Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness

The Pro-Family Law Center ^ | 29-Apr-2003 | Scott Lively

[Torie]

And yet you whine when conservatives won't vote for a liberal Republican in a general.

You must be mixing me up with some other posters. If you have fundamental disagreements with a liberal Republican, if after taking into account all the pros and cons, short term and long term, you choose to vote for the Dem or a third party, or not vote, I respect that. The trick though in many states is for the Pubbie to get both your wing of the party to vote for him and mine. Without both wings, the Pubbie will likely lose.

[EternalVigilance]

Then just read post #72.

It's all right there in front of your nose.

A couple paragraphs shouldn't strain you too much.

[EternalVigilance]

Then why were you counseling people to vote for Democrats?

[Kevin Curry]

Those of us who enjoy sex and those of you who are opposed to it should discover common ground.

When you pay for all of the costs of your sexual deviance from your own pocket--and keep your filching fingers out of mine--I'll give you a listen. In the interim crawl inside a glory hole and converse with yourself.

[Torie]

Assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, I would think the fix for those that resent the expenditure would be to limit the subsidized health care, not criminalize the behavior, which as we know is totally ineffectual in any event, and just leads to selective and arbitrary enforement in rare instances in some places. Frankly, I am not in favor of unlimited subsidized medical care irrespective of cost in general. Going down that road points toward fiscal disaster as science proceeds apace, unless we get lucky, and find cheap ways to threat folks, and find relatively cheap ways to treat the elderly. I don't think that will happen. We will spend more and more money keeping alive folks in their 80's and 90's. Over the longer term, the AIDS issue is rounding error on this matter.

[EternalVigilance]

I have seen liberal Republicans cast their support to Dems in General elections more times than I can count...up to and including full page ads in major newspapers.

I have also heard liberal Republicans whine about conservatives taking their votes elsewhere in general elections when it was their ox being gored.

That is why I responded so negatively to your post...that hypocrisy is maddening.

If I over-projected on you, I apologize. You can vote for whomever you please.

[Torie]

If such action comports with their conscience with respect to someone who takes a profoundly offensive point of view, just do it. If Santorum if really serious about criminalizing consenual adult sex, I can't support him.

[Kevin Curry]

I work with people who have had more expensive procedures, have missed more time for heart problems, kidney disease etc, than fellow workers who are HIV+

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that taxpayer-supported health costs for AIDS outstrip the costs of these other diseases combined?

[EternalVigilance]

Frankly, I doubt very many conservatives would give much thought to those who practice homosexuality at all, if they weren't actively pushing their agenda in the political arena. But since they have chosen to take that path, they have no reason to whine when those who oppose them take exception.

As to your thoughts on health-care expenditures, you make some good points.

[Kuksool]

{The trick though in many states is for the Pubbie to get both your wing of the party to vote for him and mine. Without both wings, the Pubbie will likely lose.}

How true! This is exactly why the CA GOP is so hapless. CA Pubbies couldn't find consensus candidates to run for statewide offices last year. When a political party pins its hopes on a movie star (Arnold the Terminator), there must be serious problems with the organization. Now it appears that Barbara Boxer is going to get a free ride next year. Talk about voting rights being violated!

[Torie]

Actually my wing of the party has more influence overall than yours, so such folks should not whine. Of course, my wing does not include Chaffee and sometimes Snowne and a couple of others. Those folks are too liberal on economics for me, and too squisy in general. You may disagree with me, but I am not squisy. Cheers.

[EternalVigilance]

Actually my wing of the party has more influence overall than yours, so such folks should not whine.

LOL...hitting the sauce tonight, are we? ;-)

[Torie]

All those mis-spellings do suggest that don't they? However, I think Bush is less to the right of me, than to the left of you. Whatever.

[EternalVigilance]

Actually, the mispellings didn't give you away. It was the idea that liberals have more influence in the GOP than conservatives.

[Jorge]

"I work with people who have had more expensive procedures, have missed more time for heart problems, kidney disease etc, than fellow workers who are HIV+"

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that taxpayer-supported health costs for AIDS outstrip the costs of these other diseases combined?

You need to provide documentation to support your claim..because I don't believe it.

And even if I did, that fact remains that where I work those with heart disease, kidney problem, carpals tunnel, cancer etc. cost our company and insurance far more than anyone who is HIV+.

[Torie]

Frankly, I doubt very many conservatives would give much thought to those who practice homosexuality at all, if they weren't actively pushing their agenda in the political arena.

Folks push for their rights and self interest in a democracy. The propostion that homosexuals should not advocate and agitate for what is important to them in a democracy strikes me as odd. What other groups are on the proscribed list? Of course, some modes of advocacy are more effective than others. I suspect you are suggesting that homosexuals advocating anything particular to them will/has backfire(d). That of course is wrong. One doesn't secure favorable policies to their cause by being silent, much less in the closet. Not in a democracy.

[EternalVigilance]

It's one thing to advocate for yourself for legitimate reasons, but quite another to advocate for a 'right' to a destructive practice.

We have argued this before, and obviously are not going to agree; but IMO, you fall into the same moral equivalency as the others that preceded you on this thread.

All Americans may be equal, but all sexual acts are not.

[Torie]

but quite another to advocate for a 'right' to a destructive practice.

I don't quite get that. Are you soft on the 1st Amendment?

[EternalVigilance]

Hey, if they want to flaunt the things that they should be ashamed of, they do have that right under the First Amendment.

Likewise, society has the right to reject them and their agenda.

You could push for the legalization of cannibalism if you wanted to, but you wouldn't get very far--except to be ostracized by the vast majority of the people.

However, if you started to put legs to your advocacy, folks would be well within their rights to stop you.

[EternalVigilance]

It's been fun, but I have to go.

Cheers...