GOP candidates need a better Republican Party

World Net Daily ^ | Augsut 20, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

Does the Republican Party need better candidates? Or do Republican candidates need a better party? Even now the GOP is choosing candidates for the 2014 election, especially for the U.S. Senate. Primary hopefuls are jostling for position. And the dominant questions are: “Will tea-party primary challengers cost the GOP elections?” and “Who can actually win against the Democrat?”

Qualify as a MediatorLondon School of Mediation world-class training in 2013 www.schoolofmediation.org Receive a Free ProphecyIf you like Astrology, Get Free Prophecy Reading YourPersonalProphecy.com

But as the GOP recruits and trains better candidates, will anyone train Republican insiders how to run better campaigns for GOP candidates? Do we have a worse, more urgent problem with the Republican establishment and consultant class than with the next crop of candidates?

Democrats defend their candidates aggressively. The same quality of candidate will get better support from the Democratic Party than a similar Republican candidate will get from the GOP.

It’s the Stockholm Syndrome. Republicans come to psychologically identify with the liberal bullies. When a Republican comes under attack, other Republicans hope to appease the media by denouncing their colleagues. It’s like the joke about two men running from a bear. The first says you can’t outrun that bear. The second answers I don’t have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you. Journalists attacking the other guy are ignoring me.

Consider Richard Mourdock who ran for U.S. Senate in 2012. Mourdock’s one gaffe would have gone unnoticed except for the scandal about Todd Akin. But Republican leaders jumped in the feeding frenzy, as always.

Can readers find fault with Richard Mourdock as a candidate beside that one gaffe? In 2010, Richard Mourdock won 62.5 percent of the vote statewide in re-election for Indiana treasurer. Mourdock’s 2010 vote grew from 52 percent in 2006.

[sickoflibs]

See how to win : #59

Just uploaded to youtube

[EternalVigilance]

Why only “late term”? The Constitution requires equal protection for the right to life of every single person.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Why only “late term”? The Constitution requires equal protection for the right to life of every single person.”

AHHH, because saving MOST is better than saving NONE.

Our personal idea of what the constitution says doesn’t seem to beat the SCOTUS's for some odd reason.

The idea of not giving an inch sounds very romantic when you are far from the one to be the one get it. But if you can save some unborn lives with a better argument like this go with it,

Back after WWII was over were many who were far away who judged those others who in the Nazi concentration camps who saved lives for not saving enough, because backseat driving when you are safe is the best deal.

[GeronL]

This country keeps moving left, but that’s okay as long as we can slow it down a bit??

This is all moot now because we no longer have a free country, thanks to all the compromising.

[EternalVigilance]

You just admitted that you don’t think that anyone has to keep the oath to support the Constitution. Congratulations. And you wonder why the republic is being destroyed?

We now have forty years worth of proof that your way doesn’t save anyone anyway. It only assures the continued killing of all, by surrendering the only moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion. It’s an abject failure.

[Moseley]

No, a competent political party wouldn't be sending losers like Akin out to blow up their own ships.

But Democrats do all the time. That's the point of the article. Democrats say far nuttier things all the time. The Democrat Party defends them. The Democrat Party nips these things in the bud. It never becomes a big deal.

Your argument fails to consider that Democrats routinely survive saying far worse things all the time.

Why aren't those Democrats "losers" as you put it? They win re-election. The only "losers" are the Republican party insiders who don't know how to deal with public relations and controversies during campaigns.

[Moseley]

If Akin really had a bunch of doctors who agree with this stupid stuff then its his f..ing responsibility to bring them to light to defend him, not the rest of us who have who idea WTF he is talking about.

Akin should have done that. But he was too busy fending off sabotage and attacks from his own Party. It was BOTH the Party's responsibility to win the US Senate seat and Todd Akin's, too. Instead of attacking Todd Akin, the GOP could have gotten that done as well.

If Akin had a single Dr behind himon this crazy stuffv he would have used him to keep that hog from taking that KEY SENATE seat.

They have come forward, but they were not highlighted in a press conference the way the GOP was capable of orchestrating.

It is a medical fact that trauma can delay or suppress ovulation. Thus a woman under going the trauma of a "real" rape (not consensual sex where she later has buyer's remorse, but real trauma) the release of eggs is delayed or suppressed.

You do understand basic reproductive biology, I assume? If ovulation does not occur within 24 to 48 hours of sex, pregnancy is 100% IMPOSSIBLE. Not just rare. IMPOSSIBLE.

So if a rape occurs, and the trauma delays ovulation, then the sperm will no longer be viable by the time the eggs are released. NO PREGNANCY CAN OCCUR - 100% IMPOSSIBLE.

So what "crazy stuff" are you referring to? If a woman has already ovulated less than 48 hours before the rape, pregnancy can happen. But if she has not yet ovulated that month, the trauma will reduce the probability of pregnancy, perhaps down to zero.

So there is no question that what Todd Akin said is medically correct -- although very badly phrased.

The only issue is how incompetent was the political and public relations handling of the issue by the Republican Party.

I do begin to suspect that you -- and probably many people -- do not understand basic biology.

You DO understand, I hope, that pregnancy cannot occur durinb about 87% of the month.... right?

You DO understand, I hope, that pregnancy can only occur during a 3-5 day window during each month... or about 13% to 14% of the total month?

So for pregnancy to result from a rape, the rape would have to occur during that narrow window, only about 13% of the total month.

During consensual sex, a woman's sexual desire peaks in that window, making it more likely than normal for pregnancy to occur from consensual sex. A woman's desire is strongest during that window.

But of course rape would occur completely randomly, without any regard to the woman's fertility window.

And you DO understand, I hope, that a man's sperm only remains alive for about 24 hours, maybe up to 48 hours at the outside, right?

So if a rapists rapes a woman, the sperm will DIE before pregnancy can occur, if the woman ovulates 3 days later. No pregnancy can occur because the sperm will be DEAD before the woman's eggs drop in ovulation.

So if the trauma of rape delays that window of fertility, the probably of pregnancy drops dramatically lower.

[Sherman Hale]

Sure, because Washington won by acclimation. Nobody wanted to challenge the hero.

Competitive elections didn't begin until Adams and Jefferson.

Washington did not win unanimously. Adams and eight other candidates also received votes. I don't know how you define competitive but the first four elections were all conducted in accordance with Article II.

[sickoflibs]

RE We now have forty years worth of proof that your way doesn’t save anyone anyway. It only assures the continued killing of all, by surrendering the only moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion. It’s an abject failure

No, we have 40 years of dead babies because those who have nothing to lose said that if we cant save every single one then we are not allowed to save any of them.
That If we cant save the newly fertilize egg them we are told we are not allowed to save the 12 week unborn baby. Its idiocy.

Time to try something new.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You just admitted that you don’t think that anyone has to keep the oath to support the Constitution. Congratulations. And you wonder why the republic is being destroyed?”

Violate a law that you deem unconstitutional and tell the judge you disagree with him, that your opinion trum,ps the SCOTUS, and tell me how it works out.

But of course its easy to call real people who live in the real world cowards behind an anonymous poster identity.

And tell us that we cant save a single unborn if we cant save them all.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”This country keeps moving left, but that’s okay as long as we can slow it down a bit??”

A better phrasing would be that ‘slowing them down is better than helping them, or doing nothing’

[EternalVigilance]

The Constitution absolutely requires equal protection for the life of every innocent person. Sorry you missed that.

[EternalVigilance]

I’m one the least anonymous posters on Free Republic. Have been for thirteen and a half years.

Sorry that you think that the oath is to obey out of control judges, instead of what Article Six actually REQUIRES, which is an oath to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The Constitution absolutely requires equal protection for the life of every innocent person. Sorry you missed that.”

This is in fact your problem . In your imaginary fantasy world your view of the Constitution has saved all those killed unborn, none have been aborted because you say it's so, and then so in that imaginary world a law that bans some abortions is seen as legalizing some.

But back on the planet Earth the SCOTUS overturns abortion laws, Obama appoints libs on the court, and those aborted babies are really dead and not coming back.

So you are just abandoning them all because we cant save them all.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Sorry that you think that the oath is to obey out of control judges, instead of what Article Six actually REQUIRES, which is an oath to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.”

If you followed your own advice you would be on a jail computer right now with bubba waiting for you in your cell.

To save real human lives we must live in the real world, not your fantasy world. Your fantasy world has not stopped 40 years of abortions even though in it they are still alive because they were ALL protected.

[EternalVigilance]

Wrong. You’ve got it exactly backwards. When you pass lawless laws that give “legal” permission to kill babies, all of them, as long as it is done by your rules, on your timetable, you are surrendering the moral, constitutional, and legal argument against abortion, and assuring the continuation of abortion on demand. Enforced by the courts.

What should be done, which hasn’t been done, for forty years, is to simply assert the self-evident personhood of each and every child, and then protect them, equally, as the Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires.

Keep the oath, and tell the judges to take a short walk off a long pier. They don’t legitimately make our laws. And those who make our laws have no legitimate authority to violate the supreme UNALIENABLE right of the individual.

[EternalVigilance]

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[EternalVigilance]

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”

— Article VI, the United States Constitution

[EternalVigilance]

Even Blackmun, in Roe, admitted that if the “fetus” is person, “OF COURSE” they are protected by the explicit words of the Constitution.

Folks who hold to the position you posit will generally readily admit that the child in the womb is a person, but then support legislation and policies that allow some disfavored classes of persons to be murdered under the color of law.

[sickoflibs]

RE Wrong. You’ve got it exactly backwards. When you pass lawless laws that give “legal” permission to kill babies, all of them, as long as it is done by your rules, on your timetable, you are surrendering the moral, constitutional, and legal argument against abortion, and assuring the continuation of abortion on demand. Enforced by the courts

No, its right. You condemn all the future unborn to the fate of the past because you live in a fantasy world where abortions are NOW illegal and have been just because you say so.

A law that bans some abortions doesnt legalize others, except your your fantasy world where they are all already illegal.

The trap you got yourself in is that your assumptions only work if there are no legal abortions now, that there is no problem, that their are no victims right now.

You turn a blind eye to those unborn victims who can be saved because it doesnt fit your fantasy world. YOU condemn them