Obama about his drug use, and my understanding is that talking about a non-white candidate's church/religion/pastor is racist."
---Your sarcasm is well-taken, but Obama had the extreme media bias protecting him because he was a lefty extremist and they were lefty sympathizers, and he was a Teflon Don. Jindal would need all of those factors, or risk being misrepresented and lied about like Palin has been. And the drug thing? After Clinton survived inhaling and Bush took it off the table, Obama got to do the same.
Adam: "Megan, you're going to have to cite something on this. I'm not aware of any official language, party line, or view of Obama's that even closely resembles this."
----Adam, you really don't pay attention to anything, do you? 1. The Democratic party removed all references to "safe, legal, and rare" from their party platform this year. They replaced it with language that offers no restrictions on abortion.
2. Despite his constant absenteeism whenever there was a controversial vote (to protect his Teflon Donness), Obama showed up to block a bill that would have prevented babies born alive from being murdered in the pan by some sick doctor. His rationale? No one should be "punished" with a baby, even if it's already separated from a mother's body. Yes, he is that extreme.
3. You don't get a 100% pro-death rating from NARAL by accident, Adam. Obama's rating was stronger than Ted Kennedy's or Hillary Clinton's. He also has a 0% rating from a comparable pro-life group, so it's not like he's playing both sides here.
In other words, dear Adam, while you were pretending to be informed on this election, Obama was the most pro-death candidate ever to take office as President. Congrats on your ignorance, buddy boy.
Adam: " So, when he runs, it can get the same amount of coverage Wright did. Deal?"
---Only if Jindal gets the same free media pass Obama did, to wit: when Wright blew up in his face, Obama gave a ridiculously self-serving speech that was a transparent attempt to weasel out of Wright's legacy and change the subject without rejecting Wright at all. The result? Jon Stewart (!) claiming that Obama was "talking to Americans about race like adults." Bob Herbert claiming the speech should be recquired reading.
Then the public didn't bite, and whoops! A short time later, Obama promptly ignored everything he said in the former speech and rejected Wright outright. And, again, Stewart, Herbert, et al. made barely a peep on that hypocrisy.
And let's not forget the NY Times, CNN, et al. taking Obama's say so that Ayers was not his close friend, and that Ayers's years of saying that the American educational system was "racist" made up for murdering people and causing fear of being blown up in hundreds of people.
So, yes, if the media gives Jindal that same free pass, Adam, yes, you can treat it the same all around. Wait, why are you backing away? :P
"But he is not Obama yet. And while it might be very hard for a super-conservative republican to win the Louisiana governorship (I am obviously being sarcastic), it is considerably harder for said super-conservative Republican to win the Presidency."
Not really. He just has to do what Obama did and lie. The problem Jindal will have is that, unlike Obama who seems to beleive in nothing beyond how great it is to be Obama, really is a smart guy and an intellectual. That means he actually beleives in something which makes it harder to lie. I seriously doubt that he is the jive artist or con man that Obama is. That will make it harder to win. Of course after four years of recycled Clintonism, Obama will have a hard time jiving his way about hope and change in 2012.
y81,
I think Sullivan would be a lot more concerned with the extremist neoconservative beliefs...stuff like creationism in schools, no abortions ever under any circumstances, breaking down separation of church and state...than he would about any of those inane ramblings of yours.
You should note the rather large difference between politicians who are deeply religious and politicians who want to force religion on others, as one is quite acceptable to almost everyone and one is quite the opposite.
"The Democratic party removed all references to "safe, legal, and rare" from their party platform this year. They replaced it with language that offers no restrictions on abortion."
Please cite this language, and please cite Obama agreeing with no restrictions.
As for the rest of your ramblings, you seem to think your mischaracterizations, outright lies, and absurd rhetoric (pro-death? *really?*) are representative of America. They're not. They're representative of the small militant pro-life neoconservative wing of a dying party.
So, please, keep talking about pro-death and the evil liberal media bias and wonder why you keep losing elections. The culture wars are over. YOU LOST. And trying to resurrect them with the culture warriors' wet dream of Jindal will work just as well as they did with Palin. But far be from me to suggest running a sensible candidate.
i think freddie is correct. obama benefited from impeccable political timing. And it seems like bobby jindal is smart enough to know when his time will. If the country does not start to pull out of a recession by the time 2012 rolls around then I can see him stepping in, but if it has recovered then no republican will be able to beat obama. 2016 is the year to watch for piyush jindal
Keep in mind that it's very unlikely that Jindal himself believes in creationism, or anything like it; creationism is not Catholic doctrine. Supporting it is a political, not an ideological move. Would I rather he didn't? Yes. But I would also rather Obama didn't support card check. Politicians cater to the people who elect them.
100% restrictions on choices are identical to 0% restrictions? Since only a small minority support 100% restrictions, the 0% position of the Democrats overlaps much more with the average American than does Jindal's.
Precisely.
And it's really only on late-term abortions that the dems/Obama are possibly to the left of popular opinion. So you're really talking about a total ban on 100% of procedures vs. looser restrictions on maybe 10% of them.
Megan,
Interesting point, given his constituency. I would argue though that he really needs to establish that he's most definitely not a theocon before planning any sort of national run. That, like Wright, is the sort of extremism used for political gain that can really bite you in the ass later on.
So, when he runs, it can get the same amount of coverage Wright did. Deal?
So, lots of coverage on FOX and nearly none in the New York Times, or the reverse this time?
I'm not aware of any official language, party line, or view of Obama's that even closely resembles this.
The President-elect repeatedly voted against various "born-alive" protection acts on the idea that it could theoretically reduce the legal protections for abortion. He also has stated that his "first act as President" (though to be fair, like a lot of politicians, he's claimed that a lot of things would be his first act) would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, designed to invalidate all the moderate, perhaps philosophically incoherent, but popular laws restricting abortion based on parental notification, etc. These positions are certainly philosophically coherent, probably more so than the confused moderate "we don't really like abortions so we want to make them harder for other people but still want the option of getting them for ourselves or our daughters in an emergency but we're sort of ashamed" moderate position. But it is fairly extreme. Polling on abortion is notoriously unreliable-- you can have solid majorities of people simultaneously favoring Roe v. Wade and favoring restrictions that Roe v. Wade doesn't allow, to the extent that at least 20% of people must be "confused."
[H]e's written some nutty things about Protestants.
My understanding is that he wrote a intellectual argument saying, in summary: "Calvinists believe strongly in the fallen state of man. Why, therefore would you trust individuals to be able to define their relationship to God alone without a Church. By their own arguments, Protestants should at least consider the Catholic Church as a useful resource and intermediary. It's been around for a long time and has useful debate and lessons that should not be dismissed outright by Protestants." The most "unpleasant" phrase that he used in the law review was a direct quote of I believe John Calvin, but perhaps another Calvinist theologian, referring to the flawed state of man. Of course, there are responses in standard Protestant theology saying that, yes, a church is necessary, but not the Catholic Church, etc. It's not really a nutty argument, unless you consider a "Protestants-- why not try Catholicism?" article inherently nutty.
Much of the Blame Blanco narrative has since been discredited (snopes even has an article about it, referencing the "erroneous statement by an unnamed Bush administration official, as reported in the Washington Post" which was and remains the source of much of the misinformation about the handling of the storm).
I've read the article on Snopes. It debunks the issue of Blanco not requesting a state of emergency; indeed, a state of emergency was requested by Blanco and declared by the federal government before Katrina hit. There were congratulatory press releases at the time from both Blanco's office and Bush's. But clearly requesting a state of emergency no more made Blanco competent than declaring a state of emergency before Katrina hit made the federal response competent, no? The Snopes article does not address the separate issue of the chain of command for National Guard units and any requested regular US military forces (and if they were requested), the issues with the Posse Comitatus Act and the non-use of the Insurrection Act, and so on. "Requesting a state of emergency" is not the same thing as requesting federalization of the National Guard, and requesting US armed forces to be used. There were still delays in that.
While we discuss which party's positions likelier alienate Americans, Jindal opposes laws protecting gays from workplace discrimination and supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. He's a hardcore social conservative even as social conservatism becomes less broadly acceptable. Jindal might win election on such a platform today, but he can't try for four (and maybe eight) years. The longer he waits to run, the more difficult clawing his way into the mainstream of public opinion will be.
I know I've been reading blog comments too long to let myself fret when someone is wrong on the Internet, but please: neocons != theocons.
Now if you'd like to pillory us as hypocrites for our alliance of convenience with the theocons... that's a different matter.
And as Megan (and countless others) has pointed out, in the Republican party it's fairly difficult to rise without a little pandering to the social and cultural conservatives. The big question for the party is whether this is now making the Republicans unelectable, at least nationally.
Adam writes: "So, please, keep talking about pro-death and the evil liberal media bias and wonder why you keep losing elections. The culture wars are over. YOU LOST."
Hubris much? Two bad elections. No veto-proof majority. If this is how a party "keeps losing elections" or "LOS[ES]" the fight over values, then it's a wonder how the Dems ever recovered from the thrashing they took pre-2006.
"phenomenally smart, and phenomenally talented, and phenomenally likeable"
and phenomenally opposed to all abortions, no matter what. As we were reminded in the last campaign, over 90% of women who learn that they are carrying a fetus that displays the symptoms of Downs syndrome choose to get an abortion. According to Jindal, these women are murderers.
"The President-elect repeatedly voted against various "born-alive" protection acts on the idea that it could theoretically reduce the legal protections for abortion."
Which, if you were being intellectually honest, you would reword as saying that he voted against acts that were worded specifically by Republicans in a way that would attempt to undermine Roe v Wade. He offered very slight wording changes to those bills to keep the limitations in while limiting Roe challenges and those efforts were all denied.
Because, you see, there is no compromise for such people. It's no abortions, ever, no matter what. So Obama's choice was either to let them do that or tell them that he supported the late-term bans but not under the wedge wording they were using. Which, in fact, was the kind of thing "present" votes are commonly used for in the Illinois senate.
Neocon maudit writes: "And as Megan (and countless others) has pointed out, in the Republican party it's fairly difficult to rise without a little pandering to the social and cultural conservatives. The big question for the party is whether this is now making the Republicans unelectable, at least nationally."
I wouldn't worry if I were you. Neocons, at their core, are nothing if not opportunistic. If the Left keeps winning, they'll know which side to jump to further their dual-loyalist agenda.
Jindal's position on abortion isn't what makes him extreme. His position on "intelligent design" in the science classroom does. I went to Catholic schools throughout my entire education, first grade through college. We were taught seven-day creation in theology class, and Darwin in science class. And that's exactly where each of those ideas belong! Trying to change that is extreme for a contemporary American Catholic, no matter how devout.
Staash,
"Two bad elections. No veto-proof majority. If this is how a party "keeps losing elections" or "LOS[ES]" the fight over values, then it's a wonder how the Dems ever recovered from the thrashing they took pre-2006."
I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant.
When a popular maverick war hero loses handily to a biracial newcomer named Hussein Obama despite throwing pretty much every single culture war tool in the book; hell, every Palin rally was almost entirely something you could hear in Buchanan's '92 speech - then I think it's safe to say the era of using abortion and gays and prayer in schools as wedge issues to win national elections is very likely over.
The number of single-issue anti-gay or anti-abortion voters is really somewhat smaller than it was 10 or 15 years ago, and they're virtually all dedicated Republicans by this point anyway. So running a culture war-based campaign to me just doesn't seem very profitable at all.
This is, of course, much different from saying the Republican party will never return. Of course they will. But it will be under a cultural moderate who is exceedingly competent.
Have to admit, I do like the looks of Obama's security team.
Almost jumped ship this election but couldn't quite do it. Despite my best efforts, I've never been able to yield to opportunism, else I'd have a plum posting in Wall St, or at least the AEI. Hélas.
The most significant fact is that Jindal is reforming the notoriously corrupt political culture in La. and Obama is part and parcel of the notoriously corrupt political culture in Chicago and Illinois, enabled by it, and an enabler of it, and importing it to Washington, as if things there weren't bad enough.
And, there was no real discussion of Black Liberation Theology during the campaign season.
I had to delurk to comment: I laughed out loud at the last sentence! Hilarious.
Yeah, it's easy to see why he is compelling (he has a compelling story, regardless the politics) and why he gets so much attention. If he's as smart as advertised, he'll hang out in Louisiana for awhile, other than the Fox News and rubber chicken circuit. The Republicans are a huge mess right now and I don't think that's going to change so soon.
"Obama is part and parcel of the notoriously corrupt political culture in Chicago and Illinois, enabled by it, and an enabler of it, and importing it to Washington, as if things there weren't bad enough."
I'm sorry, I must have missed what part of "running against the entrenched Bobby Rush in 2000 and losing badly" and "running against the anointed primary nominee in 2004" belongs to being part and parcel and enabled by the corrupt political culture. Or are you suggesting that every politican from Chicago is irretrievably corrupt?
As for bringing corruption to Washington...perhaps you should check out USAspending.gov sometime? You know, the open transparency site brought about by Obama's bill. You can say a lot of things about Obama, and I'm sure you will, but surely corrupt has to rank very, very low on that list.
"He is phenomenally smart, and phenomenally talented, and phenomenally likeable."
Evidence? Or were you just sending an early Valentine?
Adam,
Which, if you were being intellectually honest, you would reword as saying that he voted against acts that were worded specifically by Republicans in a way that would attempt to undermine Roe v Wade.
I don't see how any state law could "undermine" (or even "would attempt to undermine") a Supreme Court decision. To the extent that a state law is at variance with Roe (or rather Casey), it's void, yes? Nothing Illinois could enact would change US law with regard to abortion.
Can you explain, briefly, the difference between the language Obama wanted and the language of the bill as it stood?
If you cite a Washington Post article on Jindal's abortion position, you are Ta-Nehisi. If you refer to the Democrats' abortion position as "no-restrictions-on-abortion-at-any-time-no-shut-up-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA" then you are Megan McArdle.
Incidentally, one can go here and find some relevant numbers
http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
They will probably back up whatever statement you want to make.
Every Democrat should nurse a secret hope that the GOP succeeds in outlawing abortion. It would be very temporary, and would assure the GOP's obliteration.
Megan, you do realize that Jindal performed an actual EXORCISM on someone...then published an article about it, don't you?
Adam writes: "When a popular maverick war hero loses handily to a biracial newcomer named Hussein Obama despite throwing pretty much every single culture war tool in the book; hell, every Palin rally was almost entirely something you could hear in Buchanan's '92 speech - then I think it's safe to say the era of using abortion and gays and prayer in schools as wedge issues to win national elections is very likely over."
Please. Wedge issues may have mattered if it were not for the economic crisis and the boondoggle. Then you have McCain's inept campaigning, poor organization, and general lack of support from the base (social conservatives, not neocons). Hell, Kucinich could have beat him.
I don't know where you get the idea that McCain was running on a culture war platform. That's never been his strength and doesn't comport with his "maverick" public image. The Palin selection was too little, too late to get in on that action.
So, bad candidate, bad time for a culture war strategy. Don't confuse a data point with a trend, however. If Obama goes Great Society on us in his second term, I expect the populist, culture warrior Republican to arise from the ashes in 2016.
Wow, Adam, how do you dress yourself in the morning?
Adam: "Because, you see, there is no compromise for such people. It's no abortions, ever, no matter what."
--Nice strawman. Next you'll be telling me how the only reason I want to end abortion is because of Jesus. I oppose abortion in any situation except where the woman's life is in jeopardy. So, no, little man, no "no matter what" language.
Adam:"Please cite this language, and please cite Obama agreeing with no restrictions. "
---1. Obama is the party leader (as president); he runs on the Democratic platform; therefore, he agrees with the platform. Politics, 101.
What's more, Obama's 100% NARAL rating and his support of FOCA guarantees his love of abortion. If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, please try to do so on an issue where the facts aren't as black/white as this one.
2. Here's the democratic party's own website with their platform. See p. 50 for their view on abortion: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html. Note the lack of "safe, legal, and rare."
3. Here's a website comparing the 2008 Democratic Platform with its previous (and now erased) langauge of "safe, legal, and rare": http://www.urbanagora.com/2008/08/democratic-platform-on-abortion.html.
EPIC FAIL, ADAM.
Adam: "(pro-death? *really?*)"
----Yes, Adam. Really. Abortion is murder, and should be outlawed. And abortion doctors should be thrown in prison.
Adam: "So, please, keep talking about pro-death and the evil liberal media bias and wonder why you keep losing elections."
---I don't wonder why the Republicans lost. The economy tanked close to the election (and has been trickling downwards since the Dem's took over in Congress in 2006, weird, huh?), the Republican president was wildly unpopular anyway and hadn't lifted a finger to fix his approval ratings, and, yes Adam, even a casual observer can see the pro-Obama bias was over-the-top. Oh, and the victory in Iraq was shoved under the table by Republicans when it should have been held up.
Adam: "The culture wars are over. YOU LOST."
---Right. Gay marriage goes down in flames in several states, Massachusetts went underhanded to prevent the people from voting on it (to prevent it's being banned there, too), the majority of Americans support abortion only in the first trimester, and people are upset about the removal of parental notification laws on abortion. Oh, but 2 elections=war is over.
Its funny how you think shouting me down will prove you won a culture war. I would think if no one was talking about something, the culture war was over. It seems as if you're just trying to wint he culture war by declaring that it doesn't exist--declaring victory and withdrawing from Vietnam, anyone? Or Obama's "moving past" old abortion arguments?
Adam: "And trying to resurrect them with the culture warriors' wet dream of Jindal will work just as well as they did with Palin. But far be from me to suggest running a sensible candidate."
----I didn't school you on Jindal/Palin, but your own gaping holes and errors. But those strawmen are so wonderful for you, aren't they?
Adam, the next time you come to the big kids' sandbox, try to know a few things before you get spanked and sent back to your mommy.
Michelle,
"Can you explain, briefly, the difference between the language Obama wanted and the language of the bill as it stood?"
Essentially, the bills were to ban late-term partial-birth abortions with exceptions for life of the mother, which Obama (and I would assume 95% of the country) agrees with. However, the bills made the penalty for performing one a felony under the justification that a fetus is a person.
Now, obviously, if Illinois law says that a fetus is a person, then that can be used to open the door to pass any number of other, far more controversial abortion restrictions using the same justification. This would have a good chance of leading to a legal challenge of the fetus-as-a-person law all the way to the Supreme Court, a case in which Roe v Wade would be reargued. That's the "undermining".
So, Obama agreed to vote for the late-term ban but with the fetus definition line removed. That was not acceptable, so he voted present, indicating support for the bill but unable to vote for it while it contained that certain provision.
"In 1950s Deep South, Obama still would have been lynched."
Yes because every black person in the deep south was lynched -- didn't you know?
Connor: "Megan, you do realize that Jindal performed an actual EXORCISM on someone...then published an article about it, don't you?"
---So a religious man performed in a religious ceremony that is completely legal and wrote about it? Wow. Next you'll be telling me Lieberman refuses to work on the Sabbath and that a Muslim candidate, gasp, prays five times a day while on his knees facing east! Or made a pilgrimage to Mecca, while starving himself! And then wrote about it!
You anti-religious bigots are such jackholes.
Adam, I can't think of a thing, a substantive thing, Obama did to challenge Chicago corruption. And, yes, Chicago politicians are mostly corrupt, especially the part where they don't dare challenge the machine. You know, in any substantive way. The dude never impressed me here in the city. Your Chicago mileage may vary.
Wow, this thread is totally the best demonstration of Jane's Law.
Basic Fact,
Would you mind making an effort to be marginally less obnoxious?
Thanks.
I really hope Republican strategists and leaders have the same attitude as Basic Fact.
I can't think of a less likely way for them to ever win again.
Marginally? Ok, DB, I'll try for civility's sake, but seriously, when someone as dumb as Adam tries to defend their idiocy, it makes my blood boil.
Adam, I learned my attitude from the Obama minions and left wing fruitcakes and gay marriage advocates who were violent, loud, obnoxious, and agressive in spitting on religion, life, country, and the dignity of the human race.
So, basically, from you, little man.
Adam,
Essentially, the bills were to ban late-term partial-birth abortions with exceptions for life of the mother, which Obama (and I would assume 95% of the country) agrees with. However, the bills made the penalty for performing one a felony under the justification that a fetus is a person.
OK, now I am genuinely confused. My understanding was that the bill in question mandated that an infant born alive in the course of a late-term abortion be treated like any other premature birth in other words, if you carry out an abortion and the "products of conception" appear to be alive once expelled, you have to treat them as a, well, "baby," and supply the medical care that would be appropriate to a premature infant. I don't think the bill outlawed "partial-birth abortion"; it was concerned with entirely delivered infants.
I may be entirely mistaken, of course. Is therew anything pertinent you can link?
So a religious man performed in a religious ceremony that is completely legal and wrote about it? Wow.
Would you vote for a practicing Santero?
Sorry - the real question is whether it would be unreasonable to consider that religious practice a political liability.
DB Cooper:
"Would you vote for a practicing Santero?"
If I agreed with s/he on their positions and I thought they were fit to govern, yes. If not, no. As I'm not an animal rights guy, any criticism there falls on deaf ears. Caveat, I don't understand all things about Santerno/Santeria (I basically looked it up on Wikipedia, which means it's not reliable). But if the candidate were against abortion and held other ideas that appealed to me and had experience governing, then yes.
So Jindhal is like Obama because Jindal comes off as the president of the chess club and also a plantation owner?
Now, that is some wild political analysis. Obama doesn't come off as a nerd nor an old boy of the south. Obama is urban, urbane, cool, and a sexy husband and dad who can shoot hoops.
Adam writes:
"I really hope Republican strategists and leaders have the same attitude as Basic Fact.
I can't think of a less likely way for them to ever win again."
That's because you're a liberal, and you erroneously assume that most people think like you do. Meanwhile, something like 65% of Americans believe in some form of creationism. If you want to marginalize these people, go ahead, but you do so at your own peril.
So, go ahead and gloat while you can. Give the Republicans earnest advice that they need to ditch social conservatism. Delude yourself into thinking that this country is now center-left, rather than center-right. Push gay marriage, hate crime laws, abortion without restrictions, and a suicidal immigration policy. Enjoy the punch today, because you're going to wind up with a nasty, nasty hangover when reality sets in tomorrow.
Michelle,
"In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion."
Which I got from http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
That may or may not answer your question, as I don't have the exact text of those bills. Regardless, I think that page makes his overall views fairly clear.
I agree, DB, considering the play Romney's Mormonism and the underwear jokes got during the primaries. The ceremony/religious event is part of his belief system, but the ceremony is one that is legal. This is not snake handling without a license or raping a small child to remove aids, both of which are illegal and can be found in other religions. If Jindal went around stealing babies and baptising them as Catholics, there would be an issue. But the dog whistle in all of this is that lefties are saying, "Look, he wants to impose his religion on you! And he's a cultist! All righties are cultists! not like our commune and spiritual guru from Oakland who shows us enlightenment through acid!"
I think i may have exaggerrated there. ;)
Staash,
"Meanwhile, something like 65% of Americans believe in some form of creationism. If you want to marginalize these people, go ahead, but you do so at your own peril."
There's a big difference between people who go to church a few times a year and "believe in some form of creationism", and those militant theocons in Kansas that want evolution taken out of science books. Nominate one of those (hopefully Jindal isn't one), and we'll see how much of that 65% he wins.
"Push gay marriage, hate crime laws, abortion without restrictions, and a suicidal immigration policy."
Is this the strawman you've built up? Obama and many Democratic politicians are pushing for civil unions, not gay marriage, and civil unions enjoy widespread popular support. I agree the Overton window shouldn't be moved too rapidly there, though gay marriage will in all likelihood be legal in numerous states in 15-20 years. You're fighting against the tide; anti-gay rhetoric simply doesn't resonate at all with the younger generation.
As for abortion, once again, essentially no Democrat wants no restrictions, and most of America wants limited but legal abortions, but you seem to think Obama's views are far off the mainstream. They aren't, at all. Your strawman is between one party that wants it 0% legal and one 100% legal, but really it's 0% and 70%, the 0% side doesn't want to give an inch, and the public averages around 50%. You tell me whether that's a winning issue.
I don't think anyone actually cares about hate crime laws at all, except that subset of Republicans that just really doesn't like gays and minorities. Same with immigration. These things just really aren't major issues anymore. We just want to find a middle ground and take it off the table, and certain Rovian strategists want to leave it there to use as a wedge. I mean, whatever floats your boat.
You can argue center-right versus center-left all you want, but what is unarguable is that 18-29 year olds are noticably more liberal than 18-29 year olds in past decades, and that demographic changes are making the country less white, less married, and less Christian. I leave that as an exercise for you to determine whether Republicans should stay the course.
Adam,
"punished with a baby."
100% NARAL rating.
All the equivocations in the world won't hide that kind of truth, buddy boy.
wow, Adam, so much stupdity, lying, unproven assumptions, and just plain errors in your last post. The kool-aid must taste great, son.
Basic,
We're clearly arguing over each other's heads here, and I see essentially no chance of making any headway with you.
What I will say is that your extreme views on abortion are in a small minority in the country, and a politician who emphasizes a "no abortions under any circumstances" platform will have difficulty winning over moderates who don't share that view. There are a lot of such moderates.
Basic fact,
May I ask: do you honestly believe that we won't eventually have gay marriage in this country? Women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities...there has always been opposition and the occasional setback in fighting for equality in this country, but equality always wins out eventually (at least legally). You are perfectly within your rights to oppose gay marriage and to disapprove of it, but I don't see how anyone with even minimal knowledge of our nation's history and of recent national trends (for example: yes, gay marriage was defeated in CA--but by 4% vs. the 20% margin in 2000, which should tell you what might happen if it's on the ballot again in 4 years) could possibly believe that gay people won't eventually achieve equality in our nation.
As for the dignity of the human race: that is what those of us who support gay marriage are trying to obtain for our gay brethren--dignity. As a Christian, I think everyone is entitled to that.
And we should just agree that there are jerks on both sides of the line rather than trying to paint the other side as totally uncivil. I supported Obama, but my very conservative cousins and I could still have perfectly pleasant political discussions.
"Obama is urban, urbane, cool, and a sexy husband and dad who can shoot hoops."
There is nothing urban or cool about him. Urban and cool is Geoge Clooney or Samual L. Jackson. Last I looked there was still an element of testosterone in cool. Obama looks like the skinny nerd who gets the crap kicked out of him by his surley wife. Honestly, Michelle has all the testosterone in that family and I bet she could school him in hoops to.
"That's because you're a liberal, and you erroneously assume that most people think like you do. Meanwhile, something like 65% of Americans believe in some form of creationism. If you want to marginalize these people, go ahead, but you do so at your own peril."
I am a Christian, and I believe that God had a hand in creating the world. That doesn't mean that I think Genesis should be taught in science class.
And that's just about as extreme, as far from the average American's opinion on abortion, as Bobby Jindal's.
McFacty!
Keep in mind that it's very unlikely that Jindal himself believes in creationism, or anything like it
Who you gonna believe? McFacty or your lyin' eyes?
Freddie-
Bob Dole lost the '88 primary to Bush.
Adam writes:
"Same with immigration. These things just really aren't major issues anymore."
You're kidding, right? Immigration is one topic that the Republicans can (and will, if they have any brains) use to get back the Reagan Democrats. Outside of elites and left liberals, there is very little support for amnesty or an unsecured border. Once the economic crisis worsens (and it will), we'll see just how fond the native-born are of additional competition for what few jobs are available.
Adam continues:
"We just want to find a middle ground and take it off the table."
Oh, how high-minded and magnanimous of you! Too bad that you're in a position to define what the "middle-ground" is.
Adma finishes:
"You can argue center-right versus center-left all you want, but what is unarguable is that 18-29 year olds are noticably more liberal than 18-29 year olds in past decades, and that demographic changes are making the country less white, less married, and less Christian. I leave that as an exercise for you to determine whether Republicans should stay the course."
You're arguing that a less white nation is more likely to endorse gay marriage?
Regardless, it doesn't matter what the political views of 18-29 year olds are. It matters what the political views of people of 30 are. Ever hear the saying, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain"? Well, I think most Americans have both a heart and a brain, and their early 20's liberalism will fade over time or parenthood.
I know mine sure did.
Kate writes:
"As for the dignity of the human race: that is what those of us who support gay marriage are trying to obtain for our gay brethren--dignity. As a Christian, I think everyone is entitled to that."
If they wanted dignity, they shouldn't participate in undignified behavior. These anti-prop 8 lynch mobs are showing the true character of the homosexualist.
"I'm willing to bet that Ta-Nehisi has never seen Jindal in person. I have. "
I have as well, and I find Ta-Nehisi's commentary to be spot on.
"His message, like Obama's, is one of hope and actual change; he tends to emphasize the work he's done reforming Louisiana's notoriously corrupt political culture."
Actual change? No. Louisiana may now have more laws that require more ethics disclosures. However, Bobby Jindal also signed legislation into law that increased the burden of proof to convict people of ethics violations. He made it harder for people who act unethically to be convicted of ethics violations. So in practice, Jindal has made it easier to get away with unethical behavior.
"At 25 he was appointed Lousiana's Secretary of Health and Hospitals"
And as head of the Louisiana healthcare system, Louisiana's healthcare ranking dropped from 48th to 50th. Jindal ran up a 200 million dollar surplus while cutting access to healthcare for many Louisiana citizens.
"On the other side, I don't see anything wrong, or "EXTREMIST", about Bobby Jindal being a devout Catholic who wants to enter into a covenant marriage."
No, there is nothing extremist about him wanting a firm commitment between him and his wife. However, his view on abortions with zero exceptions does make him an extremist.
Kate:
"May I ask: do you honestly believe that we won't eventually have gay marriage in this country? Women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities..."
-----Ah, the left's metaphors have no end. Just keep comparing it to anything else in history that seemed oppressed. Arguing in metaphor is fun, because nothing ever completely fits! Kate, if you want to make the case for gay marriage, try making the case for gay marriage, not how you think its just like something else.
"there has always been opposition and the occasional setback in fighting for equality in this country, but equality always wins out eventually (at least legally)."
----Because gay "marriage" =equality. No gay marriage=forcing society to accept homosexuality. Just like the 1970-1973 protests were about forcing homosexuality to not be classfied as a disease for political purposes, this is about forcing acceptance--on threats on violence---see homosexuals grabbing the woman's cross, spitting on it, and stamping on it, and violently threatening members of the mental health community who refused to vote in their favor. Violent sociopaths.
And I love how you toss in the "at least legally" argument, to make the liberal point that all the world is controlled by white straight chrisitian males who work to hold blacks, women, homosexuals, and anyone else not them down. I attended the conspiracy meeting last year, and we're making full progress on that.
"You are perfectly within your rights to oppose gay marriage and to disapprove of it, but I don't see how anyone with even minimal knowledge of our nation's history and of recent national trends (for example: yes, gay marriage was defeated in CA--but by 4% vs. the 20% margin in 2000, which should tell you what might happen if it's on the ballot again in 4 years) could possibly believe that gay people won't eventually achieve equality in our nation."
---Quoting Dan Savage, a sex columnist, as part of your argument? A man violently opposed to religion. National trends don't mean squat, but if you want to argue it, the national trend, missy, is to BAN GAY MARRIAGE.
"As for the dignity of the human race: that is what those of us who support gay marriage are trying to obtain for our gay brethren--dignity. As a Christian, I think everyone is entitled to that."
--I love this fake Christianity from the left; Jesus wouldn't have been favor of Adam and Steve either, dumbass, and probably not the violent threats and actions and McCarthyism gay rights supports are doing to anyone in favor of Prop 8. This isn't about diginity, no matter how many gay rights advocates argue for it. This is about forcing someone to bow down and say your lifestyle is moral. Libs don't give a crap about dignity of human life, cause they got no problem executing babies when it might cost a mother 9 months to give it up for adoption.
"And we should just agree that there are jerks on both sides of the line rather than trying to paint the other side as totally uncivil. I supported Obama, but my very conservative cousins and I could still have perfectly pleasant political discussions."
---Translation: I support a baby killing and terrorist coddling and socialism and attacking religion, and my weak-willed cousins bend over and take my gloating and brow beating because if they don't I'll have the thought police on them pronto.
As for Adam, you're beyond hope and logic. Back to your cave, boy!
Staash,
"Outside of elites and left liberals, there is very little support for amnesty or an unsecured border."
Again with strawmen. There's a whole lot of positions in between "build a giant fence" and "let all the Mexicans come over", and completely open borders and amnesty is a position nobody actually supports. Something like Bush's immigration bill was a reasonable way to deal with the issue, and I imagine it will be passed at some point in the next few years, and any further attempts to use immigration as a wedge issue will just look foolish.
"Oh, how high-minded and magnanimous of you! Too bad that you're in a position to define what the "middle-ground" is."
Well, that's what happens when you have large majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency. We get a chance to solve problems, and if we don't, we get voted out of office.
"You're arguing that a less white nation is more likely to endorse gay marriage?"
No, I didn't say that at all. I'm aware of the Prop 8 vote breakdown by race. What I did say was that a less white nation is less likely to support *Republicans*, as I'm sure you can see by the national race breakdown.
It's no big secret that the vast majority of Republican voters for some time now have been married white Christians. For a while that was enough by itself to win elections; I don't think it is any longer, and it's becoming smaller every year. Hence my conclusion that a focus on social conservatism, which appeals more to married white Christians, might not be the best approach for winning future elections.
"Regardless, it doesn't matter what the political views of 18-29 year olds are. It matters what the political views of people of 30 are. Ever hear the saying, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain"? Well, I think most Americans have both a heart and a brain, and their early 20's liberalism will fade over time or parenthood."
Of course I've heard that, but it's not actually true. Check out the history of party identification among 18-29 year olds by year:
1992: 46D 47R
1996: 50D 44R
2000: 49D 41R
2004: 51D 40R
2008: 58D 33R
So no, people in their 20s haven't always been liberals; this is a very recent shift, potentially giving an entire generation to the Democrats because of Bush, just as happened with Reagan. If you'll notice, those now 50 and up are significantly more Democratic than the 30-44 age group, because of what happened during the forming periods of each generation. If I were a Republican, this would greatly trouble me.
Adam, summed up nicely:
Republicans need to be liberals, because we're always right.
I have no facts or statistics to back up my assumptions, but I'm right.
The culture war is over. Stop arguing, I said it was over, how come you're still fighting it? Its OVER! Why won't you listen to your marxist overlords?
Mudering children is great, because 9 months of pregnancy is worse than murder.
Adam wrote:
“The culture wars are over. YOU LOST.”
Insightful analysis, Adam. Please now discuss your conclusions in the context of the results of last month’s various gay-marriage initiatives.
Adam:
"Of course I've heard that, but it's not actually true. Check out the history of party identification among 18-29 year olds by year:
1992: 46D 47R
1996: 50D 44R
2000: 49D 41R
2004: 51D 40R
2008: 58D 33R."
Got proof to back up either of these assertions here, Adam? Or are you just whistling Dixie?
Basic Fact: The simple argument for gay marriage is this. The supreme court ruled that homosexual acts are legal and banning them is unconstitutional. So if it legal for gay people to date each other, Government has no rational basis to prevent them from marrying each other.
"Please now discuss your conclusions in the context of the results of last month’s various gay-marriage initiatives."
Okay. California's Prop 8, which was passed in large part because of $50 mil in advertising from the Mormon church, lost by 4 points, whereas the exact same prop lost by 20 points a few years earlier. 18-29 year olds overwhelmingly rejected Prop 8. Civil unions enjoy widespread support throughout the country and will likely be federally approved in the next four years.
Voters in two states approved medical marijuana usage by large margins, in both states surpassing the Obama vote percentage in that state.
Every anti-abortion initiative in every state was rejected, including in South Dakota, one of the most conservative states in the country.
Do I really need to go on?
Basic Fact,
Are you really accusing me of making up numbers? Christ.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_gop_generational_time_bomb.php
Daniel Z -
I assume this argument is fine for polygamy in all its forms, as multiple-partner sex is legal?
Adult incest is allowed in some states, so I assume you're pushing for the full decriminalization and marriage of incestuous partners as well.
Am I wrong?
Daniel Z:
I assume that you're referring to Lawrence v. Texas, one of the worst decisions of the past 100 years in terms of logic. Regardless, it's law of the land, so let's deal with that.
Lawrence found that consensual sexual relations were protected under the 14th A from interference. However, merely because something may not be banned does not mean that it may be enhanced.
What is more, marriage is not merely sexual relations, but the creation of a building block of the community. Marriage is the enhancement of sexual relations to something more. Striking down a law that punished gay sex is different from creating a new law inventing a marriage where none had existed before.
Lawrence stands for the proposition that the law may not condemn gay relations, but that society may.
Well, I think most Americans have both a heart and a brain, and their early 20's liberalism will fade over time or parenthood.
I think it depends heavily on the issue. You need to look at the specific issues that have been brought up. Are you saying that the 18-29 year olds in California will change their mind about gay marriage when they get older? Are you saying that 18-29 year olds will be more likely to want creationism taught in schools as they get older?
I don't know that I would classify either issue as "liberal or conservative" There are certainly conservative arguments to be made in favor of gay marriage, and with not teaching creationism in science public schools. Just because the Republicans have embraced those views, it doesn't mean that they are conservative views.
Skullberg, we had a 300-post argument over the polygamy/gay marriage distinction here a couple weeks ago. You should probably go look at that and not start the argument again, as it's really pointless and just leads to everyone yelling at each other.
"However, his view on abortions with zero exceptions does make him an extremist."
No, it makes him a practicing Catholic. Or are you characterizing the official views of the Catholic Church as extremist?
And although I don't know, I would suspect that the exorcism he participated in was done under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Or doesn't anyone know that the Catholic Church still practices exorcisms?
As I see it, his private views are part of his personal philosophy, which any person of principle turns to for guidance when faced with a novel or unexpected situation. That's a far cry from a person who would impose his private views on the public no matter what the cost, and I just don't see that happening with Jindal (or Palin, for that matter).
Also note that he did not introduce the legislation to teach creationism along side of Darwinism; he merely signed it into law. I wouldn't make too much of that until we know the exact circumstances/history of the legislation itself.
I am a small "l" libertarian, and have never been registered with any political party, and I am a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, so I don't have any hassles with abortion or gay marriage. But it sure seems to me that on balance, the Republicans tend to respect the rights of people more than the Democrats.
At any rate, I look forward to Palin & Jindal in 2012!
Skullberg: "I assume this argument is fine for polygamy in all its forms, as multiple-partner sex is legal"
Nope. Because marriage at this point is a contract that can only handle two partners. In a marriage with multiple partners, who is the next of kin? Who gets power of attorney? Government does have a rational basis in restricting marriage to a single couple because the legal relationships would be vague and hard to enforce when you put more people in to the picture.
"Adult incest is allowed in some states, so I assume you're pushing for the full decriminalization and marriage of incestuous partners as well."
What states are those? Government can assert a rational basis for preventing marriages between close relations because of the potential health problems in any children that would result from that coupling. And since it must then ban it for some, in order to prevent discrimination it would have to ban incestuous marriages for all.
Adam:
1. Yes, little boy, considering how many other numbers you just "assume" are true without providing facts, and yet demanding of me overwhelming proof of Obama's pro-death agenda, despite the fact that this widely disseminated. Now you've provided some numbers. Good job. (Pats on head).
2. You also fail to provide any evidence that Staash's claim that left-wing politics in current 18-29 year olds will fade over time is false. You state that his argument is not true. Please provide facts beyond your mere belief in the long lasting power of communism.
"No, it makes him a practicing Catholic. Or are you characterizing the official views of the Catholic Church as extremist?"
Yes, I am characterizing the official views of the Catholic Church as extremist. This is without question. If you've missed the various Sullivan posts about bishops denying communion for anyone voting for Obama, that should become apparent.
Those views are actually held by something like 20% of Catholics and 10% of Americans. That, by definition, is extremist.
"I would suspect that the exorcism he participated in was done under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Or doesn't anyone know that the Catholic Church still practices exorcisms?"
Again, just because the church "officially" does something doesn't mean that an overwhelming majority of the country finds such beliefs to be loony. Catholics are not a nonhomogenous massive voting bloc, and a lot of them would find a candidate who actually believes in exorcisms very weird.
Adam,
I don't much care what it leads to, his logic is terrible. It in no way supports his conclusion.
As for the debate, I think, like gay marriage and government managed health care, polygamist marriage is an eventuality. That I think that isn't an argument for it.
I do however think it is disingenuous for gay marriage supporters to hand wave away the fact that their arguments verbatim can be used to support polygmay.
As for gay marriage, I support the French Solution--everyone has to have a civil ceremony, and those that want to can have a second ceremony in a church.
That way the word "marriage" can be preserved by those churches who profess that marriage can only be between a man a woman.
BTW, I thought California already had civil unions for gays, and that Prop 8 was about defining the civil unions as marriages. That's a more contentious issue.
When faced with assimilation pressures that 2nd gen non-white immigrants in this country typically confront, jindalji took the route generally taken by asians by anglicising his name and finding jesus immediately. He voted with tom tancredo to criminalise charity to illegals and deport everyone. No wonder rush limbaugh & 'movement' conservatives adore him! If mccain for all his pro-immigrant stance managed only 30% of hispanic vote, bobbyji has to either hope that immigration as an issue doesn’t flare up again before or close to his run or he has to make up for it by having white christians flocking to him in large margins. His civil rights record is awful so he won't attract even the black votes that bush managed in 2004. Barack obama ran for president (&illinois race)as the skinny-kid-with-a-funny-name & even tho he had to repeatedly defend/proclaim his christian faith, liberals in their heart know its just a façade and hes more secular than he actually lets on -and in anycase is not a suckup like jindal. And bobby's time in mckinsey was pretty unremarkable - tho that’s probably in his favor given mckinseys recent record with enron etc…
I haven't read Sullivan since he went off the deep end.
"As for gay marriage, I support the French Solution--everyone has to have a civil ceremony, and those that want to can have a second ceremony in a church.
That way the word "marriage" can be preserved by those churches who profess that marriage can only be between a man a woman."
I agree entirely with this solution. I would find it hard to think of a reasonable argument against it. I'm sure Basic is up to the task, however.
Basic Fact: "I assume that you're referring to Lawrence v. Texas, one of the worst decisions of the past 100 years in terms of logic."
Yes. Why do you assert it was a bad decision?
"Regardless, it's law of the land, so let's deal with that. "
Ok.
"Lawrence found that consensual sexual relations were protected under the 14th A from interference. However, merely because something may not be banned does not mean that it may be enhanced. "
How does it make any sense to say that consenting to SEX is legal between adults who are homosexual but consenting to a CONTRACT between adults who are homosexual is not legal?
"What is more, marriage is not merely sexual relations, but the creation of a building block of the community."
Homosexual couples can make positive contributions to their communities, just like heterosexual couples can as well.
But the idea that marriage is the "building block" of the community is just rhetoric that devalues those who are part of the community that are not married.
"Marriage is the enhancement of sexual relations to something more."
In some cases, perhaps. In other cases, marriage is used to grant citizenship to someone who wants to live here. In other cases it is used to just give people health benefits. In other cases it is used as a legal form of prostitution.
"Striking down a law that punished gay sex is different from creating a new law inventing a marriage where none had existed before."
I will grant you that it is different. However, just because it is different, it does not make the argument not applicable.
"Lawrence stands for the proposition that the law may not condemn gay relations, but that society may. "
SOCIETY can do whatever it wants. But SOCIETY and GOVERNMENT are two different things.
SOCIETY felt that it was an awful thing for two people of different races to marry as well. Loving v Virginia made sure that the LAW was just, even though society wasn't.
Adam writes:
"completely open borders and amnesty is a position nobody actually supports"
Are you kidding?
Now I understand why you're so prone to tossing around the "straw man" label; you can't fathom that anyone, let alone a good number of people, actually hold opinions other than your own!
Adam continues:
"Well, that's what happens when you have large majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency. We get a chance to solve problems, and if we don't, we get voted out of office."
Given this reality, abandoning wedge issues would be suicide for Republicans. There's something to be said about the strategy of letting the other side dig its own grave.
Adam continues:
"No, I didn't say that at all. I'm aware of the Prop 8 vote breakdown by race. What I did say was that a less white nation is less likely to support *Republicans*, as I'm sure you can see by the national race breakdown."
It's important to distinguish social conservatives from Republicans. I live in a socially conservative area that runs deep blue in election years. If the Republicans here ran under populist economic banner, they would probably stand a good chance in local elections. They'd do much worse if they kept their fiscal conservatism and adopted the left's liberal social policies. I suspect a lot of other places are the same way.
In fact, despite the liberal pipe dream of entrenching their social views by pushing the Right leftward, I think the opposite is going to happen. That is, the Left will push the Republicans economic views leftward, but the Right will still hold the left at bay with their social policies.
I still stand by my prediction that the next Republican president will be a socially conservative economic populist.
Skull: "I do however think it is disingenuous for gay marriage supporters to hand wave away the fact that their arguments verbatim can be used to support polygmay. "
My arguments cannot be used to support polygamy because my arguments state that the contractual relationship formed by marriage makes it impossible for the state to allow polygamy. Who becomes next of kin? Who gets power of attorney? How are property and other assets split if one person wants out?
"I still stand by my prediction that the next Republican president will be a socially conservative economic populist."
This describes Huckabee perfectly, you realize? From your description of "a socially conservative area that runs deep blue in election years", it sounds like you live in Rhode Island or thereabouts. Do you *really* think Huckabee would get more votes than typical Republicans there?
Daniel Z,
So paperwork is an excuse for denying people their civil rights? The legal relationship need not be vague and would have the same enforcement mechanisms as we currently have for marriage and family law. All of the questions you pose are fairly trivial to answer with a consistent framework regarding the marriage structure.
Rhode Island I know made a big deal about it in 1998 when I was in school. Looking at Wikipedia, NJ as well. Why are childbirth implications a factor here? Childbirth is distinct from marriage. We let all kinds of people get married - genetic carriers can marry each other and procreate with 25% chance of having baby with a genetic condition. We don't ban the carriers from marrying.
And remember, marriage to whomever you wish is a civil right, so the bar needs to be exceedingly high to not grant it. I don't see how either of your arguments come even remotely close to that.
Daniel Z:
"Nope. Because marriage at this point is a contract that can only handle two partners. In a marriage with multiple partners, who is the next of kin? Who gets power of attorney? Government does have a rational basis in restricting marriage to a single couple because the legal relationships would be vague and hard to enforce when you put more people in to the picture."
----That's not the problem at all. If you truly believe marriage is a right, then denying the right on the basis that "the law can't handle it, so you have to continue to be oppressed" is ludicrious. The law would evolve and change.
And the confusions you mention? No worse than in an estate fight or comatose-patient cases---which, of course, many laws now handle and can be easily adapted to polygamous marriage. By your very argument, gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because who would be named the father? If there's a divorce of two gay men, what is in the best interests of a child, considering the default is to the mother in many states? Vague and hard to enforce my butt.
"What states are those?"
---I believe NY state allows first cousins to marry. I remember being surprised at that.
"Government can assert a rational basis for preventing marriages between close relations because of the potential health problems in any children that would result from that coupling. And since it must then ban it for some, in order to prevent discrimination it would have to ban incestuous marriages for all. "
----So wrong.
1. The government is not responsible for health care, so it has no interest in health problems from the coupling itself.
2. Lawrence v. Texas, by your argument, is a vote for gay sex, which has an much higher rate of disease transmission than hetersexual coupling. So you're undercutting that by saying that gay sex now could be outlawed on the basis of the health concerns.
3. Most cousin/incest coupling would not result in genetic deformities. Everyone living today is a product of hundreds of years of incest, if only because we all once lived in small communities rurally where everyone was related, but we're not running around with flippers today. Unless there is a rare recessive gene that hasn't been bred out of your family, and it magically combines, your kids will be ok.
4. If marriage is a right, then the government's regulation is irrational. The rational response would be to test EVERYBODY trying to get married for genetic deformaties in their genes, much like many states requrie blood tests from those to marry now. If everyone gets tested, only those likely to produce flippered spawn due to genetic mutations would be screened out---including non-incest couples with rare genes. But I don't think you'll be making that argument anytime soon.
I love that Basic and Skullberg are arguing against gay marriage entirely by extending arguments for gay marriage to other not valid types of marriage. 100% slippery slope, nothing about why it's wrong on its face.
I would also point out that polygamy slippery slope arguments could have been used in exactly the same way to oppose interracial marriage in the 60s. Which I have no doubt Basic would have done during that era.
I'm not arguing against it, I don't much care, and I think its an eventuality. I also don't have anything against adult incest or polygamy. Adults are adults, let them couple / marry whomever.
I just think the full impact of it should be part of the discussion.
Daniel Z:
History lesson: Loving v. Virginia struck down a law that specifically banned interracial marriage under the 14th A. The law assumed that in the absence of that law, balcks and whites would intermarry. There is no such corollary here. No one ever thought that if there weren't any laws banning gay marriage that gays would marry--it simply wasn't an option.
Arguing in metpahor means just that: arguing in metaphor. Keep trying to compare it to the past you end up proving that you have no arguments to support your actual proposition right now.
Lawrence v. Texas was awful precisely because it was the S.C. reversing course and stating that the 14th A, which applies to race, somehow protected something the people who wrote it never contemplated. And would've never agreed to.
Adam: as always, little boy, go back to your momma and cry.
Keep in mind that it's very unlikely that Jindal himself believes in creationism, or anything like it; creationism is not Catholic doctrine. Supporting it is a political, not an ideological move. Would I rather he didn't? Yes. But I would also rather Obama didn't support card check. Politicians cater to the people who elect them.
You have to love the equivalence here. Labor unions are the same as crackpot fundamentalist religious nutjobs. Nice. Much as Obama's position on abortion is exactly the same as the wingnut's neverevereverevenrapeincestorwhathaveyou. CryptoRepuclicans are nonstop unintentional comedy.
"So paperwork is an excuse for denying people their civil rights?"
It is much more than "paperwork". Government has a rational basis to prevent poorly defined contractual relationships from forming.
"The legal relationship need not be vague and would have the same enforcement mechanisms as we currently have for marriage and family law. "
As marriage stands now it would be vague. How does one figure out an equitable division of assets? If Man A marries both woman B and woman C, how would that go? Could woman C claim in a divorce proceding that since B and A share communal property that she gets half of what belongs to both A and B? Or does she only get half of what belongs to A? Or does she get a quarter since B is also entitled to half?
"Rhode Island I know made a big deal about it in 1998 when I was in school. Looking at Wikipedia, NJ as well. Why are childbirth implications a factor here? Childbirth is distinct from marriage. We let all kinds of people get married - genetic carriers can marry each other and procreate with 25% chance of having baby with a genetic condition. We don't ban the carriers from marrying."
Obviously we don't let all kinds of people marry because gay people are barred from marriage in 48 states.
And while I believe the ABILITY to have a child is irrelevant to the decision of who should be allowed to get married, the possibility of passing on bad genetic traits is. And if a brother and sister both have the same recessive genetic trait, the chances are 25% that it will be passed on. But if that incest continues and those brothers and sisters are allowed to procreate, you increase the risk of genetic flaws. So that is why the rational basis exists for government to involve itself in banning gay marriage.
"And remember, marriage to whomever you wish is a civil right, so the bar needs to be exceedingly high to not grant it. I don't see how either of your arguments come even remotely close to that."
My argument is that government needs to prove a rational basis to prevent certain marriages. Do not try and reword my argument to suit your needs and then claim to have won the argument.
Adam writes:
"This describes Huckabee perfectly, you realize? From your description of "a socially conservative area that runs deep blue in election years", it sounds like you live in Rhode Island or thereabouts. Do you *really* think Huckabee would get more votes than typical Republicans there?"
I'm in Pittsburgh, actually. Allegheny county consistently goes Democrat, but it's also where the US DoJ strategically decided to prosecute the producers of "Ass Clowns 3" for obscenity. Our state has a long history of politicians going against their party on abortion. Indeed, Specter is a pro-choice Republican, and Casey is a pro-life Democrat.
In response to your last question: No, I don't think Huckabee would win here. JordanT had a good post above about not all social issues conveniently fitting under one particular social policy. Indeed, the individual issues do matter. I'd expect an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage platform to do well here, but not one that endorses teaching creationism in public schools.
Of course, the platform is only part of one's rationale for voting. The rest is the politician's identity. Huckabee is too evangelical for this area, but a Catholic (possibly Jindal) could do very, very well.
Adam: "I love that Basic and Skullberg are arguing against gay marriage entirely by extending arguments for gay marriage to other not valid types of marriage. 100% slippery slope, nothing about why it's wrong on its face."
-------I hope you never light any matches, boy, because all those strawmen you got around you would go up in flames.
I argue homosexuality is not healthy and does not produce children, and that current state of acceptance of it is largely based upon propaganda.
Basic Fact #1: Homosexuality was only declassified as a disease after long, loud protests and threats of violence. It was not a medical movement.
Basic Fact #2: Marriage is about producing children. Gays cannot biologically produce children.
Basic Fact #3: Gays are potrayed very positiviely in pop fiction. Any negative portrayal (such as a gay man being portrayed as a pedophile) is called "gay bashing."
"I would also point out that polygamy slippery slope arguments could have been used in exactly the same way to oppose interracial marriage in the 60s."
--Once again, arguing in metaphor fails. I can draw analogies to Nazism and pederasty in ancient Greece. They're more right, I win!
"Which I have no doubt Basic would have done during that era."
---Ah, the true liberal argument: everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot and evil. Adam is always right, because Adam declares it!
Basic fact, according to that logic, men and women who are barren or sterile should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce children, and a married couple should never have sex unless the intention is to possibly produce a child.
And if marriage is about raising children: our orphanages are full. Isn't it a positive thing that those children could be raised by two loving parents?
So Daniel Z, just to sum up, your in favor or polygamist marriages as long as a pre-nup that clearly defines what will happen if the marriage fails is required?
hmmmm,
While I'm not agreeing with everything Basic Fact says... I do not think stating that marriage is primarily about raising children/family means that only those who can raise children should be allowed to marry.
This is like saying only those who own a car should be allowed to get a drivers license.
Or only those who drive X amount of time per year should be allowed to get a drivers license.
The simple fact is, throughout our history society has been formed and organized based on children being raised by married parents. This does not mean that it is 100% consistent across the lines.
It's not surprising that as the family has degraded based on our own selfishness people question the need and importance of the family to begin with and then think these various institutions and appendages associated with the family are archaic.
But the fact remains, marriage is about the union of a man and a woman with the general goal of raising a family.
You would prefer a different definition, which is that marriage is about the sexual relationship of two adults who want to legally contract with each other.
You can see where this is an issue of "civil rights" when you use the latter definition and not an issue of civil rights if you use the former.
There is no civil rights conflict involved for people who view marriage as the union of man and woman -- and I might add a viewpoint that is supported by several thousand years of history.
I would agree with you that if marriage was nothing more than a codified, legal way of declaring "We're in a relationship" perhaps its a civil rights issue.
But since some don't see it that way, maybe the other side can stop calling us bigots?
"means that only those who can raise children should be allowed to marry."
should read
DOESN'T mean that...
"That's not the problem at all. If you truly believe marriage is a right, then denying the right on the basis that "the law can't handle it, so you have to continue to be oppressed" is ludicrious. The law would evolve and change. "
I havn't come out and said "marriage is a right" have I? So far I have only discussed Government having a rational basis to restrict an activity. My feelings on if marriage is a right, a priveledge, or neither is irrelevant to the discussion.
"And the confusions you mention? No worse than in an estate fight or comatose-patient cases---which, of course, many laws now handle and can be easily adapted to polygamous marriage."
Apples and oranges. You are comparing a situation created by the absensce of legal "paperwork" with a legal situation created by the paperwork itself. One could even argue that a 2nd marriage contract would not meet the legal requirements for a contract.
"By your very argument, gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because who would be named the father?"
Both would? That was simple. And that does not follow my argument at all.
"If there's a divorce of two gay men, what is in the best interests of a child, considering the default is to the mother in many states?"
That would be up to the court to decide, as it is in every child custody case.
"The government is not responsible for health care, so it has no interest in health problems from the coupling itself."
The government, by requiring Hosptials to accept patients in an emergency without showing proof to pay automatically generates an interest in the health care issue.
"Lawrence v. Texas, by your argument, is a vote for gay sex, which has an much higher rate of disease transmission than hetersexual coupling. So you're undercutting that by saying that gay sex now could be outlawed on the basis of the health concerns."
Not necessarily. Anal sex has a higher rate of disease transmission. Lesbians would have the lowest rate of disease transmission.
"History lesson: Loving v. Virginia struck down a law that specifically banned interracial marriage under the 14th A. The law assumed that in the absence of that law, balcks and whites would intermarry. There is no such corollary here. No one ever thought that if there weren't any laws banning gay marriage that gays would marry--it simply wasn't an option. "
Actually, Prop 8 was passed EXACTLY for the reason that because the absence of the law allowed gay californians to get married.
"Arguing in metpahor means just that: arguing in metaphor. Keep trying to compare it to the past you end up proving that you have no arguments to support your actual proposition right now."
By your argument the courts should never consider past legal rulings in order to determine the outcome of a case they are currently looking at. Of course we both know that is absurd.
The reality is that courts OFTEN use past legal rulings in order to determine how they should rule in a current. Would you tell them that they are "arguing in metaphor"? If not, then why would you criticize me for looking at how we treated similar issues in the past?
"Lawrence v. Texas was awful precisely because it was the S.C. reversing course and stating that the 14th A, which applies to race, somehow protected something the people who wrote it never contemplated. And would've never agreed to. "
Please quote me exactly in the 14th amendment where race is mentioned.
Sam: "So Daniel Z, just to sum up, your in favor or polygamist marriages as long as a pre-nup that clearly defines what will happen if the marriage fails is required?"
No, the equitable division of property and assets is just one of the aspects of the civil marriage contract that falls apart when a person is able to marry multiple people.
"I would agree with you that if marriage was nothing more than a codified, legal way of declaring "We're in a relationship" perhaps its a civil rights issue."
Civil marriage is basically that. It is a contract that states a legal relationship with certain legal abilities granted to the members of the couple.
These anti-prop 8 lynch mobs are showing the true character of the homosexualist.
What is a "homosexualist?"
I really like how you prefix the term with an article, "the," as though you were narrating a television documentary about the habits of some exotic species, in basso profundo voice: "A sociable creature, the homosexualist seeks to attract potential partners through a series of highly complex mating rituals. Among the males, consumation occurs with the penetration of the anus by the sexual organs..."
Mudering children is great, because 9 months of pregnancy is worse than murder.
I agree, murdering children IS great. Why, even as I type, my mouth hungrily chews upon the succulent flesh of a six-month old fetus freshly delivered to me from the local abortuary. I have a stack of them next to my waste basket, so that their tiny, delicate bones may be easily discarded after masticating. The last fetus will be embalmed and preserved for baptism in goat's blood, so that the unborn soul will be delivered into the searing fires of Hades and raised by demonspawn to spend an eternity sucking the oily cock of Satan, the one true Lord of All.
I like Jindal. He has a fine vocation for public service, and I would have voted for him for LA governor if I lived there. But he's much crazier than Huckabee, whom I also like. If our country were extremely small, we would have to engage in some serious trade-offs: there wouldn't be prospective presidents who have the good without the bad. Fortunately, there are 300 million of us, of whom at least several dozen (and maybe several hundred) on each side of the ideological divide would make credible presidents. So it's fair to say thanks but no-thanks to a very impressive person who is stone-cold crazy and lets that craziness intrude upon his policy prescriptions.
Daniel Z:
1. I would like to say that, unlike Adam or ed, you have made several good, strong arguments and have a solid factual basis for your position. Thank you.
2. I wasn't arguing that courts shouldn't look to precedent. I was saying that a argument (such as we're having here) shouldn't try to argue in analogy or metaphor to get its point across; the argument should stand on its own, and metaphor can only highlight similarities to other arguments. But the only arguments I'm hearing from gay rights advocates is that this is just like black civil rights or women's rights or other spurious metaphors that do not address the glaring differences (behavior v. identity) and tell me nothing about why homosexuals, as themselves alone, deserve marriage rights on par with heteros.
3. I'm sorry about confusing whether you were for gay marriage or not or saw it as a right. There are a lot of arguments being tossed around here.
4. "Please quote me exactly in the 14th amendment where race is mentioned."
---No, there is no textual reference in the 14th A, but it was passed at the same time as the 13th and 15th A and shortly after the bloodiest war in American history which was fought, in part, over the slavery of blacks. Even strict constructionists look to the time period where an amendment was passed and the other amendments that were passed with it to further explain an amendment. And it was 1860s America, a place that most historians would say would have been "hostile" to gay rights, to say the least, where there simply wasn't any notion that the 14th A would be applied in favor of homosexuals.
If the people passing the 14th A had known that it could have been used for gay rights, its with rock solid certainty that I say they would've inserted language that would have explictly blocked that--to the effect of "nothing in this/these Amendment(s) shall be construed to favor gay rights."
Age-related cognitive decline, no doubt.
Immortalist asks:
"What is a "homosexualist?"
I stole this phrase from Derb. It's useful in distinguishing gays from the nuts who are spitting on old women in California:
http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200311240925.asp
"A homosexual is a person who is erotically attracted towards persons of his or her own sex. A homosexualist is a type of ideologue — which means, someone who divides the human race into two fundamentally opposed categories, the Elect and the Damned, Lenin's "Who" and "Whom." For a homosexualist, the Elect are homosexuals and those who "celebrate" them, the Damned are homophobes like me, who, for various reasons, and with various intensities of feeling about the matter, decline to join in the celebrations."
Immortal continues:
"I really like how you prefix the term with an article, "the," as though you were narrating a television documentary about the habits of some exotic species, in basso profundo voice"
We aims to please.
Adam,
"In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion."
OK, we are talking about different bills here. Basic Fact and John Thacker (and I) were referring to the various versions of a bill to protect infants that emerged alive during the course of an attempted abortion. Since the bill covered only live-born infants entirely outside the mother's body, it had no direct impact on any legitimate method of abortion, though obviously there was a symbolic point involved in clarifying that a "fetus" delivered alive must be treated as, well, a patient rather than "waste tissue."
My understanding is that Obama first objected to the bill on the grounds that it didn't contain an explicit disclaimer that nothing in it should be construed so as to abridge the right to abortion; but that even when this language was added, Obama let the bill die in committee.
Rex: "At any rate, I look forward to Palin & Jindal in 2012!"
Obama hasn't even started his first term and you're already conceding him a second?
I also look forward to Basic Fact's disquisition on how some people are attempting to "enhance" the homosex.
Michelle, while you are noble in your attempt, explaining logic to Adam is a pearls-before-swine effort in futility.
There folllows the entirety of the portion of the Democratic platform entitled "Choice."
Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for
abortions.
The Democratic Party also 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,
51
income support, and caring adoption programs.
Basic Fact, Jindal may have been acting "legally" when he performed his exorcism, but it's highly unlikely that the Catholic Church would have approved of such unlicensed shenanigans by a layman. For starters, only the local Ordinary can perform an exorcism, or a person he designates to do so - and such a person can only be a priest who meets stringent criteria. Jindal and friends were utterly unsuited to undertaking such a dangerous and foolhardy exercise. You simply don't gamble with someone else's spiritual well-being in these circumstances, and Jindal should be thoroughly ashamed of his folly, rather than writing self-congratulatory essays on the subject.
This part was just nuts:
Er, okay, so Obama buys into all sorts of staples of liberal dogma, like universal healthcare, massive public works projects, and an office of urban policy (and unrestricted abortion, etc). But this doesn't mean that he's a dogmatic leftist, oh no. It means that because Obama is apparently the new definition of "centrist", all those previously dogmatic left positions are now by definition centrist too.
Meanwhile, if Jindal buys into conservative staples, it means that he's a rank dogmatist. Got it.
And since Ta-Nehisi brought up the issue of race, let me just point out the elephant in the room: A white guy who ran on all those same staples of liberal dogma never could've gotten elected.
In other words, he's *better* than Obama in this area. The word "actual" is key here. He's not only got a message of change, but a history of accomplishing it. Obama, meanwhile, has only the rhetoric, and a history of simply going along with the corruption in whatever place he finds himself. His only record of "accomplishment" is getting elected. That's alright. If Obama can explain away a network of criminal and terrorist friends, I think we can call it more than even."I would like to say that, unlike Adam or ed, you have made several good, strong arguments and have a solid factual basis for your position. Thank you."
I appreciate that, thank you!
"I wasn't arguing that courts shouldn't look to precedent. I was saying that a argument (such as we're having here) shouldn't try to argue in analogy or metaphor to get its point across; the argument should stand on its own, and metaphor can only highlight similarities to other arguments. "
I agree that in general arguments should stand on their own. However, arguments are given more weight when past precedent can be shown to back up what you are saying now.
"I'm sorry about confusing whether you were for gay marriage or not or saw it as a right. There are a lot of arguments being tossed around here."
It is ok. And I am not saying you are wrong for saying that I believe it is a right. I have just not made that argument in defense of my stance. :)
"No, there is no textual reference in the 14th A, but it was passed at the same time as the 13th and 15th A and shortly after the bloodiest war in American history which was fought, in part, over the slavery of blacks. Even strict constructionists look to the time period where an amendment was passed and the other amendments that were passed with it to further explain an amendment. And it was 1860s America, a place that most historians would say would have been "hostile" to gay rights, to say the least, where there simply wasn't any notion that the 14th A would be applied in favor of homosexuals. "
I have problems arguing "strict construction" over things that are open ended like the 9th and 14th amendment. How does one strictly interpret the 9th amendment? How does one strictly define a priveledge of a citizen of the united states as described in the 14th amendment.
That is why I come back to government needing to prove that it has a rational basis to prohibit civil marriage contracts for homosexual couples.
"If the people passing the 14th A had known that it could have been used for gay rights, its with rock solid certainty that I say they would've inserted language that would have explictly blocked that--to the effect of "nothing in this/these Amendment(s) shall be construed to favor gay rights.""
That doesn't make those people right.
Daniel Z,
I imagine that polygamy would entail legal complications, sure. What I don't believe is that the people who oppose granting legal status to polygamous marriages are primarily motivated by fear of the legal complications. We deal with more-than-two-person legal partnerships all the time; we deal with the nastiest mom/stepmom/step-stepmom/dad/stepdad/dad's live-in lover/child's sibling's surrogate parent messes all the time; other cultures, with well-developed legal systems, manage to cope with, e.g., the inheritance complications of polygamous marriage all the time.
Granted that the complications give you a rational-basis hook on which to hang your distaste for polygamy. But that is what you're doing. The legal messiness is a conveniently value-neutral argument, but I doubt very much that the average person's resistance to polygamy rests on "Oh, but wouldn't that be so . . . legally complicated?"
Ditto incest. If the reason for prohibiting incestuous marriages is fear of birth defects, then there's every "rational basis" for permitting same-sex incest even if we ban opposite-sex. But, again, the birth-defect rationale is just that, a rationalization. No one reacts to the idea of two brothers marrying one another with the thought that "if one was female, they might have a defective child."
Lalala: Thank you for showing that the Democratic party wants to kill babies and force the American public to pay for it. 9 Months of pregnancy is worse than murder, after all.
Daniel Z:
"arguments are given more weight when past precedent can be shown to back up what you are saying now."
---True, but there have been no arguments for gay marriage that I see that do not solely rely on metaphor. Metaphor works to highlight similarities, not to make an argument for you.
"I have problems arguing "strict construction" over things that are open ended like the 9th and 14th amendment. How does one strictly interpret the 9th amendment? How does one strictly define a priveledge of a citizen of the united states as described in the 14th amendment. "
----I was saying that even the most diehard "don't look at legislative history" strict constructionist would still look at the Amendment in context here.
But, in any event, a strict constructionist would examine dictionaries of the time period of the 9th or 14th Amendment and view the "rights" and "privileges" of that time period of citizens in order to determine what rights carry over. Or, rather, a person arguing that the 14th A. applies to him/her would have the onus on them to show that in the 1860s the 14th A. was made for their particular group.
Like most liberal decisions since Brown v. Board, Lawrence basically decreed that whatever groups 5 out 9 supreme Court justices thought should be protected from state interference would be protected. Hence the attempts by homosexual lobbiests to keep gay marriage off the ballots---the court system is much easier to control and force rights through undemocratically, while democratically changing a law requires more work. Forcing
"That is why I come back to government needing to prove that it has a rational basis to prohibit civil marriage contracts for homosexual couples."
---You confuse what you want (the Constitution to guarantee gay rights and marriage) from the way it is (there is no provision that logically does). If you want that, you'd need a constitutional amendment.
"That doesn't make those people right."
---Legally, it does. We disagree morally, but trying to force your morality undemocratically through the court system and couching it in metaphor doesn't make you right either.
"Legally, it does. We disagree morally, but trying to force your morality undemocratically through the court system and couching it in metaphor doesn't make you right either. "
Fortunately we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic with a system of checks and balances that protect the minority from the will of the majority..
I feel the need to repost this, just to get back on topic.
"I'm willing to bet that Ta-Nehisi has never seen Jindal in person. I have. "
I have as well, and I find Ta-Nehisi's commentary to be spot on.
"His message, like Obama's, is one of hope and actual change; he tends to emphasize the work he's done reforming Louisiana's notoriously corrupt political culture."
Actual change? No. Louisiana may now have more laws that require more ethics disclosures. However, Bobby Jindal also signed legislation into law that increased the burden of proof to convict people of ethics violations. He made it harder for people who act unethically to be convicted of ethics violations. So in practice, Jindal has made it easier to get away with unethical behavior.
"At 25 he was appointed Lousiana's Secretary of Health and Hospitals"
And as head of the Louisiana healthcare system, Louisiana's healthcare ranking dropped from 48th to 50th. Jindal ran up a 200 million dollar surplus while cutting access to healthcare for many Louisiana citizens.
"On the other side, I don't see anything wrong, or "EXTREMIST", about Bobby Jindal being a devout Catholic who wants to enter into a covenant marriage."
No, there is nothing extremist about him wanting a firm commitment between him and his wife. However, his view on abortions with zero exceptions does make him an extremist.
Basic Fact, if you plan to outlaw anything that is metaphorical, you are going, sooner or later, to run into one basic fact: language itself is a gigantic metaphorical system. So your attack on metaphor is prima facie hardly convincing.
..
Second, your claims about looking at things in context are extremely problematic, since "context" is essentially constructed by the viewer. From one point of view, the Civil War is about freeing slaves, from another, it is a sad tale of the destruction of states rights.
..
Equally, dictionaries are not the simple univocal resource you would like them to be - this why law codes, constitutions, contracts etc specify the terms of the agreements and provisions that they lay down.
..
Your claims about the way law and the Constitution work are in fact rather less solidly grounded than you would like. It is perfectly normal to cite the intent behind a provision, even where said provision is not explicit. Nor, for that matter, is literalism generally a sound principle.
..
Finally, you seem confused about the courts and democracy. It is reasonable to argue that that not all matters can be put to the ballot. Nor can you reasonably claim that the courts are not, in a real sense, representatives of the people and legitimate interpreters of the will of the people. To argue the contrary would effectively end any prospect of a system of justice in any country.
It's nice when a moron tries to enter the world adults. Too hilarious. Jasmine=definite ethnic/womyn's studies major:
"Basic Fact, if you plan to outlaw anything that is metaphorical,"
---Straw man, moron. never said to outlaw metaphor. Please re-read. I like metpahors, but they are nor arguments
"you are going, sooner or later, to run into one basic fact:"
---I'll bet you patted yourself on the back for that one.
"language itself is a gigantic metaphorical system."
---jigga wha?? If you plan on making huge, broad, sweeping statements like that to try to shift the paradigm, paduan, you'd best have some evidence. Oh wait, you don't, you just heard it once in a feminist critical legal race theory class.
"So your attack on metaphor is prima facie hardly convincing."
---Um, no. If your only argument is "gay rights is just like black civil rights," then you have no argument, only metaphor.
"Second, your claims about looking at things in context are extremely problematic, since "context" is essentially constructed by the viewer."
-----I know your marxist professor taught you this, but wrong. Facts dictate context; the facts of the passage of the Civil War Amendments are pretty well known--except, of course, history is probably racist and sexist to you.
"From one point of view, the Civil War is about freeing slaves, from another, it is a sad tale of the destruction of states rights."
---The Civil War had many causes, dumbass. Hence why I said one of its causes was slavery. From a basic fact stand point, the civil war was both about slavery and states rights, along with several other factors. But you never studied history, I know.
..
"Equally, dictionaries are not the simple univocal resource you would like them to be - this why law codes, constitutions, contracts etc specify the terms of the agreements and provisions that they lay down. "
---Yes, but dictionaries spell out what words commonly meant at the time, and if a law changes that definition, it states it so--hence why they are valuable. I should have added that not only dictionaries, but court decisions and laws of the time period should be studied to full understand the context of a a disputed word or phrase.
..
"Your claims about the way law and the Constitution work are in fact rather less solidly grounded than you would like."
----Oh, goody, I love when the sped kids get angry.
" It is perfectly normal to cite the intent behind a provision, even where said provision is not explicit."
----hahahahahahahaha. No, it is frowned upon by intelligent scholars. Every member of Congress and the state legislatures had their own personal reasons for voting on the Amendments: some were anti-slavery, some were anti-south, some were pro-healing the union, some were pro-black (not the same as anti-slavery), some were doing political favors for others, some were being nagged to death by wives to do it, some didn't care and tossed a coin, some wanted to punish the south. There are about 500 more a psychologist could tell you; but taking one Congressman's statement on his intent means nothing; all we have is the text of the Amendment itself to work on, and its general context. Legislative history is just looking in the crowd to pick out your marxist friends.
"Nor, for that matter, is literalism generally a sound principle."
---You heard it here first from comrade jasmine: words mean the opposite of what you think they mean.
..
"Finally, you seem confused about the courts and democracy."
---Ah, I love it when idelogues become paternalistic.
"It is reasonable to argue that that not all matters can be put to the ballot."
---Except on major social issues that the public demands to be put on the ballot and can be put on the ballot. Like, oh, gay marriage.
"Nor can you reasonably claim that the courts are not, in a real sense, representatives of the people and legitimate interpreters of the will of the people."
----WTF?? OF COURSE YOU CAN. The Federal judiciary is unelected and permanent in job security. Many state courts follow suit. The courts no more represent the people than the common man on the street. Are you crazy enough to think a federal judge cares anything about what you think?????
"To argue the contrary would effectively end any prospect of a system of justice in any country."
----Justice is different from representation. A judge can effectively rule on an isolated issue of facts. But if the people desire to override the courts, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO. Ballot measures and constitutional amendments give them that. Your paternalistic argument that the courts know best effectively ends democracy, dumbass.
I can't believe you're stupid enough to think that because a court said it, that's better than the people voting for it. Or that the people aren't capable of deciding gay marriage issues, But then again, your Berkeley commune doesn't let you get out much, does it?
Basic Fact, the thing which amuses me most is that you actually reinforce my arguments just as you think you are tearing them down. I'll ignore the attempted insults, which are also hopelessly misguided. You seem not to understand fairly simple ideas about what representation means, also context, not to mention the metaphorical nature of language. Still, let's try and advance your education a touch, shall we:
First, the courts have the legal powers and status they have because it has been delegated to them by, yes, the people. Complex, too complex? For you, probably. This means that they ARE representative of the popular will. Note that representatives does not mean the same as "elected".
Dictionaries offer a range of meanings, and often do not agree on how they are to be reconciled. This is, as I told you, why legal documents are careful to spell out what they mean in terms of scope. Equally, they do not interpret for you: ie. under monarchy, you find "system of rule by a monach" rather than "oppressive form of government". Meanings require interpretation to fit into a system of laws/constitution etc.
Literalism is not the same as words having one meaning. Rather, it is an attempt to insist that a given word or passage can have only one meaning. It ignores the metaphorical, ambiguous and representational nature of language, and for that reason is generally an excuse for the imposition of one narrow, partial and frequently inaccurate point of view. This is true both in law and other domains - eg. theology. And, since you need a little help here, the literal reading of the Bible is a relatively recent practice. For most of its existence, allegorical and metaphorical readings predominated. or do you think that Jesus really was a sheep's child? Lamb of God, hmm? Want to take that one literally?
Also, citing the intent behind a provision has nothing to do with individual intent, despite your incoherent rant on the subject. Rather, the idea is to understand what the overall purpose and collective will of the framers was, rather than trying to be literalistic in a situation where literalism is unhelpful.
"Gay rights is just like black civil rights" is an analogy, not a metaphor, but thank you for trying. If you need more help with these concepts, you might invest time in LOOKING UP WORDS in a magic book. They call it a DICTIONARY. You might be pleasantly surprised to discover the worlds that await you.
"Facts dictate context" - an all-time classic, that deserves a place in the Hall of Fame for Ignorant Statements. No, the viewer dictates the context - as your babbling about the many causes of the Civil War shows. Contextualization is how a viewer makes the facts significant or part of a pattern. Frankly, having to explain this sort of thing to you is embarrassing, but someone has to tell you about basic ideas of the past hundred years.
A word to the wise...arguments are more convincing when not peppered with "moron" and assumptions about people's majors, geographic location and living arrangements.
Basic Fact and Staash, you obviously don't need to answer this, but I'm curious whether either of you have any close gay or lesbian friends, or any gay children, grandchildren, siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins?
Finally, do you believe gays and lesbians when they tell you that their sexual orientation is immutable?
Jasmine, I am not sure that Basic Fact is really equipped to handle logic and English at the same time. It's noble of you to try to educate the poor creature, but probably a vain endeavor.
JCP, I suspect that moron is a compliment in Basic's neck of the woods. Might even represent significant evolution of the species.
JCP writes:
"Basic Fact and Staash, you obviously don't need to answer this, but I'm curious whether either of you have any close gay or lesbian friends, or any gay children, grandchildren, siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins?"
None of the above. Have several friendly acquaintances, however. Listening to Magnetic Fields right now, and have even listened to Bronski Beat and Erasure on occasion. Surely that counts for something?
JCP asks:
"Finally, do you believe gays and lesbians when they tell you that their sexual orientation is immutable?"
I think that would depend on the gay or lesbian. Speaking of which, gays doesn't depluralize very well...
re: Lalala
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right...
Right there...the party platform says it supports Roe v. Wade. Roe established the "viability" doctrine, which said that abortions after "viability" could be restricted. So, explicitly, the Democratic party is saying that it doesn't support unrestricted abortion.
Wow, so much heat! But seriously folks, it's not that difficult. In times of apathy, hot button issues can turn elections. However, in times of crisis, real issues (you know, economy, war, etc.) cause people's attention to focus on what really matters. The GOP typically runs on those hot button issues because on the real issues that effect our citizenry in meaningful ways - well, they tend to be counter to conventional/popular sentiment (e.g., tax cuts that favor the wealthy disproportionately, subsidies/loopholes for big business, etc.).
Regardless, the pro-life position for the GOP is really just a carrot to keep the social conservatives engaged and active. The GOP establishment has no desire whatsoever in outlawing abortions. It's an issue they continually dangle out there in front of the pro-lifers - to get their votes, their money, and activism. Between 2000-2006 (during the GOP's recent ascendance), has there been true real effort to outlaw abortions? To get to the promised land?
Come away from the ledge, folks. The Dems realized that gun control was a loser in the end, and they have taken it off the table. The hard-core social conservatives (and the GOP) will eventually have to realize that the overwhelming majority finds it unconscionable and unreasonable that to make an 11-year girl carry child to term after being raped/impregnated by her father. No abortion in all cases is just a ridiculously unrealistic position.
He's extremely positive, he's personally charming, and he's kind of skinny and his ears stick out.
Mm-hm. I heard the same thing about George Bush, Jr. How'd he turn out?
And one can't help but wonder if this is the kiss of death for Jindal. Megan's consistently wrong about dadgum near everything (George Bush, Jr, Iraq Invasion, Valerie Plame, regressive tax cuts, "the devil you know", 2 x 4s, Krugman, recession, FISA, you name it). Is this yet another gross misjudgment? Time will tell.
Exactly. The "legal complications" argument against polygamy, and the "birth defects" argument against incest are mere arguments about practicality. There are practical arguments against gay marriage as well.
But gay marriage proponents argue that gay marriage is a *right*, so that any merely practical considerations must give way. Well, guess what, incest and polygamy have just as much claim to being a "right" as homosex.
And the practical arguments against polygamy and incest don't apply to all such marriages anyway. If an incestuous relationship is both gay *and* incestuous, for instance, then there's no possibility of deformed children. The same goes if the siblings are above reproductive age, or if one of them has been sterilized. Gay marriage proponents like to point out the "special cases" of non-reproductive straight marriage when people point out that gay relationships can't produce offspring, so they must accept the same point when it is made about incestuous marriages.
Any gay marriage proponent who opposes incestuous marriage (and particularly non-reproductive incestuous marriage) needs to either correct that inconsistency by advocating incestuous marriage, or admit that all their arguments are crap and then shut up.
I read all the Atlantic blogs, except for this one. Ms. McArdle has nothing to say. I say that not because of her political views: I read Douthat every day, and enjoy his many insights. For all her alleged expertise, Ms. McArdle strikes me as a tid bit vapid.
Artful Roger,
The Dems realized that gun control was a loser in the end, and they have taken it off the table.
Ummm . . . I'm not gonna believe that till I see it, and maybe not even then. "Off the table"? Honestly? What's your evidence? I mean, apart from Obama's awkward statement that Heller came out just exactly the way he wanted it to, yes, really?
(I'm not a gun owner, and my interest in the 2nd Amendment is more or less academic. But I really can't see the Democratic Party giving up on this one.)
The Deuce,
Does your opposition to "non-reproductive incestuous marriage" extend to hot twins?
It all has to do with what feels icky. If you show a bunch of strait guys a video of two guys making out and fu*king, they will be grossed out. You show them a video of two hot girls making out and f*cking they will be turned on.
You don't really have a problem with two girls being married - especially if they are hot. But you do have a problem with a guy cumming in another guys a*s.
Admit it - you have far more of a problem with two guys being married than two girls. (especially if the girls are hot...)
I certainly get why people care about the Second Amendment (even those that don't seem to care about any other amendment), and gun rights, etc., but I'll never understand why people make that the be-all, end-all of their political identity, as if their gun is the entire summation of their personhood and everything else can be sacrificed just so long as you have a shotgun at the end of the day.
Little Boots,
But it's obvious enough. If you take seriously the possibility that the order you see around you is fragile, your first duty to yourself and to your family is the ability to defend yourself and them if order collapses. And if you see the means of self-defense actually named in a Bill of Rights the rest of which your society takes as holy writ, but it's denied to you anyway, you might be pardoned for being a little peeved.
Every right you have is conditional, in practice, on the inability of others to take its exercise from you by force. If I thought civil order as near collapse as some do, I'd want to be armed too.
Michelle,
Your comment was both brilliant and insightful.
I am thoroughly impressed.
I don't really disagree with you Michelle, but it just gets so crazy, so often. So many people in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and really a lot of states, might have voted for more failure, more depression, more bankruptcy, more misery, more incompetence, more poverty, very much including their own misery, poverty, etc., if they weren't at least somewhat reassured by constant repetition that Obama would not threaten the absolute and truly unconditional sanctity of the great god, GUN.
I see the whole civil collapse argument, but it really is so much more. The slightest threat to the divine GUN, (Registration? OHMYGOD!!!!) even more than so-called attacks on Christianity, Jesus, the family, and all the other bugaboos, sends people stampeding to the polls to turn back the terrifying threat, regardless of anything else. I get that I live in that kind of country, and I'm actually happy that Democrats are willing to shut up about it, but it still mystifies me.
What I mean is, the threat is so minor compared to the reaction, that I think something truly weird is going on. Nevertheless, I do think you have a good point, and like jmo, I appreciate it.
(I do wish people cared about the First and Fourth Amendments as much, but hey, we get what we get.)
If Palin or to a lesser extent Jindal is the republican standard-bearer in 2012 it will be a unmitigated disaster for the republican party. If they go into the general election with a no abortion, no exceptions platform democrats will force them at every turn to defend that position. In essense democrats would be using the culture war AGAINST republicans. That would purge a lot of pro-choice independents and republicans from voting for the ticket and would confine the republican party to the party of the one-issue voter who the majority of Americans don't agree with.
If Palin or to a lesser extent Jindal is the republican standard-bearer in 2012 it will be a unmitigated disaster for the republican party.
One is hopeful. If Obama repeals DADT early, it takes Hating Teh Gays off the table and would further marginalize right wing loons such as Palin (and Jindal), who would be further marginalized in a just world.
Basic fact,
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But for someone who claims to be a Christian, you are not behaving in a very Jesus-like manner by calling me names and dismissing my faith simply because your opinions are not mine. We can disagree and still be polite.
As for your arguments: I am not metaphorically comparing gay rights to civil rights or suffrage for women. (That would be an analogy, anyway, not a metaphor.) What I am doing is putting gay rights in a historical perspective: I (and many others) see that history points to equality winning out in the end, after a long fight. Therefore, I believe that we will have gay marriage in this country eventually.
As for national trends: we have gay marriage in two states now, whereas several years ago we didn't have it at all. A measure banning gay marriage passed in CA by only 4%, despite a multi-million dollar campaign bankrolled by the Mormon Church and a rather incompetent opposition campaign, whereas 8 years ago it passed by 20%. Young people are far more accepting of gay marriage than their elders, and they are hardly likely to get less so as they get older. So, yes, I would say that the evidence points to a general national trend in favor of gay marriage. I don't know if we will have it within the next few years, or if it will take several more decades, but we will have it eventually. You don't have to like it. You are not being forced to approve of gay people. You are simply being asked to see that your personal antipathy towards gay marriage doesn't give you the right to deny it to others.
And my cousins and I have pretty spirited, but always polite political discussions. There is no browbeating involved. Really, do you not believe that people are capable of having polite discussions with those who disagree with them?
The Deuce,
I don't know any gay marriage proponent who thinks that marriage is always a right, for anyone, ever, no matter what or who with. The specific claim is that there is no constitutional reason to block gay people from getting married. Therefore, yes, the practical issues involved in polygamy and incest--issues which aren't present in the gay marriage debate--effectively block the slippery slop argument.
Plus: let's say, hypothetically, that legalizing gay marriage makes it more likely that somehow, someday, people might start pushing to legalize incest or polygamy. Should we then not legalize gay marriage if it is right to do so? You could just as easily claim that we should never have legalized interracial marriage because it led to gay marriage which led to...and the list goes on.
As for national trends: we have gay marriage in two states now, whereas several years ago we didn't have it at all.
The people who don't think gay marriage is coming are the same people who thought civil rights weren't coming 50 years ago. Oh, and they used Jesus as a rationale back then too.
But by all means, please American Taliban, please keep telling us how Teh Gay will never ever ever be allowed to marry or serve in the military in the U.S.
"You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But for someone who claims to be a Christian, you are not behaving in a very Jesus-like manner ..."
But the whole point of claiming to be a Christian is to behave like an asshole, with impunity.
Ni Ya Yu,
A late trimester abortion causes outrage because a woman is considered intelligent and capable enough to exercise her judgement earlier in [pregnancy]
Oh, horsepucky. You make it sound like an overdue library book. Late-term abortions get people exercised because hospitals are full of prematurely-born infants at the same stage of gestation that are considered unquestionably human and alive, and that we expend considerable time, effort, and money to keep that way. Killing a 6-mo. "preemie" is called murder. Aborting a fetus at the same stage of development is not only not murder, but constitutionally protected, assuming that the pregnant woman's health (physical or mental) is implicated. That's the juxtaposition that people have difficulty wrapping their minds around, not some idea that an "intelligent, capable" woman would've gotten around to this little task earlier.
Michelle, go easy on the cheap moral outrage there. The fact that a woman could/should have decided sooner has been used as a means of ginning up outrage against late term abortions. Yes, people like to make false equivalencies involving "murder" of the unborn, but it's not the only rhetorical trick in the anti-abortion fanatics' handbook.
zilifant,
I'm not saying that no one says "she should've decided earlier." But why does it matter when in pregnancy a woman aborts? I think it's because a late-stage fetus is indistinguishable anatomically from a prematurely-delivered live baby; don't you?
Look, if you have, say, six months to claim a benefit (join a class-action suit, or whatever other situation appeals to you), no one is going to look askance at you for filing in the last week rather than the moment you found out about it, unless by dallying you actually miss the deadline. The reason pregnancy is different is when you wait till the last moment there, you're killing something that would indisputably be a US citizen were it moved one foot in any direction.
Daniel Z: "As marriage stands now it would be vague. How does one figure out an equitable division of assets?"
He/she gets a 1/N share of the community property, with N the number of parties in the marriage. This reduces to a two-person marriage for N=2.
Your silly "what if"s are just an attempt to obscure this utterly obvious extension.
"And while I believe the ABILITY to have a child is irrelevant to the decision of who should be allowed to get married, the possibility of passing on bad genetic traits is."
So, following the reasoning by which we ban incestuous marriage (high probability of genetic defect), we should also ban marriage between two Ashkenazi jews. Such a marriage carries a high risk of Tay-Sachs babies.
Note: I'm against all marriage, gay and straight. I'm not picking on gay marriage in particular. Just pointing out the inconsistencies on the pro gay marriage side here.
"I think it's because a late-stage fetus is indistinguishable anatomically from a prematurely-delivered live baby; don't you?"
No, actually, I don't think the issue can be simplified so easily. There are different ways of viewing such an episode, and linking it all to one point of comparison doesn't strike me as being especially helpful. I don't much care for the generic enrolling of all late-term abortions under one category, when it's clear that each case is sui generis.
I recognize the emotional pull of talking about how the fetus would have been a citizen/human being/Little Bobby, but if it isn't, it isn't. And if we are going to start down the slippery slope of confusing potentiality and actuality, then logically time of the abortion hardly matters, which is where the extreme anti-abortionists start to sound deranged.
Oh God, jasmine, are you really this stupid? The only thing that makes this sadder is the fact that so many of these sped kids are agreeing with you. Anyway, here's your spanking, ethnic-studies major:
"First, the courts have the legal powers and status they have because it has been delegated to them by, yes, the people. Complex, too complex? For you, probably."
---Actually, not really. No shit courts have legal powers. That would be, ahem, the DEFINITION of a court. But then again, we know that dictionaries are racist and sexist and not to be trusted by you.
"This means that they ARE representative of the popular will. Note that representatives does not mean the same as "elected"."
---Big term for you: NON SEQUITOR. Look it up (I'll wait). Back so soon? So you know it means "does not follow." Simply because a court has been delegated power by the people DOES NOT MEAN it is representative. A person or thing is only termed "representative" when the people have told the person/thing "you are my representative." A federal court isn't given that power anywhere; it's power is reserved to interpreting the law, not to representing the will of the people.
Civics 101: Representing the people is the job of the elected branches, not the courts; the ENTIRE RATIONALE behind Article III's life tenure and appointment by the President with Congressional approval is to INSULATE the courts from being prey to the WILL OF THE MAJORITY. Any idiot who knows about the Constitutional Conventions knows how distrustful many of the founding fathers were of majorities imposing their wills on the minorities. So as a check on the REPRESENTATIVE government, they created a third, NONREPRESENTATIVE branch whose sole, limited job was to make sure the REPRESENTATIVE branches did not violate THE LAW.
By your argument, every government worker is representative of the American people, because they have been delegated their power through Congress/President/Courts hiring them to work for them. But that's ludicrous. The janitor or clerk or administrative assistant in those branches doesn't represent us; only the two branches ELECTED serve as REPRESENTATIVE of the American people and their will.
"Dictionaries offer a range of meanings, and often do not agree on how they are to be reconciled."
---I agree. That is why courts should look to several well-known dictionaries of the time period to understand the general meaning of a disputed term (assuming it is an individual term in question).
"This is, as I told you, why legal documents are careful to spell out what they mean in terms of scope. Equally, they do not interpret for you: ie. under monarchy, you find "system of rule by a monach" rather than "oppressive form of government". Meanings require interpretation to fit into a system of laws/constitution etc."
---Not totally disagreeing with you. As I said, looking at laws/etc. along with dictionaries are basic interpretative techniques that all jurists use. But ignoring dictionaries simply because you think their racist/sexist is ludicrious, because you impose your modern, subjective interpretation of a term ("freedom of speech") over what the writers of the term meant at the time; it's intellectually dishonest and weaselly.
"Literalism is not the same as words having one meaning. Rather, it is an attempt to insist that a given word or passage can have only one meaning."
---When the word is clear and unambiguous, then it only has one meaning. We can debate, for example, that if a law covers "cars" it may or may not cover motorcycles, but if the law only covers "cars with four wheels", then there is no doubt that motorcycles are not included. That's why we use, ahem, DICTIONARIES to see if, at the time the law was passed, any dictionary defined "car" as including a motorcycle; it does not end the debate, but informs it.
"his is true both in law and other domains - eg. theology. And, since you need a little help here, the literal reading of the Bible is a relatively recent practice. For most of its existence, allegorical and metaphorical readings predominated. or do you think that Jesus really was a sheep's child? Lamb of God, hmm? Want to take that one literally?"
---First, moron, like most loony lefties, you're the one bringing up the bible and jesus, not me. Never used it in my justification. Remember that strawman.
Second, idiot, most people DID literally believe the bible long ago. 6 days, the flood, etc. Heck, because of a mistranslation, Michealangelo carved a statute of Moses WITH HORNS because the mistranslation of the bible said it. Remember what happened to Galileo when he challenged literalism?
Third, no, even today and back then, people who are biblical literalists don't believe the Jesus was an actual lamb thing. See, when Jesus told stories, dumbass, readers knew he was explaining through metaphor--hence his use of like or as in some cases. Its when the bible said something (as opposed to Jesus in the bible saying something) that people took it literally. Hence why revelations and genesis are taken literally, but Jesus's stories are debated as either literal or metaphorical, depending on the translator's interpretation.
"Also, citing the intent behind a provision has nothing to do with individual intent, despite your incoherent rant on the subject. Rather, the idea is to understand what the overall purpose and collective will of the framers was, rather than trying to be literalistic in a situation where literalism is unhelpful."
----hahahah, typical ethnic studies argument. There can be no "general" intent or "collective will" (how very marxist of you, comrade) to be known, only an individual's intent. You cannot understand everyone's intent in a circumstance when everyone's intent was different.
"Gay rights is just like black civil rights" is an analogy, not a metaphor, but thank you for trying."
-----Actually, moron, it is a METPAHOR. An ANALOGY is a METAPHOR--generally, an analogy is a similie, because it usually uses like or as. That's in the dictionary. Look it up. An analogy draws a comparison with another situation--which is a metaphor.
"If you need more help with these concepts, you might invest time in LOOKING UP WORDS in a magic book. They call it a DICTIONARY. You might be pleasantly surprised to discover the worlds that await you."
---Unlike you, I actually cracked the book, and found, point blank, that I was right and you are wrong.
"'Facts dictate context'" - an all-time classic, that deserves a place in the Hall of Fame for Ignorant Statements. No, the viewer dictates the context - as your babbling about the many causes of the Civil War shows. "
---I repeat, jigga wha? The facts of a car crash---whether the driver was drunk or not, whether the car was faulty, whether there was ice or snow or rain--dictate the context---whether the situation was the driver's fault or not. Logic 101, genius.
Apparently, all the historical work that has gone into uncovering and discussing the reasons behind the Civil War--slavery, loss of Southern power, industrial north v. agrarian south, equality, self rule, economic problems, and many more---are all bunk simply because jasmine says so. The civil war didn't happen for any reason, or for any reason jasmine can make up--I can't quite tell, she seems to not have any idea at all, which is par for the course for an uneducated ethnic studies major.
"Contextualization is how a viewer makes the facts significant or part of a pattern."
---Classic ethnic studies statement. Facts aren't facts, they're all made up in your head. O.J. didn't really do it, but because you're a racist, you think so. There is no logic! Therefore, I can totally ignore jasmine, because she is, by her own ethnic studies argument, illogical.
Basic Definition of context:the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning; the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.
Hence, contextualization is about assigning a meaning or rationale to an action in context. How do you do this? Look at the facts surrounding the event. Hence, the car metaphor/anaology (ooh, snap): was the car wreck the driver's fault or not? Well, that depends on the facts. Facts dictate context. QED, bitch.
"Frankly, having to explain this sort of thing to you is embarrassing, but someone has to tell you about basic ideas of the past hundred years."
----Wow. Just wow. The arrogance and ignorance of the liberal/Obamessiah mindset is truly shocking. I mean, I know you're just some dumb kid in a college class or some tenured moronic marxist professor, but not even bothering to look up the words CONTEXT and ANALOGY and METAPHOR in the dictionary and actually attempting to argue that the accepted FACTS ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR AREN'T TRUE represents a true love of your own stupidity and ignorance.
Jasmine, I think at this point you've crushed Basic fact pretty resoundingly. The sad little brute doesn't understand distinctions between metaphor and analogy, is hopeless confused about the difference between fact and context, can't even spell non sequitur, and overall shows why we need better high schools. All that ignorance, and only some misspelled insults to show for it. No wonder the GOP is becoming a particularly nasty regional party!
Morzer, you're perfectly right about Basic Fact, but sometimes one has to try and help out those with little education and limited intelligence. Consider it an attempt to exercise compassion towards the unhappy souls of this world. I don't take the insults seriously, because Basic Fact is as wrong about them as she is about everything else. Hell, the poor wretch can't decide if I'm a kid or a professor, which is a pretty impressive level of mental dysfunction. Still, at least I steered her towards a dictionary, which is somewhat hopeful.
Megan,
I agree with your defense of Jindal. The Obama moonies, like TNC, will say just about anything do discredit anybody who gets in Dear Leader's way. The best insult I've so far with regards to Jindal is to describe as a "born-again Catholic". Haha. There is no such thing, and it's terribly insulting to all Catholics, Jindal himself, and really anybody who's learned.
Jindal apparently calls himself a born-again Catholic, Lyle, so perhaps you had better drop him a line and tell him that makes him a moonie. Alternatively, you could work on a new approach: knowing something about a topic before you open your mouth.
"talks like a good old boy with a plantation somewhere back in the Bayou"
Obviously this person has no idea what a good old boy from the bayou talks like.
Funny how people that whine about sexism with Palin then accuse Michelle of having all the testosterone in the family. Oh, and you wouldn't know urban or cool if it hit you.
Staash: "You're kidding, right? Immigration is one topic that the Republicans can (and will, if they have any brains) use to get back the Reagan Democrats."
Yeah, that's why Barletta beat Kanjorski, right? And why J. D. Hayworth and Randy Graf did so well in Arizona in 2006?...
While I suspect that "jasmine" and "morzer" are the same person, I will consider them separate for the purposes of these statements:
Both of you are wrong. A metaphor is an analogy--they are, as we say in grown-up land, synonyms.
And yes the facts of a situation (e.g. the various reasons behind the Civil War) create the context in which we judge an individual's action (e.g. why Johnny from Virginia joined the Confederate Army while his brother joined the Union). Your womyn's studies classes' logic aside, this is how logical people think.
Since I done gave you dictionary definitions of non sequitur, context, metaphor and analogy, I think its pretty clear which one of us is actually looking at a dictionary.
And, no, jasmine, I can't decide if you're a full blown professor of this crap your spewing or just some headstrong student flush with the brainwashing. But it says something about the paucity of your argument and the source from which it stems that your stupidity could come from either.
Metaphor transforms one thing into another:
eg. Basic Fact is the ghost of human intellect.
Simile marks a direct comparison, rather than a transformation:
eg. Basic Fact is like a sad little baboon.
Analogy is a form of argument:
Basic Fact is comparable to a sad little baboon, and therefore should be caged by those who wish to protect him from the hostile world, just as baboons need protection.
It's really quite simple, and anyone with a basic level of education should understand it without serious problems.
Facts do not create context, as anyone could tell Basic Fact, if he were capable of rational debate. Facts are inert without interpretation. Part of how we interpret them is by yes, contextualizing them. Facts do not and cannot create context which is a form of interpretation requiring selection and evaluation. Facts do not interpret themselves. This ought to be clear to someone with the intelligence of a whelk, but I imagine Basic Fact hasn't evolved that far from the primordial ooze.
adamschweitzer,
1. You are a tool.
2. Analogy is a form of argument. Its a form of argument using metaphor to bring its point across. However, the original discussion was about how arguing solely via analogy was an empty way of argument, because all you end up arguing about the metaphor.
And a similie is a metaphor using like or as.
Honestly, did any of you ever take English? Ever?
Observe the following:
Metaphor: adamschweitzer is a retard.
Similie: adamschweitzer is like a retard, he is ignorant.
Analogy: adamschweitzer's argument is like a retard's argument that sugar is made by elves, because they are both riddled with stupidity and ignorance.
It's really quite simple, and anyone with a basic level of education should understand it without serious problems.
3. Let's parse adamschweitzer's idiocy in the following, shall we?
"Facts do not create context, as anyone could tell Basic Fact, if he were capable of rational debate."
---Considering I'm the onyl one who cracked Merriam-Webster in thsi debate, I assume that statement is the opposite of true.
"Facts are inert without interpretation."
---AGREED. Facts are facts.
"Part of how we interpret them is by yes, contextualizing them."
---No, we interpret a fact in light of other facts. Without other facts, there is no context.
For example, consider the following fact: The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and birth defects.
Without other facts (e.g. *context*), it seems to be a pretty agressive and despicable act.
But look at the other facts around it to give it context: The US did so after 4 years of exhaustive bloody fighting, after demanding Japanese surrender and threatening the bombs, and after military calculations showed that an invasion of Mainland Japan would have cost more lives that dropping the bombs. Also, the Japanese had been committing wartime atrocitities, such as the Battaan Death March.
Suddenly, the extra facts create context in which to view the act---suddenly, some might see the act as something not agressive and despicable, but the best of bad options for the U.S. Facts thus create a context which allow for judgment of an incident. QED.
"Facts do not and cannot create context which is a form of interpretation requiring selection and evaluation."
----See above, retard.
"Facts do not interpret themselves."
----No shit, sherlock. People interpret facts---by looking at the other facts (i.e. *context*) surrounding the disputed facts.
"This ought to be clear to someone with the intelligence of a whelk, but I imagine Basic Fact hasn't evolved that far from the primordial ooze."
---Considering you deny that any facts hagve any bearing on any other facts, you appear to have the brains of a such ooze. But hey, I guess I'm just using some factual context to interpret the facts of your intelligence, which apparantly is impossible in your wittle world.
Adam, it was a brave try, but Basic Fact is impervious to reason. He doesn't even see that he's just contradicted himself three times in his latest post, compared to his previous scrawls. However, I am glad to see that someone else is trying to slowly raise the poor child's consciousness. I wonder if we could get him to learn Basic English next. You know, spelling, punctuation and the stuff that the rest of us absorbed in grade school. As for his attempts to argue, it's like watching a some poor rube take Monty Python seriously as a philosophy for life.
ah, jasmine, your womyn's studies breath wafts through this thread like fertilizer on a hot summer day.
Go back to trying to prove the Great White Male Conspiracy and how rockets are sexist and doors are racist. Your little classmates will cheer you on.
Looking over the thread, it's sad to see how one troll - yes, you, Basic Fact, can waste so much time and energy by other people and emerge with the same ignorance, arrogance and basic failure to understand anything about the world around them.
p.s. jazzy baby,
I love your analogy to a mythical poor rube at the end. Which is also a metaphor. and a simile. The mind boggles at synonyms!
ah, yes, paulrevere, by refusing to back down to ignorance and fighting for basic common sense and dictionary definitions of words, I am a troll.
Nice logic.
I just came in guys what's going...
Um, I don't know much about what's going on here, but I'm pretty sure that facts create context. Context is something you look at to decide what something means, I learned that in reading class in like 6th grade, where you look at all the words and sentences surrounding an unknown word to decipher its meaning. Context is made up of individual facts, so, by definition, facts create context.
I don't know what the heck that has to do with Bobby Jindal, but that's my two cents.
(goes back into corner, watches fight)
watch where you walk, WTF. you might step in jazzy baby's context.
"He hasn't indicated any plans to stop Ta-Nehisi and I from living with our partners." "[T]o stop . . . I"??? Oy gevalt. And here I thought this woman was intelligent.
Seems that Basic Fact has spawned himself a fake identity or two, or else there really are two people who are dumb enough not to understand simple ideas.
Facts, little furry friends, are not active or independent agents. They do not do anything. Example: George Washington was a British subject before he was an American. Significance of the above - in itself, nothing, zero, zip. Can it be significant - sure, but only when placed into a pattern or grouped with other facts. The key question is: who puts facts into patterns, and what pattern do they create.
Consider another random fact: George Washington was born in 1732. Is this fact significant? In itself, no. Why? Because a fact alone means nothing. Now, if you could show that people born during a certain time-frame were more likely to rebel against the British, Washington's birth-date might be significant, within that context. BUT, absent any context, it's simply another of the endless bits of data washing around in human history. Now, if anyone tells you that facts create context, ask them how anything without a mind or will or its own can do so. Wait five minutes, and gently explain that facts don't create anything. They may constitute context - i.e. be part of the pattern assembled by an interpreter - but they do not and cannot create it. Do we really have to explain this extremely simple idea any further?