search
top

Tossups

Clayton Cramer has a look at the races for November, and notes that he doesn’t have much faith in the GOP. In that case, the beatings need to continue until things improve. I don’t recall people being this upset in 1994, and that gives me some faith that the GOP might actually have to do something this time. I also don’t see Barry transforming himself, and remaking the Democratic Party in a centrist image the way Bill Clinton did.

3 Responses to “Tossups”

  1. One of these days the R’s are going to realize they need to change their outlook to be more in line with their party members, otherwise they’re going to wake up one Nov. day and find they have no base left.

    Unfortunately for many of us, there are far too many conservatives who believe in upholding the constitution, less govt., etc., but still feel the need to push their own brand of religion, abortion beliefs, etc. on people. They day they realize and convince the base that those issue have no place in politics is the day they muster a lot more support.

  2. Arnie says:

    Dear Chamberedround,
    I agree with you at the federal level. The Founders did not want a national religion to dictate the people’s morality. However, they did leave it up to the people in each State (formerly colony) to detertmine what type of commiunity standards, if any, they wanted to live under. If someone didn’t like those standards because they were too loose or too strict, they were free to find a State whose moral requirements agreed with their own. That is why the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress, NOT to State legislatures. The immediate history of the 14 A shows it was never intended to change that scenario. It wasn’t until 1925, 58 years later and after the death of all who authored the 14th, in Gitlow v New York, that a “progressive” Supreme Court decided to reinterpret the 14th to ultimately undermine the sovereign right of the people of each State to determine the type of moral community in which they wanted to raise their children.
    If you want to marry a sodomite and kill babies in the womb, live in Massachusetts or Vermont, or wherever else the people agree with you, I don’t care. More power to you. I shall leave you be. But please let me and my neighbors live free of such perversions invading our communities at our taxpayer expense in Nebraska or Kansas or Texas, or wherever we must move to find a like-minded State and you and the federal government leave us be! Deal?
    But no! You have to have the supreme Court violate the 1st and 10th As in Roe v Wade to destroy our States’sovereignty and violate our right to self-determination, freedom and liberty. They weren’t right wingers in the GOP doing that (well, not after W.G.Harding at least)! Those were lefty Democrats striking down legitimate laws in order to expand federal power and tyranny over the States and the people!
    I for one am tired of being falsely accused of trying to impose my morality on others when all I want is my right to live in a morally ordered community that I and my neighbors agee on, and not to be forced to tolerate perversion in my community nor be forced to support it with my taxes in some other community.
    I am not imposing anything on anyone! It’s the liberals who are imposing their perverse tolerance laws on me!
    So: STOP IT!

    Thanks. Had to get that off my chest.

    Arnie

  3. ChamberedRound: what laws do not impose someone’s moral code on you? Every law does that. There is a case for picking a broad set of laws, ones that reflect a consensus: say, 90% agreement, instead of 51%. But the notion that laws can’t have a religious origin to them has problems. Our distinction between first and second degree murder comes right out of Leviticus. The notion that defensive homicide is okay, but manslaughter isn’t: ditto.

top