GOP Needs to Bring New Ideas to Table

[Adam's Apple]

Wanted: New Ideas
By Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report
November 19, 2006

Back when Republicans were winning elections in the 1980s, Tip O'Neill used to say that was because Democratic policies made a lot of people rich enough to vote Republican. Republicans who are saying that the party needs to go back to the principles of 1994 or Ronald Reagan should keep O'Neill's lesson in mind: Successful public policies render moot the issues that bring parties to power. They won't keep winning unless they address new issues.

What issues could Republicans raise in 2008? They would do well to look to the states, and especially to Florida, where Jeb Bush has enacted innovative policies on school choice and healthcare. They could look at some Democrats as well, like Tennessee's Gov. Phil Bredesen, who has been reforming an overly generous Medicaid program. They could highlight the proposal of GOP Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. They could consider Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's proposal to get lower-income workers to save and invest with tax credits for IRA contributions. Republicans aren't going to win elections with the new ideas of 1980, 1994, or 2000. They need new ideas for 2008.

for full article:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061119/27barone.htm

 

[flaja]

What good will new ideas do Republicans when they have failed so miserably to fight for the ideas they already have?

 

[Adam's Apple]

What good will new ideas do Republicans when they have failed so miserably to fight for the ideas they already have?

Such as???

 

[flaja]

Such as???

End abortion.

Balance the budget.

Reform Social Security.

Put conservatives on the federal bench (remember that GWB’s 1st slate of judicial nominees included a Democrat that had been nominated by Clinton).

Fight the war on terror without regard to collateral damage (meaning we haven’t killed enough Iraqi civilians for them to realize they lost a war).

Implement term limits.

Uphold the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Annie]

Response

End abortion.

Balance the budget. In time, depends on courts.

Reform Social Security. Should be a domestic priority, right now, the WOT comes first.

Put conservatives on the federal bench (remember that GWB’s 1st slate of judicial nominees included a Democrat that had been nominated by Clinton). He was not able to get his appointees approved. I blame Senate leadership for that. Did they make a change?

Fight the war on terror without regard to collateral damage (meaning we haven’t killed enough Iraqi civilians for them to realize they lost a war).First thing I agree with wholeheartedly and this administration has let us down. Big on threats, weak on action.

Implement term limits. Sorry, I don't support, leave that to the citizenry.

Uphold the sanctity of marriage. Fewer laws the better.

 

[flaja]

Balance the budget. In time, depends on courts.

What do the Courts have to do with balancing the budget? Only Congress can spend money.

Reform Social Security. Should be a domestic priority, right now, the WOT comes first.

In other words GWB has a one-track mind, which is a dangerous thing in a politician.

Put conservatives on the federal bench (remember that GWB’s 1st slate of judicial nominees included a Democrat that had been nominated by Clinton). He was not able to get his appointees approved. I blame Senate leadership for that. Did they make a change?

How did the make up of the Senate force GWB to nominate Democrats? Just because the Senate won’t confirm legitimate conservatives, is that any excuse for GWB to not fight for conservatives? How can the Senate confirm conservatives, if GWB won’t nominate conservatives?

Fight the war on terror without regard to collateral damage (meaning we haven’t killed enough Iraqi civilians for them to realize they lost a war).First thing I agree with wholeheartedly and this administration has let us down. Big on threats, weak on action.

We will not win in Iraq. Not one single allied soldier set foot in Germany during WWI and the million-Hun German army managed to march home in perfect order, fully armed. The German civilian population had no concept that their country had lost a war. We have made the same mistake in Iraq.

Implement term limits. Sorry, I don't support, leave that to the citizenry.

Didn’t the citizenry put Republicans in Congress in 1994 for the express purpose of having them propose a term-limit amendment?

Uphold the sanctity of marriage. Fewer laws the better.

Typical libertarianism: fewer laws and no morals.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The only issues that matter are closing the border and suspending trade with fascist china.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Typical libertarianism: fewer laws and no morals.

Amen.

If we don't have government handing out any marriage licenses, people won't get married. There will be anarchy, wild orgies in the streets, and general mayhem. Just like before the civil war, when state-issued marriage licenses had not yet been issued. Besides, everyone knows that the bible defines marriage as a compact between a man, woman, God, and Caesar.

 

[Annie]

Amen.

If we don't have government handing out any marriage licenses, people won't get married. There will be anarchy, wild orgies in the streets, and general mayhem. Just like before the civil war, when state-issued marriage licenses had not yet been issued. Besides, everyone knows that the bible defines marriage as a compact between a man, woman, God, and Caesar.

Actually Flaja had a problem discerning his posts from mine, though my post made it clear.

 

[flaja]

Actually Flaja had a problem discerning his posts from mine, though my post made it clear.

Huh?

 

[no1tovote4]

Laws do not make, nor do they support actual morality. One must decide to be moral regardless of law. It is not illegal to sleep around on your wife, this makes most who do not sleep around moral people regardless of the legality of their action.

 

[flaja]

Amen.

If we don't have government handing out any marriage licenses, people won't get married. There will be anarchy, wild orgies in the streets, and general mayhem. Just like before the civil war, when state-issued marriage licenses had not yet been issued. Besides, everyone knows that the bible defines marriage as a compact between a man, woman, God, and Caesar.

Marriage licenses have been around in one form or another since the Middle Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

And they have been around in at least 1 U.S. state since before the Civil War, contrary to what you erroneously claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone

William Mahone, a civil engineer and Confederate soldier from Virginia married in 1855.

“Primary sources prove that the General's name was William Mahone. These records include his two Bibles, VMI Diploma, Marriage license,…”

Marriage in America has always been a legal matter even if licenses as such were not issued.

http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/ruby/041013.html

“During the colonial era many couples were married by circuit riding preachers who did not keep track of their marriages, baptisms and burials.”

“marriage bond - document binding parties to pay a sum of money if the obligation of marriage is not performed; used in colonial era; usually paid by the father, brother or a relative of a bride; posted before a license could be issued”.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Marriage licenses have been around in one form or another since the Middle Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

I was talking about america, although I'd wager that marriages also existed before licenses were first issued in europe, too.

And they have been around in at least 1 U.S. state since before the Civil War, contrary to what you erroneously claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone

William Mahone, a civil engineer and Confederate soldier from Virginia married in 1855.

“Primary sources prove that the General's name was William Mahone. These records include his two Bibles, VMI Diploma, Marriage license,…”

Sounds like someone searched wikipedia and didn't find quite what they were looking for, then found this little blurb. Was it issued by the state, or a church?

Marriage in America has always been a legal matter even if licenses as such were not issued.

http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/ruby/041013.html

“During the colonial era many couples were married by circuit riding preachers who did not keep track of their marriages, baptisms and burials.”

Thanks for proving my central point! The states were not very much (if any) involved in handing out marriage licenses; and society did not break down into anarchy.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Marriage licenses have been around in one form or another since the Middle Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license


I was talking about america, although I'd wager that marriages also existed before licenses were first issued in europe, too.

What difference does that make? Marriage licenses existed in America before the Civil War, contrary to what you claimed.

BTW: Can you document a time when marriage did not have a civil law component?

Originally Posted by flaja
And they have been around in at least 1 U.S. state since before the Civil War, contrary to what you erroneously claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone

William Mahone, a civil engineer and Confederate soldier from Virginia married in 1855.

“Primary sources prove that the General's name was William Mahone. These records include his two Bibles, VMI Diploma, Marriage license,…”

Sounds like someone searched wikipedia and didn't find quite what they were looking for, then found this little blurb. Was it issued by the state, or a church?

Do you have any documentation showing that a church ever issued a marriage license? If not, stop being a blowhard.

Originally Posted by flaja
Marriage in America has always been a legal matter even if licenses as such were not issued.

http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/ruby/041013.html

“During the colonial era many couples were married by circuit riding preachers who did not keep track of their marriages, baptisms and burials.”

Thanks for proving my central point! The states were not very much (if any) involved in handing out marriage licenses; and society did not break down into anarchy.

Are you even reading what you have been writing? I am not the one who brought up marriage licenses, you are. You said what you said about marriage licenses trying to prove that there was a time in America when the government did not regulate marriage. You are flat wrong.

 

[Annie]

What difference does that make? Marriage licenses existed in America before the Civil War, contrary to what you claimed.

BTW: Can you document a time when marriage did not have a civil law component?



Do you have any documentation showing that a church ever issued a marriage license? If not, stop being a blowhard.



Are you even reading what you have been writing? I am not the one who brought up marriage licenses, you are. You said what you said about marriage licenses trying to prove that there was a time in America when the government did not regulate marriage. You are flat wrong.

I've lost track. Are you, Flaja, an Islamist? Seems you are and many are ignoring that position.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Are you even reading what you have been writing? I am not the one who brought up marriage licenses, you are. You said what you said about marriage licenses trying to prove that there was a time in America when the government did not regulate marriage. You are flat wrong.

First you said "Uphold the sanctity of marriage", as one of the things GOP lawmakers should push for. Then, Katharine replied "Fewer laws the better".
(She is neither a libertarian nor a pro-gay marriage supporter) Then you came back with:

Typical libertarianism: fewer laws and no morals.

As if to imply that government must regulate marriages, and if they do not, the results will be immoral. Is that what you are saying? If not, my mistake.

Anyway, I may have been somewhat mistaken that marriage licenses didn't exist before the civil war, although that wasn't really my central point. From what I am reading, it was more a case of people opting to register their marriages with the state, and it was spotty at that, as your own example shows. You asked the girl's father for permission to marry, got a preacher to marry you, and the marriage was recorded in the family bible. As opposed to having your marriage legally invalid until the state issues you a piece of paper.

My central point is, governments should not bother with licensing marriages. Let christian churches perform their own ceremonies, exclude gays, and refuse to recognize gay marriages. Let gays hold their own ceremonies despite what the bible says, and let the fringe Mormons have their polygamist ceremonies. And let people draw up their own legal marriage contracts if they wish, just as people write up their own wills.

 

[flaja]

I've lost track. Are you, Flaja, an Islamist? Seems you are and many are ignoring that position.

What on earth makes you think I am an Islamacist?