Warbler said:
Mrebo said:
Warbler said:
Mrebo said:
His campaign was about reducing women to #ladyparts
???
it wasn't a Democrat that said women couldn't get pregnant via rape. It wasn't a Democrat that called pregnancy via rape, a gift from God. If you want the Republicans to have chance, you need to gets these kinds of yahoos out of the party.
The first guy was roundly and swiftly criticized by the Republican Party which withdrew all support from him and pressured him to drop out. Blame the man, not the party. A person does not need permission from the party to run under its banner.
I think the party does have some say there. Do you really think either on of the Clintons or Obama would be allowed to as Republicans?
This is one of the situations where it's not about opinion. If Clinton wants to be a Republican, nobody can stop him. He can run as a Republican, he can win as a Republican. Obama could switch to being a Republican tomorrow. No permission is needed!
The party really couldn't have prevented Akins from running under the Republican banner? Need I remind you that Akins was supported by Michelle Bachmann? There's another nut the party needs to distance itself from.
I really am serious about it. I'm not actually a Republican, never have been. When I registered, I chose no party. When I get around to becoming a Republican, the party will have no say in whether I am one or not. It's not conditioned on good behavior. And if I subsequently run for office the party also has no say. The party can say all kinds of things against me, refuse to fund me, try to do underhanded things against me...but it can't legally stop me. If people in the primary or general election choose me, that's too bad for the Republican Party.
But you should see how good this is! Since the party can't control who is under it's banner, all kinds of non-ideologues can find a place. Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine are pro-choice liberal Republicans who have been frequently criticized.
Mrebo said:
And the second guy, as previously discussed, expressed his personal view (so as to explain his principled opposition to all abortion) that the innocent growing baby should be regarded as a gift from God (how terrible! /sarcasm).
It may be a gift from God to that guy, but to the woman who was made pregnant via rape, it is her worst nightmare come true. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to carry a baby from rape in you for 9 months??
Unless you're demanding all those women get abortions, that's not too much of a point. You know I agree that it would be bad policy to forbid abortions in that situation. It's one thing to disagree with his policy position but it's quite another to throw him out of a party for it.
Mrebo said:
It doesn't need to toss someone out for being 'too' pro-life.
no, but the party does need to show more sympathy for women pregnant via rape.
You shouldn't believe the disgusting narrative pushed by Democrats that Republicans don't have sufficient sympathy for rape victims. I agree Akin was an idiot who deserved shunning. Murdock was talking about how he can possibly have a moral opposition to all abortion. Even if you don't agree with him, it's a respectable position. It's the way I respect pacifists even though I think they are terribly naive.
Mrebo said:
Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.
of course you'd say that, you're pro-life.
Intentionally removing from a party platform the idea that abortions should be "rare" is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? Permit an abortion of a 9 month old fetus is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? No, no, no.
Mrebo said:
Women dressed up as 'ladyparts'
when and where were women dressed up as lady parts.
Mrebo said:
Perhaps you cannot see what a demeaning self-parody that is.
all I can tell you is that most feminist groups believe that the right to chose is a women's rights issue. Just who do you think the feminists voted for in this election?
And it's not only the abortion, it's all the ladyparts issues. I think any feminism based on abortion is idiotic as well. Feminism used to mean something more than that. We're not talking about "feminist groups," we're talking about women motivated to turnout and vote because their ladyparts were allegedly imperiled. Just because you're told that feminism = abortion doesn't make it truth. Lots of feminists voted for Romney, if one thinks feminism is something more substantial.
Right now there is a perception out there that the republican party is out of touch with modern times and the common man and minorities, that it is the party of old Christian white men. And yes, I know the media is to blame for that perception.
Yes, yes, and yes.
The Republicans really need to show that perception isn't that case. They really need to distance themselves from the likes of Akins, Bachmann, Palin, Trump, and Bush Jr. They have to stop making themselves so easy targets for the media.
Alan Grayson, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Carter, Chris Matthews...I have my own list of boogey-people who are extremist incompetent loud-mouthed idiots. If the media was hammering the Democratic Party about them the way Republicans are attacked for this or that person you'd have a very different view of things.
Both sides need to make themselves as palatable to the public as they can. Republicans are greatly hindered because the media wants to beat up on them. If the people of Bachmann's district want her as their representative, that's on them. She's not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean she should be shut out of power.