Republican Morality

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DoggyStyle82

Touching and agreeing almost 100%. My point is that infusing political rhetoric with rigid religious dogma or the converse, infusing reilgious dogma with intractable political agendas, inevitably causes the polemicist to be in violation of their own tenets.

Shinerbock makes good points, but misses the point.. Pointing fingers is not an argument. Ad hominem platitudes do not further the conversation. Spouting party line talking points does not advance discourse. They only, obscure, deflect, and obsfucate. The debate is about leadership, not individuals. Democratic leadership is no more "moral" than republican leadership. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

ok, then take that line out and respond specifically to the point at hand, not what others have done. Its been stated by DSTChaos and myself that Dems are not perfect either. This isn't even about them so take them out of the equation. Republicans, specifically, the social and religious variety, hold their party as the standard. What is your response to the failings of your leadership in moral and ethical issues?

BTW, I am a conservative, just not an idealogue entrenched in either parties b.s

[shinerbock]

Well the moral failings so far as we know involve Foley's misdeeds. Now, I don't really consider him to be among party leadership, but he has represented the GOP poorly. If it turns out that Hastert knew something and took little or no action when action was obviously appropriate, then I'd admit he has failed in both his capacity as a human being, a legislator, and a party leader. Personally, I think he has failed in general as a party leader. He has allowed the GOP in the house to be divided, and has not set a clear direction for the party or the country. My primary problem with the GOP at this point is that nobody is willing to play hardball, everyone is concerned with their own motivations. I think the only place where Democrats have shown any sort of unity or strength is in their hatred of the adminstration, and despite this lack of direction from the left, Hastert and Co. have not taken advantage. I'm not sure if you were interested in my thoughts on other immoral acts by republicans, but if you'll specify I'll respond. As for the party, this is what I'd like to see...

Strong leadership (both for the country and internally). Modern politicians don't seem to understand that when acting as a block, most obstacles can be overcome. Republicans will point to Bush's weakened stature, but fail to recognize that if they would continue to stand by him, it wouldn't be nearly as weak. Its similar to the debate on immigration, where politicians are concerned that if they take too tough a stand either way, they'll either lose their base or the hispanic community. What they fail to understand is that by taking a tough stand, they'll solidify their support, one way or another. By staying in the middle or wavering, you're likely not only to lose some of your base, but to fail in efforts to gain more moderate voters. Basically, get off the fence. The problem with politicians is that they're educated and prideful people. If you present a patriotic and honest campaign that appeals to Americans because of their love for this country (aka Edwards before Kerry made him his attack dog), I truly believe you'll generally win. However, politicians are of the sort that they simply cannot stand to sit idly by while being derided by opponents. Thus, they get pulled into a typical mudslinging election cycle. I'd love to see the GOP appeal to people on a level beyond "If you don't vote for us _______ will happen." Ask Reagan how that worked. Times were bad for most people, but his message was one of inspiration, and a lot of people loved him for it. Not everything has to be policy, sometimes it just comes down to leadership. When presented with people starving and those down on their luck, our greatest leaders haven't established new government programs, they've merely appealed to citizens, asking them to help those in need. People have asked me before how Christians can be against social welfare programs, and my general answer is that its not the government's responsibility, its ours. We've taken the burden off of Americans to act neighborly to one another, and placed it squarely on the government. Not only does it not work, it denies Americans the chance to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Alright, sorry for the tangent.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there is somebody coming up who's what I'd like to see in a leader, and his name is Mitt Romney.

[DSTCHAOS]

This was my 3rd attempt at trying to get myself to read shinerbock's long ass post. I'm sure I'm missing a pretty strong post but I can't get myself to read it. Sucks.

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well the moral failings so far as we know involve Foley's misdeeds. Now, I don't really consider him to be among party leadership, but he has represented the GOP poorly. If it turns out that Hastert knew something and took little or no action when action was obviously appropriate, then I'd admit he has failed in both his capacity as a human being, a legislator, and a party leader. Personally, I think he has failed in general as a party leader. He has allowed the GOP in the house to be divided, and has not set a clear direction for the party or the country. My primary problem with the GOP at this point is that nobody is willing to play hardball, everyone is concerned with their own motivations. I think the only place where Democrats have shown any sort of unity or strength is in their hatred of the adminstration, and despite this lack of direction from the left, Hastert and Co. have not taken advantage. I'm not sure if you were interested in my thoughts on other immoral acts by republicans, but if you'll specify I'll respond. As for the party, this is what I'd like to see...

Strong leadership (both for the country and internally). Modern politicians don't seem to understand that when acting as a block, most obstacles can be overcome. Republicans will point to Bush's weakened stature, but fail to recognize that if they would continue to stand by him, it wouldn't be nearly as weak. Its similar to the debate on immigration, where politicians are concerned that if they take too tough a stand either way, they'll either lose their base or the hispanic community. What they fail to understand is that by taking a tough stand, they'll solidify their support, one way or another. By staying in the middle or wavering, you're likely not only to lose some of your base, but to fail in efforts to gain more moderate voters. Basically, get off the fence. The problem with politicians is that they're educated and prideful people. If you present a patriotic and honest campaign that appeals to Americans because of their love for this country (aka Edwards before Kerry made him his attack dog), I truly believe you'll generally win. However, politicians are of the sort that they simply cannot stand to sit idly by while being derided by opponents. Thus, they get pulled into a typical mudslinging election cycle. I'd love to see the GOP appeal to people on a level beyond "If you don't vote for us _______ will happen." Ask Reagan how that worked. Times were bad for most people, but his message was one of inspiration, and a lot of people loved him for it. Not everything has to be policy, sometimes it just comes down to leadership. When presented with people starving and those down on their luck, our greatest leaders haven't established new government programs, they've merely appealed to citizens, asking them to help those in need. People have asked me before how Christians can be against social welfare programs, and my general answer is that its not the government's responsibility, its ours. We've taken the burden off of Americans to act neighborly to one another, and placed it squarely on the government. Not only does it not work, it denies Americans the chance to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Alright, sorry for the tangent.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there is somebody coming up who's what I'd like to see in a leader, and his name is Mitt Romney.

A cogent, well reasoned post.

I'm not a republican, but I agree with you on what is wrong with politicians. You skipped the most important. To win, you have to sell your soul, to maintain, you have to become a slave to special interests (big business, lobbyists, minorities, etc) People can't lead because they are chasing the re-election cycle. It causes inertia and cronyism. Republicans are better at it because they have richer and better educated puppeteers. Democrats only cry and bleed better

[shinerbock]

The thing is, you don't have to sell out to win, you just can't half ass it. Americans are looking for strength, either play the game, or don't. A good candidate can run a clean, patriotic and inspirational campaign and win, I promise. The candidate just has to be strong enough to not resort to other tactics with the attacks start coming in.

As for Ax, yeah, I'm a racist. Sure bud. I brought up no bid contracts for minorities because dems constantly criticize the GOP for the same things they do on a regular basis. To big business or minorities, its still wrong.

[06pilot]

Originally Posted by DoggyStyle82

A cogent, well reasoned post.

I'm not a republican, but I agree with you on what is wrong with politicians. You skipped the most important. To win, you have to sell your soul, to maintain, you have to become a slave to special interests (big business, lobbyists, minorities, etc) People can't lead because they are chasing the re-election cycle. It causes inertia and cronyism. Republicans are better at it because they have richer and better educated puppeteers. Democrats only cry and bleed better

I thought that was funny. Are politicians supposed to lead or are they supposed to represent their constituents? In other waords if I were a politician, it wouldnt matter my views. I would fight for the viewpoint of the people who elected me regardless of my personal opinion. That is selfless service. Is it reality? Unfortunantly no.

[shinerbock]

well, there is also a school of thought that your district elects you, as who you are, to represent them. Meaning they have put their efforts into you, and left it to your judgment to make a wise decision. Granted, I'm for representing your constiuency* but you're not there merely to be a puppet. I'm drunk, as well.

[AXEAM]

The house speaker (Dennis Hastert) was questioned today, so I quess we will find out who knew what and when in next week or two.