| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
We need empowered donors
Submitted by Leslie Graves on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 13:34
The progressive movement has a small group of very wealthy donors who:
- Focus on state-based infrastructure.
- Invest in a capacities-based model of building new political infrastructure.
- Build outside the Democratic Party. This gives these donors many more opportunities to ensure that the organizations they fund stay true to the political ideas they care about.
- Are mission-based. They are investing because they care about the results, not because they care about transient power, glory or bragging rights.
- Provide day-in and day-out leadership.
Pro-liberty forces can expect losses in the future that make November 4 look like a stroll in the park in the absence of:
- Empowered, mission-based leadership from donors.
- A focus on investments in states.
- The same quantity of cold hard cash in infrastructure. The left's investment in this area has exceeded investments by those who are pro-liberty in the last four years by at least ten-to-one.
- Adoption of a capacity-based perspective on how to effectively engage in the modern political environment.
There are just as many very wealthy people who believe in the pro-liberty vision as there are very wealthy donors who believe in progressive ideals. Does the pro-liberty side have a group of visionary, committed donors like Tim Gill and Pat Stryker in Colorado?
Many people in the traditional center-right movement who have access to donors appear at times to be conveying a message to those donors resembling:
- If you give us more money, we'll take care of this problem for you.
- Otherwise, don't worry your pretty little head.
What must instead urgently be conveyed to pro-liberty benefactors is a vision that they:
- Adopt an empowered leadership approach to political investments.
- Invest in their state, looking for other donors to collaborate with.
- Invest outside the party structure so people and organizations can be held accountable to a mission-based, pro-liberty perspective.
I believe in political ideals that assert the fundamental role of individual liberty in a society where human beings flourish. I also believe that the alternative progressive vision will lead to widespread misery, against the wishes and hopes of those who promote this way of ordering society. The stakes are high. We need empowered, active donors to create a level playing field in the contest between these two competing visions.
(1 vote)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Pro-liberty, pro-liberty, pro-liberty...
Pro-liberty? What is this term? First time I have seen it coined and I don't care for it. This reminds me of the Palin "Pro-America" vs anti-america. Are people that disagree with our agenda and ideology anti-liberty? I think we can do better.
As for donors - for the "Next Right" to be any kind of success you need to begin from the ground up - something theObama campaign has a 4 year head start on. Small donors, inspired by the message of the platform. I think this old reliance on big donors is absurd - besides, if you can get the small ones, some of them are bound to become big ones.
A true change will take a while (I have read quite a few comments on this site, and I don't think people really appreciate that). When the "Next Right" finally has it's platform and key issues, it could be several cycles of pushing and refining the agenda and message, getting people on board and building enthusiasm. I think this "big empowered donors" idea is a quick fix, not a solution.
However, this blog is a good start.
the old whore Ben Franklin put it best
those who would sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither.
pretty much sums up my view of the republican party.
What do you mean by this?
I'm racking my head thinking about what kind of liberty I have without at least some security. The liberty to beg? starve? sleep under a bridge?
My security has taken a beating these last 20 years. I've been laid off twelve times and failed in business twice. I'm not sigma-six, so , how much security do I deserve? In the new globalized economy, none, it appears. Global capital seems to want to ooze over to places where there isn't so much of a demand on its handlers to do the right thing.
Why should capital be so damn secure?
eeee....
OKAY, you took that quote entirely differently than I had intended it!
I do believe that people should be entitled to a good wage, even if we don't have jobs for them to do (obviously there should be rewards for making new things).
Capital wont' be so damn secure. we had our first worldwide strike a few years ago. capital globalized before the unions, but that doesn't mean the unions won't follow.
I was more referring to TSA , torture , FISA etc.
Thanks; I'm sure you're right
Thanks; I'm sure you're right that there are better terms than pro-liberty. In no way do I think that donors can substitute for any other part of the movement.
I like Matt Bai's book, where he says that it was Billionaires and Bloggers who jointly broke free of what he characterizes as the stultifying impact of self-interested political consultants and operatives on the Democratic Party.
Silver Lining
I like the assertion. And it is good for the country as a whole. The public can finance our own ideas, platforms and election campaigns. Everyone wins.
Plus the grass root financing is a great filter. If you can't get people to start donating on a set of ideals, it's probably doubtful that the rest of the country will jump on board. Gotta have the base.
Pro-individual-liberty
I actually like the term "pro-liberty". It describes what I hope the Republican Party should stand for more forthrightly in the future - the party that stands for the individual.
Not parsing
This is not aimed at chemjeff, but at those who might say "who cares?" to parsing terms like Pro-Liberty.
If the new right is going to honestly have some new ideas (or old ideas communicated in a new way) we have to start defining our agenda and its terms. The thing that has really driven me nuts about the GOP is that pollsters and distant party heads like Karl Rove come up with and then start applying their own terms and then pass them down the food chain.
It's not global warming, its climate change.
It's not progressive, its liberal.
This is the top down type of politics that I despise, and in my humble view, if the "Next Right" is to be successful these terms defining ourselves and our policies will come from areas like this -blogs, churches, conversations etc.
I can't come up with anything better off the top of my head, but who better to coin these terms than Leslie and other bloggers. I do like the individualism line of thought though.
I have very mixed feelings
I have very mixed feelings about the GOP, too, just as progressive donors and activists have had mixed feelings about the extent to which Democratic politicians and consultants worked to advance their agenda, once in power. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that many mission-based progressive donors concluded at some point that unless they had an accountability infrastructure outside of the party, there was little they could do when a Democratic politician they worked or donated to help put in office strayed off the reservation.
This doesn't happen any more or less for Democrats than it does for Republicans. But I would say that progressive donors have been creative, early-adopters of ideas about how to build accountability outside of the party structures.
Let's get real
What does the party of Gitmo and torture have to do with liberty? Is anyone here pro-Jose Padilla's liberty?
Seriously, let's hear some concrete examples of pro-liberty policies the GOP would promote.
Amen
Nuff said.
Very Timely
Leslie, this is a very timely message, considering there are (hopefully) a lot of folks gearing up already for the 2010 and 2012 elections. This will take funding at the local and national levels, and funding in areas unfamiliar to many traditional political activists (new media, etc..). You've made a very good point, that the political activists in need of the funding need to know how to explain their needs to the donors effectively, and how to work with them to accomplish mutual goals.
Very good post - we need to get more information like this to more people! :-)
DMac, I believe that at times
DMac,
I believe that at times I have overlooked, not spoken out about or tolerated moral outrages perpetrated by those with whom I share some views. I agree with your condemnation of torture.
I agree a little, but...
I agree with your general sentiments here, but I'd go even further.
I think you give too little credit with the very broad, populist basis to the Democratic campaigns in 2006 and 2008. In 2004, the country's party registration numbers were pretty much identical. In 2008, the country is D+6-D+10 or so. Even notwithstanding some of the errors the McCain campaign made, I'm not convinced ANY Republican ticket could have won this year without truly dominating the independent vote based purely on partisan registration numbers.
In addition, look at the record donation numbers Obama pulled in. Sure, the Left gets plenty of support from Soros and rich elite donators, but that doesn't account for the 3+ million individual donators Obama got. For all the accusations of Obama being put on a pedestal by the left (many true), the Right needs to ask how a candidate was able to get such a substantial number of individual donations.
The right needs to get some people with internet expertise. Why was the McCain site in design and function a total ripoff of the Obama site? While Obama was selling yard signs and t-shirts bundled to campaign donations, the McCain site had a small web store run by a third-party company? I realize in the latter half of the campaign the public financing factor prevented this, but that doesn't excuse the ball dropping over the last two years.
The Howard Dean 50 state strategy is another example of something that might be worth looking out. Dean has made sure to establish basic infrastructure in areas the Democrats will never have a hope of winning. Obama chose to pursue this during the election. The net result was that Obama flipped far more states than he needed and drastically shrunk the margins in virtually every state. I'd go so far as to say MS-AL-TN-KY, OK-KS-NE, and ID-UT-WY are the only geographic clusters in the entire country that the Dems did not make operational inroads in. Sure, Obama never would have flipped WV even with another 5 points in the national polls, but it's great for the Dems that they have people on the ground now.
Polling site fivethirtyeight.com had an ongoing feature where one of their writers and their cameraman would go to a county, visit the Obama office, and visit the McCain office. The Obama offices, even in ruby red counties of ruby red states, tended to be bustling. By the middle of October, McCain had pulled out of virtually every state that wasn't an obvious McCain target.
I think all of these policies / strategies demonstrate the sort of commitment to a broad, populist base that you're advocating in the original post. I think the Right as a movement needs to work on these changes both within the GOP and without the GOP just as the Left as a movement did it both within the DNC and without it.
One word: Charisma
I agree that the ground game for McCain was downright moribund compared to Obama's. But I think that can be explained primarily by Obama's charisma. At one of the blogs I read some sappy story about an Obama precinct captain who was dead tired after a long day's work but still managed to find the energy to call prospective voters to support Obama. Assuming for the moment that the story is true (a dubious assumption, granted), it's hard to imagine that same sort of thing happening on behalf of a guy like McCain. "Oh, I will work overtime trying to get McCain elected so that, once in office, he will jab conservatives in the eye once again!" I don't think so. That is why our next candidate, whomever he/she is, must be someone who not only is rock-solid on the issues most important to conservatives at the time (like Obama was to liberals on the Iraq War at the beginning), but is also an inspiring figure who will induce people to work overtime on his/her behalf. And when you have that type of person, then I predict the money will flow in and the district campaign offices will be bustling again. So I really don't think it's a criticism of conservatism per se that Obama out-gunned McCain on this score. Just my $.02.
you've lost the creative class and the professionals
who else has money to give? yeah sure, scaife and his billionaire pals, but they won't win you the election.
On Torture, Liberty and Republicans
DMac:
Okay, let's talk about torture. We can all agree that torture is wrong. The hard part is defining what torture is. There are really obvious forms of torture (eg pulling out fingernails) and then there's grey areas. I can accept that waterboarding is torture. But is humiliation really a form of torture? Personally I would be quite skeptical of claims that putting panties on a person's head constitutes torture. If that's the case then there are quite a few fraternity pledgemasters who ought to be hauled off to jail. And on a purely political level, if I'm a Democrat and I'm trying to find an avenue with which to criticize Republicans, you can bet I'm going to use as expansive a definition of torture as I can so as to have more ammunition to fire against them (eg "Bush condones over 4 ZILLION acts of torture!"). And this strategy works precisely because torture, as an abstract concept, is considered loathsome nearly unanimously. Now, please don't take this as some sort of justification for real, legitimate acts of torture. George Bush and the miltiary commanders who condoned this sort of thing should be roundly condemned.
But to call the Republican Party "the party of Gitmo and torture" really does ignore the GOP's proud history of advocating for greater rights. Republicans were the ones who championed the end of slavery, championed women's suffrage, championed civil rights, and to this day champion the rights of the unborn. Republicans are of course not perfect on this score - I personally believe Republicans are not doing themselves any favors by trying to restrict marriage to be between only heterosexuals - but Republicans do have a history to be proud of.
I would also add that perhaps the one unifying principle of Republicans everywhere - lowering taxes - is in itself an expression of personal liberty, since the philosophical basis for such a position is that individuals know better how to spend their money than government does.
So that is why I consider myself more aligned with Republicans than with Democrats, certainly, and why I believe it is optimistic to expect that the "new Republican Party" will place an even greater emphasis on individual liberties.
No "pro-liberty" policies?
Let me respectfully suggest that all this hand-waving and parsing about torture is a major reason why Bush is at 24% approval and America just turfed out the Rs. Aside from that, what policy do you suggest to wash the decidedly anti-liberty stench of torture and Gitmo off?
Because no one buys that the party that invented Gitmo is pro-liberty.
As far as taxes go no one is buying the idea of Republican tax cuts anymore because they know Rs just run up debt while spending like mad anyway.
So, what policies do you propose going forward, specifically, that will convince America that calling the R party the "pro-liberty" party isn't ludicrous?
moral grandstanding and pro-liberty
You may call my comments on torture "hand waving and parsing" but I believe there is a serious conversation to be had on the issue of torture, human rights, and how we deal with captured terrorists. Instead what I have mainly seen from the Democrats, when they were the loyal opposition, was moral grandstanding on the issue. I understand the politics of that position but don't try to suggest it's a serious contribution to a vexing problem.
As for pro-liberty politices, how about these:
These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure with a little more thought I could come up with more. These are the reasons why I tend to support the Republican Party, and when I criticize the Republican Party, it's because they haven't been true to these ideals.
Incidentally, you may refer to "the stench of Gitmo" but I would be interested in knowing what you think should happen to prisoners we capture on the battiefields of the War on Terror. If you say "put them in American prisons just like every other accused American criminal", you should know that there is absolutely zero historical or legal prcedent for doing so. THAT would be a radical step. In the Second World War, captured German soldiers didn't get to sue in US courts for habeas corpus rights, for instance. They were prisoners of war, to be dealt with by the military (not civilian) authorities. The only reason Gitmo is such an issue with this war is because it's not a traditional war. This is not to say that I am a Gitmo apologist. Torture at Gitmo should be condemned just like torture anywhere should be condemned, for instance, and I believe we have a moral obligation to treat all prisoners humanely, regardless of which particular jurisdiction they happen to fall under. But all I ask is for a bit more reflective thought on the matter before people launch knee-jerk reactions such as "Gitmo is an affront to liberty".
Leslie says...
"We need empowered, active donors to create a level playing field in the contest between these two competing visions."
And I couldn't agree more. Amen. "But" we can't expect those moneyed few on the conservative side to just start writing checks. Especially not in the present environment. The "pro-liberty" (and I love that term) Movement Conservatives are presently fragmented to the extreme. They have no leader and no authority without which there could be no effective organization. The flip side of that would be, however, that no one at our level has the time or resources to build a prototype org. So its a viscous circle.
The cream will rise to the top but its the responsibility of those with the money and resources to diligently search out rare talent and enlightenment and then promote it. Wouldn't you say? DD
liberty?
I think most people in America don't buy that this is what the Republican party stands for, with good reason.
I think it's a misnomer to call balanced budgets fiscal conservativism, since Bill Clinton was the only guy who ran them.
How about equal rights for gays and lesbians? Give them the liberty to marry, as equals under the law.
Any attempt to make the income tax structure more progressive, even as the burden of paying for government has been tilted more and more towards the middle class and poor, is socialism?
Guns? The NRA won that fight years ago, and DC v. Heller enshrines it for a long time to come. Democrats, outside of urban politicians, are as pro-gun as Republicans by now.
Warrantless wiretapping, and retroactive immunity for AT&T? That's big brother, and progressive Democrats were the only ones to stand up to it.
Wars of aggression? Running around with flag lapel-pins and calling dissenters traitors? Building walls and barbed-wire fences to keep out people who just want a job? This is what a free society is supposed to be like?
Honestly, I respect that you have a vision for a better Republican party -- it's what I believed in when I was in high school, before I lived in a city, saw how the other half lives and realized I was gay. I think the party is held hostage by religious fundamentalists. I have no idea what to do about it -- they're not going to go away, and as America gets more progressive, they're going to keep the party increasingly out of the mainstream. As a Democrat, I'm happy to see you guys marginalize yourselves indefinitely, but as an American, I'd rather not feel like I'm choosing between good and evil every first Tuesday in November.
liberty and GOP
First, balanced budgets are fiscal conservatism, and I as a conservative will be the first to give Clinton (and the Republican Congress at the time) credit for balancing the budget, and also the first to criticize Bush (and the Republican Congress at the time) for squandering it.
Second, the burden of paying for government has shifted more towards the rich, not the poor. See, for instance, this article.
And I will agree with you that there are lots of ways that Republicans could be more pro-liberty than they currently are. That is part of this discussion. I am with you that Republicans should get over their hangups with homosexuality. That being said, however, neither Republicans nor Democrats are Libertarians. Of course not all dissent is treasonous, but I see no reason not to call out way-over-the-top "dissent" that is nothing more than a thinly-veiled loathing of America. Of course we should be mindful of privacy rights in a broad way, but I see nothing wrong with the government listening in on international phone calls to known terrorists while we are at war. And, securing the borders is a primary obligation of any national government, even if those who would hop the fence are merely looking for a job. Oh, and incidentally, it's Democrats who are the ones thinking about reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine (curtailing free speech rights) and raising taxes - yes, even your taxes - further curtailing your economic liberty. Democrats are the ones who tend to support nanny-state initiatives such as banning smomking, banning trans-fat, banning cell phone use while driving, banning this and that all in the name of trying to create the ultimately "fair" society, as if it were even possible to do so. All of these things are injurious to the cause of individual liberty as well.
The bottom line is, if you want ideological purity on civil liberties, join the Libertarian Party, because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to be acceptable to you.
Getting the GOP with the program
Congress writes budgets, and the Congress that wrote the fiscal conservative budgets was the Gingrich Congress of the latter 1990s. Just as Clinton improved when paired with a Republican Congress, so too would Obama. We shall see if we are lucky enough to get that in the next 2 years.
The liberty to marry or not marry exists, what doesnt exist in 49 states is a redefinition of marriage away from what it has been defined by - one man, one woman - in history. marriage is an institution, and it is not a 'liberty' position to demand a redefinition of it, but a social engineering position to redefine what govt recognizes as marriage.
Some facts: Bush cut taxes on everyone paying income taxes, and took millions off the tax rolls, to the point where the top 50% pay over 96% of total income taxes and the top 10% pay the majority of income taxes. So what is this nonsense about paying for the govt tilted more towards the middle class and poor? The OPPOSITE is true!
The correct purpose of taxation is to fund the Government. It is a necessary evil to tax work and wages and production and wealth to do so. Raising tax rates for the purpose of wealth distribution, or 'fairness' as Obama said, is not right. Obama said that he would favor raising the cap gains tax to 25% - EVEN IF IT DIDNT INCREASE REVENUE - in the name of 'fairness'. That is a socialist mentality, and a mentality that will make our economy suffer and make people poorer. Obama's election has cost the stock market almost $1 trillion in value in 2 days... hmmmm. Socialist redistribution of wealth via a skewed tax code does NOT work.
Not so fast. The guy who just won the White House was in favor of DC gun ban, was rated by NRA the MOST HOSTILE Presidential candidate to gun rights ever, and whose favorite justice Ginsburg, was a vote to kill the individual RKBA. Obama judges will be a huge STEP BACKWARDS from protecting our 1st, 2nd 5th and 10th Amendment rights.
Well, the FISA law is NOT warrantless, its a FISA court involved, and the idea of suing companies for doing what the Feds asked is nothing more than a tort lawyer's giveaway. Only the Dem shills really care about lining the pockets of the trial lawyers. Now that more protections are in place, it wont be an issue going forward.
Clinton in Kosovo? Clinton bombing Baghdad, Belgrade? Invading haiti?
Calling Bush Hitler? Missouri DAs threatening to prosecute people for saying bad things about Barack? Barack calling on supporters to 'get in the face' of opponents? Calling up radio stations and demanding they shut down shows because they are critical of Obama? (this happened to a chicago radio station) The anti-1st amendment Fairness Doctrine? Pot, kettle, black? And btw, what's wrong with flag lapel-pins? Since when is patriotic expression a bad thing?
Let me guess - you leave your residence unlocked at all times and dont mind at all if anyone barges in and takes your stuff. Right? Seriously, do you have a problem with enforcing immigration law or having border security? I guess so, with your loaded question. But It's not like we dont have valid ports of entries for those who want to come here legally. And its not like we are doing anything other than making preventative measures that stop the BREAKING OF LAWS. What about the million or so illegal aliens that are gang members or commited crimes? Should we let these criminals stay in defiance of multiple laws and have more violence in communities? San Fran, sanctuary city, has had cases of murders caused by freed criminial illegal aliens. Sanctuary city policies get innocent people killed. Is that your 'freedom'?
Let's see. A free society requires the RULE OF LAW and allows for PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you have neither you dont have a free society. So if you steal things or trespass on someone's private property you can be arrested or jailed. So YES a free society may include walls and locked doors and "do not trespass" signs, and will include the jailing of those who violate the rights of others (through theft or assault etc). So where comes this nutty idea that laws against trespass are opposed to a free society?
You think wrongly wrt "held hostage", but its an understandable misunderstanding, given how the liberal media goes out of its way to demonize Republicans by creating such charicatures, and given that church-goers are a large part of the Republican base (but most are not 'fundamentalists'), they have an influence. The influence is mainly to protect innocent life, ie, the unborn and defend family and traditional values; voices or views to crimp the gay lifestyle or condemn that lifestyle are admittedly there but a small fraction, and it is perhaps a necessary duty to 'clean up our act' to get that fraction to change their attitude or get run out. But most of us just WANT THE RIGHT TO LIVE OUR VALUES, and the great fear is Govt dictation or 'political correctness' in various forms coming down to trump that. On that, I think there would a curious parallel alignment between gays and groups like evangelicals. So despite eagerness Democrats might be to believe the worst ad hominems and slanders against various Republicans, though, I think the charicatures are perhaps as accurate as calling Obama a Muslim.
Egads, you sound as bigotted towards religious people as you think they are towards you. Dont you think that real tolerance begins with tolerating differences of opinion? Dont you think the Christian lifestyle has every right to be practised as your own? (especially when it was the Christians who built this country!)
Will America get more 'progressive'? If 'progressive' is the label used for the horrible, anti-freedom, semi-socialist agenda of the Democrats, stuff like union checkcard, Obama Youth Corps and more wealth redistribution, then I should hope not. Since communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century, and socialism/Big Govt is a repeated failure every time it is tried, the idea that America will improve with more socialism/Big Govt is flawed. If OTOH you are using progressive as a term to mean more acceptance of the diverse nation America has become, I think we've arrived and/or come a long way. And in that respect, the kind words McCain said about the historic nature of the Obama victory ring soundly. The GOP, the party founded on 'free soil' and ending slavery and the party of equal opportunity, will have to work on 'getting with the program' there or end up the minority party.
"Held Hostage"
Freedoms Truth,
I completely agree with you wrt your comments on "held hostage by the religious fundamentalists" or whatever. Is the Democratic Party "held hostage" by Code Pink and Daily Kos? Should we judge the entire Democratic Party by what crazy Code Pinkers do (e.g., disrupt McCain's convention speech, try to get Marine recruiting station kicked out of Berkeley, try to "arrest" Karl Rove in San Francisco)?
Freedom's Truth is right: I am not a "fundamentalist" myself, but members of my family are, and I can say honestly that the most that they want from their government is the freedom to worship their beliefs and not have their government spit upon them for doing so. This whole nonsense about religious fundamentalists wanting to impose the Bible on everyone is just more liberal propaganda designed to scare fundraising dollars into liberal coffers.
not really. the ones who are anti-contraception
include Palin -- who is on record as forcing her daughter to keep a rapists' baby.
This is off-topic, but...
First, Sarah Palin never said what you attribute to her. This all resulted from a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate in which the moderator asked the candidates what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant. I hope you would at least agree that this is a completely tasteless question and should be abolished from public discourse. (If you don't agree, just ask Michael Dukakis.) Nevertheless, Palin answered by saying "I would choose life". She didn't say "I would coerce my daughter to have the child" as you suggest. Even still, even if you believe that her answer nevertheless implies coercion towards her daughter: she gave the consistent pro-life answer. Actually I believe she should be commended for it. It's not the child's fault that it was conceived via rape. And if she had given the pro-choice answer, you would be equally critical of her for her blatant hypocrisy. So the bottom line is that when Palin was asked a gotcha question, a I'll-be-damned-no-matter-how-I-answer-this-question question, she answered in a way that was most consistent with her beliefs.
And none of this has anything to do with contraception. Really, I don't know if you can find more than a half-dozen religious "fundamentalists" who oppose all contraception. Sure things like the so-called "chemical abortion" are morally questionable from the pro-life point of view, but you'd have a hard time finding someone who thinks even condoms are immoral. As a pro-life conservative (albeit a non-religious one), I absolutely believe that non-lethal forms of family planning should be promoted.
there are plenty of pharmacies that will not sell contraceptives
claiming that it is not consistent with their faith. So yeah, there's more than a handful -- there are entire superchurches.
I don't think you read exactly what I wrote, though I understand your hatred of gotcha questions (making things personal is a pretty low blow).
If you haven't seen Jesus Camp, I suggest you watch it -- it is an interesting documentary on the surveillance in fundamentalist churches.
And then we can talk about how many people Palin's son in law has raped. ;-) [you wondered why Bristol didn't want to get married, didn'tcha?]
...and an empowering vision
Thoughtful thesis. We need to synergize our visionary networks and cultivate open-ended communities that harness a common insight.
Hundreds of <a
Hundreds of <a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">links of london</a> jewellery in stock,Free Gift Wrapping,Complete links of london jewellery collection,including necklaces,bracelets,earrings.<a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">links of london store</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">linksoflondon</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-bracelets-13.html">links of london Bracelet</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-charms-15.html">links of london Charms</a>Cheap Links Of London,Fast Deliv ery!linksoflondon silver range for 2009 including linksoflondon necklaces,Links Of London Earrings,Charms,and Bracelets<a href="http://www.linksjewel.co.uk">links of london</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-earrings-19.html">links of london Bracelet Earrings</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-necklaces-14.html">links of london Bracelet Necklaces</a>The love for beauty is a nature of all human beings; the love for links jewelry is a habit of the public since various smashing links of London necklaces <a href="http://www.jewelrytiffany.co.uk">tiffany jewellery</a>