Republicans Reject Women When They Shed Moderates

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I do notice that the responses are typical of the angry Atheist Left. Spew hatred to those who believe in any sort of moral standard, accuse them of racism and anything else that comes to mind, then call yourself fair-minded and "open" to try to make anyone listening forget the vitriol with which your previous comments were made. The reply from Jack Gollding is I believe spot on, we may need a third party, as the two we have are so far apart at this point that they appear the same to a distant eye, and asking the republicans to "moderate" and move farther and farther to the left leaves us with only one party in the end. If both parties are on the left of center who would represent the people in the middle? Or those on the right?
The republican party has problems, but turning them into your much beloved Democrats will not solve them, only disenfranchise tens of millions of americans and leave the far left of the Democrat party free to move even farther left with the excuse of "well we're not that far from the right wing extremist republican party". Or perhaps that is what you desire? A "choice" between communism and European Socialism? History has shown both systems to lead to failed economies and widespread decreases in the standard of living. To be fair capitalism is essentially unfair, there are winners and losers, but the losers still have a chance to better themselves, it may not be easy, and it may not be what they prefer, but the chance is always out there for them to take.
Which do you prefer? A balanced capitalism or two parties racing towards the extreme left end of the spectrum trying to prove how much they "care" for the people and how "open minded" they are by dumping massive amounts of Tax money at society's failures?

Waylon of CA 11:48AM May 18, 2009

So, the Republican party wants to be white, male, and mostly Southern? And, not to mention non progressive, if not outright backward on most of the issues that matter. Does this remind anyone of anything? No clues, huh? Basically, the party and its views are the heart and soul of racism.
I'm not a scholar or an intellectual, and I haven't read as much history as I should have. But I do know when something doesn't look or feel right. My thesis is very basic and probably a bit over simplified: The south never got over losing the Civil War (and from the looks of things, never will) which means they never got over losing the right to treat black people like dirt and a whole lot of other "privileges" they viewed as inalienable rights.
These southern "denialists" are the heart and soul of the Republican party. Yes, present day Republicans couch their philosophies and mandates a little more eloquently than your everyday Grand Wizard, but their ideology is bascially the same. They hate enfranchisement -- no matter how small -- of people of color (Thomas, Palin and Steele are but sacrificial lambs), of people with vaginas, of people with scientific knowledge, of people with differing views as to what constitutes marriage, of people who think, and so on and so on.
Let's just say it plain. Republicans are at their heart racist, sexist, homophobic, dangerous and jurassic.
Party members put off by their current leaders should do the respectable thing and form a viable third political party. Although I'll probably be a Democrat for life, I would welcome dissent from a rationale, thoughtful political group with alternative ideas on how best to restructure America.

rhmart of NY 3:29PM May 12, 2009

John Mccain's defeat last Novenmber can be summed up in five words --Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. This continuous apologistic attitude by prominent Republican leader for criticizing Rush Limbaugh is sickening to centrist independents like me, and is not only turning off women, but minorities and white men who are not reactionaries. As much as I dislike the two-party system, this courting of the extreme right wing (they shame conservatives)is turning this nation into a one-party system. Barring an epiphany by the GOP of a move toward the center, what is needed is atrong centrist third party that takes in libertarians, greens, and others not Nazis or Communists, that embraces the philosophy and principles mof both Roosevelts. I am willing to work behind the scenes to achieve such a goal. Anybody with me?

Jack Gollding of KS 2:53PM May 12, 2009

unfortunately, your opinions are along the lines expressed by the "flat earth Republicans" that today have too much influence on the Party of Lincoln. At some point, maybe the GOP will step lively into the 21st century and drag you along kicking and screaming.

ron of FL 1:23PM May 12, 2009

Today's Republicans, as a whole, remind me of the guy who is constantly rejected by women and blames his cologne, rather than his personality. They're like stalkers; rejection just makes them crazier.

Donna of AZ 11:41AM May 12, 2009

I'm merely a "whiny" woman, so forgive me if I have trouble following the organization of your comment. Please, be patient with me as I work my way through it.
Para 1: What has given you the impression that we want to be taken care of by anyone? I reviewed the other comments by women (I count maybe 5 or 6) and I didn't read one explicit request that we be taken care of. I mean, I guess you're entitled to your own interpretation of their comments.
Para 2: This one gave me a lot of trouble. Maybe because it's all over the place; jumping from the war to the definition of conservatism to liberal constitutional interpretation. But, just for fun, I'm gonna take a crack at it. What you're saying is that if a woman opposes the war it's because she doesn't understand it and is just being hysterical and irrational. Furthermore, you're implying that support of the war itself is an essential tenet of conservatism not subject to our "whims". Thus, it is impossible to truly be conservative and be against war. Finally, you remind us that it's those bad liberals that refuse to understand that all things have one static meaning and there is no room for interpretation. Your point, as I am to understand it, is that this static-ness extends to the values of the Republican party. So, the Republican party is for the war because it always makes us safe and that's never going to change and we should get over it. Got it.
Para 3: This one also gave me problems. So, you're saying that your definition of "life", in all its complexities, is in fact the same definition that the framers were contemplating when they wrote the Constitution. How do you know? I mean, none of the document's uses of the term "life" are in the medical context. So, why would we assume they meant it to be a medical definition? I'm assuming the Republican party has like a letter to the future from the framers that they didn't include with the Constitution; otherwise, how can you know?
Para 4: Are you asking a question? Okay, the Creator endows us with those rights the day we're born. Speaking of strict interpretation, by your rationale, isn't the Declaration confined to "men". I mean, the meaning of "men" is pretty self-evident isn't it? Oh, and PS: Roe v Wade is way more convenient for men than it is for women. Because, the alternative is criminalizing paternal abandonment.
Para 5: What history has shown that? Women are better off now that our employers can't discriminate in terms of pay. But, practically speaking, no one usually knows about it when its happening. We want the right to sue because we were entitled to that money. Would you argue a person shouldn't be charged with stealing if it was 5 years ago? Doubt it. But, you're right women shouldn't speak up for themselves; they should just accept things the way they are and realize change is to be frowned upon.
Thanks for incite! I'm smarter for having read it.

Meryl of CA 10:59PM May 11, 2009

Re: "...and then say we only want people with certain characteristics, like white males from the South."
Would have added at least some facts to the article if the author(s) of such a statement were identified. I've never heard a Republican, southern or otherwise, make any such nonsense statement. I actually reads like a typican MSM smear statement.

Tom of SC 10:45PM May 11, 2009

Rich, that is so accurate and well-said. But beware the deception. Newt comes on national tv and pretends to be fair and objective; but when he's back home or on some tiny local channel, he spews the venom like the rest of the extremists. As we've all seen over the weekend, Palin is dropping like a rock in Alaska polls because people there are finally seeing the real Palin, the one who actually showed fangs at the RNC "Depends" Convention, when spitting hate over Obama. That was different than the image of a small town sweetheart. Beware the lunatic fringe moderating their talk, to fake us out and sway some who are hurt by the Bush Depression or two wars...Obama may get the blame. Beware the yet unknown "white knight" wing nut to challenge Palin in the primaries with looks, charm, articulation, intelligence and fairness rhetoric. He can win the presidency and ultimately cause the overturning of Roe V Wade and send America into the abyss. Thank goodness for Keith and Rachel--and great Americans like you.

Daivie of MI 4:24PM May 11, 2009

Robertm, you seem to be rather condescending to ALL? the women posting here. I count very few women in this discourse. I have always voted Republican however, if something better comes along, I won't hesitate to vote otherwise as , in general, I'm finding that the Republican party isn't conservative enough for me these days. As far as the abortion situation goes, there are plenty of us out here that somehow managed to get pregnant when and only when we chose to. I taught my daughter to have the same actual control over her body as I have always had-"if you choose to have sex, protect yourself in all ways". To date, this has worked as well for her as for me. If pregnancy isn't wanted, men, keep it zipped, women keep the knees closed or get and use protection. I'm getting sick and tired of women being treated as if we're mindless little children. And as for fiscal matters, keep your paws off my money and we'll get along just fine-whatever your beliefs.

Kathhy of IL 4:07PM May 11, 2009

Your "republican" commentaries are not surprising and most remain anchored in the failed Repub. practices since Nixon and Reagan. Have you not seen that there was a recent election, by the majority, that repudiated what has been offered as solid Conservatism ? GW Bush did'nt just walk in with the deceit and character assasinations of Karl, Rush and their ilk to promote his administration. GW Bush was elected by Republicans, especially the allied religionists and southern hatemongers. The GOP historically offered a solid Americanism, but that has been squandered by the contemporary blood and war profiteers, the oil interests and the corporate fascists. This process began, (with the masses' approval), under the "gipper" as an attack on Labor Unions and the Middle Class and matured under GW Bush. Please understand that the majority demanded change and progress in the 2008 election.

Rich. of WA 3:59PM May 11, 2009