PDA

View Full Version : The religious right is turning on Bush...


htismaqe
06-28-2006, 08:31 AM
I know we were discussing this the other day, but I couldn't find the thread.

I was listening to the local talking head yesterday (Steve Deace moved from talking sports on KXNO to talking politics on WHO). He's a definitely in the RWRNJ camp and he was basically saying that the religious right shouldn't bother arguing with those who disagree, but rather they should be spending their time taking those who profess to agree with them to task for talking the talk but not walking the walk.

He then opened the phone lines to caller after caller criticizing Bush.

It was definitely interesting (if not a little scary) to hear.

the Talking Can
06-28-2006, 08:35 AM
Amazing isn't it....he isn't FAR ENOUGH right for them.

Actually, he is in his words...but they want DEEDS.

yeesh...

Brock
06-28-2006, 08:42 AM
You should hear what they're saying on shortwave. :)

MOhillbilly
06-28-2006, 08:54 AM
You should hear what they're saying on shortwave. :)

ha no kiddin'.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 09:33 AM
Amazing isn't it....he isn't FAR ENOUGH right for them.

Actually, he is in his words...but they want DEEDS.

yeesh...

Yep. They don't want him to talk about outlawing abortion. They want him to do it.

In fact, the notion they were kicking around was interesting:

If Bush can basically ignore the Supreme Court when it comes to Eminent Domain, why can't he just ignore them on Roe v. Wade?

In a way, they have a point. It's just a damn scary point.

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 09:45 AM
The cynic in me thinks that repub politicians NEVER want abortion to go away. They just want to lose on the issue by a vote or two every time.

Election candy.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 10:03 AM
Where are they going to go? What they need to do is STFD and STFU, and be thankful for any crumbs they get.

Sully
06-28-2006, 10:12 AM
The cynic in me thinks that repub politicians NEVER want abortion to go away. They just want to lose on the issue by a vote or two every time.

Election candy.

I believe that to be the case.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 10:13 AM
I believe that to be the case.
Of course, and Democrats want black people to stay on welfare so they continue to vote for the entitlement party.

I mean, if we're unleashing the cynical today. :shrug:

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 10:22 AM
Where are they going to go? What they need to do is STFD and STFU, and be thankful for any crumbs they get.

According to liberals, this group holds more power than any other single block of voters. I don't think they should just be summarily dismissed.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:57 AM
If Bush can basically ignore the Supreme Court when it comes to Eminent Domain, why can't he just ignore them on Roe v. Wade?

What did he do to ignore a decision on Eminent Domain?

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 11:16 AM
Of course, and Democrats want black people to stay on welfare so they continue to vote for the entitlement party.

I mean, if we're unleashing the cynical today. :shrug:

BL - while I will not disagree that dems are just as pandering, welfare really is not the issue to bang them with.

Clinton did reduce the welfare roles and pass welfare reform, something that Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II have failed to do.

There is no "abortion" issue that works for dems the way it works for repubs.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 11:17 AM
What did he do to ignore a decision on Eminent Domain?

Apparently he said earlier in the week, that despite the Supreme Court's decision that the government could indeed sieze private property, it would never happen during his tenure.

Basically, they were wanting him to apply the same logic to abortion.

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 11:17 AM
What did he do to ignore a decision on Eminent Domain?

Yeah, I would like to know that as well.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 11:22 AM
Apparently he said earlier in the week, that despite the Supreme Court's decision that the government could indeed sieze private property, it would never happen during his tenure.

Basically, they were wanting him to apply the same logic to abortion.
That's the hook?
Declining to exercise a power the Supreme Court says you possess is not the same thing as saying something is illegal that the Supreme Court says is Constitutionally protected.
Not even the same ballpark.

Would you give a man a foot massage?

SBK
06-28-2006, 11:24 AM
The cynic in me thinks that repub politicians NEVER want abortion to go away. They just want to lose on the issue by a vote or two every time.

Election candy.

Yeah, some election candy in exchange for 1,300,000 dead babies every year. What a trade! :shake:

memyselfI
06-28-2006, 11:26 AM
What did he do to ignore a decision on Eminent Domain?

As I understand it, he issued an executive order directing all federal government agencies to disregard attempts at ED thereby making the SC ruling rather null and void.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Clinton did reduce the welfare roles and pass welfare reform, something that Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II have failed to do.

Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before finally giving in to the Republican congress when it became obvious that it was very popular with the voters. I don't think this can be considered a dem accomplishment so much as a politically saavy surrender.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:29 AM
Apparently he said earlier in the week, that despite the Supreme Court's decision that the government could indeed sieze private property, it would never happen during his tenure.

Basically, they were wanting him to apply the same logic to abortion.

Oh, I see. Although their understanding of the logic is flawed IMO. Choosing not to do something when he is legitimately exercising his discretion isn't the same as somehow forcing an end to abortion by exceeding his authority. He's already done what he can within his discretion to reduce federal funding of organizations that promote abortion.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 11:30 AM
That's the hook?
Declining to exercise a power the Supreme Court says you possess is not the same thing as saying something is illegal that the Supreme Court says is Constitutionally protected.
Not even the same ballpark.

Would you give a man a foot massage?

Hey man, I'm the messenger here.

Besides, I oversimplified their premise for the sake of brevity.

Of course, he can't do that. But he can "adjust" federal funding for organizations that provide abortions, like Planned Parenthood, effectively forcing them to stop giving abortions or fend for themselves.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:30 AM
As I understand it, he issued an executive order directing all federal government agencies to disregard attempts at ED thereby making the SC ruling rather null and void.

Thanks. As I mentioned to htismaqe, that's something that he has the authority to do. Stopping abortion would require an abuse of power afaics.

Mr. Laz
06-28-2006, 11:32 AM
The religious right is turning on Bush....

Maybe they'll crucify him :shrug:

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 11:32 AM
Oh, I see. Although their understanding of the logic is flawed IMO. Choosing not to do something when he is legitimately exercising his discretion isn't the same as somehow forcing an end to abortion by exceeding his authority. He's already done what he can within his discretion to reduce federal funding of organizations that promote abortion.

Has he?

I don't honestly know (nor do I really care).

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:32 AM
But he can "adjust" federal funding for organizations that provide abortions, like Planned Parenthood, effectively forcing them to stop giving abortions or fend for themselves.

Perhaps I was careless with my last statement. I know he's done some of this. I don't know whether there's more that he can do or not.