A Huckabee nomination would be interesting because for the first time it would decouple the big money interests that have run the GOP for generations from the conservative grassroots base. I think this would show the true extent and power of the conservative message as it exists today.
Tolerance is such a loaded word, because it means we cannot tolerate certain kinds of speech. We claim to support everyone's free personal choice, except when it comes to sexuality. People like McClurkin are hated for two reasons, because they say that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, and that they chose to ignore their sexual inclinations in ordering their life.
We may not have any choice about what arouses us, but our response to it is completely up to us. That is where the choice lay.
By not firing McClurkin, Obama will certainly generate controversy in the blogosphere, but I question whether the audience he is trying to reach by this move will notice.
One thing that makes this argument harder to make is that groups like NARAL seem to be very antagonistic to groups that advocate for people to make the choice for life. That has been my perspective at least.
The fact that abortions have gone down under policies that actually improve the economic well-being of the middle and lower class (read, Democratic Economic Policies), is one reason I don't feel I am betraying my faith by supporting the occasional pro-choice candidate (though I am delighted that my new Democratic Senator is pro-life).
I make no bones about it: I want to see abortion gone; I think it is abhorrent, and I think it is murder. But I know that simply making it illegal will not do that at all. To effectively reduce them, one has to change the culture first, and right now, our culture has no respect for the responsibility and the blessing that parenthood brings.
And I believe Democratic policies that work to care for children, mothers, and families, will go much farther than the posturing of the 'religious' right.
I think one thing that prevents Democrats from making much headway into this group is the utter inability of most in the progressive community to actually talk to religious voters without condescending towards them. When we state that they don't analyze using facts, but rely on theology, we do tend to tick even the most intelligent of them off.
For the religious voter, their faith simply IS. It is not up for debate in the political arena. Policy prescriptions are, but their faith is not. And denigrating it by suggesting that they are out to lunch will certainly keep progressives from winning any allies in that movement, even on issues where they should be vocal supporters.
This and other comments in this thread demonstrate one of the saddest dynamics in politics today; pitting ourselves against one of the chief voices for justice and mercy in the world.
Having diversity for diversity's sake is not a solution. It demonstrates a value of appearance over quality. It demonstrates the mindset that you can judge a book by its cover.
Keep in mind, that the majority of the voting population is already women in this country. However, the vast majority of candidates for office remains men. Until the latter changes, you'll always see men with a higher representation in political office.
So the question is not whether or not we have equal representation between the sexes in political office (and whether forcing the issue is really a wise course of action), but why is it that men are more inclined to run for office than women.
A Craig resignation means that Gov. Otter(R) gets to appoint a replacement. Whoever it will be will certainly run for the full term, and will almost certainly have the edge over ex-Rep. Larry LaRocco(D). From a political standpoint, we would have been better off if this news came out next year, when it would have been too late to replace Craig except at the ballot box.
Even so, any representative who has pled guilty to a crime out to resign from office.
Well, to be pedantic, Roman Catholic just refers to the Roman Rite within the Catholic Church. The Roman, Byzantine, Armenian, etc... Rites are just different practices within the same Church, so technically, they are not different denominations.
I am a Virginia Tech alumni, and it pains me every time I see the tragedy that occured there refered to as 'Virginia Tech'. We are a good school, and Hokies are good people, who have suffered badly from this tragedy. Please don't make our school synonymous with this.
Please, when discussing this, say the Shootings at VT, or something along those lines, to emphasize the shooting and massacre, and not just the name of my beloved school.
I wouldn't be surprised if it something akin to their opinion on the 'Fairness Doctrine'. You may recall that the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations to air equal time to poosing viewpoints. Once that was done away with, the right wing media completely took over the AM side of the dial, and claimed that was perfectly fair.
They claied that liberals couldn't succeed because there was no interest in hearing their ideas. The truth of the matter was that liberals broadcasters were run out of town by the station owners who were all supporters of the right wing media machine for business reasons (amongst others).
Net Neutrality is likely the same way. Driven off the radiowaves, liberals have made a home on the net, and have shown how they can use it in many different ways. It's our communications medium by and large, and we have pushed many issues onto the front page because of our presence. The GOP would love to shut us down here too.
I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal who claims that the telecoms who are providing internet service would be hampered from pioneering new services (such as better video streaming capabilities) if they are not allowed to make money from the content that flows along their lines. I think that makes our point. The telecoms do not need to be deciding what we see on the internet. They do not need to be deciding how the internet is going to look in the future. The users of the internet will make that decision by the free market. If the playing field is not level, then we do not have a free market (in this case a free market of ideas).
Of course, the other upside of this is that without net neutrality, the telecoms would have the ability to make life difficult for content that does not pay the internet toll. It would cripple the blogs, and most certainly the liberal blogosphere which relies on the freedom of this media to communicate. The GOP would likely be effected too, but not nearly to the same degree. They would saw off one of their toes to chop off our legs.
So in that sense, it is the Fairness Doctrine all over again -- cripple the progressive voice so that the conservatives are the ones who can set the agenda.
I'm personally enthusiastic about Bob Casey's candidacy. Everyone says he's not that good of a campaigner, but I disagree. Rendell took him by surprise in 2002, and he's not about to let that happen again.
So far, Casey's basic approach has been to let Santorum self-destruct. As the election draws nearer, Casey will spend more time touting himself and his positive agenda. The media here in PA is only too happy to help destroy Santorum, so Casey doesn't really seem to at this point need to do a whole lot to further that effort.
The VA GOP was caught eavesdropping on a conference call between Demcoratic Gov. Mark Warner (this was four years ago) and some of his advisors.
The ensuing scandal cost the head of the VA GOP his job, amongst other things. It kept the party in disarray for a couple years afterwards.
You have the opportunity to do this now in Minnesota. Take advantage of this and highlight the crime committed to the local media. Call your Democratic State Reps and so forth and inform thim of this crime. If one or the other starts refering to it that way, the narrative will fire right back at the GOP.