The Drudge Report has an article reporting how Powell, Ridge, and Gingrich disagree with the Cheney-Limbaugh view of the Republican Party. They believe it needs to be more inclusive in order to win elections. Powell hypocritically claims to be a good Republican in spite of his endorcement of Obama (With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats?). The article goes on to say, "Pointing to President Ronald Reagan's at appealing to Democrats and independents as he carried 49 states in 1984, Gingrich – himself a potential 2012 contender for the party's presidential nomination – concluded, 'I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if thy run around deciding that they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible space.'" Mr. Gingrich forgets that Reagan did not win the support of Democrats and Independents by watering down his message. He won them over by articulating his message in powerful and meaningful ways that spoke to the majority of Americans.
I can't help thinking that what Powell and Ridge really mean by being more inclusive is softening the hardline Republican position on abortion ("If we would only lighten up on abortion, we could win more elections"). I think this is both bogus and disingenous on their part, first because the majority of Americans are against abortion on demand, as demonstrated in a recent poll, and second because they ought to just come right out and say that they want to change the platform on abortion. To me, these guys are examples of the biggest problem the Republican party has and they ought to be publically repudiated at every opportunity.
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Thomas Paine, writing from Philadelphia, February 14, 1776
Thomas Paine
Author of the best seller Common Sense (1776)
About this blog
This blog contains the common sense thoughts of three concerned Americans: Dave, Bill, and Brian. Others are welcome to post their comments.
About the bloggers
- Dave
- Carlisle, PA
- My best friend is my wife, Barbara. Though I am concerned about my country, I am at peace about our future.
Rhetorical Gold
Watch and Consider
Blog Archive
Quotes we must never forget!
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." John Adams
“The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate the minds of the people.” Thomas Jefferson
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." James Madison
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve this measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." Frankin Pierce
"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Abraham Lincoln
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient. This means that the citizen who thinks he sees that the nation’s political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor." Mark Twain
"You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald W. Reagan
"We have four boxes from which we can defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." Larry McDonald
“That government is best which governs least” Henry David Thoreau
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America
"Socialism was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty." Robert Heilbroner, committed socialist (for most of his life)
"To sit home, read one’s favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men doing." Theodore Roosevelt
"A word to the wise ain’t necessary--it’s the stupid ones that need advice." Bill Cosby
TJ's insight on the two universal parties
Men by there constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (August 10, 1824)
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs (Conservative Constitutionalists) and Tories (Liberal Democrats) of nature."
Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory."
Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802. ME 10:310
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (August 10, 1824)
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs (Conservative Constitutionalists) and Tories (Liberal Democrats) of nature."
Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279
"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory."
Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1802. ME 10:310
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
16 comments:
Absolutely. The point about Reagan is a great one. Reagan didn't change his principles; he persuaded people to support him as he articulated his principles. These creeps are not worthy to tie Reagan's shoelace.
I though abortion had been made legal in most states and was no longer an issue. I heard the Powell interview and I do not remember him talking about abortion.
At the end of the day, Tom, with Democrats abortion is always the issue.
Indeed. over these past 30-something years, the single unifying cause to which Democrats subscribe is, to paraphrase the Democrat George Wallace, abortion now, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever.
If you peel away the phony posturing, the handwringing, the sanctimony - You know: the frowny faced assertion of being "deeply troubled" by this or that aspect of the nominee's record - by Democrats in the matter of judical appointments over the last several decades, the bottom line is the fights have been about abortion.
There really just isn't any question about this.
LOL, always smart to quote a racist like George. You got 5-4 on the court.....reverse it!!!!!!!
I am pro choice. That does not mean the same as pro abortion. Just make sure you remember that.I have very few if ay dems say they are pro abortion.
If one is pro choice, one is objectively pro abortion. Sorry.
And what do you mean by "You've got 5-4on the court? Reverse it." Last time I looked, there were two conservatives on the Supreme Court.
(I take it as a matter of simple fact that no justice approved for the Supreme Court since Clarence Thomas could, by definition, be a true conservative. That's just the way the system works at this point in our history.
And of course few Democrats admit to being pro abortion. They don't have to, because all the pro choicers who vote for them understand the code words perfectly well.
("Let's not get too graphic here, folks, because the reality of what we're talking about is so, well, so . . . untidy."
The argument is not between pro-choice and pro-abortion. That's a straw man. The real argument is whether abortion should be legal on demand or not. You may say you are not pro-abortion, but if you are in favor of abortion being legal on the demand, that is the same as being pro-abortion. It means you are oaky with others having abortions even if you, perhaps, would not. That's like a German citizen saying, "I'm not going to kill any Jews, but I'm okay with others killing Jews." It is intellectually inconsisitent to believe that abortion is homocide (i.e. that abortion is morally wrong) yet favor abortion on demand being legal. This is equal to saying that homocide on demand should be legal. Of course, no one would say that, which is precisely why the position that a person can be pro-choice but not pro-abortion exists.
I disagree with your analysis. I am more of a realist. If a woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion, she will get one whether it is legal or not. My preference is that woman to be able go to a sterile clinic and have a licensed physician perform the procedure versus having some guy with a coat hanger in the back room of the oyster bar performing the procedure.
Sorry Tom, but that is another straw man set up by liberals to justify the legalization of killing the unborn. The fact is, prior to 1973 there were very few "back alley" abortions. Today there are about 1.5 million abortions per year in the US, over 98% of which are nothing more than birth control for convenience. People will always break the law, but that does not mean the law should be changed just so they don't injur themselves when they do it. Once the laws of the land fail to protect the most innocent and vulnerable forms of human life, what hope do the rest of us have! Next it will be eliminating those in "populations we don't want more of" as Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said. This is Naziism.
All depends where one believes life begins and the bottom line on this is right now it is legal. Because records are so scant prior to the early 70's please back up the fact that you say there were few back alley abortions. I am not sure anyone really knows. I think Ginsburg was expressing what she thought the views of those fighting the Roe v. Wade case were. I do not think she was expressing her views.
Again, I have no problems with anyone trying to change the law, make it more restrictive, etc. It's a noble cause. since the gist of the oritnal post was Powell's comments, I just don't remember him talking about abortion.
You are incorrect, Tom. Here is exactly what Justice Ruthy said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." In other words, Roe would impose some sort of artificial "equal protection" argument that would justify providing disadvantaged women (the kind we have too many of) with government sponsored abortions. In case you don't think this is what she meant, here is what the Washington Post said about it: Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?
It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables. Neither judge nor journalist apparently found this attitude exceptional; there was no follow-up question.
At the very least, Ginsburg displays a disturbing insensitivity to Supreme Court history. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote the 1927 decision approving forced sterilization for Carrie Buck -- a 17-year-old single mother judged to be feebleminded and morally delinquent. "It is better for all the world," ruled Holmes, "if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." Such elitism has been discredited; it is not extinct.
The entire Ginsburg interview is a reminder of the risks of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Immune from criticism, surrounded by plump cushions of deference, the temperament of a justice can become exaggerated over time. For Ginsburg, complex arguments are now "so obvious" and "can never be otherwise" -- and opposition is fated to failure. Such statements, made during Ginsburg's own nomination hearing, would have been disqualifying. Now she doesn't give a damn. (Michael Gerson)
Aw. How can I argue with the ultra conservative Michael Gerson opinion? I am sure his opinion is unbiased. Here's a quote from Norma McCorvey (Roe) in 1998, "It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes." I kind of doubt this is what the court expected either and I have no respect for those women that use abortion as she describes, but regardless, it is currently within their rights. It is a disgusting means of birth control and they can rot in hell for it as far as I am concerned. They are irresponsible, etc. etc. But again, it is currently their right.
From this one could conclude with Ruth was talking about is that only women of means can get/afford an abortion and the poor because of lack of personal funds are left out. The we could mean anything from the USA to the court to your definition. Pity there was no follow up.
The end for me on this subject :)
Tom, honestly, have you fallen for every liberal canard ever conceived? Can't you update them a little? And, by the way, do all liberals quit the argument when they run into a dead end or intellectual brick wall? I've had many arguments with liberals in my time, so I'm quite accustomed to this type of surrender. If you were right, you wouldn't have to quit. Or change the subject.
Tom, you're on a slipper slope. Wasn't slavery legal at one time?
yes, I believe slavery was legal. and I believe the 13th amendment ended it. So, go to work and get an amendment, or would that infringe upon states rights? You have one proposed in Congress.
I quit when it comes to parsing someone's words without enough information. I agree with Dave that the interviewer really should have followed ups with some clarification. Corporate media sucks. What can I say.
That's it, Tom: put your head in the sand, while the babies die by the millions. Free sex for everyone!
And Brian you can keep complaining to me instead of campaigning your cause to to get a constitutional amendment passed. It sits on congress that life starts at conception. Better hurry though, because I think there is one to protect a woman's right to choose.
Post a Comment