The line of liberal journalists waiting to give the GOP free advice on its future is longer than the queue for Jonas Brothers concert tickets and at least 100 times more petulant than the 'tweens lined up for same.
U.S. News & World Report contributing editor and PBS "To the Contrary" host Bonnie Erbe, for example, has been on a tear in recent weeks. Whether it's hyping Meghan McCain as a fresh voice for the GOP or praising Bristol Palin as more mature than her mother, Erbe has done little to hide her disdain for social conservatives in the Republican Party that can actually form their arguments without coming off like a vapid valley girl whining about, like, creepy old guys like Karl Rove.
Well, in an April 30 Thomas Jefferson Street blog post Erbe urged GOP chairman Michael Steele to abort the Republican Party's coalition with religious conservatives:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓I agree with [former Bush OMB director Jim] Nussle, but we probably come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. The GOP's main problem is it is stuck in the 1950s as long as it is controlled by the Religious Right. When the party realizes that the Christian Right is yesterday's Chevrolet, and decides to return to fiscal conservatism, that's when the tent doors will open wide once again.
For someone obsessed with the Republican Party's need to show tolerance of ideological diversity, Erbe sure has little use of it, included in her own profession of journalism.
On April 27, Erbe practically foamed at the mouth about pro-life citizen journalist Lila Rose's efforts at chronicling legal abuses by Planned Parenthood clinics. Yet as NewsBusters contributor Matthew Balan noted, the liberal media has done similar sting operations aimed at discrediting pro-life crisis pregnancy centers:
So Erbe wants Rose to be prosecuted for something that her colleagues in the mainstream media do all the time with investigative journalism. In fact, the Big Three networks, like Rose, used hidden camera footage from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in “exposes” in 1991.
It’s something that even left-wing politicians have dabbled in to target crisis pregnancy centers. For example, a 2007 front-page article by the aforementioned L.A. Times detailed how Representative Henry Waxman “asked undercover investigators to contact 23 crisis pregnancy centers.” According to a press release, Waxman’s investigators “posed as pregnant 17-year-olds,” and were supposedly “misled...about the medical risks of abortion...that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.” One would guess that Erbe had no problem with these hidden camera videos, since pro-lifers were the subject.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
When the Republican party is down...
May 4, 2009 - 15:49 ET by shawn228Dems will kick them and mock them. The shoe was on other foot in 2004 when the GOP had total control.
The next year and half will dictate what will happen in 2010. From what I understand, there is some serious infighting going on in the GOP right now and many people are going to opinions on what is wrong and how to fix it, not just the msm and libs.
He had my vote
The dirty little secret
May 4, 2009 - 16:00 ET by jdhawkThe dirty little secret that you won't get out of our drool-by media is that there is some serious infighting going on in the dimocrat party. For example, so-called Cap and Trade is probably dead - one of the first stupid liberal aka president teleprompter's key legislative initiatives.
Keep in mind that many of the defeatocrats that were elected in November campaigned as being MORE fiscally conservative than their Republican counterparts. And, won the election on that basis. Now, this president has spent or proposes to spend more than the last 43 presidents combined!
Maybe the Left should
May 4, 2009 - 16:18 ET by mattmMaybe the Left should abandon some of their core issues.
....and on and on and on.....
"It's the RINOs, Stupid." - Publius
well mattm
May 4, 2009 - 17:38 ET by shawn228We are not talking about the left now are we? The have control of Congress and the Oval office with very large majorities. They don't need to change anything, because they are in control. This is about the GOP taking control back is it not?
He had my vote
Funny that even when they
May 4, 2009 - 18:31 ET by ckc1227Funny that even when they weren't the majority, no one was advising them to change their views on these radical views. When they were out of power, did Erbe recommend they loosen up on their views on abortion? Did she recommend that Dems become less liberal? No. And what happened? We got the most liberal president ever.
I don't remember who said what ckc1227
May 4, 2009 - 18:42 ET by shawn228In fact, I don't even know who Erbe is. There is no denying the Republican party is trouble right now and many people are going to offer their opinions, solicited or not.
He had my vote
shawn
May 4, 2009 - 18:46 ET by botgwith the Dems bankrupting the country, do you really think they are not in worse trouble?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
depends Bruce
May 4, 2009 - 18:49 ET by shawn228The ripple effect from Obama's massive spending might not be felt for 3 more years and if the economy picks up in next year, Dems might still maintain control of congress
He had my vote
right you are Shawn
May 4, 2009 - 18:55 ET by botgit will take time, but the cabinet of tax-cheats and other yet to occur stuff will have an effect before that.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Ah, logic. Nice post
May 4, 2009 - 18:35 ET by JasonCAh, logic. Nice post Shawn.
Not to mention, of course, that every single one of MattM's indictment's of liberalism would require contextualization and more fine print than a car ad to be taken even remotely seriously. But this approach seems to be the preferred one on this particular board. How easy would it be for us to omit, twist, and outright lie about conservative policy in order to look the right look monstrous? Sad.
Hi Jason
May 4, 2009 - 18:53 ET by shawn228I actually like many platforms of the Republican party, It just bothers me when some want to legislate morality.
However Dems are not much better, they try to tell you what you should eat, what kind of car you should drive, and if you give an honest opinion about your feelings about gay marriage, you considered full of hate. Something seriously wrong with that picture.
He had my vote
hey ya know since the
May 4, 2009 - 19:04 ET by TruthMongerhey ya know since the Nazi's used to be in power once too - i really wish we hadn 't tried to change them either...
murder, theft, rape, assault - man when are we ever going to stop legislating all of this morality?!?!?
ah logic
government is the communists capitalism
shawn
May 4, 2009 - 19:06 ET by MrShyI'll take the side that seeks to do some legislating of -- or simply tries some things that might help curb -- morality in an ever-increasingly amoral world, over the side that seeks to legislate thought and feelings.
Any day.
And you and Jason and Ginger and my brother and my mom and Leon and Bal and, and, and..... would, too. Who *WOULDN'T* ??
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
they're both bad shy
May 4, 2009 - 19:07 ET by shawn228That is why the libertarian party is looking better every day.
He had my vote
shawn
May 4, 2009 - 19:52 ET by MrShyNo, they're not both equally (you're not saying "equally", but it's what you're saying ;)) bad. Just as Christianity and Islam are not both equally as dangerous.
Someone checking on my morality is WAY LESS scary a concept than someone checking on my basic essence... my thoughts and my feelings.
Shawn, in life, you DO have to (or it's best to) sometimes pick certain things over other things.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Sorry shy
May 4, 2009 - 20:02 ET by shawn228When it comes to legislating any personal freedoms, I find both parties equally bad.
He had my vote
another non sequitur
May 4, 2009 - 19:30 ET by lotrThis simply does not compute. If we don't "legislate morality" then just what exactly do we legislate?
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
perhaps the law?
May 4, 2009 - 19:40 ET by shawn228'This simply does not compute. If we don't "legislate morality" then just what exactly do we legislate?"
perhaps
Why waste time telling everyone who they should not sleep with and other examples of personal freedoms.
the law?
May 4, 2009 - 19:43 ET by botgshawn which of these has no moral basis?
crime? stealing is wrong
military? self protection is good
etc
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Stealing and crime..
May 4, 2009 - 19:50 ET by shawn228are against the law, in most states fornication and sodomy are legal
He had my vote
→ Right, shawn
May 4, 2009 - 19:52 ET by Cool ArrowAnd forcing me, as a condition of being a productive American, to support illigitimate children is also legal.
It shouldn't be, and it's morally wrong, but it is legal.
If the consequences for immoral acts were placed more squarely on the shoulders of those engaging in it, we might get less of it, or at least force safer practices.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Then cool arrow
May 4, 2009 - 19:59 ET by shawn228Perhaps we should encourage condom use as well as abstinence.
He had my vote
or require
May 4, 2009 - 20:02 ET by botgcastration? i kid, but you see the moral determination being made
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
→ shawn
May 4, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Cool ArrowAre you really implying there isn't enough "condom use" education out there?
If they taught as much Math as they do condom use, we'd have a nation of physiucists.
Where do you get the impression there isn't enough condom use education?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Some people
May 4, 2009 - 20:09 ET by shawn228including the past administraton spent hundreds of millions on abstinence only progams.
It was so successful, that some states turned down the money. How often do you hear of States turning down money, unless there are serious consequences like Obama's stimulus money?
He had my vote
→ Try again shawn
May 4, 2009 - 20:14 ET by Cool ArrowThe link you provided had to do with abstinence programs.
You'll notice the "only" is missing from the article, and therefore should not have been presented by you as "abstinence only".
Did you think I wouldn't check?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I would expect nothing else cool arrow
May 4, 2009 - 20:26 ET by shawn228I would imagine most sex ed in schools are saying abstinence is the best choice, but If you choose to down the wrong path, then comes the condom education.
If that is the case with abstinence only, I would be fine with it, but here is one with the header abstinence only. Gotta go for about an hour.
He had my vote
No shawn
May 4, 2009 - 20:38 ET by Cool ArrowIt is a misnomer.
You need to supply me with evidence of a public school curriculum that teaches this at the exclusion of other prophylactic methods. This from 04/18/09
In other words, Shawn, which State(s) engaged in an "Abstinence Only" curriculum to the absolute exclusion of contraception during the Bush years?
I guess I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any. And if there aren't any, you really don't have a base from which you can derive conclusions.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
cool arrow
May 4, 2009 - 21:11 ET by shawn228I was under the impressio abstinence progams pretty much mean abstinence only. If I am wrong, then I have no problem the program.
He had my vote
→ That's it shawn
May 4, 2009 - 21:14 ET by Cool Arrow"Abstinence" sought a place in the curriculum. Seemed like every time it was brought up, it was laughed down.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Here is another link
May 4, 2009 - 21:28 ET by shawn228Here is another link
Sex ed: Abstinence-only programs under review
As Congress considers reducing support, Illinois schools rethink sex ed policies
By Tara Malone |Tribune reporter April 22, 2009
Katie Mota and others from La Grange's Gurrie School listen to a sex education lecture at the Robert Crown Center in Hinsdale.
(Tribune photo by Candice C. Cusic / April 8, 2009)
The
birds and the bees may be universal, but what Illinois schoolchildren
learn about their sexuality is not. And it's again up for debate.
Nearly 2 in 5 Illinois students who take sex education learn about only
one method of birth control—abstinence until marriage—under the
policies of local school boards that are encouraged by the carrot of
federal funding.
But this spring, Congress will consider whether to curtail its support
of abstinence-only lessons. That, coupled with a recent uptick in U.S.
teen pregnancies and new research that suggests abstinence-only
programs are not as effective as more sweeping programs at changing
behavior, may augur a shift in what schools teach about sex.
The federal investment in abstinence-only education spiked 74 percent under President George W. Bush to total $176 million annually.
President Barack Obama,
meanwhile, has said he supports adding other forms of contraception to
the lessons as part of an "age-appropriate, medically accurate program"
to reduce teen pregnancies. Congress cut $14 million from abstinence
education programs last month.
The tenor of the discussions concerns Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.
"If federal funding for abstinence education were to go away ... the
breadth of the approach will be hindered," Huber said. "We're hoping
that's not the case, but so many communities and states are in an
economic downturn."
Sex education is not required in Illinois schools, but state law says
that if it is taught, it must emphasize abstinence. The particulars
fall to local school boards, who have created a patchwork of policies.
Chicago and Urbana school boards have approved comprehensive policies
that cover everything from healthy relationships to using condoms and
other contraceptives that guard against sexually transmitted diseases.
Middle schools from Gurnee to Schaumburg teach about abstinence and
human development, but draw the line at family planning.
Joliet
Central High School teacher Susan Cailteux is reminded of how varied
the sex education curriculum is at the elementary and middle school
level every time she begins a unit with a 25-point quiz on the
reproductive system.
"I'll get kids with a 5. They don't even get the uterus right," said
Cailteux, who teaches high school sophomores about both abstinence and
contraception. "It's very frustrating at times because you expect them
to know the basics, but the basics have not been taught."
Sophomore Tim Nemec, 16, of Joliet acknowledged that he never learned
much about reproduction or the risk of infections until he took the
health course required of all sophomores at Joliet Central. After that,
he noticed a shift in some classmates' attitudes.
"There were some kids who went in like, 'I don't care. I'll do what I
want,' " Nemec said. "But after a while, they were sort of like, 'Wow,
I don't know if this person is clean or not,' or, 'I could actually get
someone pregnant.' "
Nine of 10 Illinois health educators cover abstinence, but how they do
so varies. Nearly 60 percent said they present abstinence as the best
alternative, 39 percent as the only alternative and 4 percent as one
alternative, according to a report last year in the Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Abstinence-only advocates contend that, just as adults drill teens not
to drink and drive, educators should teach them to avoid risk by
maintaining celibacy until marriage. Those who favor a more
comprehensive approach say leaving out other forms of contraception
doesn't jibe with reality.
Nearly two-thirds of high school seniors said they have had sexual
intercourse, and 22 percent said they had been with at least four
partners, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported last year. And a federal report in 2007 found that abstinence
programs had little effect on changing teen behavior, and teen
pregnancies climbed for the second year.
"We have junior high school principals calling us because they have
five kids who are pregnant. They care deeply about students, but they
don't know what to do," said Kathleen Burke, chief executive officer of
the Robert Crown Center for Health Education.
The non-profit center teaches 120,000 students annually at locations in
Hinsdale, Chicago and Aurora. Schools bring students to the center for
sex education lessons taught by experts and tailored to the students'
age group in addition to, or instead of, lessons at school. All topics
are taught, but not to all age groups.
Eighth graders from Gurrie Middle School in La Grange settled down this month for a lesson in the risks and responsibilities of sex.
Physician David Bedney walked them through the subject—eliciting
giggles and groans of "ew, gross!"—during a two-hour class at the
Hinsdale center.
Bedney delivered his central message: "I'm not here to tell you what to
do. I'm here to give you information. I'm here to tell you, medically
speaking, there is only one way to avoid pregnancy, and that's
abstinence. There are forms of contraception that may reduce the risk,
but that's different."
Regardless of what Congress decides on funding, Supt. Jay Sabatino of
Community High School District 117 in Lake Villa expects abstinence
will continue as the backbone of sex ed classes, out of practicality
more than politics. Preventing teen pregnancies isn't as simple as
teaching about birth control, he said. It also requires discussions
about willpower, maturity and "what it means to be a responsible
13-year-old."
"There's always a balancing act, but you've got to start from someplace," Sabatino said.
Still, school officials try to make their policies reflect the
standards of the community. Many said neighbors and parents offer a
more immediate barometer of what's acceptable than policymakers in
Washington.
In Gurnee, Woodland School District 50 board member Terry Hall last
month questioned the quality of the district's abstinence-based
instruction in response to a parent complaint. The north suburban
district adopted the program two years ago, and other board members
cautioned against changing course.
"I approved the curriculum that was best for our community," said board
member Carla Little, a virologist and mother of four. "As politics
change, we would still filter that through what's best for this
community."
He had my vote
→ State decisions
May 4, 2009 - 21:33 ET by Cool ArrowAre you advocating a uniform, Federal, mandate of sex-ed curricula?
Obviously Illinois doesn't require sex-ed at all. Should the Federal Government mandate it?
When I was in High School, Texas History was required. Should all schools be required to study Texas History?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
'Nine of 10 Illinois health
May 4, 2009 - 21:42 ET by shawn228'Nine of 10 Illinois health educators cover abstinence, but how they do
so varies. Nearly 60 percent said they present abstinence as the best
alternative, 39 percent as the only alternative and 4 percent as one
alternative, according to a report last year in the Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology. "
"Are you advocating a uniform, Federal, mandate of sex-ed curricula? "
No.....I am saying if sex ed is to be taught, birth control should be taught along with abstinence.
He had my vote
As part of a general
May 4, 2009 - 21:57 ET by JerAs part of a general history curriculum, the requirement by the state of Texas that a minimum number of hours be devoted to Texas history is not a bad idea. Schools in other states studying Texas history? Who cares about Texas.
Jer
Surprisingly Shawn
May 4, 2009 - 21:38 ET by RESTLESS 1I have to agree with you.
Of course, the schools wouldn't have to teach abstinence if parents just would. There are too many kids raising themselves.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Thank you Restless
May 4, 2009 - 22:01 ET by shawn228Teaching kids the value of abstinence or monitoring what they watch on tv should be up to parents, not the government.
He had my vote
Teaching kids the value of
May 4, 2009 - 23:28 ET by botgTeaching kids the value of abstinence or monitoring what they watch on tv should be up to parents, not the government.
then should not safe sex and contraception also be up to the parents and not the government? Should not then what is allowed to be aired be up to the parents and not the government?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
absolutely bruce
May 4, 2009 - 23:34 ET by shawn228but if sex ed is taught at the schools, it should include birth control as well as abstinence.
He had my vote
and the legislation has changed
May 4, 2009 - 20:01 ET by botgbased on moral considerations
but you skip the point that all legislation is based in morals.
Do you have an example that is not? Funding or taxes, of what or for what?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Here comes the obvious
May 4, 2009 - 20:40 ET by JasonCHere comes the obvious train...
Legislate against actions that affect other people, not just the person performing them. If it only hurts the person doing it, leave it alone. Call it morality or whatever you want.
That's civil libertarianism in a nutshell.
OMO Jason agrees with me
May 4, 2009 - 20:50 ET by botgcuz he just stated a moral position upon which to base legislation..............
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Exactly. Thank
May 5, 2009 - 09:23 ET by lotrExactly. Thank you.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
"Legislate the Law." True
May 4, 2009 - 22:05 ET by lotr"Legislate the Law." True -- but this is a trivial statement, akin to saying 1 = 1.
As others have pointed out, all these "issues" are rooted in morality. It is immoral to steal. Immoral to tax but not budget. Immoral to tax but not defend. Immoral to let the strong oppress the weak. That's why there are laws against them -- because we self-evidentally see that "stealing is not good -- it's wrong."
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Individual freedoms should not be legislated by the government
May 4, 2009 - 22:54 ET by shawn228Crime, stealing, rape all affect others. Individual freedoms like pot use or prostitution only affects the individual if you take the drug lords and pimps out of the equation.
He had my vote
not true shawn
May 4, 2009 - 23:03 ET by botglike if your wife goes to a prostitute.......
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
bruce
May 4, 2009 - 23:11 ET by shawn228Unsane asked me the same thing, except he decided to use my then 7 year daughter as an example when she turned 18.
Of course it would break my heart, but who and how you decide to live your life and how it affects you family is your business and yours alone. If your ex wife wanted to be a prostitute to make a living, its her choice as well. If you had teenage children and neglected to cook for them and they had to survive on Top Ramen, and not putting them in any actual peril because you were on NB 24/7 talking about the evil dems, that is your decision. It is the wrong decision but it is not for government to legislate.
He had my vote
shawn
May 4, 2009 - 23:24 ET by botgthe laws of the land are based in the moral compass of its citizens. I do not want a country which teaches it's children that drugs and prostitution are morally acceptable behaviors.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
"I do not want a country
May 4, 2009 - 23:30 ET by shawn228"I do not want a country which teaches it's children that drugs and prostitution are morally acceptable behaviors."
Then perhaps their parents should
He had my vote
goodnight shawn
May 4, 2009 - 23:30 ET by botgo'shawnisea
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Nighty Brucy He had my
May 5, 2009 - 00:33 ET by shawn228Nighty Brucy
He had my vote
Night, Jim Bob...
May 5, 2009 - 01:09 ET by Jer"Night, Jim Bob..."
"Night, Mary Ellen..."
"Night, ShawnBoy...ShawnBoy? Mary Ellen, where's ShawnBoy?"
"He's out in the barn again with Myrtle the goat."
"ShawnBoy sure has been acting wierd since he went off to college and became a libertarian."
"Just don't tell Grandma Walton...she'll have another seizure."
"Night, everybody."
Jer
double
May 5, 2009 - 00:35 ET by shawn228hate to waste a post.........Go Vancouver Canucks ;- p
plus Shawn
May 4, 2009 - 23:10 ET by botgmany rights must be legislated like:
the right to bear arms shall not be...
the right to free association shall not be...
all other powers not delegated to shall be reserved for the States or the people.... (oh sorry that one no longer applies)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
First off, please note that
May 5, 2009 - 09:11 ET by lotrFirst off, please note that I have not commented on something like pot use -- this falls into what's considered a debatable territory. On the one hand, it is immoral for the government to not provide some degree of education and control regarding mind-altering, mood-changing and pyschologically addicting substances. On the other hand, the government ought not intrude heavily on recreational choice in the privacy of the home. Note however that the question as to whether to outlaw it or not is still a moral one.
Same goes with prostitution. Sorry, but prostitution is not the same thing as going out to see a movie. There's a moral difference. Are you saying that there is not? The Western tradition upon which this country had its heart and soul would've morally objected (and still does to some extent) to a woman exploiting men by selling her body and men exploiting that woman by using her body. In the end, the only way someone, including you, can be in favor of legalizing something is that you do not believe it to be immoral, or at least you believe it to be morally neutral.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
legislate morality?
May 4, 2009 - 19:41 ET by botgcrap LOTR i read that and totally missed it
of course all legislation is morality based
good pick
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
You have the nerve to talk
May 4, 2009 - 22:59 ET by mattmYou have the nerve to talk about logic? Ha! Those points aren't indictments, they are descriptions.
As for twisting the views of the "opposition," that what you on the Left do all the time. Exposing that is what this site is all about.
Well, Shawny, you're
May 4, 2009 - 22:33 ET by mattmWell, Shawny, you're assuming that the reason the Dems are in control is because the Reps are too far right.
Well, Shawny, they spent the 4 years they had the House and the Senate abandoning their platform. They went "moderate" and they lost in '06 and they ran McRino and lost again.
The obvious change is to purge the RINOs, stop taking advice from the Left and stick to the platform. If they don't, it doesn't matter whether they take back control or not, because we the people will still be under the governance of statists who don't respect government of, by and for the people.
There, does that explain it for you or should I draw you a picture?
Wow mattm... Know you
May 4, 2009 - 22:59 ET by bigtimerWow mattm...
Know you weren't talking to me but...that post of yours is:
Picture Perfect
Crystal Clear
Anybody should be able to see clearly now if they just took off those rose-colored glasses.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Actually no mattm
May 4, 2009 - 23:01 ET by shawn228You linked the Repubican national party platform, when I asked what core values were. I asked you to be more specific since there were well over 100 talking points and you asked me to figure it out by myself.
I also never said the party far right I am asking if the fiscial conservative issues are more important or the social ones?
He had my vote
If you're saying the GOP
May 4, 2009 - 23:24 ET by mattmIf you're saying the GOP would do better by abandoning the so-called "social conservative" issues. I disagree. It is the Left whose social issues are radical. The GOP positions on socials are pretty darn normal.
However, if the GOP had actually enacted the fiscally conservative planks of their platform, they would be in solid control of this government - IMO - and then they could do whatever they want on the social issues.
My point of brining up the policies of the Left is because they should not be immune to scrutiny of their positions. One small example - Abortion. Suppose the court was to do the right thing and overturn Roe v. Wade. And suppose the issue was sent back to the states where it belongs, and then suppose some states would ban it outright, others would keep it fully legal and others would be somewhere in between. Then suppose, at least at the Federal level, it was not funded with taxpayer money. (So, it's both a fiscal and a social issue - and a judicial issue too with regard to constructionist view of the constitution and the role of the judiciary). Abortion would cease to be a national issue. It would cease to be a contentious and divisive issue, and would merely be a grassroots local issue.
This is as reasonable as anyone could possibly get, and from where I'm standing, it's pretty much the GOP stance on the issue.
Would the Democrats countenance this view? Nope. They have an abortion litmus test for all their candidates, judicial nominees and appointees. They refuse to allow pro-life Democrats to speak at their conventions.
If anyone needs to moderate their views, it's the Democrats - of course they may not need to now that they're in control, but there's another election comining up and if they swing too far left, and if the GOP actually stand up for the platform - including ALL issues, because they are all tied together to some degree or another, then the Dems could be in for another 1994.
Mattm
May 5, 2009 - 00:45 ET by shawn228You make a very good point about abortion, I understand your point of view because the argument can be made that it affects more than one life and fetus/child cannot defend itself.
However, I don't know if you notice, but I dislike far left policies as much as I dislike social conservative policies.
For example, I can see your point on gay marriage, it affects everybody because It will change the definition of marriage and put healthcare out of whack because of description of a dependent. However i do not understand why some social conservatives get upset about overturning old sodomy laws. What people do behind closed doors is their own business.
Personal freedoms like watching what want, prostitution, eating unhealthy food, freedom to pray to whatever God you believe in, should not be governments role Democrat or Republican.
He had my vote
This is going to be long winded...
May 5, 2009 - 08:55 ET by mattmWell it's pretty obvious that the social issues are a hell of a lot more important to the Dems than they are to the Reps. So far, from what I've seen, it has only been the Republicans who have had a "big tent" on these issues.
The only reason Erbe and Matthews et al, are trying to make this case is to promote the leftist social views. They are trying to say that opposition to gay marriage, anti-abortion etc. are radical, fringe points of view, when in reality it is their viewpoint that is radical. And to top it off THEY are the narrow-minded bigoted ones because they won't allow non-correct-thinking people in their midst, and they demonize and ridicule any who disagree with them.
It's funny that so many who seem to hold your view try to say that the social issues are unimportant issues that the GOP should drop and thereby attract more voters. My question to those who hold that view is, if the social issues are of so little importance why make them a reason for not voting for a Republican?
Why vote for someone whom you oppose on taxes, spending, banking, health care, education, foreign policy, energy, and whom you only agree with on abortion and gay rights - especially when it's far more likely that the issues upon which you agree will have action taken on them, and affect you directly, but the ones you disagree on probably won't change at all, and even if they did, it wouldn't affect you much.
This issue is not about the GOP getting control back. If they get control back and act like Democrats, then what's the point? This issue is about why the GOP lost - and it's because they went moderate and mushy and crossed the aisle too many times.
The social issues are just a red herring being used by the Erbes to her viewpoint on those issues. They want to make the claim that the reason the GOP lost is because of the social issues and that they should therefore change.
Where were they in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000 & 2004? I don't remember them telling the Dems to give a little on the social issues after the GOP won a few elections.... I could go on, but ....
40 YEARS OF VOTING WRONG
May 5, 2009 - 19:11 ET by reelman46AFTER 40 YEARS OF VOTING DEMOCRAT
Mr.
Jared Taylor, the author of the book, “The Color of Crime,” lists the
following as some of his major findings about crime committed by
non-Whites:
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times
more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely
to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white
rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white
rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year
involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85% and whites commit 15
percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against
blacks. 45% of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10
percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only 3 percent
of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent
crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to
commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
In order to inform yourself about Black crime in America, please go to: http://www.amren.com...
Mr. Taylor’s book is available online for $8.95:
CRAWFISH NOTE: Democrats destroyed the black family
for their vote, dumbed down American morality while they potrayed
fornication, profanity, porn and divorce as of little significance.
Democrats continue pushing homosexual marriage and the overt trashing
of people of faith. Now democrats are giving hispanics a pass to
illegally enter America and they have become thousands of new felons.
Then democrats still have the gall to blame others for culture rot and
demand billions instead of character-morality. That is why the modern
liberal is a secular socialist. Facts are facts. Ignore what they say,
watch what they do.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Advice from a Democrat
May 4, 2009 - 15:49 ET by allanfThe last thing Republicans need to do is take advice from left wing Democrats on how to improve their party.
The fact is that a substantial number of people (at least half) agree with the Republican's core positions on these matters.
Which core positions?
May 4, 2009 - 15:51 ET by shawn228Small government, fiscal responsibility, strong military or Prayer in school, Abstinence and pro life?
He had my vote
This might help.
May 4, 2009 - 15:55 ET by mattmThis might help.
thx for the link mattm
May 4, 2009 - 16:02 ET by shawn228There is alot of topics there and they include almost all of the topics I mentioned.
Are you saying all abstinence and war on drugs are core issues?
He had my vote
Figure it out for yourself.
May 4, 2009 - 16:03 ET by mattmFigure it out for yourself.
Wow mattm
May 4, 2009 - 17:35 ET by shawn228I asked the other poster what the core republican principles are, you link the whole Repubican party platform on me and say it will help, I ask for clarification because there are well over 100 issues and you ask me to figure out for myself. Nice.
He had my vote
and you obviously haven't
May 4, 2009 - 22:36 ET by mattmand you obviously haven't figured it out yet.
mattm
May 4, 2009 - 22:48 ET by Free Stinkermattm - easy on Shawn, he's good people.
I vouch for him, even if he is a moderate.
OK then, let the moderates
May 4, 2009 - 23:03 ET by mattmOK then, let the moderates have their own party and see how well they do.... Oh yeah, they had one - the Repuplican - and look what it got them.
Moderates should take the advice of Mr. Miagi: "Walk on road, eh. Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later - squish! - just like grape."
So if the GOP dumps the social onservatives
May 4, 2009 - 16:38 ET by katiejanehow are they going to drag moderates away from the Dems and free govt goodies, debt no one worries about and belief that miltary is over-reaching to replace them?
ok you lot, I am confused, I
May 4, 2009 - 15:59 ET by kangaroook you lot, I am confused, I thought megan mccain was against repubs and was sticking up for the nutter libs, please explain, cheers (or have I had one 2 many beers)lol
motherbelt urges the
May 4, 2009 - 16:00 ET by motherbeltmotherbelt urges the Republican Party to abort advice from people who are bent on its destruction!!
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Absolutely
May 4, 2009 - 16:05 ET by doug1950agree. Whatever the left says to do....do the exact opposite because I seriously doubt they are all the concerned about the demise of the GOP. Anything they are against is probably a good thing and we should redouble our efforts to embrace it, if for no other reason than it scares them.
If you want advice
May 4, 2009 - 16:13 ET by IamTinmanIf you want advice on how to cook a chicken, don't ask a vegan!
Erbe doesn't live on our planet
May 4, 2009 - 16:05 ET by GalvanicCould Erbe host a show on anything other than tax-dollar-financed PBS?
I wouldn't
May 4, 2009 - 16:06 ET by katainkenteven take advice on cleaning my oven from this woman.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
As much as I cannot stand
May 4, 2009 - 16:08 ET by HeaterManAs much as I cannot stand Erbe (i.e. self-righteous baby boomer who loves saying "we" when describing her generation), I actually agree with her that the Religious Right is dead weight. Not sure if anyone's noticed, but half of them are turning into Al Gore junkies.
And I'm sorry, but am I the only guy who thinks Meghan McCain is kinda hot? I'd hit that. More than once.
One more thing...in
May 4, 2009 - 16:12 ET by HeaterManOne more thing...in fairness, next to FoxNews, PBS is the best place to hear conservative voices (Buchanan, Crowley, and that WSJ editorial board show). Even Newt acknowledges that PBS is a good thing for the GOP.
...especially when they air kooks like Erbe.
not too sure about that
May 4, 2009 - 16:11 ET by Ken ShepherdI'd say a good chunk of the "green" evangelicals were already predisposed to liberal politics and are not the traditional values voters that conservative evangelicals historically are.
For example, there are many in the "Emerging Church" movement who would call themselves evangelicals although they are theologically trending liberal. As goes their theology often goes their political ideology (though not always).
I think conservative, biblically orthodox evangelicals tend to more naturally align with conservative policies because they don't see government's aim as being improving life on earth. They know that only the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will bring true world peace and they want the government to let them live their lives quietly, with minimal tax and regulation in the meantime.
It's hard to argue that
May 4, 2009 - 16:16 ET by HeaterManIt's hard to argue that Jesus would want a captial gains tax cut without sounding like a Prosperty Gospel televangelist.
Well, Jesus wasn't political
May 4, 2009 - 16:31 ET by Ken ShepherdWell, Jesus wasn't political per se. That's not what he came to live and die for. But it's hard, for example, to justify class warfare rhetoric under a rubric of Christ-like politics.
this has nothing to do with
May 4, 2009 - 16:13 ET by kangaroothis has nothing to do with the price of eggs, but I was hanging on the jake tapper blog from the start about, OBzo(thats what someone called him thought it was cool) and the offshore tax thingy, got rid of a couple of trolls, but for a kinda left site I noticed over the last few weeks that it has turned into a right blog, same with newsvine through psmnbc site, we are definately beating them down with facts, it is a no brainer really, but forget cbs and huff n puff, they just delete you and ban you, mongrals, thats it just saying
mongrals? wtf?
May 4, 2009 - 16:17 ET by HeaterManmongrals? wtf?
hi heaterman, mongral, just
May 4, 2009 - 16:26 ET by kangaroohi heaterman, mongral, just means a*hole in aussie lingo
She's right.
May 4, 2009 - 16:24 ET by joesrantShe is right. Gay marriage, school prayer and family values are not the most important issues on the average American’s mind. Look at every poll on the top issues and they are nowhere to be found. Why are we even talking about gay marriage? Why is the government involved in straight marriage? They are only distractions from the core issues that will alienate a growing base of libertarians and moderates that may or may not agree with the issues personally but definitely don’t want the government telling them what to do!
They may not be the most
May 4, 2009 - 16:29 ET by mattmThey may not be the most important issues, but then why are they portrayed as being such an Achilles' heel for the GOP?
Why would a libertarian vote for a democrat because he agrees with him on abortion but disagrees with him on fiscal policy?
It cuts both ways, Joe.
"It's the RINOs, Stupid." - Publius
I know, it's like don't
May 4, 2009 - 16:34 ET by kangarooI know, it's like don't sweat the small stuff, if only that was all we had to worry about, I heard that married couples are in for an extra 1400 bucks with obamma that bush elimated, so why get married, wont matter when there is a major insident
Joe asked why are we even
May 4, 2009 - 16:43 ET by mattmJoe asked why are we even talking about gay marriage. The answer is simple: A bunch of militant gays are trying to get the government to force society to accept their lifestlye. I would think that would gall a libertarian.
I would think that both of you would not want the government to force churches to marry gay people, but that's what the militants want. If it wasn't for them trying to force government acceptance of their "marriages" it wouldn't be an issue.
Either way, you could ask the same questions of democrats. Why is abortion such a big deal to you? Why is gay marriage such an issue? Why do you seek to ban tobacco, keep "unacceptable" philosophical viewpoints out of schools, allow illegals to vote and on and on and on......
It is the policies of the Left that need scrutinizing.
The point
May 4, 2009 - 17:45 ET by joesrantWhy is the federal government involved in marriage, period? If we let the government define what a marriage is then guess what the government will and you may not like that definition.
As for forcing the churches, they already are. Two people can't get married by a church without a marriage license for fear of the church losing their tax exempt status.
Authoritarianism is wrong whether it comes from the left or the right.
I don't disagree with
May 4, 2009 - 22:55 ET by mattmI don't disagree with that. But I don't see protecting marriage as being between one man and one woman as authoritarian, I see it as simple acklowledgment and defense of one of the most important building blocks of civilization - the family. Government can't or shouldn't enforce it, maybe, but it can protect it.
Besides, if it's such a losing issue for Republicans, why did a state that voted for Obama in droves also vote to uphold "traditional" marriage?
And if it's such an unimportant issue, then it can't hurt the GOP any more than advocacy of gay issues hurts the Dems.
If the solution is to get the states to not recognize marriages of any kind, I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but it would have to come with a lot of other areas where the government needs to get out...starting with our wallets...marriage is waaaay down on the list.
It's because Rove made it a
May 5, 2009 - 14:31 ET by HeaterManIt's because Rove made it a wedge issue back in 2002/2004 elections. Worked wonders in getting the black vote in places like Ohio...but it whipped up the libs and gay activists into a frenzy.
libs telling us how to run a party
May 4, 2009 - 16:31 ET by charlietexasThey must see an opening with some of us that are weak kneed. It won't work.
I would swear she is a clone
May 4, 2009 - 16:47 ET by sevenJeneane Garafaloa
Are they just sisters or clones?
Poo Poo Bonnie Erbe at your own risk. She may be a liberal
May 4, 2009 - 17:01 ET by Rush Fanjournalist, but her motive for wanting to help the Republican party is pure. Bonnie cares about Republicans, and she just wants to see the Republican Party get back on its feet.
Don't forget that it was Ms. Erbe, who along with other liberal journalist, cared so much about Republicans during the last election that they urged voters to nominate Senator John McCain as the Republican candidate. Didn't they turn out to be correct? Wasn't John McCain the best candidate Republican's could have selected?
Listen to the woman. She knows what she is talking about.
Sarcasm OFF!
-------------------
On a more serious note, if you listened to Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor and Mitt Romney this past weekend on CSPAN, it seemed that they also were attempting to distance themselves from Conservatives. As Rush Limbaugh has said many times, including on his show today, if you have to have meetings to obtain ideas on how to "enlarge the Republican Party", you don't adhere to many principles of your own. Conservative principles don't require changing or updating. Just stick to them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We can get women, we can get everybody with a set of core principles that we do not abandon that benefit everybody, regardless the damned color of their skin or their gender! ~ Rush Limbaugh
Rush Fan
May 4, 2009 - 17:05 ET by BlondeJeb is vastly overrated.
More conservative than his brother, but not by much. Miles better than his replacement the RINO Charlie Crist.
I've had enough of the retreads. That's how we got Bob Dole and John McCain. As Glenda Jackson so aptly portrayed QE1...."EEEEEEnouuuuuuugh!"
I hope he fails, too.
RF... I heard the jokers
May 4, 2009 - 17:34 ET by bigtimerRF...
I heard the jokers this week-end...nothing changes either, I know a lot of people who just thought McC, Jeb and their ilk were just fine before, now not so much...at least people are waking up, takes some longer than others, better late than never...for now that is, I pray it lasts...and a real difference is made, these congress-critters just didn't really get the TP messages...at all...well maybe by the 4th of July they will...but that too is doubtful.
Hope Springs Eternal...then again...
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
fox designs new hen-house
May 4, 2009 - 17:03 ET by RousseOh gosh Bonnie---you're so smart. I bet the RNC takes notes every time you open your mouth.
Most of the advice I see
May 4, 2009 - 17:09 ET by SnappyMost of the advice I see coming from these blowhards appears to be that in order for the Republican party to be viable, they should abandon their base and change their name to the Democratic Party.
Could anyone be more transparent than Bonnie?
May 4, 2009 - 17:18 ET by Trix RabbitThis is but a beginning of the laundry list that the fabian socialists will ask -not of the Republicans- but of Conservatives in general in order to be part of the get-along crowd
First, drop the pro-life stance. Next, we will have to loudly and abundantly stand behind the gay militants who want marriage. Then comes higher taxes on everyone (except for the Washington plutocrats) so everyone will be on a same playing ground. The list goes on ad nauseum.
Bonnie, I for one, will never compromise on my principles. Take your wish list and shove it up your ample ass. I want nothing to do with you or your ilk.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Bonnie and her ilk need to
May 4, 2009 - 17:27 ET by bigtimerBonnie and her ilk need to wake-up...before it is too late!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt, I don't think we can stand to be helped by Bonnie.
May 4, 2009 - 21:53 ET by Thalpybt, I don't think we can stand to be helped by Bonnie. Is she trying to do us all a favor with her suggestions?
think again
May 4, 2009 - 17:31 ET by mrbillSorry guys, but some things have to change to stay afloat. The social stuff is going to have to take a back seat now. None of these issues even send a chill up the leg of young people. they know many of these issues and know people involved in these issues...and are friends with them. All that anti crap is over.
Ive been a repub for 40 years...we need to let the social right either go it alone, or they can belly up and keep their pet social issues at home. But either way...we will not win election...with or without them currently.
EVEN with them we dont win.
So we may as will move forward without them.
Well, I guess that makes
May 4, 2009 - 18:38 ET by ckc1227Well, I guess that makes one here who believes taking advice from the side that hopes we never win again is a good idea.
Next I guess you'll be telling us that Republicans need to forget all about that lower taxes/smaller government stuff if we want to win again.
Oh, aren't they sweet...?
May 4, 2009 - 17:45 ET by SlyrrIsn't it nice how all of these Democrat politicians, Obama media apologists, celebrity spin doctors and other socialist wonks are all crawling out of the woodwork, snivelling and fawning, and offering the GOP their 'expert advice' on what they should do to regain power?
Isn't it kind and magnaminous of them all, ordering the GOP to do this, and do that all sorts of things, feeling for their welfare, wanting so very, VERY badly to see them return to power?
Baloney. It's all a total load of weapons-grade boloneyum and they know they're not fooling anyone with their crocodile tears over the sad, tragic loss of Republican majorities.
Remember - it was following their advice that got the GOP in this mess in the first place. For all intents and purposes, the MEDIA picked the 'republican' candidate in 2008, and we all know how well THAT turned out. And the media picked a republican who filled all the requirements they are still barfing on their 'news shows' today. They picked 'The Maverick' John McCain.
Yes, they picked the guy who 'crossed the aisle' who 'voted independently', who 'made concessions for the greater good'. Baloney. McCain was every bit a traitor to the GOP as Specter and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. Remember, this was the guy who KERRY floated as his VP pick in 2004! The media loved McCain precisely because he was a traitor to the GOP and a Democrat collaborator.
And so they were overjoyed that they forced him on the GOP in 2008 as their presidential pick. Then they prompty fed him into a chipper shredder for their Chicago Mafia kingpin, Obama.
Ever since Bush was first elected, the GOP has been taking advice from the media about 'what they should do', and look where it's gotten us. It's high time our leaders stopped grabbing their ankles for media wonks who HATE the GOP! And I for one will have serious doubts about any GOP candidate who tries to become a media darling, because we all know what the media is now - they are slaves to Obama and Democrats.
But don't lose heart. Right now the media is crowing and laughing and having a grand old time because they think they've finally gotten back into power and that they'll be there forever.
They won't.
So they feel safe offering all this safe 'advice' to the GOP, trying to make the Republican party more and more like the Demorats, hoping that even if Republicans do win again, they'll roll over and grab their ankles for them, just like they did under Bush.
But remember in 2004? The left and the Demorats were in the same boat back then. They were out of the majority, Bush was in power, and many celebutards and leftist wonks were saying they suffered from "PEST" - Post Election Stress Trauma" because the GOP was in power. You know the drill - they said they were going to live in France, move away and live in some commie utopia because they couldn't abide the horrors of a GOP led nation.
It was only a few short years ago that it was the LEFT who was wandering around in the desert, searching for a leader, wondering if anything would ever go right for them.
And it'll happen again. The press is dying, and soon no one will believe anything they say because they have become so deranged and insane that they're still trying to run against Bush even though they're currently in the driver's seat.
Be patient, and stand firm for your principles. Don't compromise with the left, thinking it will make them 'like' you if you become just like them. They're lying - all they want is to exterminate any and all political opposition by outlawing it, and that's what this phony-baloney 'advice' to the GOP from the left is all about.
Party Of God
May 4, 2009 - 18:20 ET by melpolThe party of God label carried by the Republican Party has to go. Most people have found that God hands out blessings but not one buck. Changing the name to the party of dollars will get the votes. But God should not be forgotten. Let him be remembered by the Democratic Party.
http://www.associate...
This is the same lady that
May 4, 2009 - 19:49 ET by mostlymoderateThis is the same lady that was critical of Mel Gibson's "The Passion"
Question the propaganda
May 4, 2009 - 20:00 ET by lotrHate to rain on her parade, but even if the GOP were to "abort" its "alliance" with the "religious right," then I can only ask, "then what happens to the all those members of the 'religious right'"?
Wait, lemme guess: They go away -- they just disappear!
Pretty scary sentiments folks.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Urging!
May 4, 2009 - 21:33 ET by blazermaniacI am urging PMS hostess Bonnie Urbe to get the hell off of television.
When
May 4, 2009 - 22:02 ET by RowaneWhen the religous conservatives leave the republican party will be the day the republican party dies.
How did you steal the words
May 5, 2009 - 00:00 ET by mostlymoderateHow did you steal the words right out of my mouth? :)
Let me try to say this is
May 4, 2009 - 23:59 ET by mostlymoderateLet me try to say this is the most politically correct way as possible: What Bonnie Erbe *really* means is that the GOP should stay away from the religious "Christians". Now, what would happen if somebody said the Democrats should stay far away from Jews or Muslims? That would be offensive and so is telling the GOP to stay away from Christians.
Keep the faith...
May 5, 2009 - 07:13 ET by Joe BlogsI just don't care what RINOs like Jeb Bush say. Republicans need new talent, not new principles. The Bushes have topedoed what could have been another decade of GOP dominance. And daddy Bush threw an election that should have been a cakewalk, making way for the ghastly Clintons, whose idiot appointees set the stage for 911. One can only imagine what American tragedy the racist Obama is setting the stage for.
But all that aside, Bonnie Erbe looks like she got indigestion from the last toddler she ate.
Its an issue because the
May 5, 2009 - 01:44 ET by MrSnugglesIts an issue because the left makes it an issue. Or would you prefer that Republicans just sit down, shut up, and give the left everything it wants?
the center for the GOP is
May 6, 2009 - 04:27 ET by NonArabOmarthe center for the GOP is death. The moral center or center left = FAILURE. Just look at McCain. His wishy washy and ambiguous stance of many moral, social issues cost him the election. McCain has always been a wisp. He likes having that aura of vagary on many issues like abortion, illegal immigration, etc.
He tells one group one thing and then panders to another with another statement.
The positive aspect of GOP candidates in tune with the religious right is that they pick up that habit of saying what they mean. They become transparent. When was Bush every vague? He was hard to understand some times but he said what he meant with gusto, without apologies. GOP admires gonads above all else. They want conviction.