Fox News' unbalanced priest blasts Dems as unbiblical
http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2007/12/fox_news_unbalanced_priest_exp.html

My personal favorite moment of this clip is when he singles out the Democratic stance on abortion and gay marriage, but fails to mention the pickle Mayor Guiliani is in regarding the same issues, just as the blog post mentions.

just a guess, but the demo position is formal, official "in concrete" doctrine, and you would be considered heretical if you differ, whereas the pubbies views are more inclusive of all points

see, we conservatives are fair and balanced

HUGE PALE! You cannot be serious when you say that Republican views are inclusive of "all points". If that were the case, Mitt Romney would not be as far to the right as he has become.

neither of you can be serious can you?

Straw, what ever do you mean? I'm very serious when it comes to this stuff.

That either party does not have concrete doctrines and contrarians are considered heretical.

I'm confused straw. Are you saying that you believe both parties are flexible when it comes to accepting those into the flock whom have beliefs contrary to the platforms? Or what?

No, I am saying neither party is flexible.

Well. I would agree with that to a certain level. So you would say that the Democrats would not accept groups such as Democrats for Life of America into their mainstream? Nor would the GOP accept the Log Cabin Republicans?

I would say that while you feel very strongly that your side is better than the other, and the other side feels better about themselves than your side, when you step back there is very little difference between either party.

Interesting theory. I've heard many on both sides of the independent spectrum argue that point.

I take it you believe that there are major differences between the parties and of course, Democrats are more open than Republicans.

Major differences? Yes
One more open than the other? No
I wish there was a viable 3rd party, 4th party, 5th party, etc.
There are a lot more independents in the world than political scientists realize, but unless you're a member of the big 2 you do not matter.

Major differences. Look at other democracies and the spectrum their political parties run. There are parties ranging from Communists to Facists, greens to xenophobes.

The US parties are very much middle of the road with more in common than disagreement.

Straw, in that light you are correct.

log cabin pubbies are accepted, no?

but I recall when that right to life guy petitioned to speak at the demo nominating convention, well he was stifled bigtime

Giuliani holds disparate views and he is running

name a candidate on the demo side that doesn't tow the party line 100%

Pale:
I mean this in all seriousness, but what are Log Cabin Republicans' stance on Gay Marriage?

Yeah, I'm with you, bbs. I'm sure it was just some technical glitch that so rudely interrupted our conversation.

is there one position or a general consensus? but there are openly gay folks all over the admin and in pubby circles

where are the openly right to lifers in the demo party

but I don't disagree too much with straw, the two parties are very similar when actually governing

how rude to call me a "technical glitch"

Pale:
Here are some: http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=49

I thought these were free forums.... I guess you must be approved to post before hand.

good for them Neo, I applaud them for taking a very difficult position

now put your tinfoil hat on ---

I look forward to the the thousand year reign, when this pseudo democracy is put away and we have a true theocracy

Is Pale Santa really Mike Huckabee?

what an insult!!!!!!!!!!!!

Baptist theology is way too liberal for me!

I am a conservative evangelical who happens to be pre-mil, trib and a literalist concerning the millenium

Yes they exist Miser, but the Democrat party platform almost universally excludes them and gives them little voice. Here is some history for you:

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/politics/newrepublic_democrats.html

Here are some outspoken pro-life Dems, but you will see they tend to be battling within the Dem party:

http://prolifedemocratsinmichigan.110mb.com/

Except for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - he seems to be doing OK within the party despite being opposed to abortion.

Considering he makes no fuss about it, but takes the far left position on a number of other issues, I see no reason why he would not do well within his party. I cannot say the same for the actual stance on the party platform, which was the whole point.

You guys really just don't get it and thanks for proving my point.

I suppose from your angle it would prove your point.

You should try my angle. It's a bit of a right angle, but still an interesting one.

lol

Mr. Reid may be opposed to having abortion for convenience generally legal, but I've seen no evidence to support that. Can you provide some?

Does it really matter? Are you going to argue that either party is more/less inclusive than the other?

I don't see a pro-life Democrat having a legitimate chance at the Democratic presidential nomination anytime soon. Do you?

I see you obtuse angle straw, but I would still maintain the pubbies are more inclusive and have a bigger "tent"

I'd dare say a pro choice GOP has no legitimate shot at the GOP nomination either. Look at Rudy's numbers where it matters; the early states (not national polls).

I don't see how any of this matters. What would be the point of having political parties if people who hold any position could join them? What would the parties stand for then?

Why would you want a political party that would support both pro-choice and pro-life?

I didn't say it mattered. I'm just saying that the parties are not symmetrical in their requirements about adhering to party dogma.



He may not wind up being the nominee. But I'd say his odds are as good as anyone's in the race right now. Every candidate has their challenges. A lot of people have said this is a two-person race between Romney and Giuliani - I disagree, but you can't say that Giuliani isn't one of the top competitors.

Straw, to me the issue is, would the Democrtaic party allow someone who is staunchly pro life run for anything of signifigance. The answer is no. Although abortion is an ancillary issue with the parties, too many ancillary issues have shifted to become forefront and pivotal to "getting needed votes".

ROFL $10 says this gets reported.

OK, but if you look at who most Republicans support, he is the favorite, so I would say - like I usually do with you, that you are wrong and ilinformed. Remember, Bush was behind McCain in 2000 early in primarys.

GO Fred and definately pro life and he won't change that for anyone!!!

Unless he's hired to lobby for a pro choice group...
And before anyone says, "But Thompson denies it...", I'm sure his clients have the proper bills for his service.

Which he did 15 years ago, once. I am sure that is more than enough time for him to have formed a sounder, more well-informed view:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/20/opinion/main3080192.shtml

Lobbyists are under no legal or ethical obligation to take all comers as clients; it is reasonable to infer that Thompson had no strong objection to the policy he was paid to promote. Pro-lifers should nonetheless treat this episode as a regrettable bit of ancient history — provided that Thompson demonstrates that he has changed his mind about the right to life.
He certainly seems to have done so. In his first campaign for the Senate, he said that states should be able to impose reasonable restrictions on abortion but that he himself did not think that it should be criminalized. While in the Senate, however, he voted with pro-lifers almost every time; he now describes himself as pro-life and says that he opposes embryo-destructive stem-cell research

Actually, I don't think he personally ever denied it, which seems to me to imply that he did something for the group. But, the group most certainly did not have the billing records (they were specifically asked to provide them), which seems unusual, also.

I didn't say it mattered. I'm just saying that the parties are not symmetrical in their requirements about adhering to party dogma.

quote]

Of course they are not and of course the party you support is much more open. And of course Democrats will say the same thing. And of course, this argument really proves nothing other than each side believes itself superior to the other (big shock).

You're right - the Democrats will say the same thing. I wonder if Joe Liebermann will believe them.

And I wonder how many liberal Republicans have lost primaries?

Lincoln Chafee didn't - unfortunately.

By the way, it's not the fact that he lost the primary that merited his mention. It's that the party establishment threw him under the bus.

Oh sorry I didn't realize you were changing the subject. No liberal republican was ever disfavored over a conservative one. And please don't ask me to name one, I really don't feel like looking and you and I both know that has happened at some point in history.

I really don't think this is changing the subject. I thought the subject we were discussing was wheather someone could deviate from the acnillary issue of abortion, and be an effective "party candidate" for their party. For the Republicans - yes for Democrats - No. IMO

A story I just read was Guiliani now tied with Huckabee.

And I guess I can end the discussion with the following:

I hereby concede the point that Republicans are more welcoming to differing opinions, are more open, honest, trustworthy, religious, family oriented, honorable, patriotic and are better in every way to Democrats.

Does this make you guys feel better.

No, but nor does the news that Guiliani and Huckabee are now tied. If Huckabee wins Hillary is our next President... which is why Huckabee is getting so much coverage. He stands no chance in a Presidential election.

Would you prefer I said those things about Democrats?

No, it would really disappoint me. I never took you as liar.

I don't think that's the question at issue. The question is, is one party establishment more sold out to the special interest groups than the other, and therefore less likely to tolerate dissent within the party? I think so. If you disagree, I can respect that, but please don't try to assign motives for my opinion - it's simply what I've observed. Thanks.

I am not trying to assign motives. Just observing that each side believes this and will argue vehemently regarding it.

Special interest groups dominate both parties; don't kid yourself.

Groups that have interests, sure. But by "special interest" I'm referring to a much narrower segment. I don't think "families who favor lower taxation" or "people who want the border enforced" or "Americans who want a strong national defense" are quite as narrow as the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, or AFL-CIO.

Again, just my opinion.

How about the NRA? Or is that too broad for you?

It happens on both sides, but again you being a Republican will feel that Republicans are less beholden, more open, in genearl better at whatever it is than Democrats.

Well there is no doubt that, as a special interst group the NRA represents the right, but to fit J's criteria into membership requirements of the NRA or the opposite to the ALCU dont necessarily fit.

So someone who favors gun restrictions would be allowed to join the NRA?

My guess is that anyone who wants to pay their dues can join the NRA, but I imagine the same is true of the ACLU. I'd think the NRA has much broader membership, however.

It's a fair point, though, straw - I would consider the NRA to be a special interest group. But I'd still say that the Dems are held hostage by them to a larger extent.

Actually Straw, your opinion on gun control is not a requirement to join the NRA. They do have "thier slogans" and mottos and crud but you can pay to play.

The NRA supports the right and is (although in support of gun control) somewhat moderate. But the left is represented by what I consider (and many others) extreme left groups. I mean, how much press are we goona give to Nancy Sheehan, the ALCU, Michael Moore and even AARP.

We should note that the NRA does endorse Democrats.

Here are a few of differences between the two parties.

Taxes:
D - raise taxes, destroy the economy.
R - lower taxes, trickle economics works.

Iraq:
D - retreat and wallow.
R - remain and win.

Global warming:
D - suckered by Al Gore despite the facts.
R - rightly indignant.

Religion:
D - Political correctness and secularism run amok.
R - Activly promote the value of religion.

Immigration:
D - Come on in...ignore our borders and laws!
R - Come on in...legally!

War on Terror:
D - That's just a bumper sticker slogan.
R - Uhhhh...they crashed planes into buildings, blew up embassies, blow up women and children, and actively plot the death of Americans and Europeans.

I could go on...I'm sure others will.

just like War on Drugs

Milby...nice and unbiased...

LOL... I thought you would like that!

Haha...its ok Milby, I've heard a lot of it in my short lifetime...I just laugh at it sometimes...no worries...

See...who says Reps and Dems can't get along?!?! Just you stay on your side of the aisle and I on mine

RE: your short life time...as the saying goes "a conservative at twenty has no heart; a liberal at thirty has no head." Here is a trivia question - who originally opined this quote? It will surprise you to know it wasn't Churchill.

Francois Guisot (1787-1874)

I cheated.

I just don't see why the Dems are more beholden to special interest groups than Reps. They both draw most of their funding from these groups, both rely on their support base from such groups.

What is different about the Reps special interest groups that makes Reps less beholden?

Straw, the difference between liberal and conervative interest groups is the ones with the $$$ are from the Far left on the left side and the middle on the right side. So, to be held by your interest groups make little difference if they are centrist, but is hug when they are radical.

Do you think that you view the Repub interest groups as centrist because they are more closely aligned to your beliefs, while the Dems interest groups appear radical to you because they do not align with your beliefs?

Just food for thought.

I think it's degrees of relativity - how relatively special the interest groups are, and how relatively beholden the parties are to them. The Republicans had lots of pro-choice speakers at their last convention; how many pro-life speakers did the Dems have? McCain voted against the tax cuts and was a featured speaker at the convention - how many Dems that voted for the tax cuts were featured?

You don't have to agree - it's just my opinion. If you want to say that's my opinion because of my bias, you could be right, or not. I don't know.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

I'm not even sure that it's a good thing that the Republicans appear to be more "open" - I wish the RSCC wouldn't have supported Chafee, for example, or that the President wouldn't have campaigned for Specter.

That's where I was kind of going yesterday, when I asked if you would want a politcal party to support those on both sides the issues.

However, since we only have two parties, the closer each party remains to the center, the more likely that party will control the electorate. Therefore, one party will always cater to the center more so than the wings.

But, if both parties are trying to control the electorate, then they are both trying to cater to the center - at what point do they become the same party?

No I think this because those who get the media attention are the left wing nuts like Mike Moore, Cindy Sheehan and those that were calling us the "losers" in a war we were winning. It is strange when an ex presidential candidate representing the Democrats calls our own troops murderers. Are those views typical of centrists. Not to say that the Republicans are exempt from this behavior, but it sure seems like they hardly ever do this crud.

Or maybe they just don't get the media's attention?

That could be, but I really doubt any militia is holding the short and curlies of the Republican party. Either way, its not worth arguing about because its not verifiable. But one thing is for certain, the media should not be paying so much attention to some of these left wing nuts.

Maybe it is a conservative conspiracy to assure Republican party dominance