Did conservative pundits con their base?

[Phatscotty]

the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

[rockfist]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

[Lootifer]

the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).

I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.

However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately

Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.

[Night Strike]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

[thegreekdog]

the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).

I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.

However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately

Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.

I think Obama won because he is infinitely more charismatic than Romney. I think the "not showing your tax plan details" stuff was about as minor as an issue can get. Romney is/was portrayed as a smug, super wealthy, "doesn't care about you" candidate. He had no charismatic energy and anything he said was tainted with the super wealthy crap. The Obama campaign did a great job with it and Romney didn't help himself.

I contend and will contend that if the Republicans had picked a more charismatic candidate, the Republicans would have won reelection despite the "no details of your tax plan" issue and the social conservative crap. One need look no further than the reelection of George W Bush in 2004. Most independent voters were not Bush fans. But, John Kerry was as charismatic as a rock; if Obama would have run against Bush in 2004, Obama would have won handily.

I bring up the tax plan and other items because people on this website (e.g. Stahrgazer) and media outlets (e.g. Maddow) are trying to justify their choice of Obama over Romney with some sort of data other than "Obama is more charismatic." If that's the reason you voted for Obama, that's cool, but don't pretend it was because Obama had a detailed tax plan. Because he didn't.

The solution for Republicans is to nominate a more charismatic presidential candidate in 2016. There are two right now who have a similar charisma to Obama: Christie and Rubio. Christie is more moderate, so he won't win the primary. Plus he's a confrontationalist. Rubio is a super conservative and I think he can win the primary. And he's very charismatic. I would vote for Christie, but I won't vote for Rubio.

[GreecePwns]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So, how much will the Republican party have to implode before the social issues conflict is resolved?

This is directed at both of you as well as other (economic or social) conservatives on the site.

[thegreekdog]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So, how much will the Republican party have to implode before the social issues conflict is resolved?

This is directed at both of you as well as other (economic or social) conservatives on the site.

If in 2016 the Republicans put up Marco Rubio and he runs a similar campaign to Romney (i.e. emphasizing fiscal issues, not social ones), and the Republicans lose because of social issues (e.g. abortion and gay marriage), the Republican party will implode. I think you'll get either a more socially liberal Republican Party or the Republican Party will split and you'll get a socially liberal third party (NOT Libertarians... something else).

[rockfist]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

[AndyDufresne]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

I definitely more socially liberal than socially conservative (so I am sort of outside of your discussion here), but abortion is always an issue with which I've struggled personally. It is difficult for me to support the right to choose, since I know personally I would rarely, if ever, counsel someone to choose this option. Moreover, I don't usually support capital punishment or torture, or anything else that I feel impacts life like that. My struggle regarding life revolves around... I don't think I should be the one determining to end or dramatically another's life. It is too big of a decision which makes me feel uncomfortable. In the end though, I usually support the right choose because I feel I can't make that decision for someone else. I am most always a type of person that leave's someone's personal choices, for better or worse, up to the individual.


--Andy

[MegaProphet]

Another thing to consider is that abortion isn't just a social issue it can also be an economic issue

[Night Strike]

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

Now just because that view should never be changed doesn't mean it has to be the main issue in an election cycle. If we don't restore fiscal sanity (although we need to then reach fiscal responsibility), then there won't be any institutions available to protect innocent people of any age.

[Metsfanmax]

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

[MegaProphet]

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

Or fight tooth and nail to protect the life of the fetus, but when the mother needs government assistance to support her child refuse to give it.

[thegreekdog]

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

That's the hypocrisy you're going with? You're likening a cow to a human fetus? If you are the progressive future, I shudder.

There are so many better ones. Like...

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then also fight tooth and nail in favor of the death penalty.

[Metsfanmax]

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

That's the hypocrisy you're going with? You're likening a cow to a human fetus? If you are the progressive future, I shudder.

There are so many better ones. Like...

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then also fight tooth and nail in favor of the death penalty.

That's not hypocritical. Such people are only interested in the absolute preservation of innocent life. In their view, those who commit crimes such as murder give up their right to life. A fetus has committed no such act, so its right to life can never be violated (in their view).

And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.