From the election of Eisenhower in 1952 until the 1988 election the Republican Party was 7-3 in Presidential elections. The base of the Republican party’s support was the affluent suburbs in the Northeast and upper Midwest. These voters, whom were derided as Country club Republicans, were more concerned about economic and fiscal matters than anything else. With Communism a threat, they backed the GOP’s hard anti-Communist stance. Places like Nassau County, NY and Greenwich, Connecticut would be reliable Republican votes. This patten held for close to 40 years.
Then in 1992 the voting patterns changed. With a slow growing economy, then President George HW Bush decided to use cultural issues. He had Dan Quayle attack Murphy Brown and Poppy Bush went around talking about family values and school prayer. They used these issues to distract from economic concerns. The straw that broke the camel’s back was the despicable Pat Buchanan speech at the 92 Convention. He railed about evil gays, portrayed Hispanics as evil and preached a culture war. The result was that many of those affluent suburban voters went with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Bill Clinton’s fiscal and economically Conservative record cemented the Democratic Party’s hold on these voters. Even when George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004, these voters stuck with the Democrats. They broke heavily for The American Pharaoh in 2008 thinking they were getting a Clinton moderate. It didn’t turn out that way and in the 2009-2010 cycle many of these affluent suburbs voted for Republican candidates again.
With the nomination of Mitt Romney, who is one of these affluent suburbanites, the GOP has the potential to start winning these areas back at a Presidential level for the first time in a generation. They are unhappy with The Pharaoh’s terrible economic policies, but they still don’t fully trust the Republicans for the party’s cultural stances. Romney might be able to bring them back.
The conventional wisdom in American politics is that Democrats win poor voters, Republicans win the rich, and the two sides battle over the middle class. That used to be true – indeed, that was basically the case during the earliest Whig-Democratic battles in the 1830s and 1840s, and the Truman/Dewey contest of 1948 was a pretty straightforward class conflict. But those traditional class cleavages have really broken down in the last quarter century or so.
The GOP in the South was once limited to the growing suburbs around “New South” cities like Dallas and Tampa, but lately the party has made headway in downscale areas like southern Georgia and northeast Mississippi, as well as border states like West Virginia and Kentucky. At the same time, Democrats have been on the rise in the wealthier suburbs of the major Northern cities.
It’s this latter group of voters I want to talk about today. They once used to be a mainstay in the Republican coalition, but no longer. Can Romney win them back?
To appreciate the decline of the GOP in these suburban, upscale areas, I want to look at the GOP “tilt” of four, once classically Republican suburban counties – Westchester County, New York (outside New York City), Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (outside Philadelphia), Lake County, Illinois (outside Chicago), and Orange County California (outside Los Angeles). All four of these counties had been onetime anchors of postwar Republicanism, but they have all trended remarkably toward the Democrats.
[...]
The last time Westchester or Montgomery voted Republican for president was actually 1988, and, as you can see, all four have moved away from the GOP; although the start of this drift differs by county, it essentially coincides with the rise of Southern Republicanism in particular, and in general the growth of rural, downscale GOP voters. This also corresponds with Clinton’s “New Democrat” message of fiscal responsibility and social moderation, which subsequent Democrats — Gore, Kerry, and Obama — have been depending on ever since.
[...]
First, these voters should find the GOP message of pro-growth and limited government appealing; clearly they once did. The party’s messaging must be off in some way. In all likelihood, the GOP’s increased emphasis on cultural/social issues in the last 30 years has been a drag in these places, but the party should be able to articulate cultural conservatism without alienating these upscale suburbanites. This messaging failure has cost the GOP the state of Pennsylvania in the last three presidential elections – as Western Pennsylvania has moved toward the GOP, metro Philly has moved toward the Democrats, thus keeping the state blue.
So far, now that the primaries are basically over, Mitt Romney has pivoted strictly to economic and fiscal issues. This is what many of these affluent suburbanites are concerned about. This is also what most voters are concerned about. In a reversal of 1992, it’s the Democrats who trying to run on cultural issues, but from the Left. Like what happened the GOP in 92, it appears this tactic is now turning off these affluent voters who are more concerned with economic and fiscal matters. Mitt Romney has not fallen for these culture war traps like Rick Santorum did and he keeps focusing on the economy.
By making a play for these voters, this would force the Democrats to defend states they normally lock up like New Jersey and Connecticut and help tilt Pennsylvania into the GOP’s column. This means less resources for the Democrats to try to win North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado. This is the first election since 1988 that the GOP has the potential to take back at a Presidential level in parts of the country they once dominated. Hopefully they will not fall for the Democratic traps on the culture wars.
This thread is not about Economic Conservatives vs. Social Conservatives. Its about putting the Democrats on the defensive in areas they have dominated since 1992, that at one time happened to be Republican turf. It is better to make the them defend areas than Republicans being on the defensive like they have the last 20+ years. Mitt Romney (I’m still not a fan) is one of these affluent suburbanites, so the opening is there for these voters to vote for one of their own.
Tags: Affluent Suburbs, Bill Clinton, Northeast, Upper Midwest
That has always been the core of the drive for Mitt Romney, that he is the most electable. I don’t know that I buy it. If these people are Social Liberals first and foremost, I don’t see them voting for a Mormon. The MOrmon Church is more strait-laced than most of the Protestant denominations that make up the religious part of the WASP acronym.
Yes he can. He needs to talk about jobs, inflation, spending, color blind society, crime, etc. and lay off the culture warrior stuff. Also nix the gay bashing rhetoric and go easy on the values stuff too. We do not need to run against a television character as we did in 1992. As that rapper said, “I don’t want to be governed by an aging hippie or a Bible thumper.”
@ Iron Fist:
They aren’t social liberals. They just want to be left alone to be
successful and raise great kids. .
They want government off of their back and don’t need someone telling them what is right and wrong. They have already figured that out and are succesful and prosperous citizens
@ Iron Fist:
I don’t think they care as long as the rhetoric is liberal or quieted on their pet causes. Dems talk conservative to get the votes and then their votes are liberal.
Think:
Knowwhattamean? The latter even turns me off so I know it turns off people that are more socially liberal. The first they could deal with better than the second.
@ m:
Social issues are going to be front and center thi selection. Obama will see to that. And Romney’s MOrmonism will also be front and center. Romney is either going to have to defend his professed beliefs or waffel, and if he waffels he’ll just lose both sides of the aisle. He can be diplomatic about it, but unless he wants to lose he’d better become comfortable defending the views of the Right.
@ coldwarrior:
There’s only one side of the aisle that offers to leave them alone, and it ain’t Obama’s side. Nor was it Clinton’s side until the Republicans took over the House and Senate and he waffeled on the hard-Left way he had been governing.
@ m:
The problem is the GOP started running Christine O’Donnell types in these areas, instead of Rudy Giullliani types who can win. The Democrats then ran Clinton style Democrats that began to win these areas.
@ Iron Fist:
That’s not how it was perceived. I saw the change myself and that Buchanan speech and Poppy’s family values stuff turned these people off. The Democrats then began running “Fiscal/Economic” Cons in these areas. With Obama, the mask came off and many of those voters came back in 2010, because the GOP focused on Economic/Fiscal issues.
@ Iron Fist:
And we blew it by running bob dole after the 92 debacle of buchanans speech and read my lips
I know the CC crowd. They don’t give a whit about mitts religion
@ Iron Fist:
Romney needs to let the Democrats hang themselves on their social values. Romney needs to focus on the economy and fiscal issues.
@ coldwarrior:
Bingo! I saw the change myself.
@ coldwarrior:
There’s no question Dole was a waste. I don’t know the CC set, but if you are right there is only one reasonable choice fo rthem this fall.
@ Iron Fist:
A lot of the tea party up here is made up of the wealthy suburbanites
@ coldwarrior:
Perot won many of these affluent voters and Bush never won them back.
@ Rodan:
Romney isn’t going to be able to be all things to all men. Take abortion. He is going to have to tak ea defined position oon the issue. Obama will be unabashedly pro-abortion (under the guise of “pro-choice“). Will Romney give a “Me, too!” to that position? That’ll cost him votes. People are already not excited about voting for him. He’s goijng to have to take a position, and then he needs to defend that position with all the eloquence and passion he can muster. The voters will be watching. Romney can win this thing, but he is going to have to take tohe fight to Obama, or Obama will crush him.
@ Iron Fist:
If abortion comes up, all Romney has to say that he’s pro Life, but whats does that have to do with the economy and fiscal issues? Then he has to hammer Obama on trying to distract people from these issues.
Most voters are worried about the economy.
Rodan wrote:
Yep. Its the economy stupid. As a wise man said
@ coldwarrior:
Every time the Left tries to bring up social issues, Romney needs to dismiss them and just say “what does this have to do with the economy?”
The Economy is Obama’s Achilles heel.
Rodan wrote:
And/Or. Its up to the states to decide what they want
Wouldn’t that be radical
@ coldwarrior:
The 10th Amendment!
Rodan wrote:
Crazy idea isn’t it
My disagreements with the GOP and Romney pale before the dictatorial actions like the below of the obama administration. Yes, I know that that other presidents have used executive orders, but do any come anywhere near obama? Remember obama’s speech before la raza, with him saying how he would have to go it alone?
Note this is from the nyt on msnbc; crap atop feces.
Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals
@ citizen_q:
He really thinks he’s a Pharaoh!
Rodan wrote:
He is king putz!
@ citizen_q:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
@ Rodan:
I agree. Romney has to do his part to control the conversation. The media is largely an arm of the DNC, above all he should see that danger and not allow them to control the issues discussed. He has a target rich environment to demonstrate obama’s unfitness for office, the disastrous nature of his administration, and its long term danger to citizens and the republic.
I hope he doesn’t allow trivial distractions to fluke him up.
@ citizen_q:
His next big test is his choice of VP. That’ll tell us something of the kind of campaign he intends to run. Maybe. McCain looked good when he picked Sarah Palin, only to throw her to the wolves in a desperate attempt to lose like a gentleman *spit*
@ Iron Fist:
If Romney picks Portman, that will be a bad move.
Rodan wrote:
While Romney was, to put it kindly, way down on my list during the primary season, it looks as though he is what we’ve got. And I have, thus far, been pleasantly surprised to see that he appears to be genuinely running, genuinely willing to take on the anti-Republican media cabal and to mix it up with Obama. It doesn’t look as if Romney is planning to lose like a gentleman, a la McCain; he seems to want to win.
With that in mind, I am going to hope that Romney knows what he’s doing and try not to do too much second-guessing. If he is more comfortable campaigning with someone I’ve never heard of, like this Portman fellow, I’m going to still wish him well. I want him to win, because I want Obama out—and so I will try and keep from ankle-biting unnecessarily unless and until it looks as if Romney is going to go all McCain.
I just hope that Romney is smart enough to NOT pick Condi Rice.
@ Iron Fist:
I am disgusted by McCain.
I find myself wondering what the hero he was way back as a veteran would think of the person he is now. It is a question I ask of myself.
I find the choice of VP to be academic. For me obama and his crew are so bad, that whomever is on the ticket with Romney will not effect my vote against obama.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I just hope that Romney is smart enough to NOT pick Condi Rice.
That’s my big worry as well.
The reason I think Portman is a mistake is because he’s tied to the Bush years. Bush is still toxic with Independents.
@ Rodan:
Not as toxic as he was. I bet a lot of people woul dlike to go back to when unemployment was 5% and the deficit was “only” a quarter of a trillion dollars…
@ citizen_q:
McCain supports the Arab Spring.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
@ Rodan:
Condi Rice would be a most unpleasant choice. Along with Christi.
Rodan wrote:
Supports it? Hell, I think he jammed it up his ass and is bouncing around on it.
@ Iron Fist:
Yeah I get that, but people associate Bush with war, despite the fact Obama is a warmonger also!
@ citizen_q:
Christie would tear it fo rme. Christie is pro-Muslim and anti-gun. I am not a fan of Protman mainly because I don’t see him bringing anything to the ticket. It isn’t like Romney has to reach out to th eRepublican Establishment here. Rubio, Martinez, Paul Ryan; those are people I would be enthusiastic about. Romney needs to do something to generate enthusiasm. Simply being not-Obama is probably not going to be enough for him.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
They are his heroes!
Rodan wrote:
I know.
He is a fool, and way past his expiration date. I wish he had a shred of dignity and honor left and would retire. But people often not release power willingly. A positive note on our system of checks and balances that our leadership ignores to our detriment.
Did you guys see this?
I think the Mormon Church is about to get a rectal exam from a very hostile Democrat Party. I hope Romney has the good sense to use that against Obama, judo style.
Iron Fist wrote:
Yes, I know. I remember your posts. I do not like Chritie as VP either. He should stay in NJ.
You cite good choices. For me Col. West would go a long way generate some enthusiasm for the ticket. However not being obama is enough for me. If obama is voted out, that will be a huge victory. At which point there will be lots of work to prevent a obama-lite admin, and undoing the damage.
Iron Fist wrote:
Apparently the Democrats already tried to hit Romney with his grandfather or great-grandfather or someone being a polygamist in Mexico, and the Romney campaign pointed out that Obama’s daddy was a polygamist.
Romney seems to be able to counter and return a Luo blow.
Iron Fist wrote:
Agreed, there certainly is enough to do just that.
As for what is he hiding, What is the LA Times hiding with that video of obama at the rashid khalidi party? There seems to be plenty of evidence that the birth certificate obama presented is in at least part a forgery, what are they hiding?
citizen_q wrote:
Everything except their contempt.
WINNING!
Jihadi Work Accident Kills Lebanon’s Most Wanted Terrorist In Syria, Fatah Al-Islam Leader Blown To Pieces While Planting Roadside With Syrian Rebels…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/23/jihadi-work-accident-kills-lebanons-most-wanted-terrorist-in-syria-fatah-al-islam-leader-blown-to-pieces-while-planting-roadside-with-syrian-rebels/
@ NoThreat2U:
Great example we should not be involved. There is no “good” side. Funny how time seems as confused as McCain.
Let them stay busy killing each other.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
This is what I hoped would happen. That whoever the nominee is they would perform much better than anyone would have expected. I do continue to hope that Romney takes this seriously.
citizen_q wrote:
Does anyone actually think Condi Rice will actually want to run against obama/biden? When she voted for obama in the first place?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Yep and that Arab Spring is turning out sooooo damn well. The middle east is in more of turmoil now than it ever was with the muslim brotherhood at the helm.
McCain is totally out of touch…I think old age has affected his thinking.
Lily wrote:
The seductive call of high office is strong. And she might have dreams of one-upping the historicality of the First Black President by snagging First Female Black President for herself.
Rodan wrote:
obama is making Bush look better and better in hind-sight.
A lot of people can say they were better off during his term as president than they are now under obama. Not to mention the war thing started with the attack on the United States on 9/11.
Lily wrote:
When even Rodan, whose about as rabidly anti-Bush as you can get, agrees with that statement, you know Obama is seriously evil.
@ Iron Fist:
Compared to excatly what was/is obama’s faith??? If they do go this route I hope to see obama’s faith or lack of faith thrown right back at him, because he is no Christian by any means.
@ Lily:
Yeah, I can see answering an attack on Mormonism’s “weirdness” with an ad about Rev. “God Damn America!” Wright. What faith does Obama observe? Black Liberation Theology, and no, it isn’t a Christian faith.
Rodan wrote:
Yup, & they should borrow the Reagan, “Are you better off
now than you were four years ago?” Then add “Where will
you be with four more years of the same?”
doriangrey wrote:
Anyone who even takes a little look into bho’s past should seriously ask themselves excatly what type of man this is who was voted into the White House? It’s all over the place excatly what he wants to do and now he even isn’t hiding it anymore. Makes you wonder if he thinks the fix is in or his hubris has gotten the better of him.
I am hoping it is the latter.
Iron Fist wrote:
I think he is our first atheist president with a soft spot towards Islam. So yeah if he really wants to step in that it may blow back on him in a way that will not make him look too good no matter how the msm tries to spin it.
Lily wrote:
Soft spot? Obama’s minister for 20 years was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a former Nation of Islam bigwig whose sermons seem to clearly indicate that he never stopped being a Muslim.
Lily wrote:
Bingo! I agree. He is not Muslim per se, himself. He believes in no other god before himself. But he has a soft spot for Islam, probably because his (drunken, polygamist) father was a Muslim.
Iron Fist wrote:
Mormonism, like Shakerism, is a genuine home-grown American faith.
As I observed here a few months back, just as L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz and the other books in that series to create some original American fairy tales rather than rely on re-treads from the Old World, Mormonism, Shakerism and the many experiments in utopian living (the Amana colony, the communes in which the Alcott family participated, the failed Oleana, Mordechai Noah’s efforts to build Ararat, a city of refuge for the Jews) were attempts to make of Old World religion something distinctly New World.
They are, in short, the products of American exceptionalism and the optimism and faith in American possibility that have been the hallmarks of the true American, whether recent arrival or descendant of a long-ago ancestor.
Romney, raised Mormon, is a natural inheritor of that most American heritage of confidence and patriotism. Obama, the illegitimate child of an America-hating leftist, is not.
@ Lily:
Following the counsel of Frank Marshal Davis,
Obama tenounced his White blood “Just like Malcom.”
He has never walked that back, so I guess some racism
is bad, but Obamas racism is good.
@ RIX:
If you haven’t become convinced that a certain segment considers racism good when it benefits their race, you haven’t been paying attention to the Zimmerman case. Obama’s racism makes him one of the boyz to a lot of people.
NoThreat2U wrote:
car swarm photos???
doriangrey wrote:
It’s interesting to note how little the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, actually references Mohammed and the Koran in his speeches—at least, those portions that are excerpted in videos here. He refers to the New Testament and Jesus at least as much. He may run a racket called “the Nation of Islam,” but despite the costumes and a touch of the exotic in his references he’s tappin’ into that ol’-time, camp-meetin’, Christian religion, or at least the memory of it, to peddle his racist nonsense.
The rectal exam of Mormonism is already in progress. In some ways it has been good for us -- clamping down on people who submit names for Temple work that are not their ancestors (celebrities, holocaust victims, etc.), clarifying our views on race and emphasizing our current beliefs not outdated rejected ones, clarifying our abandonment of the practice of polygamy 100+ years ago, etc.
In Romney’s case he has avoided religion being the center of his campaign. Santorum’s people complained “why isn’t Ronmeys religion up for scrutiny like Rick’s?” The answer is because Romney isn’t using his religion as a sales tool or political platform.
Dig deeper on Mormonism and you will find a people who believe in the agency of mankind to choose for themselves on moral issues. There is a pretty deep libertarian streak in the Mormon culture. If Romney is smart he will play up the idea that men should be free to choose for themselves when it comes to moral/social issues and turn the discussion back to fiscal issues and the need to get government out of our private and corporate institutions.
RIX wrote:
This is a thorn in the side of a lot of Americans. It is racist this, racist that, racists are everywhere, if you disagree with bho you are racist. For myself I am honestly tired of this race-warfare that the bho administration is trying to throw gasoline on at every moment. Already there are death threats against George Zimmerman and I believe even against the judge:
‘Someone Kill the Judge’
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/someone-kill-judge_640598.html
This is getting out of hand and no one is saying anything against all this. Especially from the White House although they were very quick to insert themselves in this State matter before all the facts were out.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yup! American Mormons in particular feel that the establishment of a free nation was part of the process of “restoring the fullness of the Gospel”. American exceptionalism is intimately tied to our history.
@ Bureaucat:
good luck, its gonna get nasty for yinz. this will be one hell of a test for romney and his staff and for mormons in general.
i, personally dont have any real problems with mormonism. but then again, it isnt me or most people on the rigth who are going to get very hostile in the next few months.
Lily wrote:
Odd timing, the ATF is going to ban the most common of all home defense weapons funny on how the timing of this is working out.
Bureaucat wrote:
the most excellent strategy.
@ Lily:
On the plus side, by the time this election is over, mainstream America may be so burt out on the “racism” charge that it simply loses its sting. If everyone is a racist, then no one is a racist.
doriangrey wrote:
bho will stop at nothing to get his agenda down. I am sure shotgun sales will soar. In fact haven’t gun sales gone throught the roof since bho was elected president? That is a clear indicator that a lot of Americans see him for what he is, someone trying to dystroy the Constitution of the United States.
http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2012/03/controversial-painter-depicts-obama.html
coldwarrior wrote:
My non-Mormon father has sent me lots of articles out of concern for my faith and the faith of my children. Most of them are accompanied by a “don’t let this get you down” message. I responded that while his concern is appreciated, this campaign is not about Mormonism. It is about the “most unusual thing about Romney” which happens to be his religion and his wealth. We will hear about every unusual thing we’ve done in the last 150+ years with a smattering of new weirdness- but it is up to us to put that in perspective. Anything affiliated with Romney will be fair game for the political hacks and it just happens to be our turn.
I’ve been moderating Mormon apologetic (defense of the faith) web sites for years so there is not much in our history that surprises me any more. My children are not ignorant of the controversies in our history either. I tend to inoculate their faith from “shock and awe” critics tactics. First by giving them a very comprehensive view of our history (good, bad and ugly) and then discussing it openly.
The people I fear for are those investigating our faith, new to the faith or who have been overly protected by family. They can be shaken by “new revelations” that come out of these stories where those who are already aware of them can put them into context.
MacDuff wrote:
I hope so. This has gone beyond the pale in my opinion.
doriangrey wrote:
Mmm… I guess another one of my hunting weapons will accidentally fall off the boat and get lost in a lake.
@ Lily:
*pimf* DESTROY
/ it’s going to be another one of those days!
Bureaucat wrote:
go a little further. these attacks will be about anything that is not of the approved left wing religions. that is the big threat to these socialists, citizens who believe that they do not need government and are not entitled to handouts. the coming attacks on mormonism is an attack on all religions other than the religion of the state
Lily wrote:
racist! skin colorist!
hmmm….brb…
coldwarrior wrote:
Yes -- and the fact that we trend towards American exceptionalism and conservatism will make the left see red. It will get ugly.
@ Bureaucat:
It isn’t going to be the people who want bho out of office that is going to drag the Mormon religion out. To other people of faith it will just seem like another attack to our freedom of religion.
For some reason they seem to get that so backwards it isn’t ‘freedom from religion, it is freedom of religion.
coldwarrior wrote:
Do not forget that the Mormons were singled out for particular vilification in California following the Prop 8 vote 4 years ago for opposing same-sex marriage. The gay-rights lobby, which Obama has been winking and blowing covert kisses at, will be eager to act as attack dogs on this.
@ coldwarrior:
Damn! Back to the re-education camps!
/you know it really is that bad now days.
Iron Fist wrote:
Geraldo had Martins attorney on last night.
Listening to the guy, the main reason to convict Zimmerman
is because it would help to heal Martins parents.
This kid was no angel, the school not only suspended him
because he taged lockers, but he also had trace amounts
of grass in his backpack as well as womens jewlry and
a ” burglary” tool.
@ Lily:
Obama picked the scab off of racism.
He unleashed the race whore dogs like Jackson &
Sharpton & things are quickly deteriorating.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That is another thorn in the side of Americans. I think we are sick and tired of how other peoples sex lives are being shoved down our throats. How they are pushing this agenda even upon our children. You want to be gay or lesbian keep it to your damn self. I think all this pc crap is finally floating to the top and people are damn sick of it.
Bureaucat wrote:
I hear ya, and damn it.. I’m running out of boats…
RIX wrote:
It is certainly showing bho’s true colors. He only cares about certain American people. Not all Americans are equal in his opinion apparently others are more equal than some. This is disgusting on so many levels.
RIX wrote:
Did you see where the race mongers said that a school suspending a student is racist too?
Jesse Jackson: School Suspension Is Racial Profiling, Caused Trayvon Martin’s Death…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/21/jesse-jackson-school-suspension-is-racial-profiling-caused-trayvon-martins-death/
Lily wrote:
People are still appalled here when they read about such things as the initiatives in Sweden to render boys and girls “genderless.” There are occasional articles about such idiots here in the US, and for the most part they still get a big horselaugh, thankfully.
Nonetheless, people’s general willingness to be tolerant (and an aversion to being hailed into court by some grievance monger) has prevented people from giving a resounding “No!” to pushes for “greater tolerance of transgenderism” or similar initiatives.
People often do not realize that “transgenderism” is the ultimate triumph of “feelings” over fact; we are in effect being ordered to accept someone else’s personal definition of their “gender” not on the basis of their genes or their body or their hormones, but their “feelings.” Feelings trump fact. And, despite the fact that “transgenderism” is, in effect, postmodern flesh sculpture (sounds better than self-mutilation) which enables someone to reject their same-sex attraction by outwardly conforming to an opposite-sex appearance, “transgenderism” is embraced by the “gay-rights” movement as the cover under which they can demand same-sex marriage.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
It is the first foray into politics the LDS church made since ERA and the left is still demonizing us over it.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I personally find it insane. You are right on so many points. As far as the *gender-less* that is sheer insanity. Anyone who has raised children know that little girls like pink and dolls and little boys like blue and play rough and tumble. They are actually wanting to raise a bunch of confused adults or it may very well back-lash on them in a huge way.
@ Lily:
a nation of risk averse wimps who rely on the government other than themselves for EVERYTHING is what they will raise.
coldwarrior wrote:
That may work in Europe…but I honestly don’t see it working in the United States anytime soon.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Every few years there’s a new aberrant behavior to “tolerate” and there seems to be a bottomless pit thereof. I couldn’t care less about whom people choose to had sex with; I’m firmly in the “live and let live” camp on that subject. That said, I have some serious reservations about whether “transgenderism” is any more than a mental illness that doctors are treating with radical surgery. It wouldn’t be the first time science has served up a load of crap billed as scientific advancement.
MacDuff wrote:
Yup, just the latest version of Phrenology.
@ doriangrey:
Phrenologists didn’t try to force everyone to be tolerant of Phrenology…
Lily wrote:
Ive no doubt this is why the “gay/transgender community” seems to be increasing in population.
i have a phrenology head in the bar, he is the headphone rest and occasional reminder of bad science. he doesnt drink much, but he complains a lot.
Iron Fist wrote:
No, they tried to justify racism and eugenics’s by measuring the bumps on peoples heads.
@ Lily:
Obama is a flat out racist & he hangs out with them.
@ Lily:
What a load of crap,the whole thing. He calls the incidence
of Black infant mortality racial profiling?
Doctors will tell you that you can advise the expectant
mothers of good pre-natal care, but you can’t force it.
@ RIX:
Trayvon’s death is the best thing that ever happened to his momma, the momma that loved him so much she sent him off to live with Dad and his new girlfriend.
Now she can cry her eyes on TV, and stands to collect buckets of money for every salty teardrop, and she doesn’t have to put up with the thieving little puke anymore.
She can remember Trayvon for the cute little kid he used to be, and the flood of money and sympathy will cloud the memory of what had become.
@ RIX:
Does he say anything about the high rate of black abortions?