Didn't I hear an argument that if they kept the Bush tax cuts it would create jobs? The cuts are still in place, where are the jobs?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/14/2011 1:03:00 AM (view original):
The Republicans are running for something.

1 Lower taxes
2 Less government
3 traditional marriage
4 Pro-life
5 Strong Defense

I know you might have a problem with 3 and 4. They are core Republican values. Pro-life helps our cause. Lots of Americans will vote that one issue alone. Almost no one will vote pro-choice as a single issue. Traditional marriage is supported by about 2/3s of Americans. Gay Marriage has never won a vote of the people ever anywhere in America. Why would abandoning that issue help us?

A strong defence is at odds with less government, isn't it? Perhaps this is why Republicans have had issues with coherent messaging.

As somebody who is actually in a traditional marriage, I support the institution. "Supporting" it, though, does not seem like the government's job and clashes with the second point in the Swamphawk Manifesto. I'm nominally pro-life but having the government "support" that position strikes me as more government, not less. 

You've got to craft an agenda that addresses the reality of challenges faced by voters and the country rather than some bullshit storyboard from Rush's daily rant.

Posted by willgibson on 7/14/2011 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/13/2011 6:57:00 PM (view original):
1 Bigots? about 2/3s of Americans oppose gay marriage. Can a large majority be bigots?

2 I would love a debate on Education. I feel it is the one issue the left cannot in any way win.

3 I think all pundits would make bad campaigners. You have to be 100% open to be a pundit, and you cannot be 100% open and run for office.

1. Parties need to run for something not against something.

2. Coherent education reform is a winning issue for the GOP

3. Pundits are entertainers. They are about as qualified for office as Matt Damon.

1.  Holy ****.   Obama's campaign was "I'm not Bush!"

While we'd like to pretend such things aren't effective they very much are.   Mudslinging is politics and politics is mudslinging.

Posted by willgibson on 7/14/2011 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/14/2011 1:03:00 AM (view original):
The Republicans are running for something.

1 Lower taxes
2 Less government
3 traditional marriage
4 Pro-life
5 Strong Defense

I know you might have a problem with 3 and 4. They are core Republican values. Pro-life helps our cause. Lots of Americans will vote that one issue alone. Almost no one will vote pro-choice as a single issue. Traditional marriage is supported by about 2/3s of Americans. Gay Marriage has never won a vote of the people ever anywhere in America. Why would abandoning that issue help us?

A strong defence is at odds with less government, isn't it? Perhaps this is why Republicans have had issues with coherent messaging.

As somebody who is actually in a traditional marriage, I support the institution. "Supporting" it, though, does not seem like the government's job and clashes with the second point in the Swamphawk Manifesto. I'm nominally pro-life but having the government "support" that position strikes me as more government, not less. 

You've got to craft an agenda that addresses the reality of challenges faced by voters and the country rather than some bullshit storyboard from Rush's daily rant.

1 Strong defense isnt at odds with less government. The military is one of the specific reasons for the Federal Government. We can debate the proper size, but it is a role of government that we can all agree on.

2 I do not support any "Moral Compass" role of government. That being said there will always be some of it. I know People like us dont like to admit it but it is a winning tactic to support these 2 issues and it doesnt cost the government much so it isnt a big deal to me. DOMA and Pro-Life win elections.

These are both based on logic. My views on the military and my allowing my party to support Pro-Life positions pre-dates Rush on the air. I developed them based on the world as I saw it. The gay marriage issue fits nicely in there.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2011 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by willgibson on 7/14/2011 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/13/2011 6:57:00 PM (view original):
1 Bigots? about 2/3s of Americans oppose gay marriage. Can a large majority be bigots?

2 I would love a debate on Education. I feel it is the one issue the left cannot in any way win.

3 I think all pundits would make bad campaigners. You have to be 100% open to be a pundit, and you cannot be 100% open and run for office.

1. Parties need to run for something not against something.

2. Coherent education reform is a winning issue for the GOP

3. Pundits are entertainers. They are about as qualified for office as Matt Damon.

1.  Holy ****.   Obama's campaign was "I'm not Bush!"

While we'd like to pretend such things aren't effective they very much are.   Mudslinging is politics and politics is mudslinging.

He also had all that high-minded "Yes We Can" messaging that resonated with voters. It helped that he followed a train wreck and while he pointed that out, mudslinging didn't define his campaign nearly as much as the high-minded bullshit he spouted about health care, education and reform. His persona was not negative.

Running against gay marriage is not going to be a winner in 2012 for the GOP.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/14/2011 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by willgibson on 7/14/2011 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/14/2011 1:03:00 AM (view original):
The Republicans are running for something.

1 Lower taxes
2 Less government
3 traditional marriage
4 Pro-life
5 Strong Defense

I know you might have a problem with 3 and 4. They are core Republican values. Pro-life helps our cause. Lots of Americans will vote that one issue alone. Almost no one will vote pro-choice as a single issue. Traditional marriage is supported by about 2/3s of Americans. Gay Marriage has never won a vote of the people ever anywhere in America. Why would abandoning that issue help us?

A strong defence is at odds with less government, isn't it? Perhaps this is why Republicans have had issues with coherent messaging.

As somebody who is actually in a traditional marriage, I support the institution. "Supporting" it, though, does not seem like the government's job and clashes with the second point in the Swamphawk Manifesto. I'm nominally pro-life but having the government "support" that position strikes me as more government, not less. 

You've got to craft an agenda that addresses the reality of challenges faced by voters and the country rather than some bullshit storyboard from Rush's daily rant.

1 Strong defense isnt at odds with less government. The military is one of the specific reasons for the Federal Government. We can debate the proper size, but it is a role of government that we can all agree on.

2 I do not support any "Moral Compass" role of government. That being said there will always be some of it. I know People like us dont like to admit it but it is a winning tactic to support these 2 issues and it doesnt cost the government much so it isnt a big deal to me. DOMA and Pro-Life win elections.

These are both based on logic. My views on the military and my allowing my party to support Pro-Life positions pre-dates Rush on the air. I developed them based on the world as I saw it. The gay marriage issue fits nicely in there.

1. How do you measure strong defence? If it's by spending, there's going to be a big problem because the US government is damn near bankrupt. That's going to affect any pledges on taxes, too. Look at Greece and take note. If the government doesn't get spending under control, it's creditors will force the issue.

2. Positions on abortion and traditional marriage will not decide the election for most voters. They are well down the list, particularly with the undecideds that voted for Clinton, Bush and Obama.

1 I am willing to cut defense spending if it is for debt reduction. Not to support social programs.

2 Independents may not vote for someone because of a abortion, but they also dont vote against it. A large block of voters support this issue as a one issue voter.  Gay Marriage is a little different. The vast majority of Americans oppose it. Even California voted against it, and blacks and hispanics lead the way. How can you see any advantage in abandoning this issue. Where are your numbers coming from? What state that Bush won in 2004 supports gay marriage?

swamp, have you even briefly considered that there may be other options beyond 'make opposing gay marriage a central election plank' and 'abandoning the issue'?

That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

If a vast majority of Americans think we should raise tax on the wealthy and corporations, well then by golly we should implement such things!

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/14/2011 7:57:00 PM (view original):
1 I am willing to cut defense spending if it is for debt reduction. Not to support social programs.

2 Independents may not vote for someone because of a abortion, but they also dont vote against it. A large block of voters support this issue as a one issue voter.  Gay Marriage is a little different. The vast majority of Americans oppose it. Even California voted against it, and blacks and hispanics lead the way. How can you see any advantage in abandoning this issue. Where are your numbers coming from? What state that Bush won in 2004 supports gay marriage?

1. I agree spending needs to be cut across the board or credtiors will be forcing them a la Greece.

2. My point was independents or undecideds are not going to cast their ballot based on a party's position on gay marriage or abortion. They shouldn't be issues that define the GOP, particularly one that advocates "less government." That would be more hypocritical dumbassery.

1 We seem to agree here.

2 Again we are not making it the center piece of our agenda, we just support it. We gain a lot and lose nothing. Finaincial issues dont seem to resonate with rank and file hispanics and blacks are mostly liberal on economics. They are both solidly anti-gay marriage.

swamp, you listed "traditional marriage"' as one of only five things you think Republicans are running on, and described it as a "core Republican value". That makes it a 'center piece' of the GOP agenda, by your characterization.

This could be an issue with terms, but I conisder centerpiece to be a single main issue, that would be smaller government.

This is a main issue and core issue, but it isnt the centerpiece.

If that is not the way you use that term I am sorry.