Posted on 07/25/2009 11:40:35 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Can this political marriage be saved?
BY GARY BAUER
Psychologists have discovered that the most important factor in predicting whether a marriage will succeed or fail is the existence of contempt. When one or both partners display contempt -- the intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior -- the union, ultimately and almost inevitably, will fail.
Psychologist John Gottman has even developed a methodology that enables him to predict divorce with an astonishingly high degree of accuracy, up to 90 percent. While watching a couple interact, Mr. Gottman looks for the subtle signs -- microexpressions such as an eye roll or a patronizing tone -- that reveal not just displeasure or disapproval, but also the hostile inflexibility that is a hallmark of contempt.
As a political analyst and Republican of more than 30 years, I am saddened to say this, but contempt has contaminated the Republican Party. And much of the contempt has been directed at one partner in the party's marriage, religious conservatives. If the Republican partnership is to survive, the contempt must end.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Palin bump!
I’ve seen several different numbers ranging from 1 to 5 percent. My personal guess is that the real number is about 3%. I would be shocked if the military was even 1% homosexual.
Sometimes staying together in a bad marriage isn't worth it. So if the GOP moderates and wishy washy, wobbly conservatives don't like Sarah, they can go and and form a third party. We in the GOP aren't going anywhere.
Enough bashing of social conservatives who supported Rudy. As a conservative, I supported Rudy knowing full well he was a moderate, because the political climate wasn't friendly to strong conservatives at the time, and he was a good candidate to attract voters alienated with the GOP brand. Rudy was strong on defense issues and was a solid fiscal conservative who turned a dump like New York City around. He is a friend of Israel and an advocate of freedom and capitalism. We were going to run against Hillary or Obama and their socialist agenda was well known to those who supported him, and we needed an articulate candidate who could make the case for our ideology as the best direction for the nation. The ironic thing here is that Rudy didn't have contempt for conservatives. It was in fact social conservatives who had an unyielding contempt for the man and for all those who supported him.
Rudy lost, as conservatives didn't want him, and that's fine. So we got someone the media and the GOP establishment wanted, and we know what happened. I support conservative causes and conservative candidates 100%, but in the absence of a strong, credible conservative leader I had to choose the best GOP candidate available to go against Hillary or Obama. I was right about the negative consequences that came from electing Obama. However, it isn't a vindication, since the stakes are high under Obama's leadership. If you compare Rudy with Obama, the choice is clear that Rudy would be much less harmful and detrimental to our nation and our way of life.
Most of Sarah's interviews and speeches are without the benefit of a teleprompter or reading from a written text. She is a natural speaker.
I don't know if you are confusing Obama with Sarah or you are purposely lying. In any event, get your facts straight.
Go back and check out what I actually wrote. I did not try to convince anyone of any percentage. I simply refered to a poll that was done. Later, I discussed where I had read about that poll. The only distraction here was me letting you lead me down this topic of homosexuality...and for whatever reason I cannot imagine. Why did you even broach the topic? My guess is that other economic issues of the conservative plank were too hard to discuss from your fairly narrow-minded family-values-only perspective and you knew that you'd expose yourself as a quasi socialist. Instead, you exposed yourself as someone with a peculiar interest into steering discussions into the realm of homosexuality.
I'll back off the 8% thing. It makes no difference to me one way or the other. I did read that, though. If that bothers you, tough shit.
Here's something that probably closer to the truth. Assuming an Armed Force that was 2.6 million, the 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen would be roughly 2.5%
The last U.S. study put the figure at 2.1% of the population. I used to have a reference to the study but can’t find it now... perhaps later.
Although the 2.5% claim blows away what you have trying to push, it is still too much and here is what Elaine Donnely wrote about in Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy Public.
i. The Urban Institute
In September 2004, the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan social policy and research organization, issued a report estimating that approximately 65,000 gay personnel are now serving in the U.S. military, and another one million gays and lesbians are veterans.528 Activists frequently cite this report when advocating repeal of the 1993 homosexual conduct law529 — sometimes touting the data as if it is brand new and “solid.”530
The document, however, reveals questionable methodology, based on presumptions about the percentage of homosexuals in the general population [*pg 924] and about the sexuality of persons interviewed by the census.531 The speculative claim that three percent of women and four percent of men are homosexual was applied to 2000 census data on the number of persons of the same sex living in the same household — one of whom is a “veteran.”532 Citing mathematical computations, the study speculated that household-mates of the same sex are homosexual.533 Next came the leaping conclusion that sixty-five thousand gay men and lesbians are serving or used to be in the military. This number is frequently trumpeted by gay activists and like-minded journalists, who overlook or fail to mention the fact that the census does not ask questions about sexual orientation or behavior. All estimates are based on sheer speculation, dressed up with a public relations spin.
The Urban Institute report, which was prepared in consultation with the activist Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is more like an urban legend than a serious piece of scholarship.
Anytime you wish to put the homosexual topic down would be great.
Gay marriage, gay adoption , open homosexuality in the military, gay boy scout leaders all of these are real world, current political issues that are driving voters to choose which party to vote for, that is of the utmost importance.
When we see the black and Hispanic vote on prop 8 and the Hispanic protestant vote then we conservatives see a way to win over a great number of new republicans to our conservative cause. We can beat Obama if we are conservative enough.
Because it's a 'gay' topic and it should be put to bed already. Does the thought of continuing this topic arouse you in any special way, Jessup? Is that why you chimed in?
You got a hot date?
While my wife is hot, we do not have plans to go out for the evening. So that's not it. I just would rather discuss the SoCon's issues with economic liberty -- you being infatuated with Duncan Hunter probably know nothing about economic liberties, do ya, Jessup!
I’m getting so tired of RINOs.
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
So, you're not going to leave 'it' alone, then. Well, I'm done here if this is the way you insist on taking the discussion. To me, what's of the utmost importance is limiting the role of and the spending of the federal government. Reducing significantly its interference with the markets would be great as well. You obviously see the priorties differntly.
My priority is to promote conservatism and win elections, not worrying about liberals that like conservatives economic policies only and threaten to do war with the conservatives in behalf of the left’s social agenda.
I think that all powerful libertarian party was made for you guys, we don’t need two libertarian parties.
Well said.
It's never enough. Don't even pretend to tell ME what to do.
Same here, do not even pretend to be so smart as to think I'm not a true conservative.
Take all the time you want.
It didn't take much time at all. I couldn't reply earlier because I had been eating dinner, but it won't take me much time to respond to you. My post was clear.
I included the words "credible GOP leader" in my post, and while I admire Duncan Hunter and agree with him on many issues, the fact is that he was never particularly credible in the national election. He is a good conservative man, but a candidate needs to win elections not just be a good conservative. Whether we like it or not, matters like persuasiveness, name recognition, and national appeal are essential in fielding a winning candidate. Note, I said 'essential,' not 'important.' Hunter just didn't deliver. He couldn't even win his own home state of California in the primary, let alone the general election. He won only 1% of the national vote in the primaries.
This isn't Fantasy Island - it's not about picking the most conservative candidate, it's about picking the best conservative candidate who can win. Rudy isn't a pure conservative, but he is certainly more conservative than not. And he is certainly more acceptable to conservatives, as a whole, than Hillary or Obama. The goal in politics is to win, not field the best losing candidate. If you knew more about politics, you would know that.
No question about it, Rudy is pro-choice. He is against infanticide, though – he is against partial birth abortion. And as I have said many times, I didn't agree with every position he holds. This was one of those cases.
Republicans had the choice between show horses (Giuliani, McCain, et al) or a WORK horse (Hunter). As befits the general trend of our shallow society, they were wowed by name recognition, clever sound bites, and did what they were told to do by the GOP elitists running the Party.
To be fair to Rudy, he was not a liberal media-preferred candidate. The liberal press in NYC hated him throughout his run as mayor of NYC. While I agree that Rudy probably isn't the type of candidate most Freepers would prefer, the fact is in 2006 and 2008, conservatives candidates suffered cascading losses at all levels of government. In a year where JD Hayworth lost in Arizona, it's simply not credible to believe that Hunter would have won the presidency. Or even have run as well as McCain.
And by the way, this isn’t about supporting Rudy anymore. I’m supporting Sarah Palin because I think she is the best conservative we have who has name recognition and can win a national election in 2012. Yet, she is being attacked by the left and by some on the right as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.