Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Prescription For The Morning After


For John, BLUFConservatives need to work together now.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The InstaPundit is married, thus we have The Insta-Wife, who is a psychologist (her name is Helen Smith).  Her post election advice for Conservatives is here.

Regards  —  Cliff

15 comments:

Renee said...

We have a problem, economic literacy. The fact is women are not 'good at math', showed with the 'War on Women' executed by the Democrats. I'm not an expert, but I know not to get myself in trouble when it comes to money. My mother, who remembers 'back then' taught me enough about money to be able to open my own checking account at 16 and later on obtain a credit card in my name only.

It's the day after and CNN Money is reporting about the fiscal cliff, too many women (and men) are too illiterate to understand what that means to care about the consequences.


Why is it that Massachusetts leads in educational ranking in Math, but we voted in Warren?

This Obama/Warren combo isn't good. We could handle one or the other, but not both.

Renee said...

Equal pay means nothing if we don't know how to use our paychecks wisely.

kad barma said...

I don't know why this is so hard for righties to understand. As you may recall, I called this election the moment Romney chose Ryan to run with him. Righties thought Ryan was a great choice to run the numbers side of things, and he very well may have been, but the right still remains blind and deaf to the reality that folks like Ryan insisting on ramming their "Christian values" down the throats of a highly resistant electorate are exactly the reason why they can't and don't get elected. (On the basis of issues like this, The Signal called 50 out of 50 Presidential results so far, pending Florida to make it 51, back in FEBRUARY: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/).

Give up the insistence on legislating morality, and focus on both the numbers as well as truly caring about the 47%, and a fiscally conservative Republican would, I firmly believe, get elected in a landslide. But the righties wanted to fight about taking away and/or denying women's civil rights and homosexual's civil rights, and they're always going to have a hard time getting over the hump of the majority of Americans who honestly believe it's not the government's business to legislate morality.

Those same resistant people who don't want government to legislate morality don't want government to implode itself handing money to deadbeats any more than the god-squadders do. I firmly believe union membership wouldn't stop 'em from voting Republican if it was going to get them working in a fairly-paid job again. But righties prefer to blame "unions" for their own ineptitude and misplaced priorities.

Get out of people's bedrooms. Get out of people's family lives. If you feel strongly in how those things get done, then do it outside of government where the emotion of politics doesn't get in the way. I KNOW a scared and pregnant teenage girl will appreciate any hand that becomes extended to help her, and not berate her and browbeat her into a forced choice. I KNOW firsthand a gay couple loves their children as much as anyone does, and will do anything to fight for the family unit alongside others who feel the same way. I KNOW we all want to resurrect our failing nation.

So, seriously, righties: Get off the moral high horse. It's why you lose. And get back to Goldwater and Reagan for real, where the focus is on helping people, not cutting them loose, and right-sizing government. We DO need regulation for some things. But we have far too much of it, and I don't know a single D who doesn't agree that some things have gone way too far.

But if their choice is between bankruptcy and freedom, just like you, they prefer freedom. So why don't we all start again and focus on that.

kad barma said...

Oh, and, by the way, the co-opting of the "Tea Party" by moralists, when the entire premise was based on liberty and small government instead, virtually 180 degrees opposite, is a striking example of this. Michelle Bachman, by the skin of her teeth survived her electoral challenge, but she's a perfect example of what a Tea Partier should not be, but, sadly, has become.

Liberty and small government IS the majority preference in this country. We just don't have anyone, right or left, who is following through on that. To the degree that the left has focused on building and preserving moral freedoms, they get their 50.2% of things and squeak back into office. But that whole house of cards collapses the instant that high ground is taken away from them.

Imagine a Republican party platform based on liberty, not morally repugnant repression. (Spare me your sanctimony on our disagreement on what might be morally repugnant--more than half the country agrees with me, not you, and this election and the last one proves it). Imagine a Republican candidate fully supportive of my right, and everyone else's right, to pursue happiness as is put right there at the top of our Declaration of Independence. Tell me: What would a Democrat have to run on then? Obama's fiscal record?

Landslide. Seriously. Landslide.

Renee said...

Oh boy!

This afternoon I had to explain to my ten and eight year about 'the right to choose'. You know abortion, and being that I went to law school I explained to them how the law came to be.

Seriously without profanity, their response was 'WTF'. How could a country this awesome allow something like that to be OK.

My daughter asked, if was OK to disagree with the law. I said, yes. It is OK, and as pro-lifers and women we not only fight the law we also make sure no pregnant woman is ever abandoned. I even cited some real life examples, of how we helped people. I also mention that abortion is very common, but people do not speak about it. It is very painful to talk about.


I even mentioned the Plaintiff from Roe W Wade became Catholic. We talked about how this law confused the situation, that men and families can abandon pregnant women, and that the woman is much as a victim in many of these circumstances as the unborn child.

My empowerment as a woman, came from those who didn't abandon me. And together we help each other and become stronger and more loving.

Liberty doesn't not mean abandoning people to death, which is why #2 on the ballot did not pass.

The pursuit of happiness isn't based on killing unborn children or those who are dying, that isn't liberty that is just inhumane evil.

To call you on your BS and your crappy view of 'civilization'. We're call to do what is right and just, and if public policy fails we must speak and stand our ground.

Killing those who can not defend themselves doesn't make one happy or make one free or follow any basic tenants that makes us human beings intellectually superior to other primates. In fact it makes us inferior to them.

Renee said...

Otherwise I'm rather disgusted by your mischaracterization of me and what I do to actually help people.

Oh yeah those fiscal conservative/socially liberal worked so well for Brown and Tisei, while all the conservative Democrats at the local level can maintain their seats.

Face you don't like Christians, but tough luck you got deal with me, like I have to deal with you.

C R Krieger said...

I am confused.  The argument for protecting the 47% is a moral issue, isn't it?  It is for me.

So how do we characterize the Democrats?  Easy on moral issues and easy on fiscal issues?  Are we saying that Nancy Pelosi will spend our hard earned money to pursue Birth Control, Abortion and feeding the poor? Yes, sort of.  So, you would have the Republicans spurn those who are against abortion on demand (after first or second trimester) and stick with those who would do abortion up through live birth?  Then they begin to look like Democrats.

The duty of the opposition is to oppose, to draw the clear distinctions.

If they don't they are of no value.

I don't mind pro-preganant woman choice Republicans.  I do think that pro-life Republicans also need a seat at the table.

Henry Clay, 1839.
    “I had rather be right than president.”

They talked funny in those days.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr. Lynne said...

"The duty of the opposition is to oppose, to draw the clear distinctions."

Completely disagree with this. I don't believe that anybody is truly 'the opposition'. Positions are what they are and some may find theirs aligned in opposition to others' - but that doesn't make 'them' the 'opposition'.

The duty is for all to come by their positions honestly and with reason, toward the benefit of society and then defend and advocate for those positions. This is so that ideas may be considered and and weighed. This is the genius of the free marketplace of ideas that the founders forged. If positions align oppositely it can only make opinions opposite. Ideas can be opposite, but people can't unless they become slave to ideas while immune to reason and unwilling to let ideas be exposed to the daylight of skeptical consideration.

Neal said...

I find it darkly humorous and characteristic of the liberal faction that what conservativism believes and holds near and dear to their hearts, as ground principles upon which they live, is simply obstructionism and wrong headedness. Liberalism does not accept anything but their own special view of the world and condemns the rest as irrelevant or uninformed.

I find it particularly interesting that much of the liberal world of America has turned away from particularly the Christian religion, somehow finding solace and importance in "allowing" people to worship whatever they want, say, a can of Pepsi. This intellectualism has been around for centuries, but todays neo-liberals have taken it to a new extreme in which, by virtue of their political dominance, have now legislated the new morality and insisted that its correctness be accepted without question or opposition. Killing babies is morally reprehensible. Period. But now, we as taxpayers are being forced to pay for those inexusable deaths.

The liberal faction in our society assails conservatives for not wanting to "reach across the isle" when what they REALLY mean is to abandon the isle all together. Compromise means total capitulation. Witness the impending fiscal cliff. We are staring into the abyss simply because two men, Obama and Reid, insist that it all be their way...or no way. Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word "compormise." His view is, "The election is over. I won. You lost." His "mandate" is that he gets to dictate whatever he wants and have it become reality unchanged. "Let it be written, let it be done."

This country is more polarized than ever in the history of the nation. It is getting worse and the red in the red states is beginning to take on a much more ominous meaning. To be sure, we need to find a middle ground....a gray between Blue and Red....but that will take first identification of what each faction finds important..truly important....and then meeting to find where real compromise can be had. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, abortion could be considered acceptable. If a fetus is somehow compromised, say, ancephalic, abortion could be considered acceptable. If Sandra Fluke forgets to take her $1000 BCP or have her lover of the moment use her $500 condom and gets pregnant, well.....it sort of becomes the outcome of decision made and she lives with it. It is simply morally wrong to kill a child because the child's existence is "inconvenient."

I don't hold out much hope for any change in the status quo. The single minded, heavy handed actions of a few in politics over the past 2 decades have created irreconcilable camps that will only become more entrenched. Forget the hope of "independents" as that is simply an excuse. "Not to decide is in fact...to decide."

The American societal scene reminds me of Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" in which some of the sneetches had "stars upon thars" and the others....well....they just had regular, non-descript belly buttons...and of course were...inconsequential because of it....just as conservativism today has no "star upon thars" and is...in the view of liberals....inonsequential.

But actions and ideas always have consequences.

kad barma said...

If we want to concoct a thread on everything that is wrong with Democrat approaches to politics and public policy, we can have an equally long-winded and sensationalistic discussion. The question on the table here is what stands in the way of Republicans getting elected, and I find that the reflex reaction to defend principle literally guarantees that the message is not heard.

I am NOT saying who is right and who is wrong. I am characterizing the mainstream electorate's sense (well, mainstream to the degree of 50.2%) that Republicans are ramming a moral agenda down their throats with which they do NOT agree. The electorate favors liberty. The electorate favors being able to make their own personal choice, immoral and repugnant to others that it may be.

Renee, I do not have an agenda against Christians--I was raised one, I AM one, and if there is a bias here it is against the top-down approach (Papism would qualify as such) and in favor of the bottom-up approach. (Unitarians being "Godless" in my grandmother's vernacular still does not stop them from conducting their business democratically and sending delegates to a convention to vote on the issues of their non-Christian religion, and I know many Christian denominations tend toward that side of the spectrum, and good on them for it--faith is a personal thing, isn't it?)

All this proves to me the futility of trying to find a home in the Republican party for myself. I consider abortion to be morally wrong, as well as bad public policy. However, myself and an apparent majority of the electorate feel most strongly that it is not the business of our govenrment to place that at the forefront of a party platform and legislate it against the wishes of other private citizens.

Again, seriously: If you take away their slavish devotion to defending abortion, (and civil rights for all, including gays and everyone else), what, really, do the Democrats have to run on???

NOTHING!!!

Is it that hard to understand? Take away those slices of the electorate that vote D every time because they are choice-believing women, or equal-rights-believing homosexuals, and what does that 50.2% look like?

Looks like a Republican landslide to me.

But, by all means, keep banging your head against that wall.

Renee said...

Wait a moment, there are a lot of people who voted for Obama and still uphold marriage as a man and a woman for the sake of public policy. Marriage is a liberal ideal, because it is for the common good and for the poorest of children both biological parents in the homes is their greatest factor of doing well later on in life.

The info...



The results were close, and marriage did better in these deep blue states than Mitt Romney did. Of the four states that had marriage questions on the ballot, traditional marriage outperformed the presidential candidate in each and every one:
In Maine, Romney received 41 percent of the vote, while marriage received 47 percent.
In Maryland, Romney received 36 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.
In Minnesota, Romney received 45 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.
In Washington, Romney received 43 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.

---------

These are the bluest of states in which the very liberal candidate won, and they could not crack 60% for gay marriage, even with a good number of socially liberal/fiscally conservatives who probably did vote for gay marriage as well.

Not a stronger approval, and there seems to be a lot of disagreement on the issue.

This isn't about 'winning' this is about getting public policy right. Also, it isn't about homophobia. What it should be is designing new public policies and legal acknowledge for different forms of family constellations, but also recognize one of those forms is marriage united both mother and father together to raise their own children.

Yes, that's morality. Just as we do not want hate against homosexuals, we also do not want children without their mother and father. Both are wonderful and just ideals, but not the same thing in terms of public policy.

Meanwhile in Chicago... by a man who is praised by President Obama for his work.... Remember it was only months ago, when the President's view on marriage 'evolved' and it was the President back in 06' as a Senator sponsored a bill on the morality parenting.


<a href="http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/voices/15105-chicago-s-mounting-homicide-rate-rooted-in-father-absence>Chicago’s Mounting Homicide Rate Rooted in Father-Absence</a>


"The structure of the family unit is threatened by gender bias and parental alienation that prevent many good fathers from staying involved in their children's lives. We must restore fatherhood as a societal norm in our community to decrease crime. Many fathers do not stand a chance against the gender perception that they lack the ability to care for their children. This flawed belief must be modified through revised social thought and legislative reform to provide them the opportunity to do so. The single strongest predictor of crime in America is father absence, not the amount of police officers on the street.

Over half of the homicides in Chicago this year were committed by members of gangs comprised of many fatherless youth. Without the presence of a biological father, a child or teen will instinctively search for guidance from someone who represents a strong leadership role. Too frequently, those children will find the guidance they desperately need in street gangs. The violent culture of gangs builds its membership by feeding off of young fatherless victims. A boy can't be what he can't see."

------------
Without fathers in the homes, neighborhoods become 'police states' for those communities they do not even have the liberty to walk down the street safely. Businesses can not even be set up in these areas in fear of being constantly robbed.

If you're an advocate for individual freedom, what about theirs????

Being a libertarian is a nice idea for about five minutes in middle school, beyond that it is worthless in terms of public policy.

kad barma said...

LOL

Keep banging your head.

Renee said...



Your response to the gang violence in Chicago is 'LOL', that's disturbing.

kad barma said...

"Prescription for the Morning After" equals Chicago mob violence?

LOLOLOLOL

bang... bang... bang...

kad barma said...

That anyone might regard the Bill of Rights or a commitment to personal liberty as "worthless in terms of public policy" is particularly offensive, by the way.

That the party of the flag lapel pin has devolved so quickly to expressions of "get in line" and "papers, please" is downrifht remarkable.

I guess all those 2nd amendment Republicans are going to have to find a bigger tent...