Vote Republican

[tugmoose]

Something like that.

 

[Kicking_Television]

Wow

[owl]

Hmm. I might have to rethink my decision (to vote for all cartoon characters).

[embiggen]

GOP "values" need some destroying.

[quarter23cd]

If Democrats Gain Control of Congress, Our Values Will Be Destroyed!

I don't get it. What's going to happen to their values? If Republicans retain control, I doubt my values will change at all.

[SlowBurn68]

Pathetic...

[MrRain422]

It blows my mind that, amidst the Foley and Haggard scandals, a state Republican party can still think they can get away with claiming to be the party of family values.

[LouieB]

The election in IL for governor has the most convoluted scenario ever, with the possibility that some Dems will vote Republican and some Republicans voting Democratic. In both cases the candidates have so much baggage that voting for the opposite party holds out hope for the party either in our out of power.

 

LouieB

[EL the Famous]

It blows my mind that, amidst the Foley and Haggard scandals, a state Republican party can still think they can get away with claiming to be the party of family values.

 

because the Republican platform itself is based on propositioning young interns, engaging in clandestine gay sex and snorting crystal meth? that's like saying that saying that the deomcratic platform is based on blowjobs and extramaritial affairs when Bill got busted. equally as ludicrous an argument. individual actions and neither party endorsed any of them.

[MrRain422]

because the Republican platform itself is based on propositioning young interns, engaging in clandestine gay sex and snorting crystal meth? that's like saying that saying that the deomcratic platform is based on blowjobs and extramaritial affairs when Bill got busted. equally as ludicrous an argument. individual actions and neither party endorsed any of them.

 

Wow, talk about completely mis-reading my point.

 

I know that Haggard and Foley are not representative of the whole party. But don't you think that those two scandals (also, the Foley cover up more than anything else) strip the Republican party of the moral high ground that they continue to claim? Also, you know, that whole debacle of an illegal war, plus Katrina, etc. What basis does the Republican party have to claim that they are the party of moral values while the Democrats are not? Policy and actions mean a whole lot more to me than their platform, which is essentially meaningless rhetoric. That goes for both parties. Who cares what the platform is? What's important is what they will actually do and what they have actually done. I know that the Republican platform is based on moral values. I'm just saying that that platform is a lie.

 

Also, please don't pretend as though Republicans didn't try to associate all Democrats with Clinton's blowjob. They STILL are.

[NightOfJoy]

The election in IL for governor has the most convoluted scenario ever, with the possibility that some Dems will vote Republican and some Republicans voting Democratic. In both cases the candidates have so much baggage that voting for the opposite party holds out hope for the party either in our out of power.

 

LouieB

 

However, there is an alternative on the ballot this year..............vote Green.

[EL the Famous]

Wow, talk about completely mis-reading my point.

 

I know that Haggard and Foley are not representative of the whole party. But don't you think that those two scandals (also, the Foley cover up more than anything else) strip the Republican party of the moral high ground that they continue to claim?

 

Also, please don't pretend as though Republicans didn't try to associate all Democrats with Clinton's blowjob. They STILL are.

 

Not trying to create a skirmish, but i'm not mis-reading your point if you are still asking if the two scandals strip the party of their claim. The cover up is a different matter. My point still stands, while I won't disagree that this could affect public perception about their morality...it's still actions of individuals and not the party. All the other issues you cited (war, katrina, etc.) are sound reasons not to vote for them, but I don't know if they would be considered 'moral' issues by the popular public/media definition.

 

I'd never pretend that...and it's just as ludicrous as trying to associate all Republicans w/ Foley or Haggard.

[MrRain422]

Oh, I know that the war and Katrina aren't traditionally seen as moral issues. But that's because the definition of what is and is not a moral issue is completely backwards in this country right now, IMO.

 

I think that sending thousands of soldiers to their death for no real purpose is immoral (to speak nothing of the innocent Iraqis who have died). Letting the people of New Orleans suffer for days before doing anything to help them was immoral. Two boys kissing is not. That's just me though.

 

Plus, well, there's nothing about the Democratic platform that is particularly immoral either, so one could also question the morality of running campaigns based on scare tactics that claim that the Democrats will destroy moral values. And that is something that would be pinned on the party, not just on individuals.

[EL the Famous]

Letting the people of New Orleans suffer for days before doing anything to help them was immoral. Two boys kissing is not. That's just me though.

 

No, that's not just you...I agree that what the public/media definition of 'moral issues' have become versus what they should be are two totally different things.

 

My original point was that some of the same people who decried the entire Democratic party getting tagged as immoral or whatever over Clinton's indiscretions, are now villifying the entire Republican party over these two dickheads...and it just strikes me as some more of that good ole double-standard. Not attacking you personally, please don't take it that way.

[Atticus]

Oh, I know that the war and Katrina aren't traditionally seen as moral issues. But that's because the definition of what is and is not a moral issue is completely backwards in this country right now, IMO.

 

I think that sending thousands of soldiers to their death for no real purpose is immoral (to speak nothing of the innocent Iraqis who have died). Letting the people of New Orleans suffer for days before doing anything to help them was immoral. Two boys kissing is not. That's just me though.

 

Plus, well, there's nothing about the Democratic platform that is particularly immoral either, so one could also question the morality of running campaigns based on scare tactics that claim that the Democrats will destroy moral values. And that is something that would be pinned on the party, not just on individuals.

 

if you're of the opinion that abortion in all forms is murder, that marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman is sin, that all drugs are evil, that homosexuality and premarital sex are sins, etc., then it's probably not too far off to claim that the electing of democrats could potentially "destroy" (I would think "erode" or "alter" might be more fitting, but whatever) your values--to the extent that most democrats favor a woman's right to choose, support gay rights (incl. marriage) and don't condemn premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.. It's inflammatory and inciteful rhetoric to be certain, but I think that's where it's rooted.

[MrRain422]

No, that's not just you...I agree that what the public/media definition of 'moral issues' have become versus what they should be are two totally different things.

 

My original point was that some of the same people who decried the entire Democratic party getting tagged as immoral or whatever over Clinton's indiscretions, are now villifying the entire Republican party over these two dickheads...and it just strikes me as some more of that good ole double-standard. Not attacking you personally, please don't take it that way.

 

 

Fair enough. I don't mean to paint the entire Republican party with the molester/hypocrite/drugged-out-gay-dude brush. But I still think it's disingenous for the party to try to claim a moral high ground when there are so many scandals within their ranks recently. I guess I'm treading in some murky area by trying to make a distinction, and I'm entirely open to the possibility that the distinction I'm trying to make doesn't really exist in the same way that I'm seeing it.

[owl]

My point still stands, while I won't disagree that this could affect public perception about their morality...it's still actions of individuals and not the party.

 

Republicans did call themselves the "moral" party, which to me seems pretty inclusive. If they take responsibility for being inclusively the moral party, shouldn't they take responsibility when things go awry? To me, it would be like Bush taking credit for low gas prices, but not for high gas prices.

 

I think the mistake, though, is claiming moral high ground at all. For that alone, they kind of deserve to be rebuked when it's revealed that celebrated (Haggard) or official (Foley) members of their party are, in fact, by their definition "immoral."

 

I'm wondering when people will start to ask why Haggard "chose" to be gay.

[EL the Famous]

Republicans did call themselves the "moral" party, which to me seems pretty inclusive. If they take responsibility for being inclusively the moral party, shouldn't they take responsibility when things go awry? To me, it would be like Bush taking credit for low gas prices, but not for high gas prices.

 

I think the mistake, though, is claiming moral high ground at all. For that alone, they kind of deserve to be rebuked when it's revealed that celebrated (Haggard) or official (Foley) members of their party are, in fact, by their definition "immoral."

 

I'm wondering when people will start to ask why Haggard "chose" to be gay.

 

See, but you are getting back into that area of what some considers issues of 'morality' and what's not. They are still considered more 'moral' on the abortion, gay marriage, etc. items important to a lot of people and mentioned earlier a couple of posts back.

 

Also, by your rationale, you can't count Haggard...that's like saying that the party is accountable for anybody who isn't an official, but still a republican constiutent or backer. Then, somebody needs to answer how they address those 'log cabin' republicans today...how do they account for those cats?

 

At the end of the day, i'll still vote Democrat...but these type of conversations amaze me.

[MrRain422]

Haggard is more than just a backer though. At least according to his claims, he talked to the President every Monday. If he is to be believed about that (and I haven't heard the White House deny it, which I would think they'd do immediately if they could), then it shows that he has access to the most powerful people in the party. That's real influence, far beyond just being a regular constituent.

[EL the Famous]

Haggard is more than just a backer though. At least according to his claims, he talked to the President every Monday. If he is to be believed about that (and I haven't heard the White House deny it, which I would think they'd do immediately if they could), then it shows that he has access to the most powerful people in the party. That's real influence, far beyond just being a regular constituent.

 

Point well taken, but is the Republican party responsible for Haggard's actions as an individual...again, do you hold the Democratic party accountable for Bill's fuck up? I don't.

[MrRain422]

No, but I also don't remember the Democratic Party basing their campaigns on moral values and claiming that the Republicans were destroying American families.

 

Certainly the actions of individuals are the responsibilities of those individuals. But if the Republicans are going to insist that they have a higher moral standing than Democrats, then I think it's reasonable to expect them to do a better job of cleaning out their ranks and being careful of who they associate with.

[EliotRosewater]

No, but I also don't remember the Democratic Party basing their campaigns on moral values and claiming that the Republicans were destroying American families.

 

how could a party completely devoid of moral values base its campaigns on moral values?

 

[EL the Famous]

I think it's reasonable to expect them to do a better job of cleaning out their ranks and being careful of who they associate with.

 

To my knowledge, they aren't saying they are the 'immoral' party either. All i'm saying, be careful what you wish for and say...that same statement could come back on the Dems outside of these moral issues just as easy. Don't get caught up playing the same game they do and stick to the real issues (war in iraq, north korea, budget, international diplomatic relations, etc.).

 

I totally get what you're saying, it's just a dangerous stance because it goes both ways.

[owl]

these type of conversations amaze me.

Thanks?

 

Look- I'm not saying that the Republicans' morality should hinge upon the actions of a few. However, I think that if a group is going to claim to be the "moral" majority, then the group must answer when their members prove otherwise. (Bottom line: don't claim to be the moral majority, because it's impossible to make that true.) But they made the claim, and they must live up to it. Otherwise, the claim has no weight, in my opinion.

 

As for Haggard, I think it's safe to include him in the party. Regular bumbling folks don't have weekly conversation with the party's leader.

[EL the Famous]

I think that if a group is going to claim to be the "moral" majority, then the group must answer when their members prove otherwise.

 

A majority doesn't really dictate 'each and every member', but okay. To my knowledge, they do answer when this stuff happens...but what level of actual accountability are you asking for when ONE of their members screws up?! When one of their members does something off-platform, it doesn't mean that the entire parties platform has changed because they screwed up...but whatever.