It’s Time For Republicans To Make Some Changes On Drugs, Marriage And Immigration

*Jan 07 - 00:05*23_NE Consortium

Now are the gloating times. The election is over. The ballots have been cast. The winners will taunt the losers. So it goes.

I would remind the gloaters (especially those filling my inbox with hate mail right now) that politics tend to be cyclical. Sic transit gloria mundi. All glory is fleeting.

But now is also the time for reflection among those of us who lost the argument at the polls. And conservatives have a lot of thinking to do. How can we better articulate the limited government message? What’s holding the American public back from casting their ballots for smaller government? Or, at least, given the choices on the ballot, government that grows less quickly?

I have a couple of ideas.

First, Republicans need to end the hostility toward gays. A few weeks ago, when Obama started looking a little bit week in Minnesota, a conservative friend of mine told me that the social conservative vote in Minnesota turning out to vote in a ban on gay marriage could also help Romney win the state. That didn’t work out. Not only was the gay marriage ban rejected in Minnesota, but voters cast their ballots to specifically allow gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington. Republicans are going to have to make their peace with an electorate that increasingly supportive of gay marriage.

Conservatives have no business supporting any law that would deny anyone their right to believe homosexuality is immoral. No law should force gay marriages upon any institution, religious or otherwise. But neither should conservatives support government restrictions on churches that want to allow gay marriage, or restrictions on gay marriage in general.

And yes, I’m aware that gays are a tiny slice of the electorate, but those who support gay marriage are a much larger voting bloc. One Republicans can’t ignore any longer. Which isn’t to say that this is an issue to be pandered to for votes. Allowing gay marriage, I believe, is truly the limited government position. Republicans should own it. After all, government licensing of marriages has an ugly history rooted in racist opposition to bi-racial marriages.

Second, it’s time to re-think drug policy. On election day two states voted in laws to legalize marijuana. This is a step to a saner sort of policy. The outright prohibition of narcotics in America is costing our country dearly in terms of lives lost in the black market drug wars and in terms of tax dollars. We need wise up. Prohibitionism doesn’t work.

The two states, Colorado and Washington, will now square off with the federal government over who really has the right to regulate drugs. The feds, using yet another tortured interpretation of the commerce clause, say that as far as they’re concerned marijuana is still illegal despite what the voters said. This would be an opportune time for conservatives to tout the wisdom of the 10th amendment and federalism. We could win over a lot of people to the idea that big, bloated central government is a bad idea by getting on the right side of this issue.

Let’s remember that the movement to prohibit alcohol is what got us all stuck with an income tax, among other bad policies. Drug prohibitionism, too, has resulted in some very troubling expansion of federal powers. Opposing drug prohibitionism is, again, an excellent opportunity to put the limited government message front in center for Americans.

Third, Republicans need to moderate on immigration. Making Americans afraid of a tidal wave of foreigners flooding our communities isn’t a compelling argument any more. Especially when a growing bloc of voters are 1st generation immigrants or their direct descendants.

Again, there is an opportunity here to apply limited government, free market thinking. I’m not saying we should abandon border security entirely, but we should recognize that new citizens coming into our country isn’t an inherently bad thing. We should make illegal immigration harder, but more importantly we should make legal immigration much easier. Make it so that the risk, and high cost, of crossing our border illegally isn’t worth the time and effort when crossing legally is so easy.

Conservatives support the free flow of goods and services across the border. Why not labor too? After all, that’s what most illegal immigrants are. Laborers looking for work. As for the criminals crossing the border, a lot of that could be choked off by ending the “war on drugs” which, in turn, would decimate the black market for narcotics.

In conclusion, let me say that Democrats are fond of casting those of us on the right as racist, hateful hypocrites. And at times it’s hard to refute that when we embrace big government controls on marriage, big government prohibtionism and labor protectionism aimed at our friends from Mexico.

So let’s take that argument away from them.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Mike Quinn

    Republicans are a party of the past. A past when women, blacks, and gays were second class citizens. The old white guys at the country club just got run out of the country. The agenda of greed is going down the tube. The Republican party is just an empty vessel with nothing in it but greed, racism, and a place for fundamentalist to hide. The election clearly showed the country rejected the lying of Rush, Karl Rove, and Rob Port. Knowing Americans can see past the lies of Fox is a glorious thing. If the greed rats continue on their obstructionist past trying to protect the rich, they will be ringing their own death knell. The election results surely broke the bubble of a lot of Hoopleheads, but there are still simple minded dingers stockpiling ammunition, and buying guns. We are a better country then a bunch of scared people falling for the magic underwear salesman. Praise be unto Jeeeesus the greedy rats are on the run.

    • HG

      Let me get this straight. Earning, investing and saving enough money to become wealthy is greed.
      Gov’t confiscating earnings, investments, and savings is not greed?

      • Mike Quinn

        What don’t you get about sharing? There were some great lyric to a song that said ” Take what you need and leave the rest, but don’t take the very best”. If this could be a tattoo on Republicans it would be a good start. No matter how hard you work you are not entitled to ninety percent of everything. Look up greed in the dictionary. Billionaires that insist they get another three million every year from the Bush tax cuts are the essence of greed.

        • HG

          Sharing is voluntary. Confiscation is not. Voting for people who will confiscate others earnings to give it to you is greed.

          You’re entitled to what you make, not what you take.

          Gov’t policies effectively destroyed wealth over the last 8 years.

          Mitt shared over 50% of his earnings with gov’t and charity. That is the opposite of greed.

          • Guest

            Compared to most of the last 100 years taxes are extremely low. Only in modern day America would restoring the top income rate to 39% from 35% be perceived as the difference between laissez faire economics and communism.

  • HG

    Spoken like a true moderate. Opposition to redefining marriage is not hostility towards homosexuals any more that opposition to polygamy is hostility towards those who want it. Opposition to redefining marriage is based on affirming what marriage is.
    Legalizing drugs means making lawful citizens out of the criminals in the drug trade.
    Amnesty is no solution and will continue to encourage illegal immigration.
    Rob, this election really took the conservative out of you. I know it is necessary to be somewhat pragmatic in politics, but these ideas are completely unacceptable to the vast majority of conservatives. This is the kind of nonsense that will create a third party and leave the Republican party with the independent moderates as their base. Good luck with that.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Actually, I think limiting government control over marriage, rolling back prohibitionism and applying free market thinking to immigration is a much more conservative position than what Republicans are embracing now.

      • HG

        I know you do, that is why I still take the time to read your opinions. But you’re mistaken in your judgment that those actions are conservative.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I think less government control over human activity is absolutely a more conservative position.

          You’re pushing for more government control, Mr. Moderate. ;-)

          • HG

            Again. I know you think that. But you fail to distinguish between libertarian and conservative. The two may have similarities, but they are not the same at their core.
            Less government control over marriage doesn’t mean that the state can arbitrarily redefine it. It doesn’t mean that harmful behavior should be legalized and criminals effectively pardoned. Nor does it ignore the importance of legal immigration (we are probably closer to agreement on immigration than the other two you mention).

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I think you and your church should be able to define what marriage means to you. I don’t think you should get to define it for everyone else.

            What’s so bad about that?

          • HG

            Redefining marriage legislatively is defining it for everyone. Don’t kid yourself.

            Marriage is a heterosexual union unique and distinguishable from any other civil union. It has a long history rooted in religion, tradition, and cultures. It’s benefits to society and family are foundational.
            What so bad about that?

          • HG
  • WOOF

    Efficient and easier to become Democrats than to try and change the prideful authoritarian and religiously held views of the Republican base.

    • HG

      Rob, even woof can see what this is.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        “prideful authoritarian and religiously held views of the Republican base.”

        He’s not wrong about that. There is a hefty streak of authoritarianism running through Republicans on some issues, and by getting rid of it Republicans could appeal to a much broader base of voters.

        • HG

          You’re touching, albeit not completely accurately, on the difference between conservative and libertarian with your reference to authoritarian.
          You do know that I was referring to Woof’s suggestion that your views are more in line with the democrat party?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            On these issues they probably are more in line with the Democrat party.

            Nobody is wrong all the time.

            I always like to be on the side of less government.

          • HG

            A woman’s right to abortion is less gov’t, yet you oppose that. You can’t always be on the side of less gov’t and still be conservative. Unless, of course, you’re libertarian and not conservative.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Not really. I believe in less government restriction over human activity.

      That’s hardly a pillar of liberal tihnking.

      • caeslinger

        This is actually an amazing conversation – how CONSERVATIVES are exposed for needing MORE control over people’s PERSONAL lives. Ugggghhhh … The demographics have changed SO much in this country, there is NO other choice, besides the concept it was the WRONG choice in the first place.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          For most people, I think freedom is always a compelling argument.

          Some would gladly give up their freedom to make choices in exchange for security offered by the government.

          I think – I hope – those people are the minority.

        • HG

          It is amazing that affirmation of marriage is twisted to mean controlling peoples lives. Especially given the control gov’t is exercising over peoples lives base upon a legislatively redefined definition of marriage.
          People are being forced to offer their professional services in same-sex unions by gov’t regardless of the personal beliefs. That is gov’t control.

      • WOOF

        Drugs, marriage, immigration, you’re running with Democrats.

        • HG

          Libertarians are often liberals on social issues.
          It is why Rob is not a conservative when it comes to social issues.

  • Harold

    Democrats message is one of letting people use drugs whenever they feel the need to do so, and that anyone who works hard and follows all the rules this administration sets down should be the people who pay for all the medical care that many of these individuals need because of that drug use. Compromise in the democrats view is the other side paying for everything they abuse and then screaming to the world what bad people conservatives are. Maybe if no one works and everyone uses some sort of drug then that will be the world most liberals seem to want for us and our children to live in. Who knows they won the election so most americans agree with the liberals on these and other isssues.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The conservative message should be that people are allowed to make the choices they want to make, but are responsible individually for the consequences of those decisions.

      • JustRuss

        But that means you want people to die if they don’t wear a helmet on a motorcycle, if they don’t buy health insurance you want them turned away from the ER! You monster!

        I mean….I completely agree, the only way to make people walk on their own is to stop holding their hand so they can’t fall down. But you cannot sell “tough love” easily.

  • mikemc1970

    Maybe we should try putting up a candidate that conservatives would actually want to get out and vote for first.

    • HG

      Hear, Hear!

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Wait, I thought you predicted Romney would win and the election surprise would be a gift from you to me? So did you think the evangelicals would vote Romney when you were pretending to know what you were talking about, or did you just not realize that you had voted for the only candidate who didn’t believe in Jesus?

      Why not just come out and admit that you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about, and you have no clue as to the political demographics of this country?

      “That is the daily tracking poll numbers as well. You have to dig deep for the little nugget. Early voting for Democrats is down by 22% from
      2008 altogether. But I don’t want you to dig too deeply, I want you to
      remain your ignorant self until election night.
      ” – mikemc1970

      “Not according to Gallup. Early voting has swung in Romney’s favor 52-45 as of last night. But I don’t want that to discourage you from believing it’s going down exactly like your handlers are telling you it is. I want the reality to be a special surprise on election night from me to you.” – mikemc1970

      “HA! You really are this blindly ignorant. You just keep tapping your silver slippers together and saying “Obama is gonna win”. Over and over again and maybe it will come true.” – mikemc1970

      “He stole the election and you know it piss ant. You’re obfuscation from this fact is very amusing, but as weak as your inferior intellect.” – mikemc1970

      “The fact that Obama has subverted the electoral process that he was able to steal the election. – mikemc1970

      “No, there are 50,000 illegal aliens the left wants to turn into Democrat voters. Most of whom are socially conservative anyway. The Republicans just need a candidate that can reach the large evangelical population.” – mikemc1970

      “No the evangelicals did not come out to vote for moderate Mitt. Did your retard brain not understand?” – mikemc1970

      “Try to wrap your midget mind around this, Short Round: the evangelicals didn’t come out for the primaries because they didn’t like any of the candidates. They didn’t come out for the Republican candidate, in the
      general election, because they still didn’t like him from the primaries.
      Is stupid a genetic condition in your family or did your mother just smoke a lot of crack while pregnant?” – mikemc1970

      Here’s my advice: Stop selling hate, bigotry, ignorance, simple-minded ideas as the holy grail of problem solving and most importantly, stop shoving your twisted and warped views of religion down the throats of Americans.

      • mikemc1970

        This from Democrat party of hate. Too funny.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          You should do yourself a favor and go back and watch the Republican National Convention and then go back and watch the Democratic National Convention.

          If you manage to open your eyes you will see that you are the part of hate. Or did you forget you thanked me/accused me for turning America into a 3rd world country?

          Lastly, you didn’t hear a single word I said, did you?

          Do you know how many Republicans I know who just can’t stand people like you, and your ideas?

          If your party had more of them, fewer of you, the party just might stand a chance. You need to sink back under your rock……you’re done.

          • HG

            See, H, both sides can say the other hates. Everybody wins!!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            True, (Geoff/HG/Sock puppet)but the conventions tell the true story. Mitt Romney’s convention was based on a lie, Obama’s convention was based on hope and the truth. The lie Romney told was a message of hatred, and it was perpetuated by his supporters who spoke at the RNC, Clint Eastwood, for example.

            So you can sit here and pretend, but reality is quite another thing.

            Clint was wrong; this is our country, Americans, not just the Republicans.

          • HG

            Says you.
            Surely you know by now that your comments carry little more than annoyance to readers.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, I am well aware of the fact that I was right, again, and you were wrong, again. I understand that it bothers many of you to listen to me because it opposes your alternate universe that you feel comfortable living in.

            What did you think you made, a point? You should look upon this election as a lesson, and stop attacking me and start negotiating with me and people like me.

          • HG

            This is hilarious.
            Negotiating what?

          • mikemc1970

            There is no negotiating with leftists. When they say “negotiate” what they mean is my way or the highway.

          • HG

            Yeah but I can’t wait to hear H’s negotiations.

          • mikemc1970

            It will be a typical leftist attack. First he’ll call you a homophobe then when that doesn’t sway you he’ll get mad and call you a fag. Aren’t they tolerant?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You can sit here and mock an attempt to reach out. But you need to remember that you are the fool creating division, and right after you just had your ass handed to you.

            You’re a fool. You better get back to resting under that rock.

          • mikemc1970

            The only reaching out you do is to take your government handout and get your Axlerot talking points. You’re a useful idiot and you do what your party tells you to do zombie.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What’s funny is you believing somehow you are anything but a boob.

            You should be willing to negotiate abortion.

            You should be willing to negotiate agreeable terms on tax cuts

            You should be willing to negotiate agreeable terms on spending cuts

            You should be willing to negotiate agreeable terms on education programs and funding

            You should be willing to negotiate agreeable terms on gay marriage and civil unions.

            etc. etc.

          • HG

            H, if you really believe your ideas are winning, why the hell would you negotiate?
            Go ahead, I’m listening.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Because I believe we are all Americans, and because I am a moderate who believes in meeting half way. It’s the only way we can survive as a united country.

          • mikemc1970

            because I am a moderate who believes in meeting half way

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Please explain how that’s not true, radical right wing loon.

          • mikemc1970

            You’re a useful idiot that is incapable of thinking for himself. You do what you’re told. Negotiating is for human beings not partisan zombies like you. Back to your cardboard beach shanty captain tax lien.

          • HG

            You want to negotiate with someone who doesn’t write tax laws. Nor do you. Negotiations between us are meaningless.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s a silly way of looking at it. If Americans come to terms on their own, we send the message to those who represent us in office.

            The reason your radicals lost their seat was because they carried the Tea Party ideas that were rejected, soundly, by Americans across this country.

            You need to arm your representatives with better ideas and we need to show comprise on our side as well.

          • JustRuss

            The problem with the Tea Party candidates, is not the fiscal responsiblity part. It was all the social conservatism that killed them. The tea party was about taxes and budgets, and should have stayed about taxes and budgets. I think they will learn that lesson, or the lesson will be taken by their replacement.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I agree with that statement. I have many conservative friends that are like Joe Scarborough. I think if there are guys like him, who can be friendly with Democrats and meet in the middle, there are no reasons why we can peaceably and reasonably come to terms on spending cuts and examining sound fiscal measures.

          • JustRuss

            I cannot agree that you are “moderate” so don’t try to argue it, not after years of your posts, but I’m listening. I may not accept anything you say, but I’m listening.

          • geoff

            Hanny, correct on most, however I don’t beleive murder is negotiable.

          • JustRuss

            Abortion: Not as birth control (does not include Plan B, I agree with that)
            Tax Cuts: Yes, we can negotiate
            Education: Throwing money at the problem hasn’t worked ever, the negotiation in this case has to move toward the conservative side. New ideas on how to improve education besides spending more money.
            Gay Marriage: Hell yes, that fight isn’t worth it

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What’s so funny to you? You just lost the election as well as selling the American public on your ideas.

            Do you really believe you are in a position of power to sit here and dictate to your party that you should double down on your social issues and not look within yourselves and your false perceptions of Democrats?

            You should be negotiating the idea of social issues, economic policies and coming to terms with people like me. How do you not understand that?

            You sit here and continue to parade your ignorance, while simultaneously dismissing my point of view when our/my point of view is winning.

            It begs the question: WTF is wrong with you?

          • mikemc1970

            It begs the question: WTF is wrong with you?

            Oh physician, heal thine self.

          • HG

            What’s funny is you, H.
            Start the negotiations, H. I’m listening.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            OK, Ben Stein, you know the guy? You should listen to him on agreeable solutions for tax cuts and spending cuts.

            We met in the middle and offered to extend the Bush tax cuts, but it’s time for that to end, along with instituting responsible spending cuts. You can’t accept agreeable terms, though, can you?

            You need to meet in the middle on abortion and gay marriage/civil unions.

            You can’t very well outlaw abortion by stating life begins at conception. There is no workable way for compromise in that regard. You have to separate church from state on this issue and limit abortions to certain circumstances. I’m open to teens obtaining abortions only through parental consent.

            These are just but a few examples. But these debates don’t occur on SAB, do they? What does occur on SAB, Geoff?

          • HG

            Uh, let’s take one at a time, H.

            On taxes, our side has been more than willing to change tax laws to remove deductions for upper incomes. Ending the Bush tax cuts.
            Is our leverage to removing deductions thereby simplifying the tax code. This will provide needed stability in the market.
            Obama has refused this so far.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I guess it depends on what the term “simplifying” means and what the bill includes. The idea that the top 1% need to pay more while providing some temporary relief to the middle class is what Ben Stein so bravely supported on Fox News, while also calling for spending cuts. It’s the only way to start solving the deficit problem.

            I’m for “simplifying” the tax laws, no doubt.

          • HG

            Well, I disagree. Gov’t revenue will increase as the economy grows. What I would like to hear, if there is to be a compromise, is a revenue nuetral reduction in the number of deductions for a reduction in tax rates — ie., simplification. Then, an additional reduction in rates and capital gains tax rates, tied to a minimum anticipated increase in GDP over 1 year that would guarantee increased revenues to the treasury. Should the revenues not increase, retroactive, automatic tax rate increases would kick in. This way, we are sure to increase revenues. This agreement would be conditioned on a freeze on gov’t spending at current levels. No spending increases, not even the baseline increases.

          • JustRuss

            Why can’t we have spending cuts first, then raise taxes? Honestly I want to know. I’m not against raising taxes any more as long as they aren’t aimed directly at class warfare. Don’t give me the “fair share” arguments, I don’t care about social justice.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Don’t listen to me, listen to Ben Stein, he agrees with Simpson/Bowles, in that tax cuts don’t help the economy in a down economy. He agreed that taxes on the wealthy and cutbacks on spending are the only way to dwindle this deficit until the economy picks up, then maybe we can discuss tax breaks. But spending cuts need to occur, I agree.

          • HG

            You should know, just to save any further embarrassment, I’ve never used another name on this site but HG.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Then you should be aware that your posts are showing up as “geoff” on my screen, but as HG in my mailbox. Talk to Rob, not me.

          • HG

            I have never heard that screen name before your last comment. I have no idea how that could happen. Oh well.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Maybe Facebook crossed your actual name with your reversed initials?

          • mikemc1970

            When I watched the RNC I saw minority candidates and statesmen get up and speak about personal responsibility, and the American way, but you didn’t get to see that because you were watching MSNBC which refused to show any of the minorities speaking at the RNC.

            At the DNC I saw nothing but whiners getting up and talking about what they could get from the government for free. Limbaugh said it best when talking about the election. “It’s tough to beat Santa Claus.”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            See! There’s your message of hate, again. You just can’t stop it. It’s a mental illness with you.

            I have never taken a tax payer dime. I am a self sufficient, free market capitalist who is successful, but you continue to lie about me, painting me through the tea stained glasses you view the world through.

            The failure of your election has fallen at your feet, and YOU are responsible, not your candidate. Mitt could have won if he didn’t have to cater to the radicals of the conservative party.

          • HG

            H, you don’t know the difference between the the DNC talked about and what you do in your private life?
            Nobody is saying every democrat is on the public tit. But they’re policies encourage it. Hence, the drastic increase in those receiving the earnings of citizens gov’t confiscated over the last four years.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Where you failed and where you are failing, yet again, is perpetuating this notion that Democrats encourage it, then support your false narrative with half-truths.

            You do realize more people became poor under Bush, as well as dependent on food stamps, than Obama, right?

            But what does that tell you, in your warped view of the universe?

            Hell, you people can’t even admit to yourself that the world is more than 9000 years old, and wasn’t created in 7 days.

          • HG

            You really believe that democrat policies do not encourage dependency on gov’t?

          • LKJ

            Of course he believes it, it’s the communist way.

          • Mike Peterson

            two words: Obama phone. http://obamaphone.net/

          • mikemc1970

            The fact you have a tax lien against you proves that you’re a liar. You owe the government many tax payer dimes when they put a lien against you.

          • Acesfoolweb

            Democrats pushed unemployment checks to 99 weeks. And they’re already talking about extending it again. Democrats have made it so that 45% of people who apply for disability get approved.

            I see it every day. People who are proud democrats who refuse to take a job unless they can be paid under the table so it won’t mess up their unemployment. They all have Obamaphones, at least one car (usually two or more), cable TV and internet. And they proudly boast about what they’re going to buy if they get approved for disability.

            So, want to tell us again that democrats aren’t all about the handouts?

          • Hugh

            The dem convention was broadcast live on TV when they proved that you and your party are anti semetic, godless communists.

            “Lastly, you didn’t hear a single word I said”

            LOLOLO!! How loud is “text?”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, that’s not what was revealed. But you have been told by your Republican betters to stop searching for conspiracies and stop wasting your time on this type of idiocy.

            I know you are incapable of it, as your view of the world is twisted, dark and absent of intellectual thought.

            Go ahead and continue with this ridiculous attitude of yours and I will continue to always be on the side that’s victorious because of it. Don’t worry though, you will get your chance to continue to delude yourself in 2 years when our demographic doesn’t show up at the voting booth, but they will come back for the general election again, and shock the hell out of you again, and again, and again, until you realize the demographics have changed and will continue to change. You can no longer bully the rest of us with this fantasy you have created about being the power structure of America.

          • Hugh

            Of course that’s what was revealed. Your denial of your party being exposed as the anti semetic, godless communists that you are doesn’t change the fact that the live broadcast was viewed by millions who watched as you shouted down God, Israel and the Jews..
            You know nothing, except how to obtain a tax lien and sleep with filthy, diseased women, and men.

      • Acesfoolweb

        I can say this much about the hate. I grew up in and around the construction business. During that time I had the misfortune of being around a lot of foul-mouthed, ignorant, hateful racists. And guess what. Each and every one of them were diehard democrats and still are.

        As for the gay marriage thing. As long as it’s labeled “gay marriage” there will always be strong opposition to it. What needs to be adopted, especially from the party that opposes big government, is getting the government out of the marriage business all together. Call it legal unions or whatever you want. But it should be the law for ANY two people to become a couple/family. After that they can go to their church or wherever and have their religious “marriage” ceremony if they want. Or not, it won’t matter.

        • JustRuss

          The majority of gays likely agree with this view, however the “gay agenda” is to force acceptance using the government as a hammer. They do not want to be equal, they want to considered “normal”. They don’t realize you cannot force people to “accept” anything, it will just become bitter hatred.

          • Acesfoolweb

            Oh I agree. For many of them it’s about forcing all of America and religions to accept their way of life. Which is never going to happen. Nonetheless, I’ve never understood why the government is in the marriage business in the first place. For me it’s not even about gays. There are plenty of instances where two straight people of the same sex may want to enter into a property sharing agreement that have nothing to do with being gay.

  • caeslinger

    I’m sorry, but what part of the Bible do you read that you are to cast judgment on other’s activities? Does no one remember the story of Joseph? How he ended up being governor in Egypt? Does this resonate with no one?

    Maybe if we so called Christians would be living a truly good life, it would shine more, and we wouldn’t have the problems we are decrying.

    If MY people, which are called by MY name will humble THEMSELVES and pray and seek my face and turn from THEIR wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land.

    They’ll know your Christians by your LOVE for one another.

    • Joseph

      Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I Tim 5:20

      Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. Luke 17:3

      But we could do this all day. You have the wrong verses, pages, and probably the wrong Bible.

  • Phil Gay

    Rob wake up! Both the Democrat & Republican parties have been hijacked by Globalists as they have put their plan in place for decades. Same kool-aid different looking glasses, same end result. Both parties are going to the same destination just using different paths. Wake up sheep. The Republican party wants, supports Obama-Care, their dirty little secret. Obama-Care is unconstitutional! why do we not hear that message? just “lets fix what’s wrong to make Obama-Care better.

  • Phil Gay

    Rob, stop being a Liberal & start being a Conservative! Republicans need to start being conservative NOT Liberal! if Republicans wanted the Liberal agenda they would go to the Democrat party! Start being conservative & leave the social issues to the Race Baiters!

  • Kidtransport

    Yep, and when the the lead pilot of the Blue Angels misjudges his altitude and crashes , usually the rest of the formation follows him to their death. Great logic, Rob.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I think the logic is sound.

      We say we’re for limited government. Let’s really be for limited government.

      • HG

        Conservative are for gov’t limited by the principles upon which our country was founded, not those of today’s libertarians.

  • Guest

    Rob you are mixing up libertarianism with being conservative. The Republican party is not and never in reality has been a party truly for small government.

    • Mike Quinn

      Republicans believe a very simple philosophy. “I got mine, I inherited it, I stole, or I earned it, but I ain’t sharin it”. Republicans believe there is no end to how much one person deserves. Republicans don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves. Republicans see the average man as a lazy peasant undeserving of health care, education, or a decent life. Women, gays, and minorities are just people to be exploited by the rich to satisfy their unending greed. The public just sent the Satanites a message about their evil ways, but they never learn. Republican will still delude themselves and play the role of obstructionist. Drunk on greed they will continue to put their selfishness above the needs of society. Our country has been hijacked by the distortionist it is time to take it back.

      • HG

        You really don’t know what the hell you’re typing. Conservatives, especially wealthy conservative, are some of the most generous among us. Mitt shared a large portion of his income with charities. He also paid his taxes. Combined, these added up to more than 50% of his income.
        Now let me personally contradict your pathetic lies:
        I am conservative and republican. I volunteer my services at a county office one morning a week. I pay my taxes. I earn my living. I contribute to charity. I pay for my healthcare. I pay for my education. I see the potential in everyone. Everyone is capable and deserving of the dignity that comes doing these things. Women, gays and minorities are no less deserving.
        Those who vote for leaders who will confiscate more in order to get more from those leaders are themselves rooted in greed. Those who confiscate earnings and enrich themselves in the process (ie., most politicians) are the epitome of greedy.

        • Old&InTheWay

          OK, I left a reply very similar on another thread, but I think it could bear repeating…I think at the core of this issue is going to be a realization of needing to amend the public discourse…from what you just posted above, I would judge you as a fine and honorable person…I just take offense when a proposal to raise the long term capital gains tax is talked about as the second coming of the Bolshevik revolution..Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the last time this happened during the Reagan administration? It is things like this that is getting extremely frustrating to listen to, and while I sway towards fiscally conservative principles myself, it is why I could not vote for Romney this time out…

          • HG

            I never mentioned capital gains. What do you think of my compromise?http://hg.sayanythingblog.com/2012/11/09/heres-a-compromise-for-the-parties-in-govt/

          • Old&InTheWay

            Well, I’m thinking that compared to other sometimes longed-for eras, (Reagan, Eisenhower) long term capital gains rates don’t really seem too oppressive to me….So I question the need to reduce them further in the second year of your plan…. Especially while we are still engaged in a two front war…..I can’t think of anytime historically we have had an financial obligation of this size coupled with a demand for tax rates of this size…..

          • HG

            The revenues are guaranteed either way. If the tax cuts do not increase the revenues by an agreed upon number, then the tax increases would be retroactive. It’s a win win.

          • Guest

            Voodoo economic theory. So now how do you account for inflation, changing population demographics, or how much revenue a tax cut would generate. You gonna use those formulas that the heritage foundation that miscalculated the bush tax cuts. Then according to the theory tax cuts decrease revenue anyway if you have not met your goal, so would that not be self defeating.

          • HG

            Again, it doesn’t matter because you libs get to set the amount of increased revenue based on the rate increase you seek. That is the target the tax cuts would have to achieve. If not, the tax rate hikes you want will be retroactive. You win either way.

          • Guest

            This is a very naive proposal. First off your pay freeze thing across government programs would be impossible to achieve politically for one, and would have many nuances and extreme complications when you talk about entitlements, and most importantly would retard short term economic growth which would be a near guarantee for the retroactive tax rates. Now if we have the retroactive rates people would be paying double tax for a fiscal year which would put the nation into recession and would be absolutely disastrous if the economy was already weak. To be fair the base of Romney’s plan to reduce rates and broaden the base is a good idea according to most economists. But now what ones should be eliminated and how politically would that be accomplished because you know it would upset a lot of interest groups.

          • Old&InTheWay

            So maybe at this stage, the best strategy would be to organize a constitutional convention to shore up a few things we as a nation have been tripping over the past few decades or so….How about we get a line item veto and congressional term limits, MAYBE a public campaign financing plan if someone smarter than me can come up with a feasible idea…..

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Yes, let’s feed the Beast. “Gay Marriage” is not only a contradictio in adjecto, it violates and reduces to a rootless piece of trivia a fundamental aspect of age-old human experience of the male-female relationship in both its personal and transcendental forms—a human experience powerfully and universally expressed in mythology and philosophy. Call it “Civil Unions” or whatever, it is not marriage, and it is not just a matter of words. Yes, I am aware that homosexuality also has age-old and sacred aspects, but that is something else. Only the corrupted modern mind conflates these things.

    • HG

      Well said.

      The male female relationship is unique in many ways. One is the nature of the love they have. Science tells us that the potential for reproduction is key to their attraction. This quality cannot exist in same sex relations. The attraction and love between men and women is unique in this regard and no other relationship offers it. Marriage honors and celebrates it. To redefine marriage as inclusive is to strip marriage of it many distinguishing charactersistics.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        What happened on Nov. 6 had nothing to do with rationality, therefore there is no rational solution. There are no tweaks and compromises that could have made a difference. It has to be admitted that the Democrats do, in fact, represent the people. We are experiencing the ripening of evil fruit from trees that began growing half a millennium ago. Fruit that has reached full ripeness in the last several decades. We are in an interregnum—a period of time in which values and structure disintegrate into chaos. It is a relentless spiral into social and political catastrophe—a periodic event that is virtually a biologically necessity. Due to the nature of the modern world, such breakdowns are no longer localized, but are global. One had best look to oneself. We are crashing because what is in our heads is limp and futile; what is raging in the collective is the prime determinant of the immediate future and all we can do is await for a new order to form out of chaos.

        • $8194357

          VIDEO: Obama supporters celebrate: No more Israel; kill those motherf***ers

          Four more years!More of what we have come to expect from the hater and his uneducated followers. Clearly, their history classes skipped over the San Remo conference (where England, France, Italy, and Japan, with the United States as an observer, divided the Ottoman Empire into three mandates: Iraq, Syria and Israel [Palestine]), the Balfour Agreement and the White Paper. Not to mention the bloody wars fought and won defending the Jewish state against relentless Muslim armies, or the 5,773 years of Jewish history in their homeland. What’s sadder? These thugs and goons, or Obama’s encouragement of this dangerous imbecility?

          VIDEO Obama supporters celebrate: No more Israel; kill those motherf***ers Rebelpundit

          Obama supporters out celebrating his win on election night gathered on State Street Tuesday evening. I asked one man why he was celebrating Obama, and what that meant to him. He said, “It really means to me, no more Israel…Mitt Romney would go to war with Iran…Obama said f*** that shit. Kill those mother f***ers.”

          Another said, “Palestine was there first, and Israel moved in in the 1940s and that’s an unfair attack.” A man of Jewish heritage accompanying him said, “I really do not think that us being with Israel is a good choice for us”:

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Anti-Semitism focused on Israel has been building up over the last 20 years and it is widespread in this country. I find it especially pronounced among liberals and libertarians and arises out of their anti-war sentiments. Leave aside all the political and geopolitical mumbo-jumbo involving the state of Israel and their lovely neighbors and whether Israel is legitimate or not. What outweighs the fact that Israel has been our biggest ally in the Middle East, what outweighs any consideration of fair play, honor, loyalty and other such outdated notions, is the perception of Israel’s very existence as the reason for a potential major war in the region. Whether Israel is guilty of anything or not makes absolutely no difference. Look at Israel as one big Benghazi consulate to be sacrificed so that certain political ideological fantasies can be realized. Their extermination will taste lip-smacking good to a great many people. Jew-killing has been great sport time and again throughout history. If one wants to venture into religious speculation, the Christ-denying Jews have themselves become Christ and are about to become crucified in order to satisfy a black fantasy of the Left that this act will take away the sins of the world. Once again a great techno-burning (holocaust) of the Jews is in the making. This time the “ovens” will be more efficient. The Jews are the scapegoats in the original Biblical sense of the word. Meditate on this and feel the creepy-crawlies slither all over your bod.

          • $8194357

            Yup..
            what you said flamer…
            I’m thinking micro wave ovens or some knew scaler wave with accompying signs and wonders coming from the knew ELF global technology attempt at being God.
            The aniti christ and his followers have reverse engineered creation to the point of playing God and it isn’t going to be pretty..
            Satelite/internet instant global communication and the Old Testement prophesies pretty much line up with just some sort of thise scenairo, IMO.

    • Acesfoolweb

      Marriage is, and always has been, a religious ceremony. Two people can want to agree to share/split their property together and it have absolutely nothing to do with religion. I couldn’t care less if two gay people want to legally be a couple. It has no affect on me whatsoever. If it truly is morally wrong and a sin then they’ll answer for it in the end. But that’s for God to decide, not me.

      This is also another reason for changing the tax code. There shouldn’t be incentives for marriage or having children. It should just be a flat tax rate, period.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        The religious ceremonies that are found in religion are just one aspect of the way in which human beings have experienced the relationship between the sexes. Of course marriage is a religious ceremony. That is not my point at all.

  • matthew_bosch

    Fantastic post Rob. 10th amendment indeed. It is imprudent for the Fed to micromanage the States.

    Your immigration analysis is spot on.

    -It might be advantageous for the marijuana legalization to be determined at the County level.

    Establish national marriage reciprocity. Each state defines marriage as it so chooses, while subjecting all other state’s licenses to the same rights and privelages, even though the word “marriage” may not meet definitions.

    Lets not forget that we are blessed with 50 unique states that allows us as a Nation to experiment with policy.

    I plead to my fiscal conservative/libertarian friends. It is never the time for a third party. Each party is already a coalition of special interests, and now is the time for our special interest, fiscal conservatism/libertarianism to take the lead in the GOP.

  • Lynn Bergman

    The way that liberals distorted these issues demands that conservatives become more articulate, consistent, and with the volume turned up and constant.

    I took a poll yesterday that found 54% of respondents believe that marriage, as defined in the bible and the dictionary, is between a man and a woman. If gays want the same priviledges as married men and women, they should focus on promoting “civil unions” to take advantage of around 200 legal benefits that married men and women enjoy. Re-writing the bible and the dictionary, thus offending those they wish to influence, is not a good starting point for gays’ economic equality to be adressed.

    You are right about the immigration issue; conservatives need to cull the bigots from our ranks and let more legal immigrant in; we need good family oriented and spiritual workers in our country and should welcome them as our forbearers were welcomed.

    I see no good that would come from my hero, Milton Friedman’s desire to legalize drugs. I currently have to drive defensively concerning drunks and distracted drivers. The last thing I need is to legalize mary jane in any way, shape, or form.

    So I agree with you on one of the three issues. We don’t need to throw away our values to get elected. That is what Democrats would like us to do…

    • HG

      Nicely put.

    • Neiman

      Those illegal immigrants, while embracing moral/family values, almost all of them vote Democrat and that is why the Left wants open borders and you don’t get it that the Democrats gain power through open borders. Plus, if it is legal immigration you speak of, they used to assimilate and lust after becoming true Americans, not now; now they demand we set aside our culture/values in preference to their own third world sewers of origin, they never become Americas anymore, only bastardized hyphenated Americans with their primary loyalties elsewhere, outside the USA,

      When we cease to have borders, we cease to be a unified people, as we see today, every race only being loyal to their own race, wanting their race to have preferences and hating anyone that that will not give them their way, even raising their own nation of ancestries flags above our own on our streets. That is why we are so divided and a nation divided against itself cannot stand.

      So, while we are a nation of immigrants and need and should encourage legal immigration, it is no good unless they, as they did in the past, study and become citizens with a knowledge of our history and values and are impressed with a need to assimilate.

  • Sad in North Dakota

    It the Question on how to get Republicans in power the biggest for this nation? It is not to stop the Nose Dive our nation has taken.

    The only solution is to stop or fight all aspects of big government now. Not after the next election, but today. We need our national leader to fight and shut down big government even if it may mean they loss the next election. Only this may save this Nation.

  • Neiman

    It is inevitable that Rob’s arguments will be embraced bit by bit by the GOP, in their bid for survival and power, it is the abandonment of ALL and yes I said all, moral values.

    Rob is right about a lot of hypocrisy within the GOP, running on those values in public, while engaging in drugs and sexual debauchery in private. While I think him thoroughly evil and antichrist, it is also true that Gay Bob (rbb) has pointed out a lot of this hypocrisy among Republicans and yes among conservative Christians as well. Yes, such hypocrisy does undermine the argument for moral rectitude. Yet, what does hypocrisy have to do with the rightness of a thing? If the drug addict recovers and lectures against the evils of drug use and then falls again into that weak natured lifestyle, does his failure make drugs any the less destructive or his former arguments less true? So, please spare me the hypocrisy argument, failure to live to one’s deep beliefs does not make those beliefs any the less true and in matter of fact, failure only validates the evil of the thing.

    Isn’t it better to be a voice crying in the wilderness of defeat, for a world to repent and return to that which is right, moral and decent, than to give up, to surrender those values and be a part of the debauchery of a fallen society? Is is better to be a good limited government conservative without any moral values or to stand for those values no matter the cost? Why would any decent man don the uniform of his country that has abandoned God and all decency, to risk fighting and dying for that which in his heart he knows is evil.

    Yes, the hue and cry of people like Rob is for compromising all Judeo-Christian values that we might win elections, because he is an atheist, as are virtually all anti-social/moral, family values liberals, they are gods unto themselves deciding right and wrong arbitrarily, not based on an everlasting Standard or Judge, not in answering to a final Judge of all men, but only to their ownconsciences that they might enjoy the pleasures of the flesh for a season and not be denied them by men/women that still submit to God and human decency.

    Rob and those like him, all liberals and a growing number of those on the Right, will not submit to anyone or anything, they are their own gods. Thus, they will lead us as a people to moral anarchy in the false, lying name of liberty. As a man of many years, I have observed from the fifties when mild burlesque was only in the big cities and pornography was delivered in plain brown wrapping, to now when the most explicit forms of sexual depravity are on television and the internet; and thus, as the conscience is seared, as is Rob’s, from all things moral, one day he too will be saying we must give up this nonsense about slaughtering babies inside and outside the womb, against adult-child sexual intercourse and bestiality that, we might win elections, just as today he wants us to approve of drug use and the sexual deviancy of homosexuality.

    We are damned as a nation because of men like Rob that have no sure moral values and we have no right to complain when this nation becomes a third world state.

    • chris

      Such negative thinking. Nobody is forcing you to change your values. You can still choose NOT to do any of these things that are being permitted more and more. It’s just that now the government has less control over our personal lives. If you teach your children the correct values then for the most part they will make the correct decisions. And yes, the family unit is still permitted in America.

      • Neiman

        As the nation’s morals fall, and they have definitely fallen deep into the pit of moral depravity, no matter how one teaches their children, they are daily immersed in a depraved school system and society, walking down the street through the moral garbage of your amoral/immoral world.

        When the government, your government allows drugs to be legal, the government has forced your amoral/immoral values on those that want the freedom from being exposed to your drug crazed, sexually depraved lifestyle; your government forces them on everyone, not to do them, but be polluted by them. The Hasidim Jews have it right, as do the Amish, be separate, in self made ghettos, getting their children away from your depravity.

        No, family values are not permitted, if we even teach our children at home and say abortion and homosexuality are immoral, if they repeat that outside the home they are subject to criminal penalties. You and your fellow travelers do all you can to subvert family values and create perverse alternative family values.

        • chris

          At least marijuana is not that bad of a drug. Ignoring the stigmatization, it’s actually pretty benign, much more benign than alcohol or the actual hard drugs like crack and heroine. Besides, the real danger to youth, especially in rural white America, is the designer drugs like bath salts and crystal meth.

          • Neiman

            It has been said and I think wisely so that, “not everyone that uses marijuana graduates to harder, more dangerous drugs, but there has never been an addict of those harder drugs that did not start with Marijuana.” That is enough to make it dangerous, even if the stimulation caused by Marijuana is of itself not very dangerous.

            Once we open ourselves to anything potentially harmful, drugs, alcohol, sexual deviations, etc; our spirit becomes hardened to those things, if only a small searing of the conscience, then the next small step does not seem so severe, so dangerous and we try that as well and then, our nature further hardened to those things, the next is even easier, until we are totally depraved, as is America today.

            The very existence of our mass slaughter of tens of millions of helpless, innocent babies, added to the not just out of the closet, but in your face nature of homosexuality today, are all the proof we need of the truthfulness of this thesis. Take it for what you will.

          • chris

            I agree with the first two points; most people who went on to hard drugs started out with mild stuff, usually marijuana. But I have a different take on it. I think it’s more of an issue related to personality and self control and experience than anything else. I’ve known people who got hooked on hard drugs and became drunks. However those people had personality problems or family issues, or they simply didn’t have self-control to begin with, so they were already vulnerable to addictions and bad behaviors. Marijuana was not the problem, because they would have found something else to get high on. Sniffing glue would do just fine. The drugs would exasperate their already existing problems. These types of people should stay away from drugs of any type.

            On the other hand, being raised in Colorado, I’ve known lots of people who routinely smoke pot, and yet they don’t do any other drugs. In fact they are very much against crack and heroine, or even alcohol to a point. They simply like to relax in their own home and smoke a joint. I personally don’t like pot because it makes my head race. I prefer the occasional drink.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Illegal immigration is a bad thing. Many, if not most, are coming here to get the free goodies. They are Democrats. Oh, wait, I get it!!! Let’s all become Democrats!

    • HG

      As if acting like democrats will get these people voting republican. They vote democrat for more than gay marriage, amnesty, and legalized drugs. They vote democrat for the things gov’t give them. The vote democrat out of envy. I argue we would get a larger portion of the electorate voting conservative if we put up a conservative who articulates liberty. Not by being democrat-lite.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        People actually do respond well to a disciplined policy in the context of a clearly articulated spiritual ideology. I mean “spiritual” in the general sense of seeing something of value that transcends materialistic concerns.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        If you think you are helping your party by offering your opinion, let me assure you that you haven’t the faintest fucking clue as to which you speak.

        But by all means, continue to berate the hardworking, tax paying Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, it’s going to ensure your party shrinks and dies…….as it should.

        • HG

          Tell us why they vote democrat if not for welfare, or healthcare, abortion, Obama phones, free education, bigger gov’t, etc. I don’t doubt that amnesty, gay marriage and legalized drugs have a small part, but in large part it is an ideology that they support. An ideology based on envy of what other have and what they feel they deserve.

          • chris

            Most people vote democrat because it’s the party of civil liberties (you may argue it wasn’t historically, but that’s a mute point), of individual freedoms, and yes, of government protections for consumers and employees and the environment. People actually want a strong educational system, a strong security force, a strong infrastructure, and so on. This is essential in building a friendly environment for business and the middle class in general.

            Only 3% of the recipients of government handouts are actually moochers. The rest are the working class, the elderly, students, Veterans, etc.

          • HG

            You also see gov’t as the solution to all of these. Gov’t attempts to solve these with laws, fines, taxes, and redistribution.

          • chris

            What’s the alternative? Private security forces in place of a police department? Too bad for all those poor folk who can’t afford their personal guards. How about having to pay a hefty fee every time you want to enjoy the international highway system? I bet tourism and traveling would drop by half.

          • chris

            Sorry I meant the interstate highway system.

          • HG

            Policing isn’t even part of this discussion. We’re talking about gov’t giveaways. The feds don’t fund local Police.

          • chris

            you said: “You also see gov’t as the solution to all of these. Gov’t attempts to solve these with laws, fines, taxes, and redistribution.” I assume you were also referring to when I was talking about government spending on infrastructure and services. They are all forms of redistribution. We can also talk about government assistance for college students and the elderly and the disabled. Do you want them to go it alone? How about government regulations on toxic waste dumping, or employee safety at construction sites, or clean food standards at a butchery? I guess you want to do away with all of this?

          • HG

            ;Look at the context of the thread then keep the discussion within it. We’re talking about confiscation for redistribution, not health and safety standards. Nobody is going to pull the rug out from under seniors or students. What we need is policies that encourage self-reliance and self-responsibility. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a safety net, but it would mean that we do have a welfare to work system within the program for instance.

          • chris

            Everything I mentioned falls under redistribution and regulations. When you generally talk about how evil the government is and how you want deregulate and cut programs, people start thinking about everything that you’re insinuating, including things that they directly benefit from (most people are not moochers as you seem to suggest) and they get scared. However if you’re not talking about cutting the programs and regulations that I mentioned, which ones then?

            I support a welfare-to-work system by the way, and Obama has been working on improving the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) approach.

          • Zog

            Only 3%? You pulled that number right out of your ass!

    • $34543430

      Do you have any idea what the price of produce would be if the workers were paid minimum wage?

      • willieB

        You don’t have to wonder much longer. As soon as obama makes them all “legal” they’ll be demanding the minimum wage.

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          By the time Obama-driven regulation costs, energy costs of production, transportation and hyperinflation are included, the wages of illegal immigrants will be a minor factor in the cost of produce to the consumer. People will be eating lettuce leaves washed down with champagne.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        No. What would it be?

        • $34543430

          It would be drastically higher because illegal immigrants are the
          agriculture work force on the west coast. I’m not saying that’s good or
          bad, but if we expel all illegal immigrants, the government will
          probably have to subsidize it even heavier.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Yes. I know that it would be higher. Everyone knows it would be higher. Many things go into the price of produce. Without a number or at least a reliable range of cost increase I can’t relate to this claim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=74603543 Jordan W Green

    I have friends that are fiscally conservative gay men who would probably have voted republican if the party hadn’t told them they were less of a person for being in a committed loving relationship with a member of the same sex. The republican party hasn’t always been so absorbed with regulating moral issues, and when they started down that path it was a way to attract more voters to their base. Now that the tide of public opinion is shifting on these issues it really doesn’t make sense to hold onto these issues that are really secondary to the republican party’s primary platform of fiscal conservatism. One only has to look at Minnesota where the Marriage Amendment and Voter ID Amendment were put on the ballot in an attempt to energize the base, when it actually energized the opposite base instead. Get rid of all these distractions in the Republican party and get back to true limited government principles and the party might have a chance in the future.

    • Neiman

      There are still some that believe standing for moral/family values and against the depraved gay lifestyle is of greater importance than winning at any cost.

      • Davo

        Yes, there are, but the problem is one of demographics. The country is becoming less white and less Christian, which are the two most consistent Republican votes. In 20 years, gay marriage bans will be a thing of the past.

        • Neiman

          You are correct on all counts, but to be correct is not to be right. For any true disciple of Christ, any devoted Christian, it is far better to oppose evil and lose every election and even our lives, than to give in to those things that destroy human souls and send them into everlasting punishing.

          Let me ask you, because of these changes, would you ask the Christian to compromise their values in the name of electoral victories and power?

          Would you rather that Christians, as I did this year, not vote at all rather than vote for evil and leave the party of Lincoln and leave you all to yourselves?

  • Davo

    Despite some irrational optimism in the weeks leading up to the election, Romney ultimately lost the female vote 55-44%.
    In addition to the issues mentioned above, you may want to re-examine what it is about the conservative philosophy that drives away so many female voters.

    • Neiman

      Why don’t we just make a list of all things theDemocrat Party stands for that we oppose, strike them all we now oppose from our hearts/minds and incorporate all the social/moral values of the democrats all into the GOP Platform. Call us Democrat Party-Light, let’s stop playing games and be Democrats then.

      • Davo

        Because you win on economic issues, Neiman. You crush the opposition.
        But it’s time to wake up–the 1950s are over. The country is becoming less white and less religious every day, and if you don’t adapt to the changing reality, you’re just going to continue losing by greater and greater amounts each election.

        • Neiman

          Yes, the GOP will keep losing and so better for all devoted disciples of Christ to get out of that party, stop voting at all and leave the country to those of you that believe in moral anarchy. Then, the GOP becoming Democrats in their moral/family values, meaning none, they will win more at the ballot box and be victorious. But, win as what? Survive as what? To become Conservative Democrats in all but name and watch the country go to hell without any opposition?

          Perhaps that sounds attractive to you, leave me out, as I did this election, I will not vote at all rather than vote for moral anarchy.

          • davo

            Are you aware of the existence of third parties?

          • Neiman

            Whats your point?

          • $34543430

            Because clearly the government does a great job of governing morality *sarcasm*

          • Neiman

            It can only do two things: 1. By law slightly slow down the inevitable moral decline, making it less attractive to do out in the open. 2. Use the bully pulpit of the White House, with the support of Congress and the Judiciary to set the right tone by their obeying the law.

          • $34543430

            Where does the constitution say the government should be enforcing morality if someone is not harming someone else or their property?

          • Neiman

            Any nation must engage in social contracts, wherein the people establish a sense of a national morality, for the good of all, to protect others from your immorality and wickedness, that their liberty may not be sacrificed on the altar of a false liberty. There has never been a nation on earth that has not established certain minimal moral standards and enforced them for their own welfare. It is a thin line to walk and the people must have their voices heard in whether or not they agree to those laws. But, until recent decades our laws have been based on Common Law and that was based on the Ten Commandments.

            You may nor screw sheep in your parlor because you are not harming other human beings and if you take drugs, you may not expose your children to them, etc. Of course, under Obama that will all change and you can make love to your sheep all you want.

          • Zog

            Neiman, I doubt that you recognize the irony but, apart from your reference to the Common Law and the Ten Commandments, you are presenting Islamic doctrine. Is that what you really want? “Immorality”, “wickedness” and “false liberty” is the terminology of mullahs
            Frankly, I’d rather have my neighbour screwing sheep in his parlour than have the cops beating the crap out of my daughter because she allowed a wisp of hair to show in public.

          • Neiman

            Nonsense! What utter rot.

            Deny what I said, that our Constitution is based on Common Law and that Law has its foundation in the Ten Commandments.

            Then, prove where I took any further than the right and obligation of any people to establish law and that basing it and its opposition to immorality, is predominantly based on the Ten Commandments. But, it is like all liberals to at this stage bring out the false Christian Taliban argument. It is a hatred of Christ and His Church to equate their appeals for moral decency and some laws to govern the acts of men and that on God’s Word, to the extremism and murderous militancy of Islam. But, I am used to such lies by you Christ hating folk.

          • AV

            Seven of the Ten Commandments never made it into the constitution and/or common law. And the ones that did are universal, and feature even in countries/cultures that had never heard of Judaism or Christianity. So you argument is BS.

            And coveting thy neighbour’s stuff is the very basis of western economies.

            Perhaps you should re-read parts of the New Testament, like maybe the parable of the sheep and the goats? You come across as possibly the least-Christian person on SAB.

          • Neiman

            The moral laws of God are known to all men, written upon their hearts and the truth of them is that they have been accepted in every culture, society, geographic local and time. They are BS to you, because you reject God, not because they are BS in fact.

            Coveting is in the hearts of all men, because of our propensity to do evil and while it is common, it is still known to be evil.

            On what biblical basis, using Scripture do you judge me? If you say I am not a Christian, you must have some objective biblical standard to apply. What to you is a Christian, what are the requirements that we may know them? I have studied the bible for nearly six decades and know in Whom I believe, do you believe in Jesus? Is He your only Savior and absolute Lord of your life, will you confess Him as such? If not, how can you know who is or who is not a Christian?

          • AV

            Christian has two commonly-used meanings:
            1) Christ-like; and
            2) follows the teachings of Christ.

            The bigotry, arrogance, and selective application of passages from the Bible, that you display here on SAB, show that neither definition applies to you.

          • Neiman

            A) What is it mean being Christ-like, to be Christ like one must be perfect as He is perfect or they are not like Him at all. It is a dictionary definition of a word, not biblical at all.

            B) I follow the teachings of Christ, being a Christian, while like all Christians not perfectly; but, he called sinners, not self righteous liberals to salvation.

            Isn’t God bigoted when He says there is no other God but Him, that there is no way unto Salvation but through Christ, that all other religions are false and lead souls only to damnation? Are you charging God with bigotry?

            To charge me with using selective applications, honesty demands you give an example and contrast it with biblical passages that change the clear meaning to correct me, or you are making a false accusation.

            Still, you have failed entirely to explain what a Christian is, Paul says by the Spirit; it is not of any works of the flesh that one is saved, but by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. So, the man that by sincere faith accepts Christ but stumbles daily, is still a a Christian, the man who is good most of the time, but is not a Christian is destined for hell absent repentance and the way unto salvation mentioned above.

            You avoided confessing Jesus, so like Ellinas and Hannitized, by refusing to confess Him before all men, you show you are none of His, The bible tells us without His Spirit, through the new birth one cannot discern divine truth and as you have shown you have not his spirit, all your judging is from the outside, being lost.

          • Zog

            If you’ve read the Bible as much as you say, I’m surprised that you missed the part about loving thy neighbour as thyself. Or, in more modern literature, think of the tale of Abu ben Adam and the angel.
            Aside from that, AV didn’t suggest that the Ten Commandments are BS – he said that three of them are universal, i.e. not specifically related to Christianity. You should improve your reading skills.

          • Neiman

            So, Jesus was loving His neighbor when He kicked over the money changers tables, drove them out with a whip of cords, called religious leaders snakes and His own beloved Peter He called a child of the Devil? Or, is it possible that the Bible talks of love differently than you? What about John the Baptist calling Herod and his wife adulterers? Was that loving his neighbor as himself in your world? Was Paul loving his neighbors and is that why he was stoned and whipped more than once, drove out of towns and hated? I guess people react that way to good neighbors, right? Or, is God’s Love different than your love of the flesh?

            John the Baptist called people, even religious leaders to repent, he had his head cut off being a good neighbor I guess, Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the Apostles were killed for being good neighbors, do people usually kill people for loving their neighbors, or is God’s definition of love different than yours?

            If I say to a gay man you are living in sin, a debauched, deviant lifestyle that will lead only to hell, show him a way to escape hell and find a full and happy life in Christ through admitting his sins to God and accepting Jesus healing and salvation, you call it unloving, not being a good neighbor, but God calls is loving my neighbor to help them see their sins and calling them to repentance. Rather than offend them you say being gay is normal, it is not a sin and so the gay man does not repent, does not find healing and eternal life and all because of your fearing offending him and you falsely call that being a loving neighbor.

            I do not need your books, but you need Jesus and His salvation.

          • Zog

            Yes, being homosexual is abnormal but then, so are you. With the possible exception of the Iranian Ayatolahs I can’t think of anyone more filled with religion-based hatred than you. Who don’t you hate? (Among real people I mean, I know that you love your mythical “guy in the sky”).

          • Neiman

            Homosexuality is not just abnormal, it is sexual perversion, idolatry and was set aside for special condemnation by God.

            Just saying I am abnormal is childish without objective proof.

            What hatred? Hating sin in myself and the world? God thus hates sin, so you are judging God as well. I already demonstrated that God defines Love and hate quite differently than you, it is love to confront sin in the world and thereby lead some to Christ and life eternal. It is hatred to lie about their sins and lead them away from Christ and into hell, which is what you do.

            The proof of your lack of intelligence is to deny God, look around you and from the sub-atomic level to the vast universe, everywhere is overwhelming evidence of incredibly, miraculous levels of design, design cannot exist without a preexisting designer greater than the things designed and that Designer is God. To people like you, God calls them fools, He has proved Himself without end and that absolutely, but only a fool can look at this overwhelming evidence and call God a myth.

            Good night

          • Guest

            You can still be a good Christian without government forcing you to be

          • Neiman

            When and where did I suggest government should force faith on anyone, or are you just spitting into the wind?

        • HG

          The only demographics that matter are those who appreciate liberty and those who do not. Pandering to am ethnicity, a gender, or a sexuality is no way to persuade them of liberty.

    • ‘Tom Crawford

      More single women preferred Obama than Romney 67 / 31

      More married women preferred Romney than for Obama 53 / 46

      Now that does not break down to tell how much of those two categories are:
      Black which preferred 93 / 6 for Obama
      Hispanic which preferred 71 / 27 for Obama
      White which preferred 59 / 39 Romney
      Asian which preferred 73 / 26 Obama

      or the age groups as well:

      18 – 44 Age groups tended to go for Obama while ages 45 and up went for Romney.

      It seems as if younger single females voted for popularity in most cases, which leaned heavily in Obama favor. Older married females tended to vote Romney.

      Unfortunately from there it is harder to pinpoint where those groups lie in ethnic groups of white, asian, black, ect. Especially considering that Black ethnic went to Obama 93 – 6. It doesn’t state where most women who were polled are in those categories unfortunately so we cannot break it down further.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229225/Presidential-election-2012-Record-number-Hispanic-voters-head-polls.html

  • Davo

    Another change your party should continue making should be its relation to the media.
    Your side was operating on a huge “knowledge gap” this past election–take note of all the right-wing pundits who were predicting a Romney win. (Romney himself, aparently, among them.)
    While you were busy listening to conspirary theories from right-wing bloggers and talk radio hosts, you know what the New York Times was doing? They hired a nerdy mathemetician who was an expert on analyzing poll numbers, and, whaddayaknow, he called every single state correctly.
    We’re entering a world where people whose sole access to the world is through the right wing echo chamber are knowing less and less about how the world operates, which leads to your candidates making conspiracy-laden arguments that just don’t resonate with the Average Joes who read newspapers and watch the evening news

    • ‘Tom Crawford

      its not just the right, hell, dan rather even predicted Romney win.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Having known quite a number of Libertarians, I am approaching the point where I see them as liberals with a Free Market fig-leaf.

    • fedupny

      I hear ya flame… without a moral compass, the free market cannot work well either. You just won’t know who you can trust doing business with. It only enriches the lawyers trying to keep everyone honest or just trying to screw each other. Relative morality is Clinton’s “is”.

  • geoff

    George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties in his farewell address.
    Maybe it’s time to abolish all parties and only then will we be able to vote on one’s integrity rather than political ideology. Just a thought from a disgusted conservative

  • borborygmi

    Common sense thread Rob. I applaud you. The conservatives have to listen to the blocs they are not winning. Ask them why. THe theory seems to be from the right especially the Social Conservatives “We are the truth and you are a fool for not believing the truth. We just have to show you the way. What ever you think is not correct and is wrong.” I guess it boils down to my way or the highway. Look no further then how Christie was chastised. As Collin Peterson stated neither side is right all the time.
    The complaint from conservatives is that these social amendments were put on by the liberals to motivate the base. I don’t know about two of them but the one in Minnesota was sponsored by social conservatives. THis not only motivated the liberal base but it also showed a blue print on how to win for liberals. It should also send chills to conservatives because if it backfires like this they will be out for a long time and won’t dare to put similar amendments. Double win for liberals. Evolve or die should be the mantra for the Conservatives. THey are like people with an addiction. THey can’t get better if they can’t admit they have something wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.j.bender Tony J Bender

    Not only a good formula for the party but a good formula for the country.

  • Mike Kopp

    Conservatives ought not change their views or their positions, only their presentations.

    Conservatives do not know they are conservatives. So first of all, shun the label. Instead, of conservatives couching their beliefs in policy positions, the MUST couch their beliefs as “people” issues of value, worth, acceptance, importance, pain, struggles.

    Merely tying a liberal to Obamacare doesn’t do it, unless it is explained why that is a bad thing in real terms, people terms. “Smaller government,” “Dodd-Frank,” “housing crunch,” “credit ratings,” “illegal immigration,” are terms for thinking people and sadly people don’t spend that much time thinking. They want to know what it means to them, where the rubber meets the road.

    That’s the arrogant failure of conservatives — they think everyone knows what they’re talking about and so they talk over voters instead of talk to voters.

  • Good points

    Well said.

  • sbark

    Its the free stuff………..its Christmas every day with the Dem’cats……….the GOP wants everyone to have stuff also–its just that they beleive you should earn it the old fashioned way…..work, risk and smart decisions.

    Hispanics dont vote dem’cat because of immagration policy………its the free handouts
    If it was about illegal immagrants and jobs—–would not the Unions in the USA be screaming………….nope, because its about the free stuff dem’cat bribe them for votes.

    gays……Gay marriage is not about tolerance, they already got that, it is about affirmation. Gays have achieved tolerance yrs ago (they can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes and even openly in the right non smokeing bars), what they have not yet achieved is affirmation (everybody telling them they are living a moral and uplifting life), and they want govt to give them that……its then official in their minds, as Govt is for many the ultimate supreme being in their lives.

    I already tolerate homosexuality without affirming them. I am not and should not be required to change or be forced lie about my moral and convicitons when it comes to gays…….if so, then my rights and free speech are being infrindged upon
    Obama got 10 million less votes than 2008……Romney got 3 million less than McCain, add back those 3 million conservatives that stayed home on principle, and Mitt at least wins the popular vote.
    Its been proven over and over……given a choice between a radical Liberal and a RINO from the GOP………people will vote for the real thing, especially when the Lib is handing out more free stuff………our nation has tipped, its now a matter of time

  • $34543430

    Over a million votes went to Gary Johnson and who knows how many people wrote in Ron Paul. If the GOP can start to embrace some of this stuff, they could probably have a lot of those votes

  • john

    Well, finally a blog I can totally agree with Rob. Another problem the GOP is facing, particularly with young folks is it’s social conservatives. The majority of Americans want no part of religion in government or morally based laws. I realize that is hard for the party faithful to swallow, given I personally know some ND GOP leaders that would like nothing more than to be the Christian version of a Taliban leader in their home towns.
    Until the GOP stops pandering to the religious right, it will continue to see elections like we just saw. Don’t like abortion? Neither do I! So I won’t be a party to it. However, fewer and fewer Americans are embracing the lunacy of trying to force religious beleifs on anyone else. Gay Marriage, drug laws and immigration are just small parts of the GOP problem

  • $8194357

    You know how the media and the left get to manufacture the narritives and (lets be nice now and not call them what they are, lies) “myths” about the targeted conservitive or RINO’s..Here is one little fact check..

    http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/11/08/8-of-10-richest-counties-voted-for-obama/

    Quote:

    There is a deal between the poorest inner cities and the rich, who have no contact with people who live in the inner cities. The rich vote to assuage their guilt, and the poor take the trickle-down welfare from Washington. It’s the politics of co-dependence.

    Over 40 years ago, my father-in-law wrote a book on this: Politics of Guilt and Pity. You can read it for free here.

    Here are the facts.

    In the richest, Massachusetts’ Nantucket County, where average annual household income is over $137,000, Obama won by 63 percent to Romney’s 36 percent with all precincts reporting. . . .

    In none of the richest counties was the margin of victory wider than in California’s Marin County, just north of San Francisco, where the president won by 74 percent to 23 percent, with all precincts reporting. In Marin, the average annual household income is $128,544.

    Read more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/11/08/8-of-10-richest-counties-voted-for-obama/#ixzz2BgOnt796

  • Judy Morris

    Thank you Rob for your wise words. Let’s bring these issues out of the closet and onto the table for a real discussion because the social conservatives of the “legitimate rape” and “I hate homosexuals” variety are killing the GOP, as is their insane prohibitionist attitudes.

    I voted for Gary Johnson because the Republicans have become nothing more than big spending Democrats – minus the social issues. Maybe now we can clean out the statist filth in the GOP. Tuesday night was opportunity knocking.

  • Stuart

    Why don’t we just compromise our views on morality and Goliness for political gain seems to the answer? Common Rob..do you want us to pass the point of no return?
    Maybe if more voters would come and Republicans would the initiative to get the vote out we’d do better in getting a good person in the white house!

  • Waski_the_Squirrel

    I would love to see a party that respects intelligent adults to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their choices. Neither major party does this. As a Christian, the purported Republican values are more comfortable, but that does not mean I want them writing my morality into law.

    Here are a few crazy thoughts:

    1. Forget legalizing gay marriage. Why is government involved in marriage at all? Isn’t it scary that I need government approval to marry? Isn’t it true that in the past government used its authority to prevent interracial marriages? I will happily marry the woman I love some day in a church. Our union will be recognized by our friends, family, and congregation. Government recognition should not matter. If I were the sort who preferred a man, I know my church would not perform the marriage, but I also know that no matter the venue, I would still only care about the friends and family recognizing it. Get government out of marriage entirely!

    2. My body belongs to me. I get to control what I put in it, and I should be responsible for what happens to it. I happen to like being thin at 37 years old. Some let themselves go. I happen to like my brain. Some pursue chemical pleasure. All choices. Of course, in this era of Obamacare, the government can make an argument at it does control my body. Finally, how does government choose where to draw the line: which chemicals are too dangerous and which are not?

    3. On immigration: my town has a lot of Hispanics. They come to North Dakota to work. They might have language or cultural difficulties, and I certainly see that in my classroom. But I would so much rather see people coming here to work. I remember before the oil boom when the new students (mostly white) came from families moving to North Dakota for the cheap housing and generous welfare. I’ll take the Hispanics over the white trash any day!

  • Uh, What?

    I think Repubs/Conservs can hold to their convictions and still make sense on this…

    What they need to do is teach the constitution… That there are STATES issues and are not to be determined at the National level. If California or MN wants to legalize homosexual “marriage” they can do that. If ND votes not to… also ok. Same with certain drugs. Ron Paul gets it right here… STATES Issue.

    On abortion I would argue that Roe v. Wade is not only morally reprehensible but also constitutional gymnastics. I guess I’m just the nerdy one who actually took notes in HS Civics and read most of the Federalist Papers for fun…

  • $8194357
  • banjo kid

    Congratulations Rob you have converted to a progressive over night . to many stayed home and did not vote, that coupled with fraud is why he won . Maybe you need to change your party affiliation. Butler co along with a few others had rigged machines I wonder how many states had the same machines. it is the Chicago way to stuff ballot box’s . to many stayed home because Romney was not and the republican party is not what it should be and never will be .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=542445205 Michael Lee

    Well said. This post is exactly what the right wing needs to do. Also not putting a candidate on the ballot that has the reputation of a corporate raider and from a liberal hot bed from Mass. would have helped.

  • Sludgewarehouse

    Hey, guess what? There was a Republican who believed in all that but the GOP decided to cheat and steal the primary for another guy who just lost.

  • The Fighting Czech

    Hey Rob, make it easy on yourself, and just become a Democrat.. Your version of political cross dressing. is pathetic.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I actually think i’m promoting a set of policies more consistently predicated upon the ideals of limited government than the status quo.

      • Joseph

        policies based on an inerrant set of morals that you were taught as a child and developed as an adult? Or policies that are based on your own internal non-existant moral compass.

        you’ve seen the founding father quotes on government and religion, and chosen to disregard. This Government wasn’t designed for your beliefs. Get your own. I hear it’s nice in France this time of year.

  • http://thepoliticalinformer.com/ John-Pierre Maeli

    I find it hard to believe that voters will turn around and switch their vote just because the republican party as a whole has changed their position on some issues.

    If people are not willing to vote for freedom when the other choice is big government tyranny then how are we supposed to believe they will vote for us just because of some policy changes. It’s absurd.

    It’s obvious that people want free stuff more than they want freedom. This election has proven that. Changing our policy just because of one election is ridiculous and will not help us.

    • Old&InTheWay

      I think the point was that you can’t TRULY be the party of freedom so long as the party tries to regulate who someone can marry and what people do with there own bodies….

      • http://thepoliticalinformer.com/ John-Pierre Maeli

        You watch, after we “legalize” gay marriage, people will be fighting for the right to marry animals. It further degenerates our society.

  • kcfreakazoid

    What is at the core of conservative principles: free markets and personal autonomy, or enforcing Biblical sexual morality? Are the two really coherent? If conservativism is really about personal autonomy, then women’s reproductive rights should be as much a plank as 2nd amendment rights.

    If one would disassemble and reassemble an American political landscape based on coherency of beliefs, you’d end up with one party composed of the Democratic Party’s welfare state and pacifism combined with the the Republican Party’s stance on homosexuality, family values, abortion and insistence on a literalist ‘Biblical worldview.’ The other party would combine the Republican’s ideals of low taxes, free markets, personal responsibility, 2nd amendment rights and agressive foreign policy, with the Democrats’ stance on abortion, first amendment rights and scientific worldview.

    I think if just one of these newly spawned hypothetical parties formed, it would scare the shit out of the establishment of both the GOP and Dems and utterly transform American politics.

  • voice of reason

    have you lost your mind?

  • Stuart

    Here ismy suggestion..Keep compromising our principles and morals so the right hasn’t a platform to run on. Let’s all become mush heads and brain dead. That would
    Solve the problems we are experiancing!

Top