Did the Republican big-tent strategy err in allowing all the gays that protected Foley (you know, the gays that built the gay-wall of secrecy enabling the e-pedophilia)?
Well sure, if anything, Republicans are known for their inclusiveness. They really should be more careful who they let into the big tent. You know how the president wisely screens his audiences? Absolutely something the Republicans should consider in general.
In fact I have an idea -- You may have heard of a program that pre-screens flyers based on a previously conducted security check. It's been suggested that anyone with a government clearance should be automatically pre-cleared to fly since they are allegedly trustworthy. And as we all know, security clearances to gays are fairly minimal, so we could use this as a pre-screen for membership to the party.
Good links to interesting analyses. I think this is absolutely correct:
"Ive discussed this before, but I think that American political loyalties are more gut-based than fact-based. People remain loyal to parties not so much because of the parties positions, but because people feel an emotional attachment to them. More precisely, I think people remain loyal to a party because they feel visceral, gut-level contempt for the opposite party."
In relation to the analysis on Orcinus blog, I sure hope they are correct about the impact this will have on the loyalties of the "soft-core".
Well I think Orcinus had a lot of good points, the other thing is that in the more rural parts of the U.S. I think Rant Wing Radio has more pull than anyone cares to admit.
Fundamentalists tend to have everything on a personal level, their Lord and Savior is a PERSONAL Lord and Savior, there is no universality. I think that there is a serious problem with this, it makes it hard to get reasoned, educated discussion going.
Did the democrats know?
Probably.
Did they sit on it?
Probably.
Was it smart to do so?
Yes.
Did the Republican big-tent strategy err in allowing all the gays that protected Foley (you know, the gays that built the gay-wall of secrecy enabling the e-pedophilia)?
Well sure, if anything, Republicans are known for their inclusiveness. They really should be more careful who they let into the big tent. You know how the president wisely screens his audiences? Absolutely something the Republicans should consider in general.
In fact I have an idea -- You may have heard of a program that pre-screens flyers based on a previously conducted security check. It's been suggested that anyone with a government clearance should be automatically pre-cleared to fly since they are allegedly trustworthy. And as we all know, security clearances to gays are fairly minimal, so we could use this as a pre-screen for membership to the party.
Good links to interesting analyses. I think this is absolutely correct:
"Ive discussed this before, but I think that American political loyalties are more gut-based than fact-based. People remain loyal to parties not so much because of the parties positions, but because people feel an emotional attachment to them. More precisely, I think people remain loyal to a party because they feel visceral, gut-level contempt for the opposite party."
In relation to the analysis on Orcinus blog, I sure hope they are correct about the impact this will have on the loyalties of the "soft-core".
Well I think Orcinus had a lot of good points, the other thing is that in the more rural parts of the U.S. I think Rant Wing Radio has more pull than anyone cares to admit.
Fundamentalists tend to have everything on a personal level, their Lord and Savior is a PERSONAL Lord and Savior, there is no universality. I think that there is a serious problem with this, it makes it hard to get reasoned, educated discussion going.