http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/ Political Commentary and Analysis from the GOP's Future Leaders and Visionaries Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:04:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8583 Gideon D'Assandro Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:15:31 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8583 Ok, gotcha. Ok, gotcha.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8561 James Kane Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:38:25 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8561 That's a very good question, Gideon. Presumably, if the party platform lacks a plank opposing abortion outright, then the leadership likely is not 'whipping' members to vote for a bill restricting abortion. Or, due to the diversity of opinion in the party (but broad consensus against public funding), the party leadership in Congress seeks the passage of said measure anyway, if it believes the votes exist to carry the measure. That’s a very good question, Gideon. Presumably, if the party platform lacks a plank opposing abortion outright, then the leadership likely is not ‘whipping’ members to vote for a bill restricting abortion. Or, due to the diversity of opinion in the party (but broad consensus against public funding), the party leadership in Congress seeks the passage of said measure anyway, if it believes the votes exist to carry the measure.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8514 Gideon D'Assandro Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:44:15 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8514 That sounds good. How much do you want the agenda limited - just electorally, or in action as well? Hypothetically, let's say there's a contested bill up for debate that limits abortion or some such thing. How do you feel about GOP leadership whipping votes for that? That sounds good. How much do you want the agenda limited – just electorally, or in action as well? Hypothetically, let’s say there’s a contested bill up for debate that limits abortion or some such thing. How do you feel about GOP leadership whipping votes for that?

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8513 brittney Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:19:57 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8513 sounds pretty smart! good one james. sounds pretty smart! good one james.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8509 GenXConservative Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:33:05 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8509 here, here! i agree completely with James. here, here! i agree completely with James.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8502 James Kane Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:39:11 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8502 Well, for example, those who are pro-life and those who are fiscally conservative could probably agree that public funding for medical abortions is wrong, so the GOP platform could focus on opposition to public funding and possibly late term abortion rather than abortion generally. Well, for example, those who are pro-life and those who are fiscally conservative could probably agree that public funding for medical abortions is wrong, so the GOP platform could focus on opposition to public funding and possibly late term abortion rather than abortion generally.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8457 Gideon D'Assandro Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:09:17 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8457 What are you thinking of, specifically? What are you thinking of, specifically?

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8428 James Kane Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:38:40 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8428 I would agree that Chairman Steele is correct to focus on "addition not subtraction", but this suggests that Republicans as a party organization should have a slightly broader platform in some areas too. I would agree that Chairman Steele is correct to focus on “addition not subtraction”, but this suggests that Republicans as a party organization should have a slightly broader platform in some areas too.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8389 Gideon D'Assandro Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:59:18 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8389 I've seen the clips of Steele here and there that have made us all cringe a bit, but when you see him in person and get a feel for the guy's mannerisms - he's not half bad. I walked away a much bigger fan than when I just knew him from tv blurbs. I’ve seen the clips of Steele here and there that have made us all cringe a bit, but when you see him in person and get a feel for the guy’s mannerisms – he’s not half bad. I walked away a much bigger fan than when I just knew him from tv blurbs.

]]> http://www.nextgengop.com/2009/07/05/social-conservatism-going-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-8388 Gideon D'Assandro Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:58:05 +0000 http://www.nextgengop.com/?p=1799#comment-8388 Well, thanks! Well, thanks!

]]>