I’ve been skeptical of Michael Steele’s run for the RNC Chairmanship because it seemed that a lot of people were jumping on board with him merely because he has star power and, of course, is black. Now, these factors do matter: it’s important now, more than ever, to convince the public that the GOP is not just, as Howard Dean phrased it, a “white Christian party” and that we’re open to centrists, pragmatism, and ’smart government’ rather than just small government with a dash of theocracy. Is Steele really the man to do that? There are other smaller names with a tad more recent experience on the ground level.
But my skepticism is just about dead. Michael Steele has now convinced me that he “gets it” and that he’s ready to work to expand the GOP’s tent. There will be no silly, counterproductive purges promoted under a Steele chairmanship and his voice will be one of reason and majority-party-building.
Look at how he responds to his critics’ arguments that his role in reviving the moderate Republican Leadership Council should disqualify him:
Wake up people. I mean, what are you going to do? Are you going to kick these folks out of the party? I have watched this party self disintegrate for the last four or five years. I’ve watched this party isolate itself from itself.
This may be a unique opportunity to build a relationship or a bridge between the conservatives and the moderates in our party and so she asked me to serve on her board and I said well this will be good. It’ll be a pro-life conservative voice on a board with a pro-choice leadership that is looking to elect moderates. We have to elect moderates in the party.
For all you little folks out there who think that you’ve got me on this: you don’t. My being on this board had nothing to do with lessening my conservative values or somehow appeasing them or compromising them. It had everything to do with reasserting them.
Love it!
MatthewK, in the comments section, wrote that “reaching out” to moderates has to mean that we’re reaching from somewhere: from the right. Otherwise, it isn’t reaching out, but aligning. But this presents a false dichotomy. We can encompass all sorts of political ideologies by eliminating litmus tests for candidates, running Republicans that fit each specific area of the country (that is: stop running Tom Coburns in Massachusetts and stop “primarying” our moderates!), and actually showing centrists that they have a seat at the table. “Reaching out” can’t mean merely asking them to vote for us becauase we need more votes to win. We need, like our president-elect is doing, to give them a seat at the table. Some candidates get it, some don’t. Steele gets it.
(Contact: apkkib@aol.com)
December 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Alex,
I am happy you picked this up and made a post of it. Like I said in the other thread, he gets it and that is why he should be the guy. In the video interview with CBN, he even gives an example from his own state of the importance of running the right candidate for the district. That obviously can be applied on the state level for the Senate.
I am starting to be more and more disillusioned with the GOP as so many within the party seem hellbent on making sure we don’t ever support moderates again and on making sure that being ignorant continues to be a conservative virtue.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I cut a section from this article that placed the blame here on the so-cons, but sadly, it is indeed the so-cons that once again merit the blame. Religious conservatives comprise the only wing of the party that take issue with pragmatism, and it’s because they refuse to be pragmatic about the Bible — how can they be? They’re in politics not to affect social change, but to serve Jesus.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Steele needs to get the right candidates out for 2010. A new poll came out (on Wikipedia), Arnold would be ahead of Barbra Boxer by 1 point in a Senate race. Don’t be afraid to bring out the big wigs.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Amen to this. Steele’s driving vision of the GOP is particularly important for the wilderness years.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Sure, you can run moderates in moderate areas – but on the national level, we should not be compromising our core values – particularly when we are talking about the man who will be the head of the party until we retake the White House. The leader of the GOP needs to support conservatives positions – AND legislation.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Well, needless to say I disagree with your language and sentiment, but I think you are also wrong on placing the blame on just social conservatives. Ever heard of the Club for Growth?
Social conservatives are to blame as well, but as far as candidate selection I don’t think they are any more to blame than economic conservatives. Also, had Hagel decided to run for the Senate again, almost the entire party was ready to unite against him when he agrees with us on almost everything but the war.
I disagree that abortion is the area where social conservatism has hurt the cause. Most people who vote based on abortion vote for us. Terri Schiavo lost us way, way more votes than it gained.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“MatthewK, if we’re going to reach out to moderates, it would be nice to show them that they have a place at the table”
…by kicking someone else out? I don’t think so. The idea of abandoning our pro-life commitment by putting up Steele as our national chairman makes my stomach turn.
Now, if Steele wants to come out, call for the overturn of Roe, strong new restrictions on abortion, etc. – then maybe I can support him, but until Steele stops supporting the maintenance of Roe, there are no circumstances where I want him as chairman.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
…by kicking someone else out? I don’t think so. The idea of abandoning our pro-life commitment by putting up Steele as our national chairman makes my stomach turn. Now, if Steele wants to come out, call for the overturn of Roe, strong new restrictions on abortion, etc. – then maybe I can support him, but until Steele stops supporting the maintenance of Roe, there are no circumstances where I want him as chairman.
Who the hell did I (or Steele) propose to kick out?
So you won’t support him until he becomes a pro-life zealot?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Well, needless to say I disagree with your language and sentiment, but I think you are also wrong on placing the blame on just social conservatives. Ever heard of the Club for Growth?
I have lambasted the Club for Growth on several occasions on both the front page and in the comments section.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“Terri Schiavo lost us way, way more votes than it gained.”
Should we do everything based on how many votes it can get us? Where is the principle in that? I agree that it was not the most popular political move in the world, but to not step in, to do nothing while that woman was murdered by a husband who clearly had a conflict of interest, would have been unacceptable and a sign that the GOP had bent over backwards to the “Culture of death” that liberals push.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Sure, you can run moderates in moderate areas – but on the national level, we should not be compromising our core values – particularly when we are talking about the man who will be the head of the party until we retake the White House. The leader of the GOP needs to support conservatives positions – AND legislation.
OK, so moderates can be part of the party; they just can’t do anything.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Should we do everything based on how many votes it can get us? Where is the principle in that? I agree that it was not the most popular political move in the world, but to not step in, to do nothing while that woman was murdered by a husband who clearly had a conflict of interest, would have been unacceptable and a sign that the GOP had bent over backwards to the “Culture of death” that liberals push.
Culture of Death? You and your fellow fanatics promote a culture of Living Death. The woman was a vegetable.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I’m in favor of Steele too, though for slightly more selfish reasons. I’ve seen some signals that Steele is close to Pawlenty- they’ve appeared on talk shows together, and Pawlenty gave a long and detailed interview with Steele for GOPAC awhile ago- and they have a similar message vis-a-vis pragmatic conservatism. So I’m optimistic that a Steele led GOP would be one that is, at least, not hostile to Pawlenty come to 2011.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“OK, so moderates can be part of the party; they just can’t do anything.”
so instead, we should overrule a 70% majority to let a small minority feel more comfortable in the GOP? Support for traditional values and life is one of the fundamental principles of the modern Conservative movement, and it shouldn’t be thrown out in the name of making a token gesture to a minor fraction of the party.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
The problem is people aren’t practical. Everyone believes that everyone else is like them. In other words “insert label” conservatives think that because everyone they know votes a certain way then everyone else probably votes in a similar way. This causes everyone to overvalue their own issues while undervaluing other people’s issues (if we are going to have a moderate is certainly shouldn’t be on life or on taxes or on defense). Also it causes people to overvalue the extremes and undervalue moderates.
Also people have short memories. Take California for example. If Arnold were to run and beat Boxer it wouldn’t be two years before conservatives from across the country would start attacking Arnold for being too moderate and too cozy with Dems and people would want to primary him. Arnold or perhaps Meg Whitman are the best we are going to get in California. Rudy is the best we are going to get in NY. Lingle is the best we can get in HI. We need to take what we can get in these blue states and stop losing because we can’t betray our “principles”.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
so instead, we should overrule a 70% majority to let a small minority feel more comfortable in the GOP?
Not overrule. Good God, you’re the King of False Dichotomy. Ever hear of compromise?
Support for traditional values and life is one of the fundamental principles of the modern Conservative movement, and it shouldn’t be thrown out in the name of making a token gesture to a minor fraction of the party.
Why do you think that any small concession is throwing out the entire platform?!
December 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
MatthewK,
If you listen to that BrodyFile interview, Steele more or less called for Roe to be overturned. He said “Roe should be overturned” because it was incorrectly decided and explained his earlier comment on Roe, somewhat awkwardly, as a lawyerly misunderstanding; in essence, he claimed he was intending to indicate that the Supreme Court should uphold Roe until they had a case that could distinguish it from past precedents, which I expect is where Alito and Roberts, for instance come down. Scalia and Thomas are willing to, on every abortion case, write concurrences calling for Roe to be overturned. Roberts and Alito have declined to do this and, most have speculated, because of their minimalism, they won’t do so until a case comes down where they’re forced to either overturn a state abortion restriction, or overturn Roe itself. Belief Steele if you like, but it’s not an uncommon for conservative lawyers to take (i.e, you make the ruling on the narrowest grounds possible).
December 8th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I’m in favor of Steele too, though for slightly more selfish reasons. I’ve seen some signals that Steele is close to Pawlenty- they’ve appeared on talk shows together, and Pawlenty gave a long and detailed interview with Steele for GOPAC awhile ago- and they have a similar message vis-a-vis pragmatic conservatism. So I’m optimistic that a Steele led GOP would be one that is, at least, not hostile to Pawlenty come to 2011.
So you’re a Tim man, Matthew? People are starting to choose their horses. We have a Huckabee poster (Adam), a Palin poster (Kristofer), two Pawlenty posters (you and Doug), a Sanford poster (me), someone who leans Sanford (Tommy), and a Romney poster (Jason). DaveG and Aron (who doesn’t editorialize) are undecided, and Kavon is staying neutral. Looks like we’ve basically got the 2012 field lined up on this blog.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
MatthewK,
You can’t be serious about Schiavo. That is such a freaking embarassment to the GOP because we (not really we, you, because I was against it at the time) were so wrong on the issue.
First off the law was not on our side as demonstrated by the eventual result. Secondly, the husband may have actually had the interests of his wife in mind. I for one would not want to be kept alive when there is a 0% chance of ever regaining brain function. Finally, most of the time in medicine the people who want to keep there person alive in similar situations are the ones who have nefarious motives. (the longer your parent with terminal cancer stays alive the longer you get social security checks) This may have been what her husband had been doing all the previous years, but that is no reason to oppose him when he finally decided to do what his wife reportedly wanted all along.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“The woman was a vegetable.”
So one human life is worth less than another? Are those in wheelchairs less valuable than those who can walk? Should we seek to eliminate the blind, the deaf, the mute, etc?
I have no objections to a person declining extreme medical treatment (though I’m not sure a feeding tube counts as “Extreme medical treatment”), but go back and look at the facts of the case:
The woman had no living will, and her husband (an adulterer who maintained a relationship with his mistress throughout the ordeal) was the only relative who said that her wishes would have been to die. He was unable to produce any evidence other than his own testimony. Her parents and other relatives disagreed, and said that her wishes would have been to continue to live. Now, they were also without evidence, but don’t you believe that when there is no clear will from the patient, we should always side with life? Or, at least, can’t you agree that the husband had a conflict of interest that should have rendered him unable to make the life and death decision?
===
“fellow fanatics”
Why do you call me a fanatic? Because I believe in always siding with life when there is no clear will of the patient? Or because I believe that all innocent lives are equally valuable? Or because I don’t believe a woman’s limited mental abilities (and lets remember, that is essentially what it was, she was not in some kind of coma) are sufficient reason to stave and dehydrate her to death?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
So one human life is worth less than another? Are those in wheelchairs less valuable than those who can walk? Should we seek to eliminate the blind, the deaf, the mute, etc?
The woman’s time to die had come. She was a vegetable and had literally nothing to look forward to, not that she knew the difference. The courts had determined that it was her will to die, should something like that ever happen, and Congress had no grounds to intervene. The way that they did it was rather barbaric, but, well, that doesn’t change the fact that keeping her alive would have been a monument to living death, to say nothing of government activism.
The woman had no living will, and her husband (an adulterer who maintained a relationship with his mistress throughout the ordeal) was the only relative who said that her wishes would have been to die. He was unable to produce any evidence other than his own testimony. Her parents and other relatives disagreed, and said that her wishes would have been to continue to live. Now, they were also without evidence, but don’t you believe that when there is no clear will from the patient, we should always side with life? Or, at least, can’t you agree that the husband had a conflict of interest that should have rendered him unable to make the life and death decision?
No, we should side with the law, which placed the burden in the hands of the husband.
Why do you call me a fanatic? Because I believe in always siding with life when there is no clear will of the patient? Or because I believe that all innocent lives are equally valuable? Or because I don’t believe a woman’s limited mental abilities (and lets remember, that is essentially what it was, she was not in some kind of coma) are sufficient reason to stave and dehydrate her to death?
She had no mental abilities.
I disagree with the method by which it was carried out, even though she didn’t know the difference.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
So one human life is worth less than another? Are those in wheelchairs less valuable than those who can walk? Should we seek to eliminate the blind, the deaf, the mute, etc?
What an absurd comparison. Perhaps you don’t realize what a vegetable is. And nobody suggested “eliminating” vegetables.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Alright, well I’ll have to look into the Steele thing, because he has previously said that he thinks Roe should remain law (despite his personal “opposition” to abortion)…
===
“I for one would not want to be kept alive when there is a 0% chance of ever regaining brain function.”
But that is you…and there are many people who would want to remain alive in the hope of some recovery, if not just out of a desire to not die so young.
I’m not saying we make it illegal to deny treatment, but don’t you believe that, when there is conflict – when the wishes of a person are in doubt – and when the motives of the decision maker are as questionable as there were – that we should side with life?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
MatthewK,
She wasn’t alive in any meaningful sense. If there had been some indication that she would have liked to stay alive in such a condition then fine, keep her alive.
However, given the fact that nobody had evidence, the law says her husband gets to decide and the fact that almost nobody in their right mind would choose to live in that situation, I think the court made the right decision.
By the way, the position on whether she should live or die wasn’t the problem. The problem and the reason it was such an embarassment is because Frist and others went to such extra-constitutional means to try to force their will on a state court.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Alex,
I’d like to hear an example of a “concession” on abortion you think the party could make, that would meaningfully advance the pro-life agenda, but not terrify moderates? I’m not being facetious; merely curious. When I hear moderates call for compromise on abortion, they usually start by chastising our dogged opposition to Roe. I don’t know if you take that position- you seem to have moved away from the liberal constitutional theory you were expressing a year ago- but if you do, it can’t be meaningfully termed a compromise. As Ross Douthat noted in his newest NYT column, there is simply no meaningful way, at the governmental level, to compromise on abortion while we have the “constitutionally”-mandated, nationwide, pro-abortion regime that Roe and Casey have created. They essentially admit that abortion can be discouraged, through laws, just so long as those laws don’t ACTUALLY prevent anyone from getting an abortion. I.e, they create mandated abortion on demand. For pro-life conservatives, there is simply no compromise possible here.
Which is why a whole lot of conservatives had a problem with Rudy. I’m very amenable to compromise on abortion in the near-term. I don’t care, for instance, if our nominee supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, even though I do. I could even live with someone who wanted first trimester abortions to be legal, though I don’t. But, if you don’t oppose Roe, then you’re not offering pro-lifers anything of significance. And Rudy, no matter what he was saying about judges, did not oppose Roe, and would have been very reluctant to appoint a judge he knew would overturn it.
So exactly what do you mean by conservatives “accepting compromise”? Do you still view Rudy, a pro-Roe, pro-partial abortion (until he decided to run for President) Republican as someone pro-lifers ought to have voted for, in the primaries, in the spirit of compromise? Or do you understand that being pro-Roe essentially eliminates all possibility of compromise?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
But that is you…and there are many people who would want to remain alive in the hope of some recovery, if not just out of a desire to not die so young. I’m not saying we make it illegal to deny treatment, but don’t you believe that, when there is conflict – when the wishes of a person are in doubt – and when the motives of the decision maker are as questionable as there were – that we should side with life?
I’m saying that we should side with the law, which you so-cons seem to be obsessed with adhering to when it comes to abortion. Some of us would like to side with the law all of the time.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Matthew,
You need to read more about the medico-legal implications of what you are talking about. There has to be one person who decides in the event that the patients will isn’t known. You can’t let anyone have a say that wants to and you can’t say tie goes to life. Each state has a specific order in which medical decision making is passed on. First yourself, then your spouse, then parents, then children, etc. That order exists for a reason. Ignoring it because you disagree with it is ridiculous.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Oh I agree that what he did was technically legal – though I’ll point that courts have the power to remove custody, and that the actions of the husband should probably have warranted the removal of his custody abilities.
Put it this way – lets say that there were serious medical decisions to be made about your future – would you want those decisions in the hands of a person who had abandoned you, taken up another lover, etc? Would you really trust their impartiality?
Yes, it was legal – and the law should be changed. Ideally, the lack of a living will should require the person be kept alive, but if not, why not require a consensus of the three closest living adult relatives on a life or death decision? Why not safeguards to protect patients from the potentially cynical intentions of guardians who were known to have abandoned their spouse?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’d like to hear an example of a “concession” on abortion you think the party could make, that would meaningfully advance the pro-life agenda, but not terrify moderates? I’m not being facetious; merely curious. When I hear moderates call for compromise on abortion, they usually start by chastising our dogged opposition to Roe.
A wonderful place to start would be to stop threatening to purge pro-choicers from the party, such as what MatthewK is doing. A simple rhetorical shift would be absolutely fantastic. Nothing can meaningfully advance the pro-life agenda because the pro-life movement has lost. When it figures that out, we can make serious progress, but in the meantime, a rhetorical concession would be lovely.
I don’t know if you take that position- you seem to have moved away from the liberal constitutional theory you were expressing a year ago- but if you do, it can’t be meaningfully termed a compromise.
I know what you’re talking about, and I was never a believer in ‘liberal Constitutional theory.’
Which is why a whole lot of conservatives had a problem with Rudy. I’m very amenable to compromise on abortion in the near-term. I don’t care, for instance, if our nominee supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, even though I do. I could even live with someone who wanted first trimester abortions to be legal, though I don’t. But, if you don’t oppose Roe, then you’re not offering pro-lifers anything of significance. And Rudy, no matter what he was saying about judges, did not oppose Roe, and would have been very reluctant to appoint a judge he knew would overturn it.
Well, I would certainly hope you’d not care if candidates opposed pipe dream measures. I’m a small-government capitalist, but I’m certainly not saying that it’s a “compromise” on my part to say that it’s okay to nominate candidates that oppose eliminating ten federal departments. Pretending that you’re compromising by being willing to accept a candidate that opposes the HLA is facetious at best.
So exactly what do you mean by conservatives “accepting compromise”? Do you still view Rudy, a pro-Roe, pro-partial abortion (until he decided to run for President) Republican as someone pro-lifers ought to have voted for, in the primaries, in the spirit of compromise? Or do you understand that being pro-Roe essentially eliminates all possibility of compromise?
Yes, I view him as someone they could have voted for while holding their noses — assuming that abortion is the only issue that they care about; he’s a conservative zealot on most other issues — because he would have been appointing the best judges that we could get through a 58-seat Democratic Senate. In other years, I’d say that there might be something to the so-cons demanding a shift to the right; this time, no way.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
MatthewK,
Most states if not all have exceptions that remove the spouse from the line of decision making if they are legally separated. If she was still legally married to him at the time this happened to her then he is the person most likely to know what her wishes were which is why the state lets him decide.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Yes, unfortunately, the law was the way it was.
Now, the question is: should the law be changed?
If the Schiavo case was any indication, the answer should be an irrefutable YES.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Put it this way – lets say that there were serious medical decisions to be made about your future – would you want those decisions in the hands of a person who had abandoned you, taken up another lover, etc? Would you really trust their impartiality?
No, but if I were a vegetable, I wouldn’t know the difference, now would I?
Yes, it was legal – and the law should be changed. Ideally, the lack of a living will should require the person be kept alive, but if not, why not require a consensus of the three closest living adult relatives on a life or death decision? Why not safeguards to protect patients from the potentially cynical intentions of guardians who were known to have abandoned their spouse?
You’re just making a law making it harder for people who disagree with your own values to get their way.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
To what? How could the law be better by allowing the government to overrule a spouse whenever it sees fit? There is no perfect law, but if social conservatives were going to pick a fight on this issue, Terri Schiavo was not the person to do it with. There was no evidence that the husband wasn’t following her wishes and she had 0 chance of ever regaining meaningful brain activity.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Alex,
“So you’re a Tim man, Matthew? People are starting to choose their horses. We have a Huckabee poster (Adam), a Palin poster (Kristofer), two Pawlenty posters (you and Doug), a Sanford poster (me), someone who leans Sanford (Tommy), and a Romney poster (Jason). DaveG and Aron (who doesn’t editorialize) are undecided, and Kavon is staying neutral. Looks like we’ve basically got the 2012 field lined up on this blog.”
I’ve been a “Tim man” since at least February of this year when I was writing somewhat desperate (and mildly insane) front-page posts suggesting that we vote for Romney on Super Tuesday, to send the whole-shebang to the convention, where we could draft favorite son Pawlenty as some sort of compromise. My support for Pawlenty in 2012 dimmed a bit, when I seemed utterly unable to convince people of what seemed obvious to me: 1.) That Pawlenty, despite a few minor deviations from orthodoxy, was quite conservative, 2.) He was offering a way to sell conservatism, without frightening anyone, 3.) He was actually an idea guy and wonky, and 4.) He wasn’t boring at all, but had a low-key, but powerfully authentic charisma, that would come out on deeper examination.
So when McCain selected Palin, I became a Palin guy, because she seemed to have everything, in terms of surface traits, that Pawlenty lacked- an ability to convince rock-ribbed conservatives that she was one of them, despite some fairly obvious deviations from orthodoxy (I’d argue Palin’s deviations surpass Pawlenty’s) and an ability to dazzle at first sight- while combining some of his more attractive qualities (authenticity, blue-collar appeal, etc). I’m not waiting to see if Palin can re-make image into something electable- if she manages it, she’ll be about even with Tim. I’m also waiting to see how Jindal plays the next year or two- I’m still not sold on his skills as a politician, and I worry that someone with his social positions/tight demeanor will need to be terribly skilled, politically, to make the sale. So I’m a Pawlenty-guy again, and happily. He’s the only thing resembling a complete, head -to-toe, political package our party has produced in at least a decade. And if that low-key charisma takes a long hearing to sell, I’m willing to help him get that hearing.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Yes, unfortunately, the law was the way it was. Now, the question is: should the law be changed? If the Schiavo case was any indication, the answer should be an irrefutable YES.
As Ann Coulter said of Nancy Reagan, The Schindlers would have probably started harvesting live human bodies if it would have kept Terri alive. They absolutely refused to believe the medical diagnosis; it’s certainly fair to say that they weren’t working with objective evidence either, if we’re going to go down that route.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
“Most states if not all have exceptions that remove the spouse from the line of decision making if they are legally separated.”
Why should that not be extended to removing them if there is evidence of an affair?
I agree that, under normal circumstances, a spouse is most likely to know the wishes. But in the event of a conflict of interest – physical or financial – are they really the ones most likely to follow those wishes?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Well, Matthew, I’m glad that you’re willing to concede that Palin deviates from orthodoxy.
I’m willing to be sold on Pawlenty; I’ll look into him more, but I doubt that I’ll be pulled away from Sanford for him. I’m moving away from Gingrich lately, as he increasingly seems to not “get it.”
I’m deeply concerned about Jindal’s protectionism. He voted with the nationalists like Tancredo and Paul against CAFTA in Congress. Ugh! Can someone explain this to me? Why did he vote against CAFTA?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
MatthewK,
There were no cynical motives on the husband’s part. As I stated earlier, the cynical motives are almost always when deadbeat children try to keep their parents alive longer so they can get more social security money. I saw this exact thing last Thursday. A woman was had terminal metastatic cervical cancer and was obviously going to die very soon. She was admitted to the hospital and stated that she didn’t want to be resuscitated. Her son arrived an hour later and after speaking with her alone he convinced her to change her mind. Because of that right now she has a tube down her throat that almost certainly will never come out. I’m not saying the son had improper motives as he might just not be ready to say goodbye to his Mom, but when people hanging on too long is a much bigger problem than people letting go too soon.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“You’re just making a law making it harder for people who disagree with your own values to get their way.”
I’m making it harder for a person who has left no substantial evidence of their intentions in such a circumstance to be killed by a person who has presented serious reason to doubt their intentions.
Do you not understand the finality of death? Death leads to – depending on your religious views – either final judgment by the Almighty and referral to either Heaven or Hell, or (and I can’t remember your beliefs, Alex) the end of EVERYTHING. In either case, I think we can agree that it is not something to be hastened.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
For having an affair? What are you crazy? First off, that is between the two married people. Have you ever heard of making a mistake and being forgiven? Secondly, how on earth is the government going to legislate that? Well, kissing is okay and so is oral sex, but once you get to penetration then you crossed the line and your decision making rights are revoked.
That is literally the dumbest idea I have read in a long time.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Do you not understand the finality of death? Death leads to – depending on your religious views – either final judgment by the Almighty and referral to either Heaven or Hell, or (and I can’t remember your beliefs, Alex) the end of EVERYTHING. In either case, I think we can agree that it is not something to be hastened.
She’d already reached the end of everything. Might as well not delay the inevitable, in my view. But that’s me; the decision should be with the spouse.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“but when people hanging on too long is a much bigger problem than people letting go too soon.”
that is a disgusting point of view. Are you saying that an eighty-five year old who stays on life support is worse than a 30 year old who kills himself?
===
“As I stated earlier, the cynical motives are almost always when deadbeat children try to keep their parents alive longer so they can get more social security money.”
Yet, funnily enough, that wasn’t the case here.
===
“There were no cynical motives on the husband’s part.”
You don’t know that. I’ll concede that I don’t know for sure that there WERE cynical motives, but do you deny that, since he was involved in an affair, and since Schiavo’s death would have allowed him to marry her ( don’t know if he ever did), there was at least a reason to SUSPECT his intentions may not have been completely innocent.
===
Look, if a person has a living will, fine. If all the closest relatives are in agreement, fine. But when there is no evidence of a person’s intentions, and there is dispute among the family, should we side with live?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
“Oh well, the woman died. So what?”
That view is HIGHLY disturbing.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Look, if a person has a living will, fine. If all the closest relatives are in agreement, fine. But when there is no evidence of a person’s intentions, and there is dispute among the family, should we side with live?
No, we should side with what the law says the next extension of the person is: the spouse. We shouldn’t be switching that around because Matthew Kilburn doesn’t like the result.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
43 – Who said that?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“because Matthew Kilburn doesn’t like the result.”
How about because a woman died who may not have wanted to?
–
“No, we should side with what the law says”
Do you believe that the law is right? Or are you hiding behind existing law like those who have no position on abortion do?
What is the benefit – in your opinion – of giving the decision solely to the spouse rather than requiring all of the closest relatives be in agreement? Why should the opinion of the husband trump the opinion of the parents or the children?
December 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I was paraphrasing statements like:
“Might as well not delay the inevitable”
and
“people hanging on too long is a much bigger problem than people letting go too soon.”
December 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
MatthewK,
I think you have lost your mind. Regarding the first statement. What I am saying is that family members almost always want their family members to stay longer, not shorter. Nobody walks in and says “Dad, I don’t know why you are still fighting this, you should give up and die.”
I am guessing you don’t understand that being on “life support” is not a prognosis, but a present condition. I could be on life support tomorrow after a car accident and 6 months from now run a marathon. An 85 year old with congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and metastatic lung cancer with a superimposed hospital acquired pneumonia probably isn’t coming off a ventilator. Also, a 35 year old with cystic fibrosis who has poor baseline lung function might not ever overcome an infection that a healthy 90 year old would overcome.
Finally, I am saying that old people hanging on too long costs the healthcare system billions of dollars a year that should be spent where it can be put to better use.
If a $100,000 procedure buys 5000 kids healthcare or one 85 year old 6 months to live instead of 3 months to live, how should we spend the money?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
39,
Hold on there. Heaven isn’t something to be hastened? That doesn’t sound right
The Christian philosophy is rather not to fear death, be it sooner or later, for death is inevitable and something that not even the most righteous among us can stop.
I thought it was rather silly how the whole fight was made over not letting her husband end it (honestly, I don’t think it necessarily good to prolong a vegetative or highly suffered life that would otherwise naturally end, should all involved feel that way) – the real argument should have been that her family has a natural interest in their daughter and the husband, as a matter of respect for that relation, should have listened to their wishes. I’m sure, after all, that they would have taken responsibility for her. That would have been the sensible conclusion…
December 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Oops, that should read 50 kids, They are cheap to insure but not that cheap. My point is a huge portion of healthcare money is spent on old people when it is too late to change the outcome. We can put that money to much better use.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Alex,
“I know what you’re talking about, and I was never a believer in ‘liberal Constitutional theory.’”
If I recall correctly, you were saying silly things like “hey, the constitution talks about cruel and unusual punishment, but it never specifies what cruel and unusual punishment is. See, that’s, like, a sign that the clause was meant to be applied in keeping with the standards of the times”. These weren’t your exact words, but that’s the essence of an exchange we had, I believe. I then pointed out that words like “cruel and unusual”, which seem vague to many modern people, actually had a lineage in English Common Law, and that when the framers set down the constitution, they were leaving things “vague”, at times, because they were writing a document to people who were English citizens a mere decade previous, and understood what some of these words and phrases meant. “Due process of the law”, for instance, was meant to encompass all the processes accorded to English-men in 1789- it wasn’t given a positive definition. These phrases weren’t vague at all; they weren’t blindingly obvious sometimes, and one needed to wade through the relevant history to get a sense of the original understanding of the drafters, but they weren’t an invitation to adapt to the times. I recall you being quite unpersuaded by this argument, despite by my calls for you to read Blackstones Commentaries (which give an excellent overview of English Common Law at the time of the founding).
“Well, I would certainly hope you’d not care if candidates opposed pipe dream measures. I’m a small-government capitalist, but I’m certainly not saying that it’s a “compromise” on my part to say that it’s okay to nominate candidates that oppose eliminating ten federal departments. Pretending that you’re compromising by being willing to accept a candidate that opposes the HLA is facetious at best.”
Nonsense. As far as I know, every Republican nominee since Ford has supported the Human Life Amendment (though, Bush II took the rather curious position of opposing overturning Roe, while ostensibly supporting the HLA). There’s no evidence whatsoever that support for the HLA has ever cost a Republican, at the National Level, any meaningful amount of support. Republicans are only able, thus far, to demand that nominees support the measure, because no one on the other side cares, because they know it’ll never get passed. Roe is the bugabear, because it’s feasible. Now you may be right that tabling the HLA amendment (or at least allowing for the possibility of nominees who don’t support it) won’t actually change what the Republican Party in Washington do. But, it’s a meaningful concession precisely because it’s one pro-lifers don’t have to make- because it doesn’t cost them anything, at the ballot box, to insist that the party make it a litmus test. Pro-life candidates who support the HLA are likely to perform no worse with moderates then pro-lifers who oppose it, so pro-lifers have no incentive to compromise. My willingness to compromise here is a symbolic gesture, but a meaningful one.
An imperfect analogy- better then the one you offered though- would be your willingness to support a candidate who opposed vouchers, in the primaries (pro-voucher advocates have been singularly unsuccessful at the national level), even though there’s no evidence that continuing to push for support for vouchers has cost any candidate votes among moderates. Assuming you were an impassioned advocate for vouchers, would you be willing to stop pushing for them, and move to some other way of reforming education, as a symbolic gesture to moderate Republicans, even if you knew that your doing so wouldn’t help you with independents? And if I accused you of “facetiousness” for supporting that sort of compromise, would I have accurately characterized your decision?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Either Steele or Blackman would be an incredible face of diversity for the GOP. The GOP must counter Obama with more diversity and Steele or Blackman (and J.C. Watts for that matter) would all be outstanding and incredibly strong leaders for the resurgent GOP.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
right, but, correct me if I am wrong, we were only talking about a feeding tube. Its not as if this woman was only being kept alive by an artificial breathing machine, or heart bypass – in which case it was the treatment keeping her alive. She didn’t die because she was taken off a machine, she died from dehydration and malnutrition.
===
“The Christian philosophy is rather not to fear death, be it sooner or later, for death is inevitable and something that not even the most righteous among us can stop.”
I’m not saying it is something to be avoided, but it is still final, still irreversible, still the ultimate end, and still – religious or not – not something to be artificially hastened.
Again, we need to make a distinction here between the kinds of procedures that are literally the only thing keeping a person alive – for ex. a ventilator – and the kinds of procedures that simply aide a person otherwise capable of sustaining life on their with a few tasks (in this case, feeding themselves).
December 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
My above post #52 should read “Blackwell” as in Ken Blackwell.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Oh, please. Hubby was a creep from the get go. Mom and dad WANTED to take care of her! He should have released himself from the situation and gone his own way. She was starved to death for heaven sake.
Who knows what a person in a coma knows or feels? WE DON’T. Many times, a person’s receptive capabilities are still there, but they have no way to show it. She was alive, and responded to her parents. People come out of comas, she should have been allowed to live.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
She wasn’t in a coma. She was essentially brain-dead. She didn’t respond to anyone. Martha, if you don’t know the facts that is fine, but making them up to support what you already decided is exactly what made the issue such a bad one for the GOP. You need to get the facts instead of making them up. She was brain-dead, you don’t come back from that, ever. She was not in a coma.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I’m not bothered by those who argue that what was done was legal. I am severely bothered by the high levels of indifference displayed on this board, and by those who see no reason to change the law. AND PARTICULARLY by those who believe that the woman’s death was not a problem.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“She wasn’t in a coma. She was essentially brain-dead. She didn’t respond to anyone. Martha, if you don’t know the facts that is fine, but making them up to support what you already decided is exactly what made the issue such a bad one for the GOP. You need to get the facts instead of making them up. She was brain-dead, you don’t come back from that, ever. She was not in a coma.”
Thats not entirely accurate either. “Brain dead” implies that she was lying non-responsive without reaction to any kind of stimuli. As videos show, she did respond to people, and her brain WAS in a sufficient state to carry out most vital functions of life.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Alex,
I’m going to take another look at Sanford, but I’m just not sold on the ability of the GOP to sell another white, Southern, male, Governor as “change”. I go in for the idea that when a party rebrands, they need a drastically new messenger. Sanford, despite his fights with Republicans in South Carolina, would be an essentially typical conservative Republican on the National Level. He’s been able to act a bit of the Maverick thus far, because South Carolina state Republicans are unusually wedded to party discipline, and the unique Southern brand of pork-based greasing of skids. But, that sort of stuff, courageous in South Carolina, looks less courageous on the National Scene where, theoretically, all Republicans take that position. And Sanford isn’t enough of a wonk to distinguish himself as a “smarter” Republican.
Like I’ve said with regards to Palin; when voters assess candidates, they fall back on handy stereotypes, in lieu. And a Southern Republican Governor, like Sanford, withou anything beyond a more principled conservative agenda to distinguish him from the “typical Southern Republican”, will need to be essentially perfect to avoid being placed in the “typical Southern Republican” pigeonhole.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
MatthewK,
People die everyday and when their time comes it is always sad and tragic. However, everyone’s day will come at some point and when that time comes, most people would like to choose the terms of their exit, hence a living will. In the case that a living will is not available then the government trusts the next closest person to make the decision for what you would want. The problem here is the 2nd in line to decide (the parents) thought they should be first.
You have ZERO experience with this law and how it is applied but you seem to know that it must be changed and you know exactly how it should be changed. You should be a little less confident that you understand these types of laws because, in reality, you don’t understand. Your suggestions for possible alternative laws demonstrates you don’t know enough and haven’t thought this through.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
You’ve got some valid points Matt, but I think there is a flaw in your logic. You are judging from the perspective of a nation just getting through the last of the Bush years. Right now, a white Southern Gov. IS about as far from change as you can get.
Four years from now, however, particularly if Obama does poorly, things will be VERY different.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Alex,
I mean, look at the reaction to Fred. Basically everyone- and I’m ashamed to include myself among them- fell for the “he’s dumb”, “lazy”, “uninterested”, etc. It was the meme du jour for months. Why? Because in an interview or two, at the beginning, Fred seemed lethargic and out of sorts, and this neatly dovetailed with what folks expected from a “Southern Republican”…and an actor to boot! And people couldn’t get the meme out of their heads, even once he started routinely placing first or second in the debates. Once folks saw a Southern Republican acting “Southern”, that’s all they needed or wanted to know.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You don’t have a problem with the result?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
MatthewK,
We’re trying to change the image of the party which is, regrettably, an image of Southern, white, males. Even Palin couldn’t dispel the latter point. A moderate/independent in 2012 is just going to intuitively resist the idea that a Southern, white, male Republican represents a “new GOP”- they’ll need a heckuva lot of convincing, and I’ve seen no sign that Sanford has anything above ordinary persuasive powers.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
MatthewK,
Brain-dead isn’t an accurate medical term but I used it because it is easier than getting into specific medical terminology. She had no higher level cortical function and she did not respond to stimuli in any way that demonstrated any higher cortical function. Her brain was never going to be able to regain that function as it no longer had electrical activity. Primitive areas of her brain continued to function, so her entire brain was not in fact dead, I apologize for incorrectly using that term.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
OH I agree that Sanford is a relatively unimpressive candidate – but I’m not sure exactly how big of a problem it is that the southern white male is the image of the party. Of course you never want to be restricted to such a sterotype, but beyond that…
Just look at it this way – if Obama does poorly, Americans are probably going to be a lot more receptive to a southern white man than to a midwestern black man.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Pawlenty holds a broad sense of social conservatism. That makes his stances on life and marriage more credible to me even though he doesn’t talk all the time about abortion or same-sex marriage. The other issues he chooses to fight for give credibility to his socially conservative worldview.
I believe a broad sense of social conservatism is one 60-65% of Americans can at least partially hold to. It is not a watered down sense of social conservatism but one that expands its reach to benefit families in their everyday lives.
I’m entirely unwilling to compromise any further on abortion but I believe our party can avoid that by expanding the set of social conservative issues to include an agenda for families.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:26 am
As a white conservative Southern male, I think it really just depends like a previous poster said on the quality of the candidate to demonstrate as incorrect serious misconceptions and highlight real strengths. After all, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Zell Miller and so forth are all part of that demographic. For most of them, their distinctive Southern ways served them well.
That being said, I like Sanford on the issues, but I’m yet unconvinced as to his caliber as a presidential candidate. I think his stances may reflect a high-quality candidate, in which case his Southern identity would probably be more a boon than a drag on the ticket. There might be some cultural rejection by the Californians and the Yankees, but they probably wouldn’t have voted for him anyways for other reasons altogether. What he could ostensibly do is flip back this year’s battlegrounds, make some additional inroads in the Rust Belt states, and call it a game. Until we figure out more about Sanford, I’m happy to remain enthused about Pawlenty.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
How did a discussion on Lt Gov Steele for party chair become an abortion debate? I’d be just fine with him, assuming he’s got the organizational skills and has a plan to reach out to minorities who agree with conservatives more than they disagree (which is more than 5% of the black populous and 30% of hispanics).
On abortion, what the “no compromise” people don’t realize is that no compromise means status quo (i.e. Roe v Wade). Get human life defined at the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and you will at least be making headway. Once people think of a fetus as human, you will be able to make progress towards restrictions, moving back the date of viability, etc. Until you do, however, nobody’s going to budge. Despite what you think, it is NOT a strong majority (if a majority at all) that thinks a 3rd trimester fetus is a baby.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Its strong enough for it to be deemed murder when a mother with child is killed.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Excellent post. My favorite quote was this one:
“Are you going to kick these folks out of the party? I have watched this party self disintegrate for the last four or five years. I’ve watched this party isolate itself from itself.”
THIS IS EXACTLY what we have been doing. An instance of this is the whole “McRomney” crap Gilmore pulled out basically saying they are not conservative enough. This type of crap automatically disenfranchises or disinterests a lot of more moderate republicans. we do need to be a big tent to win. we already have a built in advantage because american is still a center right country. We don’t need to blow it by having these types of litmus tests.
the key to winning is running republicans that fit what their part of the country want. that is how the dems won. they picked up so many seats running ‘conservative’ democrats.
I am on the Steele bandwagon as well. These comments are very encouraging.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
#70 ILguy,
“Its strong enough for it to be deemed murder when a mother with child is killed.”
My limited understanding of situations like that is that it’s always contingent on other factors (mother had to “want” the baby, for example), and that it isn’t an automatic charge of murder. Defining a human life at the 3rd trimester would give a much stronger legal standing. Yes, it isn’t where we need to end up, but can you seriously tell me we’re making progress towards limiting/ending abortion? It’s not the final position, but it’s a step forward, and one that I think is obtainable.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I understand that you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. We just need to do it intelligently so that it doesn’t stay in that position forever, because not may abortions are in that period of time anyway.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:28 am
[...] Knepper was quite thrilled by Michael Steele’s statement to CBN news regarding his membership in the Republican [...]
December 10th, 2008 at 12:52 am
[...] Knepper was quite thrilled by Michael Steele’s statement to CBN news regarding his membership in the Republican Leadership [...]
December 10th, 2008 at 12:58 am
[...] Knepper was quite thrilled by Michael Steele’s statement to CBN news regarding his membership in the Republican Leadership [...]
December 10th, 2008 at 12:58 am
[...] Knepper was quite thrilled by Michael Steele’s statement to CBN news regarding his membership in the Republican Leadership [...]
December 10th, 2008 at 5:24 am
OK, so moderates can be part of the party; they just can’t do anything.
Pretty much where I am right now.
The GOP’s “moderates” are not exactly the most reliable, nor the most principle-grounded contingent of our representatives in elected office – not that the so-called “conservatives” have been much better in the past eight years.
Either way, the only thing “moderates” have brought to the table in that time is social liberalism and Bipartisanship™, so what could they really want to do?
December 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think most of you quite get the point, here. You’re proposing creating an environment where social conservatives have nothing to gain by electing Republicans. You think they’ll vote Republican because if the platform is very slightly less objectionable on these issues? I certainly don’t think so — more than likely, if no one is standing up for these crucial issues, they’ll either stay home, or be taken in by the social theology of the religious left which at least pays lip service to some of their values.
You talk about electing Republicans as though that’s an end in itself, as though there is some higher purpose inherent in more elected officials having an (R) next to their name. But that’s worthless if that (R) doesn’t stand for something. The liberals got it right when they said politics is not a battle for the middle, it’s a battle to define what the middle is.