back to top22 Comments to “Good news, new challenges”

1. BY Rom116 11.03.10 AT 5:33 PM

   Finally, the Republican party returning to some of its roots. Not just on the issue of life, but also black republicans being elected in the deep south once again.

   The Republicans can take the hispanic vote, if they focused on real immigration reform by fixing and freeing the system as well as increasing border security.

   To regain the black vote, which the Republicans once had for almost a century, the party will need to make further inroads in outreach, because many black people vote for the democrat by default, even when they may completely disagree with him. It is a tradition, like how other ethnic groups (for example Hispanics like me) vote democrat or republican. There were a few good black candidates that the Republicans had, but there is a need for more. Faulkner in 15th district of NY was good. He was endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Even though he lost to Rangel, I hope he runs again.

   The Hispanic vote would be far easier to earn, but that would require the Republican party to drop “fence” solutions. Provide real reform that reduce waiting periods to enter the nation, guest worker programs, etc. If they do that they can build the fence without a problem. Fix both sides of the immigration coin, security and acceptance.

   To give an example of people who vote democrat for tradition, quite a few friends of the family voted democrat solely because thats what people did, however in 2008 quite a few changed their minds for the first time after learning the facts of Obama’s proposed Latin American foreign policy. If the Republicans want the Hispanic and/or the black vote, all they need to do is provide the facts.

   Report comment to moderator

2. BY SeanMT 11.03.10 AT 6:15 PM

   The youth vote isn’t a static group – in 4 years, probably close to half of those who voted are in the next age bracket (since the younger end of that 12 year span has lower voter turnout I’d imagine). So, yes the youth vote “learns” – but those voters are no longer “youth” voters – they are the next age demographic, so the youth vote never really “learns” that much. The new kids move in, and are indoctrinated by the university campus to vote Liberal.

   Report comment to moderator

3. BY NJLawyer 11.03.10 AT 6:51 PM

   The Dems make the mistake of always thinking they will get every Hispanic and every black vote, and they make that mistake because they have no respect for those people. They don’t treat them as if they have minds of their own.

   Report comment to moderator

4. BY Scroop Moth 11.03.10 AT 6:57 PM

   . . the Obama healthcare bill with its potential funding of abortion . .

   That falsehood is lurid even by WorldMag standards.

   There’s no ƒederal funding of aborts. Secondly, abortion is self-funding under private insurance plans because it is so much cheaper than full-term obstetrical and pediatric care.

   Health insurance reform will undoubtedly decrease abortion.

   Report comment to moderator

5. BY shellbiz 11.03.10 AT 7:56 PM

   The Patient Protection and Affordable Act (Healthcare bill) will not prohibit funding of abortion. It violates both principles of the Hyde Amendment and the Executive Order does not correct it. There are two parts to the Hyde Amendment: the first says no appropriated federal funds can be used for elective abortions; the second says that no such funds can be used to pay for health insurance coverage that includes such abortions. The Act says that it “maintains” the Hyde restrictions, but it only does so in two specific contexts. Federal funds that PPACA appropriates anywhere other than these two are unrestricted and so must be used to pay for abortions.

   Report comment to moderator

6. BY NJLawyer 11.03.10 AT 8:30 PM

   Here you go, Scroopy:

   http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

   This would be about abortion and federal funding and Obama doing it.

   Report comment to moderator

7. BY Scroop Moth 11.03.10 AT 9:46 PM

   SHELLBIZ,

   Of course, the Act enforces the ban exactly where Hyde applies the ban, without going beyond or falling short. Hyde bans federal funding except in cases of rape and life of the mother. The Act bans co-mingling of funds and requires separate payments and deposits.

   17 states and the DC use their own funds to pay for at least some medically necessary abortions through Medicaid, without violating Hyde. Therefore, patients are presently obtaining abortions through a Federally-subsidized inusrance program, without using Federal funds for abortions.

   Does anyone know how the miracle of funds accounting enables the bishops to sequester their government money? Perhaps, if insurance companies used the same CPA’s as Catholic Charities, the bishops would acknowledge the paper trail of private insurance premiums.

   On second thought, unlikely . . the bishops want to use the pretext of public subsidies as tool to prevent women from having abortions that they paid for with their own money, if they did not purchase separate policies with separate checks.

   The bishops weren’t really afraid of co-mingling, because there’s no need. Abortions save lots of money. Insurance companies could offer abortions for free through joint ventures that are financed personally by management, out of cost-reduction bonuses.

   The bishops were loath to lose a chance to make abortion even more unavailable.

   Report comment to moderator

8. BY corky@peavys.net 11.04.10 AT 1:09 AM

   I know it seems out of style, but I still only vote for pro life candidates if a pro life candidate is running.* Unfortunately that means I seldom get to vote on any other basis. I seldom have more than one choice that is pro life.

   I realize at any moment I could cross the line from life here to being face to face with Jesus, and I just don’t have the stomach to try and explain that choice to him. I think he and I both would be weeping and terribly hurt.

   *Exception: some pro life candidates would represent the cause so poorly they would be counter-productive. I vote against them, but only because I’m uncompromisingly pro life.

   Report comment to moderator

9. BY rsd 11.04.10 AT 1:40 AM

   Again, this is nothing more than mere speculation from right-wing social engineers, such as Olasky.

   It is noteworthy that antiabortion extremists continue to insist that no one can be “pro life” unless someone is “pro life” in the same sense that they are. The majority of those who identify themselves as “pro life” are opposed to criminalizing abortion. So, WorldMag’s views are not even in the mainstream among those who identify themselves as being pro-life.

   Also, there is no evidence that social issues played any significant role in the election. Most of those who switched their votes are moderate Republicans and independents–the same ones who abandoned the GOP in 2006 and 2008 over the Party’s war stance and its frightening coziness with Christian dominionists. They switched their votes because they want to see decisive action taken to address our economic situation. They didn’t switch their votes so that the GOP can devote itself to currying the favor of the clowns and bigots who comprise the Religious Right.

   Report comment to moderator

10. BY Rom116 11.04.10 AT 12:03 PM

    And RSD yet again claims the ridiculous. Olasky as a social engineer? You have quite an imagination. I recommend writing fiction, specifically fictional future utopias where social engineers rule the world. You would make millions, and people like me would get it for its comedy and irony.

    Again with the whole prejudice thing, saying that the Religious right is a bunch of clowns and bigots is prejudiced and foolish in every sense of the world, like saying liberals are in cahoots with Europe to form a one world government by destroying the US currency and socializing the economy. Bunch of commies!

    I feel so sarcastic around you RSD, it helps me from going nuts from realizing people actually believe the stuff you believe in. It explains much about why the US is so polarized and why our educational needs to regress back to 1860 standards where your average sixth grader had superior writing, reading, and math skills that the modern college student.

    Report comment to moderator

11. BY MacRutabaga 11.04.10 AT 12:06 PM

    Hi RSD,

    Meh.

    Report comment to moderator

12. BY Scroop Moth 11.04.10 AT 7:43 PM

    I think he and I both would be weeping and terribly hurt.

    That will be a remarkable scene. Jesus will smack most Evangelicals upside the head for their moral arrogance, and for using abortion as a justification to lie, to slander, and to play dirty tricks to get power.

    Report comment to moderator

13. BY rsd 11.04.10 AT 8:44 PM

    I would agree that there are some social conservatives who are not clowns and bigots. Rod Dreher comes to mind. The late William F. Buckley comes to mind.

    But little of what we see emerging from today’s Religious Right shows any evidence the kind of serious reflection that marks Dreher’s writings. In fact, I actually agree with Dreher, and would be persuaded if not for the fact that we threw “traditional marriage” by the wayside when we adopted no-fault divorce in every state in our nation. (And, it should be noted, that evangelicals are no stranger to no-fault divorce, tearing asunder what God has joined together at a rate that makes the conscience shudder.)

    In most instances, the Religious Right simply say that they oppose same-sex marriage primarily, if not exclusively, because their religion condemns homosexuality. A bigot is one who exhibits intolerance or hostility toward another because of a difference in creed or belief. Thus, by the standard of any dictionary, most members of the Religious Right are bigots.

    Report comment to moderator

14. BY Scroop Moth 11.04.10 AT 9:28 PM

    RSD – what do you think of the lying? It seems to me that righteous belief, combined with the inherent, unavoidable “spin” of political rhetoric, has lured Evangelicals into an impenetrable world of falsehood. It’s virtually impossible to test, let alone impeach, religious-right assertions with information that doesn’t come out of their own world. This teflon coating gives Evangelical rhetoric a terrible power over democratic society, because the rule of law generally gives assertion the benefit of the doubt, and they’ve got a an $80 million corporate-funded megaphone. IF that’s combined with bigotry, the result is fascism under the sign of the cross.

    Report comment to moderator

15. BY mrs.news2me 11.05.10 AT 1:38 AM

    Interesting rhetoric SCROOP 14

    I am so very sorry for you.

    Report comment to moderator

16. BY Scroop Moth 11.05.10 AT 6:24 AM

    Lets discuss topics instead of each other, Mrs.NEWS2ME.

    Report comment to moderator

17. BY Mar 11.05.10 AT 1:08 PM

    As a (now) Christian woman who earned advanced degrees (psychology, women’s studies) in secular universities, I am familiar with many varying viewpoints on abortion. As a result, it has been difficult for me to come to terms with my own philosophy.
    I firmly believe that God’s laws are perfect. If we could follow them, society would be moral, peaceful, more productive, and a lot happier. However, since Adam and Eve, our natural inclination is to reject God’s advice and insist on “doing it” our way. God is patient, and he allows us to give it a shot.
    Our ways are not working well. Abortion is promoted because women want to be sexually free without facing the natural consequences of STD’s and/or pregnancy. They are unwilling to look at the process, and would howl if it were proposed for an animal.
    Rocognizing that abortion is, in fact, murder, I still struggle with my former thoughts that at least these poor babies would not have to live unwanted childhoods and that the mothers were probably unfit liberals on welfare.

    Report comment to moderator

18. BY Scroop Moth 11.05.10 AT 4:32 PM

    MAR – It’s unclear that God has a law against abortion. Nevertheless, I respect the gravity of people’s conscience, provided they are willing to account for the fact that hardly anyone really believes or thinks abortion is murder.

    Report comment to moderator

19. BY socialworker 11.05.10 AT 4:37 PM

    That’s the interesting thing. When you talk to these children whose mother’s are liberals on welfare, they certainly don’t hate their childhood. They look forward to the next pizza and the next visit with grandma, just like all kids do. That’s what has cured me from feeling sorry for these kids before they are even born, and suspecting that abortion would save everybody a lot of money (as Scroop says) and trouble. I’ve met the kids and they are full of life and love and yes, some of them spiral out of control in their teens, but not all. Some of them follow a difficult maze out into adulthood that is joyous and nurturing of others. Who are we to know which ones are going to be which?

    Report comment to moderator

20. BY ConanTheLibrarian 11.05.10 AT 5:01 PM

    “… the Obama healthcare bill with its potential funding of abortion”

    You can keep saying this — I expect you will keep saying this — but it’s not going to become true because you keep saying it.

    NJLawyer: Here you go, Scroopy:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

    This would be about abortion and federal funding and Obama doing it.

    FactCheck.org says CNS is lying to you. Their analysis does say that the states involved — Pennsylvania and Arizona — had implied that elective abortions might be covered, and they quickly corrected/clarified their statements after some criticism. BUT, what the states said is immaterial, because HHS had already clearly stated elective abortions would NOT be covered.

    But that came only after federal officials — who control the money and write the regulations for the high-risk pools — stated on July 14 that no state policy would cover abortions except “in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.” Those are the only exceptions allowed by long-standing federal laws that broadly ban abortion coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) plans covering federal workers and their families, and under most state-federal Medicaid programs.

    http://factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/

    Report comment to moderator

21. BY Scroop Moth 11.05.10 AT 7:28 PM

    That’s unfair, SOCIALWORKER. Why do you say that? Health reform advocates argue that insurance companies have zero need for federal subsidies to cover abortion, due to the fact that abortions reduce policy costs. The concern about impermissible mingling of funds has no rational basis in finance or accounting. FULL STOP. Nobody advocates abortion rights to spare the public purse. Reforms are providing more subsidies for obstetrical and pediatric care, and advocates believe that abortions will decline as a result.

    Here’s what I suspect. The only method of abortion reduction that will gratify Evangelicals is criminalization and jail. Tell me why that’s unfair.

    Report comment to moderator

22. BY Mar 11.06.10 AT 2:00 PM

    I agree that it is unclear that God has a law against abortion. However, I disagree that “The only method ob abortion reduction that will gratify Evangelicals is criminalization and jail.” in fact, we pray that people’s hearts will change and they will not need to suffer the potential physical and psychological pain, including the inability to give birth to children at a more convenient time.
    Our church helps to pay for the expenses of unwed motherhood and adoption, and some members take in newborns until they are adopted. I have never heard a single evangelical wish anything but the grace of God and the goodwill of people for those women who experience an unwanted pregnancy.

    Report comment to moderator