nah. ever heard the expression "i don't respect his opinion" does that mean you don't respect him in EVERY way, or just one of the many ways in which you can lose respect for a guy? I respect his right to have his own opinion, but i do not respect his opinion in the sense that i agree with it.

like i said, to say "i have no respect for a man" could mean a bizillion different things, so don't get to angry at people for saying something ambigous over the internet.

There is a great civil war going on right now on conservative websites. You should check out some comment sections and forums if you're bored. Basically the true conservatives are saying it's time to ditch these social policies that turn-off voters. Then the religious sect comes in and says that would be destroying the principles of the party.

The simple fact is that legislating morality is not very conservative at all. The Republicans need that deal with the devil to boost their numbers, though.

I have no idea what the answer is, either. Looking at the raw basics of the platform, it aligns pretty well with Hispanics at a personal level: Christian background, opposition to abortion, hard work as a means to an end, traditional marriage, the individual and family over government, pro-Constitution, pro-small government, and more.

Those of my family of in-laws living and working here in the US are nearly all first- and second-gen Mexican immigrant people, and that is what you get when talking with them. Hell, most I've spoken with are even upset with illegal immigrants since the family members are all here legally, either as natural or naturalized citizens or through work visas and such. How do they vote? Mostly Obama. I don't get it. I honestly do not understand.

I know someone is going to come back and say that it's some racism thing. I can only answer this in one way: out of all the responses just in this thread, is it some of those on the left, or the right, ideology that have been stereotyping? And then think about how that relates to racism. Again, I honestly do not understand, especially when the right's racial message is essentially: we don't care what race you are... we want you to succeed.

I actually read a good article on the National Review website that said Hispanics are the opposite actually. They are socially conservative but they praise the society over the individual and generally like Democrats because they agree with a European style of community-first redistribution.

I'm not sure how right that is, but it was an interesting read. Her point was basically to let go any dream of capturing that base and work elsewhere. I would guess the only elsewhere would be single women though, and your party has a looooooong way to go on that front.

It's really a perception thing like you said earlier, but I don't think it's the evil mainstream media like a lot of conservatives say. I honestly think the core "Tea Party" part of your base do it to themselves. When they speak of poor Mexicans and degenerate gays and slutty women it reflects on your entire party. I don't believe for one second you are that ignorant and I wouldn't even assign that shit to half your party but you out up with it, you let it happen and let them run for office, and it reflects on all of you.

They're killing your party in the modern world.

Well, can't argue with you much there. And I can only really speak about the Hispanics that I know personally, both through family and work (it's been a lot of Hispanics throughout the country over the years), so maybe I'm missing the bigger picture of the other millions.


Not sure I want to call them "my party". Never really have, before. The thing is, on the matters of greatest importance to me and my family right now, they line up closer than the Democrat Party does. And while one might consider me a social lefty (on purely social matters), it's really more of a Constitutional / libertarian take on those things, but tinted with my own personal ideals.

And so it goes back to the whole two-party thing. "I'm with these guys on this, but I'm with them over there on this other matter, so which way do I go?" So I pick one (been right side mostly) and then get labeled racist, Bible-thumping, anti-science, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-everything else. Well, um, no. On all counts. Okay, I'm anti- some things; everyone is. But it doesn't matter what I say or do: I voted this way and so it must be that I'm all of those things, and worse. And of course, the hundred million-plus who did the same as me must also fit the arbitrary stereotype.

But I think back to the people I talk to who express a similar preference to vote on the right and I don't find those traits in them, either, except maybe a rare few. And even then it's just one or two of those things, and only in degrees. (Pundits are a whole 'nuther matter.) And I find similar things in those who vote left, even on the social issues, especially racism and general bigotry (my brother's Obama-voting union-carpenter neighbor comes to mind, as do a whole mess of factory workers at the places I visit). Thus it frustrates me when I know that anybody can have racist and bigot tendencies but somehow it's thought to be the purview of those on the right. I mean, damn, one forum member adamantly insisted to me that ONLY conservative-minded people can be racist.

Come with me, son, and I'll open your eyes.

In the end, video clips like the one posted are exactly what I'm talking about. Maher has his narrative and it's based on... a thin, cherry-picked slice of reality, I suppose. Maybe he needs to leave his insulated world and go see what real people are like. Should he remove the blinders he'll find that most of us agree with both the typical left and typical right. Just depends on the issue, and the person. Stereotyping doesn't allow that, but that's what he does and his audience loves him for it. Frankly, it's a huge turn-off.

He of course has his goals in doing that, as do people like Hannity on the other side. Can't tell you how often I have been called an evil parasite in comments sections the last week. In the end, like you say, it comes down to being lumped in with the worst of your party due to the two party system.

There is a difference though. You think it is media-controlled, and maybe it is, but Republicans certainly give them the clips they need. Fox gets some like the Obamaphone lady, but it's not as startling or vote-sucking, probably because the actions being mocked are not rooted in hate and fear. That might be the true difference. At worst liberals are lazy and entitled, which is annoying... at worst conservatives are hateful and prejudiced.

Of course that is its own simplification.

Whatever the causes and answers are though the end point is Republicans have a massive image problem with the very groups that are taking over the electorate. That's a problem they have to fix or become irrelevant. Judging by their editorials and comments sections over the past 4 days they seem extremely divided on what the problems are, let alone what to do about them. I don't predict an easy fix, except for maybe running Rubio for President and hoping for the best.

Reading some new editorials written today it seems Republicans are going to go all-in on amnesty for illegal immigrants, so I guess there is one answer.

I doubt it will work that well, honestly. Democrats will offer more and frame the debate.

No, I'm not being purposely obtuse. Inadvertently, maybe ; ) Really, I'm just paraphrasing, with emphasis, what you posted earlier: people who voted for candidates on the right are all this, this, that, and this.

If the election were on a single issue then I might agree with you. But we're talking a huge number of matters and I don't know ANYbody that I agree with 100% on everything, so one makes a list of priorities and votes based on that. I guess I'm going to put a whole lot more weight on something like Obama promising on February 2009 to cut the deficit in half by the end of this term, and utterly failing to come even close to that promise, than Santorum being frank about his view on sex as it relates to marriage.

Not at all obtuse. They can make new laws about it all they want, not that they are. The fact is, the laws will run up against the Supreme Court decision and be shot down, rightly so.

As far as chipping away, this is done by both sides on many issues. One look at Second Amendment matters will illustrate that point. There are far more restrictions on our Constitutional Second Amendment rights than there are on something that is not defined as a right (abortion) but whose ban has been deemed unconstitutional. Does that point just slide on past because it may not be something you agree with? (I don't know if you do or do not.) Not saying it's wrong to have an opinion that favors restrictions, but this isn't something done only by the political right.

A couple points:

If Church is to be held accountable to the laws of the land, then it should have some say on the laws that directly affect it, tax-exempt or not. This provision directly affects the Church, and thus it's proper for them to have some input on the matter.

So I assume you're getting at something like taxation = rights to representation, but you'll want to be very careful taking that tack. The same argument could be used on the individual citizen, if one is not contributing federal taxes to the national system. This would mean that the unemployed poor on social support would not be allowed to petition their elected representatives, and this might also apply at the state level in those states without a retail sales tax.

It should be noted, as well, that labor unions are usually considered 501(c) tax-exempt organizations, and thus also would be told to "STFU". I suppose we can squelch the Church, and also squelch labor unions at the same time.

You're correct - I miscounted. The independents (was Lieberman REALLY independent?) were on-board, and there was at least one Republican Senator (Snowe) favoring passage early on - she voted "yes" in committee. Still, the party needed to come up with special concessions to secure the votes of its own party members, including Nelson and (if memory serves) Landrieu. The point is, votes are "bought" even within parties. We can piss and moan 'til we're blue in the face about "party of No" (currently, the Democrats here in WI - impossible! Only Republicans do that!), and it happens all the time. Yawn.

Peace to you, too. The world could use more of it. And I do consider what you've written. I only ask that you do the same, by A) understanding that a choice of vote (hopefully) comes from considering many different matters, and B) a vote is only one very small statement of one's position on things and does not define the sum total of one's beliefs; just as in legislation, a choice in vote often requires compromise.

Just a clarification: I don't think I've said it's media-controlled. My thoughts on that matter are that those griping about media bias actually have muuuuch larger media audiences in nearly all cases, and present their own opinion / bias as they're griping about same. It's all cherry-picking, done all-around, to pander.

Kinda funny when the "news" is talking not about news, but the news from the making of the news.

Imho, that's pretty much the notion that will run the US in the ground within the next 3 generations. Due to historical reasons, Americans seem to have a huge problem with giving up parts of their individuality and freedom for the greater good. Every attempt to strengthen the ties between different parts of the community gets immediately decried as "communism", and has a high chance of being shot down. Even things that are self-evident in every other civilized nation, like public health care, require a huge effort and are fought against fanatically.

With this notion among large parts of its population, the US has, in the long term, zero chance to keep pace with upcoming global powers that _do_ have a strong sense of community. The US blocks itself in pointless hateful squabbles while other nations march forward. Well, of course, the US could always try to start the next war against these "evil communists" ...

I completely agree with you. There was a time our individualism made us powerful, but technology and communication advances are changing that time into another era. One where the best community is the most powerful.

The problem is America was built on very individualistic principles and a frontier attitude that still permeates out electorate today. They see what they want to see to justify this attitude in the modern world, focusing on Greece's collapse rather than Sweden's epic success for example. They assign labels to what they dislike so they can pass it off as simple evil to their friends and family.

I'm not sure where it all ends. Probably just with us being less powerful for a while until the demographics that so effected this election push us into a new era where our people vote as one society rather than one person.