out of touch republicans

there are plenty of out of touch republicans, there are plenty of out of touch Dems and independents..

in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )


also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.

As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.

no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)

mikepegg44 wrote:

t
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )

My list might start with those 2

Was Closed for review.

Wow, there sure are a lot of opinions on this one.

Exactly what AMT is about...BUT...

Be sure you deliver your opinion respectfully. It's required here, thanks.

I know some of you get tired of hearing me go on about environmental issues (I know- "no shit Sherlock") but this is one of the main reasons I believe the Republican party in general is more out of touch than the Democratic party. In my opinion not even the Democrats are firm enough on environment but at least they tend in general to support pro-environmental issues far more than Republicans. As Yvon Chouinard pointed out, without a healthy planet for us to live on there will be no social or economic issues to think about.

This was an interesting read. While I do agree that Democrats can be out of touch as well, I do believe the problem is worse on the Republican side of the aisle.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/wehne ... servatism/

PETER WEHNER

The future of conservatism in America is bright, since it offers the best insights into human nature, the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how to achieve a more just social order.

Those who travel under the banner of conservatism need to do some repair work and embrace a genuine conservative disposition. What that means is appreciating the complexity of human society and the importance of human experience in shaping our approach to contemporary challenges, and recognizing that politics involves prudential and imperfect judgments. Which is to say that conservatism is hurt when its adherents treat it as an adamantine ideology, which is quite different from grounding it in enduring principles.

An example: During a 2012 GOP primary debate, Fox News’s Bret Baier posed a question to the eight candidates on the stage. “Say you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1 spending cuts to tax increases.?.?.?.?Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”

Each of the eight candidates raised his or her hand.

This was, to me, a danger sign. I say that not because I favor higher taxes (I don’t). But we had reached a point where none of those running for president on a conservative platform could admit to any scenario in which he, or she, would raise taxes, even if as a result doing so might roll back the modern welfare state.

“No new taxes” is fine as a goal. It is certainly a reasonable starting point in negotiations. It may even be the right end point. But to elevate it to an inviolate principle–and to insist that politicians take pledges opposing tax increases under any and all circumstances–strikes me as misguided. Taxation is always a balancing process, one that needs to be seen in the context of specific economic conditions and other possible gains. For example, no responsible conservative would forgo reforming Medicare (which is the main driver of our fiscal crisis) by injecting competition and choice into the system in exchange for slightly higher taxes on the top income earners in America.

Every political movement, including conservatism, faces the danger of elevating certain policies into catechisms and failing to take into account new circumstances. When that occurs, we lose the capacity to correct ourselves. Conservatism, at least as I understand it, ought to be characterized by openness to evidence and a search for truth, not attachment to a rigid orthodoxy. “If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1977, “it is American conservatism.”

What I’m talking about, then, is a conservative temperament, which affects everything from tone to intellectual inquiry to compromise. It champions principles in reasonably flexible ways that include a straightforward evaluation of facts.

To put things in a slightly different way: Conservatives need to reacquaint themselves with the true spirit of conservatism, which is reform-minded, empirical, anti-utopian, and somewhat modest in its expectations. It doesn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. It doesn’t treat political opponents as enemies. And it isn’t in a state of constant agitation. Winsomeness goes a long way in politics.

Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president.

I know I've said this before, but I have a few very die hard republican relatives/friends, and this past year, they were cringing at the idea of Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Romney (kinda, but not as bad as the others), Gingrich...the entire cast that rolled out of the red carpet was a wash... The party will be overhauled if they want to get anywhere.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I know I've said this before, but I have a few very die hard republican relatives/friends, and this past year, they were cringing at the idea of Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Romney (kinda, but not as bad as the others), Gingrich...the entire cast that rolled out of the red carpet was a wash... The party will be overhauled if they want to get anywhere.

Mitt Romney was a different person when he ran here in Massachusetts. I am betting that Romney would not have made your Republican friends cringe at all.

Jeanwah wrote:

John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'


Did you read the OP??

Thanks for proving my point

how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?

I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.