Contempt and the GOP [RINOs loathing social conservatives, Palin]

The Washington Times ^ | 2009-07-26

[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.

[freedomfiter2]

Sorry for the confusion, I don’t think Sarah is a bad speaker.

[LowCountryJoe]

Not at all LowJoe, actually your eagerness to put the topic on the shelf suggests that you don't like talking about it.

Hmm, maybe you're not as stupid as you seem because you actually understood that I didn't want to talk about it any longer. Or did you think that restating the obvious was somehow clever on your part?

Don't confuse infatuation with admiration Joe, homosexuals do that all the time.

And you, of course, speak definitively from experience, Jessup.

And don't assume I know nothing about economic liberty.

Okay. But I can guess that you're no big fan of it either.

and don't get excited with those letters 'A,S,S' in 'assume', ok?

I'm not excited in the least -- it's nothing like your desire to keep the homosexual topic from going on the shelf. That could be viewed as somewhat queer, Jessup. And stop embarrasing yourself with the feeble attempts at humor; you're out of your element.

[mkjessup]

Not at all LowJoe, actually your eagerness to put the topic on the shelf suggests that you don't like talking about it.
Hmm, maybe you're not as stupid as you seem because you actually understood that I didn't want to talk about it any longer. Or did you think that restating the obvious was somehow clever on your part?

I would never attempt to be clever and exceed your cranial limitations of comprehension. I don't torture small animals, midgets or the intellectually challenged and I'm sure you fit into one or more of those categories.

Don't confuse infatuation with admiration Joe, homosexuals do that all the time.
And you, of course, speak definitively from experience, Jessup.

Ahh, an almost creative variation on the old lame 'I know you are but what am I' semi-snappy retort. Don't burn up any more neurons with those gambits, you haven't that many to spare.

And don't assume I know nothing about economic liberty.
Okay. But I can guess that you're no big fan of it either.

Your continued existence and the word 'guess' are unquestionably lifetime companions.

and don't get excited with those letters 'A,S,S' in 'assume', ok?
I'm not excited in the least -- it's nothing like your desire to keep the homosexual topic from going on the shelf.

It's all about family and social values Joey, you prattle on about 'economic liberty' to the exclusion of all else, which tells everyone all they need to know about you, which is: in your world, it's all about MONEY. To hell with family issues, to hell with the latter-day sodomites wreaking havoc on Judeo-Christian values, as long as you get the maximum filthy lucre into your pocket, you're a happy camper, that's what rocks your world isn't it?

That could be viewed as somewhat queer, Jessup.

It would only be viewed as queer by someone who is worried about their own sexuality. And you don't look like a steer Joe, not even one from Texas.

And stop embarrasing yourself with the feeble attempts at humor; you're out of your element.

There is the proof Joe, you subconsciously typed the word 'embarrassing' minus an 's' because you didn't want to type the word 'A.S.S.'

Better tell the Missus that you're getting a little claustrophobic in that closet and you need to come out.

Thanks for playing Joe, now get back to counting all that cash of yours, that's all that matters anyway, right?

Ya money-grubbing oaf.

[LowCountryJoe]

It's all about family and social values Joey, you prattle on about 'economic liberty' to the exclusion of all else, which tells everyone all they need to know about you, which is: in your world, it's all about MONEY.

This is actually important and the only reason why I'm replying: it's all about having choices within the marketplace to exchange your property if you wish to do so. Money is just a tool to eliminate the double coincidents of wants. And we trade our property with others to get the things we want in exchange in order to bring us satisfaction or utility. Statists have no respect for this natural behavior on the part of individuals. Statists legislate the seizing of this property (for vote-buying redistribution purposes) and the meddling into this process of exchange. Ending the statists ability to do this is what my priority is. This has nothing to do with lining my own pockets, this has to do with the core of liberty principles. The morality is something I will help shape through persuasion and the strength of the Church -- and if an issue has to be addressed legislatively, best to work at it at the most local level of government, first.

[Albion Wilde]

ping to this brilliant chart

[Little Ray]

And, if they can’t embrace those truths, how ‘bout they take a look at Europe and understand that a declining birth rate is a major National Security issue?

[mkjessup]

This is actually important and the only reason why I'm replying: it's all about having choices within the marketplace to exchange your property if you wish to do so. Money is just a tool to eliminate the double coincidents of wants. And we trade our property with others to get the things we want in exchange in order to bring us satisfaction or utility. Statists have no respect for this natural behavior on the part of individuals. Statists legislate the seizing of this property (for vote-buying redistribution purposes) and the meddling into this process of exchange. Ending the statists ability to do this is what my priority is. This has nothing to do with lining my own pockets, this has to do with the core of liberty principles. The morality is something I will help shape through persuasion and the strength of the Church -- and if an issue has to be addressed legislatively, best to work at it at the most local level of government, first.

OK, now you're talking and I am in complete agreement with you. The government has NO role whatsoever in determining who may sell what to who, for what purpose or price tag. The government is OURS (or I should say, *was*) because WE fund it. WE have the right to DE-fund it. I have often wondered what (in a hypothetical situation) the federal government would do if Americans suddenly started literally exchanging ALL of their money for another currency, perhaps the Canadian dollar, or the UK pound, just abandon the U.S. dollar because it quite frankly isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

Let me pose this serious question: do you Joe, TRUST the numbers that the government issues regarding M1, M2, M3?

Is there ANY way to actually verify that the numbers being published are true and accurate?

I submit that IF the efforts to audit the Fed succeed, it will trigger a final economic meltdown, call it 'Obamageddon'.

The funny thing Joe, is that I think we're actually on the same page, and I offer my apologies for my prior posts directed to you. I do believe however that we cannot focus solely on economic issues to the exclusion of the deterioration of our social fabric as a Nation. It was the intention of our Founding Fathers to establish a Nation based on Christian values, not to force citizens to worship in one way or another, but to base our Government and the manner in which that Government conducts itself, on Christian principles.

Look at the 60's, after much screaming and shrieking by the left, God was finally banned from our classrooms. Look at what filled the vacuum, 'situation ethics', 'feels-good-do-it morality', every sort of secular humanist philosophy that seeks to corrupt and rot the soul.

When America's revolution began, one of the seminal events was the famed Boston Tea Party, and that was based on *economic issues*, on *taxes*, etc., however it cannot be denied that the American Revolution succeeded not because we placed our faith in the promise of a better economic future, and economic liberty, our Revolution succeeded because we placed our faith in Almighty God, who delivered us from under the boot of King George and blessed our undertaking, do you not agree?

[ellery]

Read my posts. I wasn’t discussing the big-L libertarian party — I was discussing the traditional small government/libertarian faction of the GOP, and Constitutionalism in general. My point was that just as some in the libertarian faction mischaracterize the entire socon faction as fascist zealots, some socons mischaracterize the entire small gov/libertarian faction as libertines. Further, I said that this wasn’t productive because the GOP needs all its factions — socons, libertarians and national defense hawks — to win.

The other poster then distorted my posts to go on a rant about the libertine Libertarian party — and you and he have now proved my point.

[wagglebee]

Read my posts. I wasn’t discussing the big-L libertarian party — I was discussing the traditional small government/libertarian faction of the GOP, and Constitutionalism in general. My point was that just as some in the libertarian faction mischaracterize the entire socon faction as fascist zealots, some socons mischaracterize the entire small gov/libertarian faction as libertines. Further, I said that this wasn’t productive because the GOP needs all its factions — socons, libertarians and national defense hawks — to win.

IIRC (without reading back through all of the posts), on this thread you have endorsed gambling, drugs, and pornography. Which portions of the Libertarian platform do you OPPOSE?

[TomOnTheRun]

Interesting. But the surveys are 15-20 years old. I'd be interested in seeing more current ones. Have the numbers shifted in any way - down or up? Has social acceptance driven those numbers up? Or has an increase (if any) remained within the margin that one might expect of people that might have lied due to discomfort or fear of outing themselves suddenly being honest about it? One also wonder what national differences might be trackable and worth noticing.

Sorry. I'm sure you don't have polls about all of these. Mostly thinking aloud in response to your comment.

[ansel12]

The real change in numbers is before about 1990 and after 1990, for generations the left used the fake number of 10% which I don’t think many of us ever believed but it was all the media would give us.

10% would be very close to the size of the black population, 10% homosexuals would mean that they would be everywhere and that they would be a part of our everyday lives, families and social circles, not a rarity.

It was only in the many more serious studies of the last 20 years that we started getting studies that offered more credible numbers of 1.3% and 2% and 2.7% depending on how they are done. Now the gay movement is trying to round everything up to 5% in yet another effort to make a more media friendly number than 1.5 for instance.

[ellery]

IIRC (without reading back through all of the posts), on this thread you have endorsed gambling, drugs, and pornography.

Wrong! I oppose unConstitutional federal bans on such things. Big, huge, giant difference. IMO it is not conservative to unConstitutionally use the federal government to solve social problems.

The poster claimed that social conservatives are also small government conservatives. I agreed that in many cases that is true, but in some cases it is not -- and used unConstitutional federal involvement in the social issues I mentioned as an example.

Too many people think that if you oppose a social ill, you must use the federal government to try to "fix" it. If you don't advocate a big federal government "fix," well, then you must advocate said social ills. That is the mindset that I see too often, even around here.

[TomOnTheRun]

*nod* *nod* Except that I thought that the black population was closer to 20% than 10%. Perhaps that is only in Southern states.

I'd still be interested in more recent studies. I don't take many of them before 1990 very seriously either. I certainly don't trust the ones from the 50's or 60's either. (For different reasons of course.) It's only now that enough time with sound studies has passed that we can establish trending. Even if only for a very short span of time. I expect that to get more interesting over the decades if homosexuality is as culturally based as many people think.

[wagglebee]

Why is it that libertarians are prepared to take everything in the Constitution literally EXCEPT the Commerce Clause?

[ansel12]

About 13% for blacks.

[ellery]

I already addressed that in my above posts, where I specifically used purely intrastate examples that the Feds cannot Constitutionally regulate.

Not that that matters to some FReepers or many beltway republicans, who favor unConstitutional federal government actions when the GOP is in control.

[wagglebee]

I already addressed that in my above posts, where I specifically used purely intrastate examples that the Feds cannot Constitutionally regulate.

So, you believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing" thing and doesn't just mean what it says?

The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[ellery]

Yes, dear — AMONG the several states, not WITHIN individual states. INTERstate, not INTRAstate. Surely you know that. But you feel free to continue twisting and bending the clear meaning of the INTERstate commerce clause to ignore the powers reserved to the states, or to the people. Living, breathing Constitution indeed.

It’s clear you’re one of those “big, unConstitutional federal government is great, as long as it’s MY big unConstitutional federal government” types. Have a good day.

[wagglebee]

Then perhaps you should find an individual state to legalize marijuana that is ENTIRELY produced within the state (no outside fertilizers, packaging, etc.) and go to court. In that case you MAY have an argument. Or do you believe that the states have no right to make it illegal within the state?

[ellery]

And again, if you had bothered to read my posts on this thread before going off on a “ready-fire-aim” anti-small-government-advocates rant, you would see that the example I used was a backyard grower for personal use. According to Clarence Thomas (that well-known anti-social-conservative libertine, /s), if the feds claim jurisdiction over such a situation using the commerce clause, then there is realistically no limit on federal government power at all. And we know that that is not what the Founders intended.

And yes, while I haven’t read every state Constitution, I would guess that most if not all states have the power to ban drugs.