Did the woman on your show just say “If she had been a Democrat she would have had an abortion” with regard to Palin’s pregnancy with a Down syndrome child? I think she should be asked to retract that absurd statement if I heard her correctly…

Phyllis said “a democrat would have aborted the baby”. What an idiotic statement!

I am outraged that you allowed Phyllis Schapley to make a statement without challenge that if Ms palin was a Demosctate shwe would have aborted her baby!! There is no point of fact that supports such a statement. It is irresponsible to allow such a statement to stand without challenge. There are republican women that may have chosen an abortion, there are independent womwen tht would have chosen an abortion and there are deomcrats that would have chosen an abortion just as there are those of each party that would have chosen not to have an abortion.

The modern Republican party will continue to represent what the modern republican party has represented in the past. They are the party of big corporations, greed, the very wealthy, white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual men. Anyone that falls outside of their very narrow categories of what is “acceptable” are to be oppressed. People like Phyllis Schlafly exemplify the evil, narrow-minded mindset of the modern republican party. I can only pray that the Democrats will triumph and set this country back in the direction it should be going.

I just heard Phyllis Schafley (?) on today’s program state that if Sarah Palen were a Democrat that she would have aborted her child. This is a totally outrageous statement that shows amazing hatred, prejudice, and ignorance. I am shocked and saddened for our country.

“If Sarah Palin was a democrat she would have had an abortion”

The generalization has left me shocked and almost speechless. I once heard of a bumper sticker that read: if Mary had been pro-choice there wouldn’t be Christmas. This sweeping assumption about pro-choice women is terrible.

Your guest just made the statement If she had been a Democrat she would have had an abortion” rather than carrying her Down syndrome child to term.

This is an example of the gross mis-statements and “framing” of the issues that have become Standard Operating Procedures for the Republican Party.

I believe what the Pro-choice candidates in the Democratic party are in favor of a woman’s right to make the decision about whether continue a pregnancy. I’m sure there are many democrats with Down Syndrome children. It is a non-partisan problem.

I agree with the Rebeca Plank’s comment above that the guest should be aske to retract the statement.

As someone who has over the last 5 years become increasingly disenchanted by the Republican Party … floating more and more independent and libertarian I am disgusted by Ms. Schlafly’s comment claiming that a Democrat would have aborted Trig.

It is this frigid, cold, unflinching and divisive view of the world that has driven me from the Grand Old Party.

and listening now – I agree with the caller about the strong shift to the religious right. Jesus was an open minded person that preached forgiveness, openness and peace. While not his words, he taught not to toss stones when you live in a glass house

i.e. the countless evangelical preachers who have embarrassed themselves with drugs, gay or hetero extramarital affairs.

Who was it who just said that a Democratic woman who is carrying a Down’s Syndrome baby would abort it. That is incredibly insulting. There are as many Democrats who would carry the baby to term and just as many Republicans who would have an abortion. So don’t give me that crap that Sarah Palin is better than Democratic mothers. In fact, I would contend that any intelligent mother who’s water broke in Texas would not give a speach then fly back to Alaska to have the baby. Any intelligent woman, especially one who is about to have a premature birth, would go directly to a hospital.

I too was outraged by that unbelievable statement about how a Democrat would have aborted a baby with Downs Syndrome. If you need any further evidence of the ignorance of Phyllis Schlafly, you only need to hear her repeat her statement that the Republican party is not looking at the mistakes of George Bush but are moving forward. How can you move forward when you don’t acknowledge and work to fix the errors made in the past?

Phyllis Schlafly is the embodiment of the problem with the GOP. “If she [Palin] were a democrat she would have aborted the baby [with Down Syndrome].” How dare she. She may have 6 children but she has no idea what it means to raise a child with Down Syndrome. She also has no idea what it means to deal with the knowledge that you are carrying a child with Down Syndrome. That emotional rollercoaster has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, carrying the child to term also has nothing to do with politics. To be so black and white, unfeeling, and completely uncompassionate cements the image of the GOP carrying the Christian Right banner without any concept of what it means to be Christian. My daughter’s best friend has Down Syndrome and her parents’ politics had nothing to do with their decision to have her… and Schlafly’s brand of politics has never helped them raise. Shame on Schlafly. Shame on the GOP for supporting such venomous, devisive, and anti-American ideas.

I was repulsed by the comment by Phyllis Schafley about Sarah Palin choosing to have an abortion if she were a Democrat. This clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of partisan politics in our country when a party affiliation is made into a dirty name that defines morals and ethical decision making. I am saddened that none of the other Conservative guests nor the host rebuked her for such a blatantly inflammatory and frankly stupid and careless statement.

Resubmitting after spell check

I am outraged that you allowed Phyllis Schlafly to make a statement without challenge that if Ms Palin was a Democrat she would have aborted her baby!! There is no point of fact that supports such a statement. It is irresponsible to allow such a statement to stand without challenge. There are republican women that may have chosen an abortion, there are independent women that would have chosen an abortion and there are democrats that would have chosen an abortion just as there are those of each party that would have chosen not to have an abortion.
Posted by Denis Johansen, on September 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am EDT

Palin is a zealot.
Phyllis Schapley is a neo-fascist right wing zealot.

The ‘war on terrorism’ is a slogan. You can not fight terrorism as you would a conventional war.

It is a police action.

Someone should point this put out. The Republicans have been using this BS for the past 7 years to justify the abuses of power of the Bush administration.

It’s time to call them out on this.

It is outrageous and spiteful for Phyllis Schlafy to claim that if it had been a Democrat who was pregnant at 17, or pregnant with a Down Syndrome fetus, that they would have had an abortion.

Another example of the ignorance of her faction of the Republican Party, to make sweeping, fear-mongering generalizations about Democrats.

I’m getting really sick of the people they are interview for this section.

They are all full of crap! Phyllis needs her head checked, because she is mentally ill in her comments.

I am trying to be unbiased by listening, but I have to become a moron to believe anything that they are saying.

Phyllis Schlaffley rides again! If her assertion about Sarah Palin aborting her Downs’ Syndrome baby –if she were a Democrat–is actually true, it would mean that there would be no Downs’ Syndrome babies born to Democratic women. At all. Period. Such a ridiculous, over-reaching, hateful, horrifying statement.

Could we take on Palin’s patriotism. The argument about what could be considered personal is a non-starter with myopic folks like Schaffly.

Alaskan Secession y’all!

I missed when Obama wanted Illinois to secede.

I’m so incensed. Pro-Choice means that it is pro INDIVIDUAL rights. How is that different from Republican stance on individuality, and not having state control on our lives.

Shocking…. Allow individuals to choose based upon their own theology and moral feelings and beliefs.

END OF STORY.

I am horrified that Phyllis Schlafly made the statement that Palin would have aborted her son with downs syndrome if she had been a democrat. There was absolutely no reaction, and I myself was stunned into silence. She is offensive and I was ashamed to be listening to her. There are conservatives who are more respectful who could have been found to talk to. She belongs elsewhere.

Phyllis Schlafly is just an awful woman. And while she was making the point that John McCain is different from George Bush she called him “George McCain”…yeah..that really drives home the point that they are different people.

I’m wondering if Ann Coulter is Phyllis’ love child.

I have never heard a more asinine phrase than “pro-abortion.” There is no such thing, there is only the ability to choose despite others’ religious leanings. Phyllis Schlafly has lived far too long under the guise that religious ethics have ANY place in a democratic government.

Here’s one Democrat who didn’t abort her Down Syndrome daughter…and now, at age 28, she’s been coming to the polls with me to cast her own vote!

Phyllis’ ignorant comments aside, how is it that the fact that Sarah Palin promotes abstinence only sex education not be an issue here? Her daughter is not the story, but her daughter’s situation certainly brings up the issue of family planning and the republicans lack of understanding on knowledge on the issue. Google “McCain+Contraception” for an example.

What Phyllis Schlafly just said about democrats aborting special needs children is so incredibly offensive, and the worst kind of partisan politics.

I am the mother of a special needs child with a genetic condition that is detectable in the womb, and not having my child is unthinkable to me. I would have a million more like him. In a heartbeat. I am a Democrat.

What is really offensive to me is the Republicans’ designation of my child as one that would be considered for non-existence, just by virtue of his condition. It shows up an error in belief, and a disrespect for the diversity of souls on this planet, that they just assume that it is somehow “hard to want” a child with a special needs, and therefore Sarah Palin is somehow morally superior for keeping her child. Sarah Palin feels how all parents of special needs children feel: grateful for and celebrational of her child. To imply that she is overcoming her distaste for her child because of some moral republican superiority is insulting. She’s just being a normal mother, and they’re trying to make political hay out of that in a way that insults all special needs children.

Disgusting.

UGH!! ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS NOT FOREIGN POLICY

I cannot begin to express how insulted I am by the statement that if Palin were a democrat she would have aborted her baby. I’m a democrat and I’m pro choice and I would never in a million years have an abortion, least of all for the absurd reason that the child has Down Syndrome. Not everyone that believes in choice is ready to run out and abort a child. It is a hard and sad choice that some women have to make and that is their right. Don’t belittle that. Of course Palin didn’t abort. I believe the vast majority of women, democrat or not, would have done the same. Stop putting the woman on a pedistal for having a baby. Millions of women around the world are doing the same thing right this moment. Republicans are acting like birthing a child is the exception to norm.
Everyone needs to stop acting like Sarah Palin deserves some kind of award for bringing a DS baby into the world. LOTS of mothers do the same thing everyday without any special mention. The assumption that this child should have been aborted seems to be coming from Republicans… the rest of us see it as a pretty normal event not so worthy of mention.
I’m glad to see that others are commenting as well. This comment cannot go unanswered. An apology should be issued.

TOM!!! How could you not challenge Phyllis’ statement that if Pailn had been “a democrat she would have aborted the baby.”

Palin not having an abortion does not designate her party it demonstrates what women have done forever, made choices.

Palin is NOT pro-life, she is anit-choice.

The right wing spin is in full effect in Phyllis’s head and heart. What a fool!

Palin’s daughter had a choice!
I cannot believe Phyllis’ statement that if Palin were a democrat she would have aborted the baby! No one in this country is “pro abortion” or “anti life” – what they are is “pro choice”. If you also note that when Palin spoke to the press regarding her daughter’s pregnancy, she stated “we’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby…” (Reuter)

Her daughter obviously had a choice !

Blaine
Paris, FR

Phyllis Schlafly’s comment about Democrats aborting a fetus with Down syndrome was inflammatory, incorrect, and mean-spirited.

I respect On Point, but the choice to give a woman like Schlafly a forum for her hateful diatribes sullies what is usually a civil, intelligent show.

I have never cursed at On Point or NPR until this morning when I heard comments by Phyllis Schlafly. I have two comments:

1. It is completely ABSURD that Schlafly suggests that had Palin been a democrat she would have aborted the pregnancy. As a woman and a democrat I am extremely offended. While I may never have an abortion I belief it is a woman’s right to choose and that choice should be available to her. Democrats do not believe in abortion they believe in abortion RIGHTS!

2. How easy that must be for the Republican’s to “forget” the Bush administration. I wish I could forget it, and I know for a fact that mothers, spouses, and the families of soldiers who died fighting for this country will never forget the Bush Administration.

I was fired up prior to this story but now it’s on a whole new level. Thank you Phyllis Schlafly for reminding me why I am a democrat.

again, phylis schlafly and others on yuorguest list are sofar removed from reality, and you do not challenge any of there absolute off track statements…. Ms. Palin has so many negatives. As for example from TPM:

The news that Palin once backed the Bridge to Nowhere went national.

* It emerged that Palin has links to the bizarro Alaska Independence Party, which harbors the goal of seceding from the union that McCain and Palin seek to lead.

* The news broke that as governor, Palin relied on an earmark system she now opposes. Taken along with the Bridge to Nowhere stuff, this threatens to undercut her reformist image, something that was key to her selection as McCain’s Veep candidate.

* The news broke that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter became pregnant out of wedlock at a time when the conservative base had finally started rallying behind McCain’s candidacy.

* Barely moments after McCain advisers put out word that McCain had known of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the Anchorage Daily News revealed that Palin’s own spokesperson hadn’t known about it only two days ago.

* A senior McCain adviser at the Republican convention was forced into the rather embarrassing position of arguing that McCain had known about the pregnancy “last week” — without saying what day last week he knew about it.

* It came out that Republican lawyers are up in Alaska vetting Palin — now, more than 72 hours after it was announced that she’d been picked.

* Palin lawyered up in relation to the trooper-gate probe in Alaska — a move that ensures far more serious attention to the story from the major news orgs.

Thanks Phyllis – your comments just sent more and more votes to Obama/Biden because you showed want today’s Republicans truly are – a bunch of hate mongers.

One thing I found interesting was the very few amount of calls that were supporting McCain/Palin this morning. Last week when during the DNC all the comment calls were positive and interested.

Phyllis, you truly have shown the true face of the Republican party.

I want to say just one thing about Phyllis’ statement -At least democrats offer a choice to the mother (and beleive it should be the mother’s choice, not the government’.) Under some republicans belief, there would only be one choice. Isn’t interesting, for a party that continues to want less government involvement, they want the government to control what is a private matter between a mother and her family.

I just heard Ms Schlafly’s thoughtless and inaccurate comment re Democrat women would abort a baby to be born with extra challenges. I am appalled by her comment and also appalled that the host accepted such a comment as legitimate in the discussion. I turned off the show. You owe listener’s an apology for accepting the comment unchallenged.

julia johnston

Those of you who were shocked by Phyllis Schafley’s comments really need to wake up. She and Palin represent a large group of people (not me) and while they may seem marginal from our perspective we seem marginal from theirs. Yes, Schafley and Palin are wingnuts of the first order but so, it seems, are many Americans. A terrifying thought.

Schafley has been saying stuff like this for years. It’s always shocking to hear but it’s not new.

Notice how she would not let Tom direct her toward the past and George W. Bush. She has an amazing double standard.

Tom never asked her about Palin pushing abstinence and creationism in Alaska schools and at the same time allowing (forcing?) her daughter to have a baby at 17 and get married. I doubt Bristol wanted to have a kid and get married so she’s living out her mother’s political agenda. I do not want a fundamentalist nutcase in the VP slot.

I thought it was particularly telling to hear Schafley say that the conservative movement is at odds with John McCain on many issues but Palin is more in line with them. Watching them re-jigger their platform and views during the convention will be telling.

But, we can’t toss too many stones, our (great) man Obama has moved to the center on issues we thought we had him pegged on.

The thought of Palin anywhere near the White House scares the shit out of me. The thought of Americans liking her and voting for McCain because of her scares me even more.

I waited for 20 minutes to give a comment about the extremism of abtinence-only sex education advocate Sara Palin, only to be told “the conversation isn’t going there”. Instead I heard an hour about how former RINO McCain & inexperienced ideologue Palin equal the new Republican Party. If I want extremism like Phyllis Schlafly’s views, I can just turn on Fox.

I also find it very ignorant of Phyllis Schlafly to make the comment that Obama is an elitist based on his “prep school” education. She herself was educated at an all women’s elementary school and had the opportunity to attend Washington University in St. Louis, attend Radcliffe for her masters and then back to Washington University for her JD. If she’s basing elitism on education, then she qualifies. There is no reason why education should be used against someone! And since when is intelligence something that should not be praised? I fear a world without intelligence!

I am a Democrat, I am fiercely pro-choice, and I would never have an abortion because I believe that life starts with conception. That is my belief and my choice. I support every woman’s right to make her own choice. Phyllis Schlafly has demonstrated profound ignorance with her statement that a Democrat would have aborted a Down’s Syndrome baby.

Also, this under-enlightened woman stated that Barack Obama is an elitist because he went to school on scholarships. As a young, single mother without money, I put myself through college on scholarships. I am now a nurse anesthetist. I make a nice salary. I can pay my mortgage, and I will be able to heat my home this winter when many others will not be able to do the same. I consider myself incredibly fortunate that there were scholarships available, giving me the opportunity to make something of my life. I suppose that makes me an elitist, as well. Schlafly provides a fine example of how the Republican party is grossly out of touch with everyday Americans who work hard while availing themselves of every resource to get ahead.

The Democratic Party thanks Phyllis Schlafly for sending countless independents and disaffected Republicans to vote democratic in this coming election. When she’s done leading John McCain around, maybe she can find some time to congratulate herself.

I am glad your are having a tremendous response to Phyllis Schlafly’s abortion comment. It was used to refrain from answering a legitimate question whose answer would have highlighted her hypocracy. When Betty Ford was pro-choice I was a Republican. Since then I’ve become a democrat at at no time in my life could I have brought myself to have an abortion – that MY choice. I support abortion right because others are not me and have rights to choose differently. She is a disgrace.

Thank you Phyllis Schlafly for reminding me why I am a Democrat!

I will hear this program tonight at midnight on WYSO in Yellow Springs, Ohio. I did not hear the interview but with all the comments I assume that what the writers said was true about Phyliss Schafly. And you should have challenged her on that.

I am a Catholic,one of 5 children, pro-life and 73 years old. I am a lifelong Democrat and for this radical women to lump all Democrats as pro-abortion is just wrong. She reminds of a Nazi. Substitute Democrats for “undesirables” and see her disdain for anyone who is not white, Christian, Republican and who does not think the way she does.

As a Catholic and the mother of 5 and grandmother of 12, if I had found or any of my children had discovered that the baby they were carrying was a Down’s Syndrome baby, I can assure you that he or she would be welcomed just as any other child and loved as a gift from God.

That is what is so wrong with the way Republican label people who do not agree with them. And unfortunately it works. There are enough prejudiced, uneducated people who will allow someone else to do their thinking for them.

God forbid that McCain and his horde of right-wingers win and continue the fascist-type government that was originated by George Bush. Phyliss would probably be appointed Secretary of Health.

By the way, I forgot to mention in my comment above, that until I heard Schlafly’s ignorant comments, I had been an Independent. Ms. Schlafley can personally take the credit for sending me to the Democratic party.

REBRANDING HYPOCRISY

Forget the past eight years? Sure.

Let’s forget all of that bunkum. All of that nonsense. Don’t bother your pretty little heads with all of that droll blather about you know who.

Forget that you-know-who was just a stuffed shirt, and that all of the interests allied with the GOP are still present and accounted for.

This is today’s Republican party. A different Republican party. Why? Because we say so.

They are the party of big corporations, greed, the very wealthy, white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual men.

That is a strange statement to make, considering that the topics of this thread seem to be two women – Palin and Schlafly.

Also, seeing the GOP as the party of wealth and power is a dangerous misread of US culture typical of coastal liberals. Most GOP voters are not rich – to the contrary they tend to be lower income and less educated than, say, NPR listeners.

I saw one serious academic study that indicated that much support for the Bush tax cuts came not mainly from the wealthy, who would benefit the most from them, but from lower income people who fantasized about becoming wealthy.

Also a core group of GOP supporters is Christian conservatives and fundamentalists who are typically drawn from socioeconomic groups with the least power.

What liberals need to get a handle on is that out there in the heartland the values espoused by many ordinary people are actually quite a bit to the right of the values of many corporate leaders who are often more educated, cosmpolitan and well-traveled and therefore tend to have more moderate views.

At some point, having guests like Phyllis Schlafly are less about fulfilling your responsibility to represent a “diversity” of opinions, and more about simply giving a taxpayer-supported megaphone for hate speech. Obviously, any rational person would find Schlafly’s statement that if Sarah Palin’s daughter were a Democrat she would have had an abortion, as going far beyond any sort of political discourse.

What surprised me, however, were two other incidents that also went unchallenged on today’s program – - a disturbing trend as On Point joins the rest of the mainstream media whose sense of journalistic “inquiry” seems limited to members of the Democratic party.

A former Republican female listener called in and asked Schlafly point blank if Schlafly’s opinion would be so charitable if it was a female Democrat that had Palin’s level of experience and who went back to work two days after delivering a child. Instead of letting us hear that completely clear and fair question, Tom rephrased the question into a “big picture” GOP question and punted it to Jack. The result? Once again, the media made sure no GOP figurehead had to answer anything that might be uncomfortable for them – - just as CBS “News” recently “cleaned up” statements by John McCain.

Astonishingly, Schlafly took Ashbrook’s softball and went on to basically deride a listener who was the mother of two children because, if you follow her argument, unless you have five or six children like Palin, and Schlafly, you really don’t know anything about mothering. Really, Tom? You don’t see either one of those situations as something you needed to actually “moderate?” As something grossly offensive to women and frankly, men, everywhere? Really? Exactly, where IS the bar for you to step in and say “these airwaves belong to the public, ma’am, and that language is unacceptable.”

From Tony Blakely – - editor of the Washington Times who once wrote an editorial questioning both John Kerry’s and John Edwards’ sexuality based on how they looked at each other – - to now, Phyllis Schlafly, who’s appearance on your program was an insult to thinking Americans everywhere – - On Point’s choice of guests recently has gone far beyond providing a “diversity” of opinions. At a time when America needs fair and courageous reporting more than ever, you have become a singular disappointment by confusing “hate speech” with “opinion” and “narrative” with “news.”

Richard V.
Nashville, TN

Let Phyllis Schlafly know what you think of her statement this morning:

Phyllis@eagleforum.org

Eagle Forum
7800 Bonhomme Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105

phone: 314-721-1213

I would encourage everyone to be respectful in your correspondence with her.

“I saw one serious academic study that indicated that much support for the Bush tax cuts came not mainly from the wealthy, who would benefit the most from them, but from lower income people who fantasized about becoming wealthy.”

Americans live in lala land, it’s so sad that this statement is so true.

I read a story about a car mechanic who spent up to $300 a week over the past 15 years or so on lottery tickets.

If he had invested that money in a Index fund he might not be millionaire, which is his goal, but he would be a lot richer than he is now.

“We have met the enemy and it is us.”
Walt Kelly

I agree whole heartedly with caller Michael’s (from Davenport) sentiments about Ms. Schlafly–she has helped motivate me to do even more to get out the democratic vote.

I ask you.

Isn’t the illusion of freedom just as good as the real thing?

Is the pregnant teen-age daughter of an extremist pro-life Governor who has been chosen to be the VP on the presidential ticket really “free to choose,” anything?

What Phyllis Schlafly is saying is true because it works, because people listen and believe.

Virtually everyone here expressed outrage at Ms. Schlafly’s comment.

However, virtually every one of you went on to say that it’s a woman’s right “to choose,” which is a silly euphonism for the right to “put to death a child because he or she has Down Syndrome.” And that doing so is morally defensible.

Now, if you think this sort of eugenics is morally defensible, then why should you be so offended by her comment?

I am a life-long Democrat. I also have a nine-year old daughter with DS, and find Schlafly’s comments absurd and repugnant. But isn’t that her trademark? I am curious how vigorously Schlafly has advocated for the rights of disabled children, including lobbying for government financial assistance to families struggling with the additional challenges that arise with a disabled child.

There is a reality that, for those parents in the past who chose to undergo the invasive and risky procedure of amniocentisis, the large majority (the 90% figure is often quoted but also often challenged) chose to terminate the pregnancy if trisomy 21 was diagnosed. The risk of the procedure created a high degree of bias in favor of this choice — why go through with a test that had a 1 in 200 chance of spontaneously aborting the fetus unless you intended to do something with the results? If you intend to go to term with the baby irrespective of genetic testing, the testing is a risk with no benefit. There is now available a far less invasive procedure that is almost as accurate an amnio, but I’ve not heard whether it has had any impact on family decisions.

The aborting of planned pregnancies based on the discovery of a genetic disability is an aspect of the pro-life/pro-choice debate that is not discussed as often as it should be. That’s the problem with wedge issues — the nuances are ignored in favor of black and white outrage. That a right is practiced in a way that many find improper is not a basis for destroying that right, however. Free speech is often abused, but few are in favor of trashing the First Amendment. I personally believe that the reason so many have chosen to terminate pregnancies once trisomy 21 is detected has less to do with the availability of abortion rights as it does with the lack of support for disabled children, combined with a lack of understanding of what DS actually means. Raising a special needs child is sometimes more challenging than raising a non-disabled child, but I could not express how much joy our daughter has brought into our lives.

Having said all of that, it is ridiculous for those on the right to try and use Palin’s decision to carry her child to term as some special moral achievement. Those of us with disabled children span all social and political lines, and my own experiences suggest that at least as many of us vote blue as red.

Now, if you think this sort of eugenics is morally defensible, then why should you be so offended by her comment?

First of all, you’re using the term “eugenics” incorrectly. Eugenics is normally applied to the idea of trying to breed a better race of humans by eliminating undesirable genetic traits. But Trisomy 21 is not an inherited condition – it’s an error that occurs in formation of the gamete. And, in any case, since Down-syndrome adults are fertile, albeit at a lower level, would youadvocate Downs adults reproducing?

Secondly, it’s disingenuous to pretend to be unaware that the whole abortion debate hinges on definitions. Not all of us consider a 12 week fetus to be a “child”. Any intellectually-honest assessment of the debate would acknowledge the moral and ethical complexities of the matter. (If I had to identify one major distinction between liberals and conservatives it’s that conservatives seem to have a need for everything to be simple and black and white but the real world does not always oblige us in that). In the US, according to Wikipedia, 91-93% of Down’s diagnoses were aborted, so clearly the public has a preference on this.

Given the truly vast financial, educational and emotional resources required to properly raise a Down’s child, if the GOP really cared about the lives of Downs victims they would advocate much more generous government support for parents faced with that prospect. This might persuade more people to take on that burden and not have an abortion. It is very true that US conservatives care more about the unborn than the born.

CAMPAIGN AUTO-DESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIATED.

PLEASE EVACUATE CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY.

WALK DON’T RUN TO THE NEAREST EXIT.

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

I’d love to answer you Peter. First, however, I need to know how the quote thingdos work around here. Apparently, the [quote] type language doesn’t work. Anyone care to enlighten me?

“If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, she would have aborted the baby.” I flushed with the insult of this comment. Who does she speak for? Do the ‘right’ align themselves with her? It sounds like hatred and evil. Like this thing called the left is this overgrown monster entity conjured up in the minds of people like Schlafly. I feel so sad about the Puritans and their descendants who Schlafly seems to speak for. The United States might be the cesspool that the rest of the world resents. Unfortunately Schlafly’s voice is the one projected to the rest of the world.

I’d love to answer you Peter. First, however, I need to know how the quote thingdos work around here. Apparently, the [quote] type language doesn’t work. Anyone care to enlighten me?

It uses standard HTML formatting, or at least some subset of it.

I’ve taken WBUR to task already in other threads here for their primitive editing environment. It mystifies me why a radio station in a high tech city like Boston, serving a flagship NPR program like On Point, to a world wide audience, is satisfied to use such primitive, before-the-turn-of-the-century discussion forum software.

Everyone is buzzing about Schlaffley’s remark regarding abortion. The statement that drove me beyond words with anger, although Schlaffley came close on multiple occasions, was made by one of the male guests. He said that in the past we’ve ‘always’ lost some civil liberties during wartime, and that as soon as the War on Terror is over we’ll gain them back.

What is he thinking? Every Republican I’ve hear speak about this issue says that the War on Terror could go on for decades. Also, I would argue that while in many causes that some Americans have lost civil liberties during actual wartime we are not _actually_ in a WAR and that from the standpoint of history those loses are seen as low points, not typical experiences we should expect. I’m sure the descendants of the Japanese interned here in my home state of Arizona would not be very keen on seeing other Americans interned just because of their heritage during an actual war or even this ‘War’ on terror. So are those reasons he have good enough reasons? I don’t think so.

The issue is simple, you can’t fight terrorism as a conventional war. Ask the British and the Israel’s.

The best way to fight terrorism is through police action, gathering intelligence and using this information to take out cells. This is not as fast as invading a country and using jargon, such as ‘mission accomplished’, and ‘we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq to keep us safe’. That’s nice we’ll use other countries as cannon fodder to keep are selves safe. What kind of message is this to the rest of the world?

The Republicans are bankrupt as a party and Bush has dragged them all down no matter what Schlaffley says about the part moving on, we the people have not.

Are we sure that Phyllis Schlafly isn’t a Democrat posing as an outlandishly Machiavellian Republican? I mean – seriously.

“Once we’re through with the war on terror” they’ll give us our civil liberties back?

Tom didn’t question the guest on this Orwellian nonsense, but then again how could anyone keep up with so much incredible weirdness.

Democrats are “for abortion.” Come on. Is this the kind of thing we want to listen to here? We could listen to Sean Hannity for this.

No one should be allowed to use the propagandistic term “war on terror” on public radio without being called on it.

So — considering the importance of fairness on the same airwaves — all I can say is, we’ve heard from the mob from Moronia.

Jack Beatty is the Man.

You people don’t understand. Liberals like abortion. They are defeatists. Obama is a Muslim, and his middle name is Hussein.

Sarah Palin stands up for the working class. So does McCain.

Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. She is governor of the largest state in the country. Alaska. Alaska has more square miles than any other state. More square kilometers, too.

She’s also the commander in chief of the National Guardsman now stationed in her state. The only corporal in the military to command his own platoon.

You think Obama could match this?

Conservatives understand that following their leader is the right thing to do. The leader is the Decider. The Decider makes war, and gives out the bread. The Decider loves peace. But he knows war is peace.

Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill oil. We want that oil. We want that oil.

Peter, I haven’t the slightest idea how to format in this forum. So I’ll just answer your question thusly:

PETER SAID: First of all, you’re using the term “eugenics” incorrectly.

_________________
MY RESPONSE:

What I wrote was, “a SORT of eugenics.” It was metaphorical and you understood exactly what I meant.

Nice try at diversion. Now how about answering my question:

If you think this sort of eugenics is morally defensible, then why should you be so offended by Ms. Schlafly’s comment?

Wow. I am a Republican. The very instant I heard that disgusting comment by Schlafly I realized how tone-deaf some of the “leaders” of our party remain. The enthusiasm for Obama is in large part due to the respectful and measured approach he takes with those on the opposite side of the red/blue divide. If my party is ever going to reclaim its dignity I strongly urge my fellow republicans to do everything in their power to keep Schlafly and others like her off of the airwaves. Let me make it clear: Phyllis Schlafly does not speak for me or the new generation of Republicans of which I am a member. She should be ashamed of herself.

Dear Tom,

I think you are fantastic because you are “internationally-minded” and smart.

Upon hearing your line-up of guests this morning, I was amazed that Phyllis Schafly was among the guests. She is even older than I am and I have always disliked her vitreolic approach to politics. The thing that I found most disturbing this morning was her dissing of McCain and her touting Palin because she thought Palin was the future of the party. I hope that you will provide the clips of the interview to your fellow commentators and newspeople…Palin should either refute Schafly’s comments or be exposed for what she is. I fear that the big time media will have missed this interview.

Hey folks,

I agree with you all on Schlaffley’s insane and evil comments. I stomped around the kitchen after I heard her, I was so mad!!!!

But don’t be mad at Tom Ashbrook over this — think of it as a GOOD thing that his program brought out these types of telling right-wing Republican opinions…

That way, the rest of us will know 1. what were up against 2. how much work there is to be done for Barack’s campaign.

Anyway, if you’re upset (like me) get out there and volunteer! there’s a great spirit on the ground in the grassroots movement, and lots of work to be done.

By the way, I”m also furious at John McCain, for returning us now as a nation to the time of evil divisiveness… He did not have to run this kind of campaign, and it’s surely a very cynical one…

Obama calls for a different type of country. Yes, more hopeful.

Even on abortion he says: “People disagree on this issue, but surely we can agree on the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.” With a president like that, I could see that people on different sides of the issue might actually think about working together (what a concept) to help women in need, as opposed to going at each others’ throats.

Go Obama!!!!

Tim, i was raised in a split household. My mother the S. Ca liberal and my dad and his card carrying Republican family. So i understand how offensive and person Phyllis is to your side of the isle. Heck to the world.

The truth of the matter is this: In politics those on the far right and the far left get the attention. Neither of them represent the middle-class, the middle-americans or even those who understand and respect the fine art of compromise (the middle ground). There is no money there, so there is no power there.

Phyllis is offensive and she will continue to rake in the pundit money [i]because[/i] she is offensive. People will hear that she made an offensive statement on one show or another and make it a point to watch/listen next time she is on the air. More people tune in, ratings go up, ads cost more, and Voila! A pundit is born.

As previously stated, she’s a wingnut. Crazy like a fox, i say. If Phyllis fell down in a forest and no one saw it, would it have really happened? Or the better question: would anyone care?

The true pity here is that NPR and On Point is helping to support Phyllis and her far right agenda of “they are different so they are evil”. Which I suppose in some ways might mean that the entire west coast will end up on Axis of Evil list? Or maybe just the comedy tour. Either way, one would think that a well respected news organization could find someone that had something intelligent to say.

Grandma said it best: Leave the mean ones be; God will get them in the end.

Kate,

I’m grateful you’ve written in with positive comments and a way more healthy way of thinking about today’s show than I was able to manage on my own. I howled and through things at the radio, and I made bitter remarks.

I agree too we should be happy Tom is able to get this stuff out there for people to hear. I don’t think this is going to be an easy election. Still plenty of work to do to return this country to some kind of responsible governance.

We should point out:

Palin is against proper science education. She does not believe in sex education or in teaching modern biology.
Palin is very anti-choice.
Palin claims to be a reformer, but there are shady dealings coming out about her.

Christopher,

Thank you!

Yes, I think it’s important that we seek a higher ground… That’s what Obama’s trying to do, after all, and that’s why I support him.

I also think that Democrats often lose elections, because they get so mad they can’t function… and that doesn’t help anybody.

Let’s get to work and win this time around!!!!

It matters not only to us here in the States, but around the world.

Thanks for your response!

Christopher,

by the way, I’m writing more hopeful things several hours later.. Actually, at the time I was howling and swearing myself. I would have thrown something at the radio, except it’s my computer

I’m just wondering. Serious question. Obama has never – in his entire political life – behaved in a post-partisan manner. Is it that you believe his words more than his actions? Or do you believe he’s had an epiphany in the last year or so?

The caustic, fanatical rantings of Phyllis Schafly have no place on such an intelligent, respectable radio program.

Groucho, great posting!

David Essing, I am offended because I am a Democrat who would not choose abortion. Ms. Schlafly’s comment suggesting that all Democrats abort their disabled children is offensive. Surely, you are capable of understanding that that is where the outrage comes from. Yes? No?

Fair enough Kathleen. Surely there are Democrats who don’t fit her generalization.

However, the large majority of Democrats – unless I am mistaken and I may very well be (I am willing to stand and be corrected here!) – do believe that aborting a disabled child is morally defensible. Am I wrong here?

Anyway, thanks for responding

Cheers, ~david

Yes, David you are wrong.

Rather, you’re missing the point. I work with girls in the juvenile justice system — so I know first hand how complicated the world is out there for young people…
There are all kinds of situations out there, and we need laws that deal with that complexity. Otherwise, the reality is we will be criminalizing young women in trouble who need rather (I would argue) more support, more education, better health care etc. You can holler all you want about this and yet, what have you done to reach out to help others? I’m afraid it’s just theory, otherwise.

ANOTHER reason I support Obama: His impassioned plea to fathers on Father’s Day — for the reluctance of men to take responsibility for their sexual behavior is a large factor behind teenage pregnancy… and the prevalence of single mothers raising families.

What I am saying (as a Democrat) is that there CAN be a way to work towards discussing this issue CONSTRUCTIVELY, if one focuses on what we can agree upon: i.e. working towards reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. But that requires reaching out to those in need, something the Republicans are often unwilling to do.

I think you’re making bad generalizations. Things are much more complicated (politically and historically) than you paint them. And we Democrats are a very mixed bag!

(go Obama!)

David Essing,

I don’t know what you mean by “post-partisan,” but I think most people have found Obama to be civil and even-keeled when it comes to political discourse.

In addition, he clearly believes their are good ideas put forward by conservatives that Democrats should listen to. If anything, he’s received more than his fair share of guff from leftists who think some of his policies are too far to the right.

Obviously you don’t have to agree with Obama. But in my opinion (and you can take it or leave it) you should ask yourself if you really believe the propoganda on Fox and Hannity about Obama’s radical leftism and his pro-terrorist hatred for America. If you go that way, then you’ve drifted into the arena of the permanently angry and paranoid, and there’s no point in having a conversation with you.

So good luck to you. Ra ra McCain! The last 8 years have been a veritable golden age. Let’s keep it going!

How can you let your female guest make the blanket statement that if a women was going to have a baby that had down syndrome and that women happen to be a democrat that that woman would automatically have an abortion is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard on the radio bar non!

Christopher, lol! I don’t have a television so how can I be taking cues from Fox news?

You, in turn, are free to believe Obama’s rhetoric of conciliation (is that an accurate enough term for you?)

However, you might try looking at his actual voting history and his actual biography to get a truer picture of who he is.

I trust personal actions & history more than the sophomoric effusions about “hope” and “change.”

Kate, so there are many Democrats who believe aborting a disabled child is morally reprehensible? A simple yes or no will do.

Dear Tom, I know that journalists are supposed to practice nonpartisan professionalism in their work but, your guest’s comments today were beyond the pale. I feel you owe your listeners a apology for not shutting her down. Some things go beyond a professional commitment and become a moral issue. Didn’t Walter Cronkite do this when he took off his journalist’s “hat” and criticize the war in Vietnam?

Maybe a bad analogy but I think you get the point.

Robert,

Mr. Ashbrook cannot be responsible for that sort of thing. Just like he can’t be responsible for all of the hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth vitriol that has, on occasion, come from the far left on his shows. Talk radio is simply too messy and on-the-fly.

YES, David, the answer is YES. There are many Democrats who feel that way. I agree it raises significant moral concerns.

However, your “a simple yes or no will do” is NOT sufficient on the LARGER issue of abortion (in my opinion).

Complex social problems cannot be reduced to “yes”s or “no”s.

What about the reality of people’s lives out there?

So, do you agree with Palin, that EVEN in cases of incest or rape, a woman should not have the right to choose?

If you say yes, let me just say that that is a very easy answer for a man to make — who could never ever find himself in that sorry situation.

Also much easier for male judges on the Supreme Court, who will never bear the burden of these laws on/in their own bodies.

———–

That said, I should say that I’m not against rigorous debate on these issues. I’m not against young people (all people) being challenged to think and to address issues of their sexuality seriously and responsibly. As long as the debate fosters understanding, instead of hatred.

The issue of disabled children –and their equal value — philosophically and spiritually — should be championed (in my opinion).

However, my belief is that criminalizing women in difficult situations is not the way, and will not solve the larger issue.

It is beyond sad that anyone believes that Pro Choice means pro abortion. Who would think of it favorably?

I often wonder how conservatives manage to live happy lives, so busy thinking the worst of anyone who isn’t the same as they are. The world would be unbearable, no wonder they have made an art of spinning their mistakes into positives.

YOU ARE ALL FALLING FOR THE REPUBLICAN BAIT AND SWITCH

**when in trouble, create a distraction that re-defines the issue, thus placing the opposition on the DEFENSE.**
——————————————————–
Bristol Palin’s stance on abortion is a simple diversion
by Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin to avoid having to defend their policies when challenged.
——————————————————–

PLATFORM: Gov. Palin is running on the policy of:
1)Family values, 2)STATE control of Female reproduction, 3)BAN on contraceptive devices to promote abstinence 4) State control of sexuality and Marriage options

********************************************************
Questions that SHOULD be the focus:
1) With a pregnant teen-age daughter does Gov. Palin still stand by her Abstinence-only policy?
2) Palin announced that her daughter had made the “choice” to continue with her pregnancy. Why was her daughter given an option? Her policy is no-abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or risk of death to mother.
3) Diagnosed with end-stage cancer, Elizabeth Edwards was severely criticized by Republicans for choosing to campaign instead of spending the time with her children.

Gov. Palin is traveling with a 4-month old breast-feeding newborn, just found out that her teen is 5-months pregnant and might need some extra guidance. Why is she exempt from equal Republican criticism and harassment.

4) Why have Republicans chose to spin the issue of Gov. Palin’s hypocritical social policies, her failure to acknowledge equal responsibility in her daughter’s pregnant state, her lack of judgment in placing her children in the limelight…into a story of triumph for the pro-life movement?

5) Is Gov. Palin using her family for political gain and sympathy from the religious right? Palin has asked for privacy in regards to her pregnant teen yet continues to show off her 4-month old son as proof of her adherence to her proposed social policies. Do you consider this hypocrisy? Mixed messages?

6) The Republican party has chosen to demonize and wrongfully attack Sen. Obama in order to avoid facing the issue of the party’s stance on teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, virginity, and abstinence only education. Sen. Obama and Democrats have said that such issues are private family matters. Can you please answer the question regarding conservative sexual policy?

—————————————
NO WAY NO HOW NO MCCAIN

David and Christopher,

You’re both wrong. Obama is not civil, and he is not a conciliationist. He isn’t post-partum, either.

He’s an appeaser. That means, he likes to appease. Appease means you talk to the terrorists. Don’t appease. Because if you do, it means you are an elitist.

Elitists don’t support our troops on the ground. War is peace. The generals have said that the evil doers are on the run.

Most of the time, the appeasors are defeatists in question, and liberal members of Congress.

Hopefully, one day we will achieve victory over evil. But until that day, there is still many things we must accomplish.

Tom: Perhaps you were Blackmailed, or Paid Off?? Or did you just wash your brain with “Smiley-Face Shampoo”?

You completely checked critical thought at the door.

Palin claims she’s So Happy that her daughter “CHOSE” to have her baby – - when Mrs Palin is committed to absolutely deny all other women THEIR right to chose how to control their own bodies – - situations of rape and incest included! Surely you mentioned this? uhhhh, Nope…

And Sarah is such a success exemplifying her Wonderful “Family Values” that are working so well – - going into the “hardest job on the planet” with a premature Downs syndrome baby she is going to give short shrift to if she is to serve our country well… and a pregnant daughter who is such a great reflection of what a good job Sarah did in combining Work with Parenting already. Sure showed how well the “Abstinence Only” policy works, too – - you know, that same policy Sarah wants to impose on ALL the young women in the entire world. But you let These points slide too, dintcha?

And the “Republican Values” ????? Run a 5 Trillion Dollar surplus into a 5 Trillion Dollar deficit and then say “Oh let’s Go Forward” – - Forget the lies and Blatant Theft that got us here – - – Forget the Constitution – - that “God Damn Piece of Paper” – - that your guest excused the trashing of by saying “In wartime we’ve Always given up rights, but we get them back” – - WHEN WE’RE IN A NEVER-ENDING “WAR ON TERROR” WHEN IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN???? You let that one pass right by without a blink too… swallow hard and smile smile smile…

I gotta say, Tom: Heeeeere’s Your Kneepads – - Man, you really went in for some Serious ass-kissing with the Republican apologists you let walk all over both you and the truth.

You should definitely save this program, because it is the perfect example of the sort of REALLY BAD job of journalism that has helped get us to the rotten state we’re in today.

Oh I get it – - you thought you were a Russian journalist, right? That if you spoke up for the truth you’d end up with a polonium injection or another multiple-gunshot wound suicide?

Real invertebrate job with today’s Rethug FactSpinners, Tom!

Real invertebrate lickspittle job.

Sincerely, Johnny G. Oregon

Phyllis Shlafly identifies with Sarah Palin because they have this in common: they are both outrageous hypocrites. They are such advocates of family and conservative values that they leave their kids in the dust to pursue their quests for power. But those rules are for other women to adhere to, not them.

I don’t see how a woman can call herself “pro-life” and then risk the life of her baby as did Palin. Is the “pro-life” stance merely about NOT having an abortion? Does it not matter what kind of steward you are of the health of your unborn child?

As for Shlafly’s absurd and offensive remark that a Democrat would have aborted her Down’s syndrome baby: If Republicans were carrying their Down’s syndrome babies to term as a matter of course, there would be no need to make Palin the poster child of the pro-life movement simply for doing so. The fact that she’s been touted as a hero for having this baby implies that doing so is a rarity for Republican women as well as for everyone else.

Wow, this thread is a record (so far) for OnPoint 2.0. Way to go Tom (and Phyllis).

Beth-Ann

Great post.

The ability of Republicans (perfected by Rove) to distract working people from their real concerns is astonishing. Depend upon it. The race from here on out will be a fight between those who want to discuss the economic and social reality faced by middle class people (Democrats), and those who want to inflame people with emotional distractions.

If you want to manufacture something that will keep Joe and Jan Q. Public from asking why they’re falling behind, why they work harder but can buy less, and so on, I recommend the following eight topics:

1. Sex. Sex first, sex always, and sex until the end.
2. Pregnancy, motherhood, grandmotherhood. Love of babies.
3. (Obviously connected with 2) Abortion.
4. Fear. Fear of crime, especially, or terrorism. That got Bush elected in 04, but it doesn’t seem YET to be working this time. Just you give it a chance, though.
5. Black oppositional culture. Black anger. Black resentment. Just black people in general. Race in general.
6. Sex. Oral sex. Sex education. Gay sex.
7. Immigrants. Mexicans. Spanish. Hordes of aliens swarming over the boarder.
8. Character. Impressionistic assessments of. Whom do you trust? Do you really know Obama?

Anytime anyone anywhere is talking about any of these topics during an election season, I know someone is trying to SELL me something.

If I were conducting this interview, I would have asked about two people I don’t see on the Republican convention schedule, even though they’ve played important roles in this administration.

The first is Ted Haggard. Ted, or Rev. Haggard, was Bush’s spiritual advisor. They talked every Monday morning on the telephone about Jesus. Then, it was revealed in the liberal media that Ted liked to use crystal meth in the company of a male prostitute.

The second is Jeff Gannon. Jeff was hired by the White House to defraud the press and the public by asking puffy non-questions of White House spokespersons. He even was hired to ask flattering, question non-questions of The Decider himself. Then it was revealed that he had business associations with gay porn websites and a male escort service.

Just an idea.

This one is for Tom Ashbrook: If you can’t call out the most extreme examples of propaganda and force the discussion back onto some approximation of civil discourse, then you’ve let us, your faithful listeners, down in a big way. Regretfully,I can’t take you very seriously as a true journalist any more, since
I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism of your bad journalistic performance this week, to wit:
A) You let your program be used as a forum for the worst kind of political propaganda (see comments on Phyllis Schafly, who is ONLY a propagandist), and abdicated your “moderator” responsibilities time after time.
B) While airing propaganda, you failed entirely to give any air time to the serious 1st-Amendment issue in St. Paul-Minneapolis.
If this site’s html is working, here’re the links to :Amy Goodwin’s arrest and to the arrest of other protestors & independent media folks as “anarchists”.

P.S. If the html doesn’t work, just cut & past the link info (everything between the sets of “”) into your browser.

I have really enjoyed reading all this discussion-there have been many interesting points made, as well as questions raised. That said…

Wow, Tom, I can’t wait to hear your program wednesday. If I know On Point, you will respond to all this and I’m hoping for an interesting show!

There haven’t been any “interesting” points made Angela. It’s just been the same old left liberal mindless ranting. Pity. But thank God they don’t usually vote in our politicians. Hopefully this time they won’t either. IMO most of the people posting above need psychiatrists. When they grow up they’ll learn to trust personal actions & history more than the sophomoric effusions about “hope” and “change.”

David, I’m not sure why you’re so insistent on posting here if you can’t get off your high horse.
I’m sorry I wasted my time trying to reason with you.

Good luck, God bless.

I have to stay on my horse to stay above the collective gutter your fellow posters wallow in. It’s a waste of time to reason people who don’t agree with you? LOL! This is one of the most mindless and unthinking forums I’ve ever come across. Enjoy your little leftist echo chamber – I’m sure it’s comforting in some twisted way.

He’s a troll. David Essing is just a troll pay no attention to him he’s trying to bate people into arguing with him. Then when he receives a comment he does not like he say’s you are insulting him.

If Essing can’t see how nasty Shlafly’s comments were then he has a huge problem.

By the way this is a typical Republican tactic to try to use insults and change the subject. This election we are voting and in huge numbers.

One thing you have forgotten Dave the Troll, is the even if Obama loses McCain does not win, why, because the Democrats will more than enough seats in both houses keep him from doing anything.

hat surprised me was the very negative bais of Tom Ashbrook’s reporting carries against ones who believe that something as harmful as abortion is wrong. It was Christians who used to rescue babies abandoned by the Romans (specially girls) two thousand years ago. I am glad that there are still some Christians living that believe it is wrong to abort babies. I would like to ask Tom Ashbrook to please report on how the abortion industry leaders heavily profit by demeaning human life by their powerful killing establishment, exploiting women and men by telling white lies from the pit of hell.
I think Sara Palin is a wonderful woman with all the humanity one can find in an ordinary person. She handles her problems with faith and grace. Would she make a wonderful vice president candidate? I think she is a good woman that portrays the American ideal. She overcomes “Evil with good.”

Jeff, yes the Democratic party in Congress has indeed succeeded in being an obstacle to reform. You can thank them for the Freddie and Fannie debacle. If you want more of that then you’re a little odd.

And that’s pretty revealing Jeff: try to shut down someone who doesn’t agree with you by calling them a troll. Typical leftist double talk: sound as if you’re “open” to diversity, but in reality do anything you can to squelch people who disagree with you.

Maaza, good post. I hope the far left fanatics on this forum won’t insult you. But I’m not holding my breath.

David Essing: You just keep reminding people with your bitter tone and negative outlook why they are choosing someone who at least appears to be different from the status quo. Of course time will tell if it is all talk and no action from Obama, but frankly, are you really pleased with the actions of the last two terms with a Republican in charge? Are you or your children better educated, healthier, wealthier, or safer than before? I don’t feel better just because a Republican or Democrat is in office which is the line both sides try yo sell us. Come on, we all know that politicians say and do what it takes to get elected, including Obama and McCain. They also choose running mates that have the singular purpose of trying to get them elected. I feel that Palin is just a ploy to try to get the vote of dissatisfied women. She may have more substance than that, but will we ever find out due to all this distraction?

I am curious why you posted here if you didn’t read anything interesting to comment on…

Maaza: I agree that Palin cannot be judged on the actions of her daughter, we were all foolish teenagers once, but will the debate get focused on her and her choices made as a politician, or just the same old abortion debate that cannot ever go anywhere when talked about in the same old way it always has been?

Maybe I’m opening a can of worms here, but can you explain the “exploiting women and men by telling white lies from the pit of hell.” comment further? I don’t quite get what the lies are.

Angela, if you read the posts fairly you will see that the rancour has ALL be initiated by the other posters – and for the simple reason that they cannot stand to hear an opposing opinion on this board.

My beef with Obama isn’t that he’s “all talk, no action.” It’s that none of you can say why he’s qualified to be President (beyond the fact that he’s over thirty five.) True, all politicians use rhetoric; but there are two differences: 1. his rhetoric is quasi-religious nonsense dressed up in a morally superior tone. I would think liberals – of all people – would bristle at this. 2. there exists very precious little behind Obama rhetoric: not much experience, and even less of a track record. But even more importantly, what experience and track record there is SHOWS HIM TO BE A FAR LEFT PARTY PUPPET, NOT AN INDEPENDENT-MINDED REFORMER.

Why am I reading and posting here? I’m a long-time On Point listener. And, I care about my country and what its citizens believe.

I’m not shutting you down, I think your a troll, someone who comes on forums to cause trouble and start arguments just to create drama.

You can say whatever you want. I never said you should not speak. Typical Right wing BS blaming the other person for the crap they create.

I’m not open to the right wing your right about that.
I don’t have any problems with you saying whatever you want, so please fill these pages with your wisdom and incite.

Your blaming the Freddie and Fannie debacle on the Democrats? I think there is enough blame in the housing mess to go around to both parties.

First off I’m not a Democrat and I think in some ways they are worse than the Republicans. They have no backbone in the last 8 years they have not acted like an opposition party.

Phyllis Schlafly has been, for as long as I have heard her speak, a dottering old circus sideshow. She may have been like that even in her younger years, I don’t know, but at this point at the very least she is fascinating to listen to only in the same manner people are drawn to rubbernecking a horrific car crash. Sometimes the worst of our society can be compelling, and in that sense only she is too.

People, don’t feed the trolls. Have discipline. Ignore them.

Jeff:

Right, so you’re (not “your” btw) calling me a troll because I don’t agree with your typical leftist BS? LOL!

And, yes, I will try to provide you with insight (not “incite” – that’s what you seem to specialize in…)

Yes, Richard – it’s best to ignore the people you don’t agree with. What a perfectly mature and intellectually curious fellow you must be

Thanks for the response David, I too am a long tiome On Point listener. I hold no party affiliation and don’t really find Obama or McCain inspiring beyond the “mythology” that their people push about them. Obama sounds great, but I agree he has little track record in politics (maybe that kind of fresh look at the world would be a good thing); McCain also sounds good and solid, if being a POW is enough (which definitly reflects strength and courage),we need to know more about these two to choose a president than what is being discussed now. We, as a nation, will never agree on many issues, but have we lost the ability to compromise forever?

Please help me understand why I should like one over the other…or I will vote for a third party.

The Republicans have had 8 years here and what do we have,

A war that is bankrupting the country

The economy is a mess.

Health care in this country is such a mess, why this is not the number one issue I don’t know.

An erosion of our status in the world, in case people have forgotten we live on the planet with other people.

Global warming,

Energy.

Government sanctioned torture.

And yet here are the Republicans yet again using smoke and mirrors to take the focus away from the issues.

Here we are again talking about abortion and faith.

The issues are being hijacked by the extremist of the right yet again.

This is the issue, the Republicans know that if they keep this up it will distract people from the issues.

They are running against themselves in some ways.

What is wrong with this country?

Angela, I don’t think we’ve lost the ability to compromise. American politics has been, both in the near and distant past, far more divisive than it is today. So don’t despair

I don’t really know who I’m voting for yet. I’m tempted to go for a third party too, but that’s just a protest, throw-away vote, isn’t it?

I’m calling you a troll because you keep baiting people and when they disagree you start in with the insults.
You keep doing this, and you just did it again.

I’m dyslexic so I apologize for my grammar.
In a forum like this sometimes you don’t check enough.

No need to bother with your insight David, I don’t like the right at all and your waisting your time.

Did you vote for Bush?

Jeff, I agree we’re in a very tight spot. But it always seems like the present is the “tightest” spot. The present always seems just a little more than we can handle; overwhelming even. Do you know what I’m trying to say?

Also, much of your lists are long-term trends and are not the result of the Bush Administration. RE: abortion & faith – obviously this is a nexus of issues that gets people of ALL (or most all) political persuasion fired up.

On the other hand, Angela, I do think the national conversation has suffered. It seems that people cannot tolerate opinions differing from their own. That’s sad.

Here’s an example from Jeff:

“No need to bother with your insight David, I don’t like the right at all and your waisting your time.”

jeff, no need to be quite so snarky to David Essing, I do like your 10:48am post.

Thank you David for the smiley face. I have not posted before this, so I have had a great time with it!

I don’t really despair, but I get annoyed that some of these issues that cannot be resolved due to basic differences in peoples thinking over shadow the issues we can all rally to. We only get one Earth to live on and we have forgotten to be good stewards of it.

Maybe it is just throwing away my vote, but if enough of us do it, it should make a statement against politics as usual…i hope…

Angela, I think you may not have been told that a beating heart is stopped by abortion, a baby in the womb writhes when pain is inflicted on him during abortion, limbs are thrown around as a pile of trash in the abortion mills, etc (too gruesome to talk about them sorry). But it is sad to live in a time when we know a lot but care little that these things are going in our own neighborhoods. We treat animals better than human beings. I think the shame of the abortion mills will stay with this generation.

Hard words but it gets even more sad when we have no moral courage to say no to the worst infanticide perhaps since the world began in the form of partial birth abortion. How senseless and hardened we have become. Why are we complaining that our kids kill each other, when we kill with in our own wombs.

On a different note, your name points to the presence of the other world, do you believe there are angels?

Wow all you need is smiley faces to win people over.
David my contempt for the right is apparent.

You want to make fun of my dyslexia go right ahead.
It shows you for what you are, a bully a school yard bully.

You keep making these statements and asking questions you already have answers for.

The Republicans, as I stated are using the Palin drama to take people’s attention away from the real issues.

We need a national health care system not a market.
If you don’t see this as an issue you will one day.
Wait until you have a major illness of someone in your family does. Unless your extremely rich or very poor you will end up with a huge dept even with insurance.
One of the largest causes of bankruptcy in the country is health care debt.

How ironic is it that the Republicans are willing to spend billions of dollars on a war (that should have been started in the first place) to protect Americans from harm and yet they wont spend anything on a national health care system.

“On a different note, your name points to the presence of the other world, do you believe there are angels?”

What?

Before abortion was legal woman had them done illegally.
Do you want to go back to this?

Making abortion illegal will not make them go away it will only hurt women.

Some common sense needs to be brought into this debate.
If you don’t want women to have abortions promote the use of birth control and safe sex.

Wow, this thread is a record (so far) for OnPoint 2.0. Way to go Tom (and Phyllis).

It just shows that Schlafly knows how to press liberals’ buttons.

I’m disappointed at the extent to which NPR listeners are such a microcosm of the larger US electorate. My stereotype was that NPR listeners were better educated, more worldly, and thus possessed of more perspective than the rest of the country. I admit I take an somewhat Mencken-ish view of the American electorate:

“A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.”

or

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

Since provoking liberals is Schlafly’s main source of amusement (and how she appeals to her fans on the right) it amazes me that you would all give her the satisfaction. Not to mention the fact that it’s a distraction from the main topic of this thread..

Peter: “I’m disappointed at the extent to which NPR listeners are such a microcosm of the larger US electorate. My stereotype was that NPR listeners were better educated, more worldly, and thus possessed of more perspective than the rest of the country.”

^^ a nice example of the sort of arrogance so rife among American liberals.

Peter, self-flattery is so comforting, isn’t?

jeff, Just because I appreciate a smiley face that seems to be aimed at compromise, doesn’t mean I am won over by anything. It means that David is being courteous in his response. I agree with you on the health care issue. I did not have health care for 10 years during which my husband got type I diabetes. So I understand the costs of no health insurance and the pain of a pre-existing condition when health insurance is finally available.

Maaza, thank you for the compliment regarding my name. It was given with love by my very young parents who concieved me out of wedlock, got married, had another child, were very poor and unhappy, and got divorced at my mother’s demand. My point in revealing that is I hope Bristol Palin wants to get married rather than being pushed in to it by some one else’s “moral” guidance which could ultimately put her in another statistics catagory: divorced single parent.

Dave there you go again insulting people.

David Essing do you run IsraCast the pro zionist web site?

The more the liberal elitist media smears and disparages Gov. Palin and her family, the more I admire this woman who by the way has met every challenge. The MSM has again shown that feminism isn’t about women, it’s about liberalism. Her daughters pregnancy can open up a dialogue about social issues Americans face beyond just the liberal opinion which is provide birth control to teens and support the killing of life, therefore absolving oneself from all religious and moral beliefs which than can be ridiculed.

Jeff, are you kidding? And Peter’s comment wasn’t incredibly insulting? I was merely pointing this out. His arrogance on display is just unbelievable. My conservative friends argue that liberals are closet fascists. I would like to continue to believe that this isn’t true.

“The MSM has again shown that feminism isn’t about women, it’s about liberalism.”

Well said.

“And Peter’s comment wasn’t incredibly insulting? ”

Not anymore than your responses David.

You didn’t answer the question are you the person who runs IsraCast?

No doubt, Jeff. However, isn’t it interesting that you didn’t call HIM out?

Moreover, when you (or anyone else) are insulted, an insult back is fair play. And I have never on this board insulted anyone without being first insulted.

Apparently, you can say whatever you like as long as you pull the “party line.” Otherwise, you’re something of a pariah – watch out: you’ll be called a troll and everything else.

This board is seriously lacking in diversity of intellectual opinion. And a distinct lack of civility. Probably the two are connected.

I have had disagreements with Peter Nelson, plenty of them.

I was civil until you started in with insulting people.

Your very good at turning everything around so your the victim.

I never said you should shut up, I only remarked that your actions were that of a troll.

Your not adding very much in th the way of ‘intellectual opinion’ as far as I can see. Your just finding ways to put forth the Republican platform ideology.

A person replies that abortion is a complex issue and gives you a very well thought answer and you insult them with the statement ‘a simple yes or no will do’.

That’s really being diverse and open.
You keep insulting people and you keep acting as if your superior for some reason. Go figure.

Peter: “I’m disappointed at the extent to which NPR listeners are such a microcosm of the larger US electorate. My stereotype was that NPR listeners were better educated, more worldly, and thus possessed of more perspective than the rest of the country.”

Peter, self-flattery is so comforting, isn’t?

What makes you think I’m a liberal?

And anyway, I cited the evidence for my comments, which are the emotional reactiona crowd here has had to Schafly’s comments. They’re all there in this thread to read, so show me where I’m wrong.

Right, just as you say, YOU started it. You said I was a troll simply because you couldn’t handle someone disagreeing with you. So I responded. That’s only fair.

There is so much vitriol on this board towards conservatives – perhaps you’re too blind to see that?

re: abortion yes/no stuff….the assertion of complexity and nuance among liberal circles is supposed to indicate sophistication and intellectual rigor. To me it is an indication of precisely the opposite. In any case, I have every right to ask this – and she has every right not to answer. To take this as an insult, however, is beyond bizarre. Sorry I don’t fit into your relativist rubric. Thank god most of America doesn’t.

Jeff, are you kidding? And Peter’s comment wasn’t incredibly insulting? I was merely pointing this out. His arrogance on display is just unbelievable. My conservative friends argue that liberals are closet fascists. I would like to continue to believe that this isn’t true.

The subject of this thread is about the “soul of the GOP” and most of the postings have been an emotional reaction to Schafly’s comments, which is self-evident by looking at this thread.

Emotional “thinking” and lack of hard knowledge of topical subjects characterizes much of the US electorate and the evidence for this in numerous academic studies (e.g., James Curran, Shanto Iyengar, Anker Brink Lund and Inka Salovaara-Moring, ‘Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study’, European Journal of Communication).

My suggestion that role and identity of the GOP is essentially a political science question and should be framed in those terms was (I thought) self-evident but if you disagree, you haven’t said why.

Jeff also thinks I’m arrogant, so maybe I am, but so what? What’s more important is whether anything I’ve said is factually wrong, or does not follow as a logical inference from the facts. You haven’t show where that’s the case – instead you’re reacted emotionally to my perceived attitude.

And your apparent inferences are demonstrably wrong: I’m certainly not a liberal in any conventional sense. I agree with liberals on some things and conservatives on others and I’m a free-trade capitalist with quite a libertarian streak. My views on abortion-choice (pro), gun-ownership (pro) and gay marriage (pro) are informed by my libertarian side.

My main complaint is this thread are that people are thinking with their adrenal glands instead of their neocortex and you’re certainly supporting my thesis.

the assertion of complexity and nuance among liberal circles is supposed to indicate sophistication and intellectual rigor. To me it is an indication of precisely the opposite

This is an interesting assertion – how would you support it?

I’m pretty intellectually rigorous and I subscribe to and read (or listen to in the case of academic lectures) numerous topics in the biological and social sciences, so I’m inclined to agree with the argument that the real world is, indeed, complex and nuanced. I see the entire post-Enlightenment project as a long journey from simplistic and absolutist models of the universe to “complex and nuanced” ones.

But I don’t see how that’s a “liberal” view – it’s well supported in everything from physics to neurophysiology.

My point exactly Peter we have crossed swords and my reaction was that it came across as arrogant. However we still managed to remain somewhat civil and agree to disagree on some subjects. He’s able to banter without acting as if someone has taken away his toys in the sandbox.

Ennis what you do is disagree with someone then when they try to make a point you just keep disagreeing with them until the only thing to do is get exasperated. Your trying to get a negative reaction so you can say “see you liberals are closet fascist.”

Hey you know what progressives have progressive ideas and they don’t like what they see in the Republican party or conservatives.

I fell for the bait and that was my mistake.
It will not happen again.

For what it’s worth I don’t like Obama much, I did at the beginning but I think he’s better than McCain who is in my view the wrong man for this time.

It’s the lesser of two inadequate political parties.

I used to live in Great Britain and I have to say the parliamentary government model has a lot to say for it.
There are 3 parties and it seems to work better than our system. The debates in the House of Commons are hilarious, great political theater.

Mind you could end up with a George Bush for 10 years or more years.

“I’m pretty intellectually rigorous and I subscribe to and read (or listen to in the case of academic lectures) numerous topics in the biological and social sciences, so I’m inclined to agree with the argument that the real world is, indeed, complex and nuanced. I see the entire post-Enlightenment project as a long journey from simplistic and absolutist models of the universe to “complex and nuanced” ones.

But I don’t see how that’s a “liberal” view – it’s well supported in everything from physics to neurophysiology.”

Very good points, I agree and thank you for one of the best posts of the day for me.

For what it’s worth I don’t like Obama much, I did at the beginning but I think he’s better than McCain who is in my view the wrong man for this time.

I’m supporting Obama for two main reasons:

1. I work with many smart scientists and engineers and when you ask them a question and they’re answering it, you can practically hear the gears turning. There is a way that smart people think about and analyze questions which makes it clear that they’re giving it real thought.

I’ve heard Obama in many interviews and he does the same thing. Most politicians listen for a few keywords in a question and give a mini-prepared speech that matches those keyword. But Obama sounds like the people I work with – he strikes me as extremely intelligent and thoughtful and I seldom hear that in a politician. Also, smart people like to be around other smart people so I think Obama will have smart advisors and he’ll actually listen to them. I admit I can’t predict everything he’ll do, but . . .

2. McCain’s voting record suggests it will be another 4 years of the Bush program and I think that progranm has done more damage to the US than any other presidency. By almost every measure, from ordinary workers’ buying power, to economic security, to the budget deficit, to the capacity of our military to respond to threats, to the value of our currency, to the trade deficit, to energy security to our image abroad, to how safe US workers’ jobs are, to science and engineering skills, to protection of our Constitutional rights we are WORSE off! We just can’t risk another 4 years of that.

Jeff, to be honest I can’t make heads or tails of your posts – I think you’re merely creating & setting fire to straw men of your own making. Sounds like fun but I’m not sure what it has to do with me.

The point is, once again, that there is a pungent and vitriolic reaction to conservative opinion on this board. And a lack of civility that derives from a too, too insular conversation among the like-minded. In short, the posters here don’t appear to welcome anyone who disagrees with them. Read the thread again and tell me where I’m wrong.

Peter: “I’m pretty intellectually rigorous and I subscribe to and read (or listen to in the case of academic lectures) numerous topics in the biological and social sciences, so I’m inclined to agree with the argument that the real world is, indeed, complex and nuanced. I see the entire post-Enlightenment project as a long journey from simplistic and absolutist models of the universe to “complex and nuanced” ones.”

You can’t be all that “intellectually rigorous” (my, how humble of you to admit that!) – if you were, you would have realized that your assertion that the understanding of the world/cosmos has gone from absolutist models to “complex and nuanced” ones is incoherent. The assertion that the world is “complex and nuanced” is itself an absolutist statement.

In any case, I have no idea if you’re liberal or conservative or whatnot – I can say, that based upon your statement many posts back (about the ignorance of the American public and their need for your wisdom – lol!) your posture towards the world is a decidedly authoritarian one.

And yes, many of the liberals that I know – academics, journalists, etc. – tend invariably to hide behind the “it’s too complex” to come to any conclusions, and “my opinion is SO VERY nuanced” type of responses. It’s cowardly and intellectually dishonest. There are no easy answers – but there ARE answers. Relativism is a cowardly – yet self-flattering, yet self-deceiving- posture.

Peter,

No one is (presumably, at least not me) that Obama isn’t smart. The guy’s brilliant – no doubt. But that does not mean that he is, at present, fit to take on the most powerful office in the history of the world. Exactly how is he qualified to be President (beyond the fact that he’s over thirty five)?

He has somehow convinced people – via his rhetorical nonsense – that he’s a “reformer.” How. I would say via his quasi-religious rhetorical nonsense dressed up in a morally superior tone.

There exists very precious little behind Obama rhetoric: not much experience, and even less of a track record. But even more importantly, what experience and track record there is SHOWS HIM TO BE A FAR LEFT PARTY PUPPET, NOT AN INDEPENDENT-MINDED REFORMER.

You can’t be all that “intellectually rigorous” (my, how humble of you to admit that!) – if you were, you would have realized that your assertion that the understanding of the world/cosmos has gone from absolutist models to “complex and nuanced” ones is incoherent. The assertion that the world is “complex and nuanced” is itself an absolutist statement.

This is the second time you’ve asserted this without providing any evidence.

Where do you want to start? Physics? Newtonian physics was deterministic; quantum physics is not. The number of known elements has increased dramatically in the last 200 years; the number of subatomic particles continues to increase, as does the mathematics of their interactions; the number of known, demonstrable states of matter has increased in that time, etc, etc.

Or would you prefer biology? They thought they had a nice scheme when Linnaeus came up with his Systema Naturae. But Darwin was the first to complicate that project, as was the explosion of new species discovered (and which continue to be discovered) since the 18th century. And then with the discovery of DNA it became clear that species didn’t stay put even within one genus and organisms routinely trade genes across vast biological boundaries, even without the help of our genetic engineering, so currently there are three major competing definitions of “species” and many scientists suggesting that the whole concept should be chucked. Not to mention the fact that we all grew up thinking that every one of our own cells had the same DNA, and now even that turns out to not be quite true.

And speaking of the definition of “life”, is a virus “life”? What about a retrovirus encoded only in the DNA of a host cell? When GE got the first US patent for a lifeform in 1975 it was just for a genetically modified bacterium. Since that time scientists in several labs have created viruses completely from base-pairs, with no intervening living organism, and they are working on more complex organisms now. Currently the problems are practical, (albeit vast) but there is no theoretical reason why you couldn’t assemble an entire human DNA sequence from base-pairs someday, making appropriate changes as you do.

Or how about neurophysiology? Have you seen the recent research by John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute? It’s only the latest in a line of researchers’ work going back to Libet at UC-SF in the 1980’s which question the existence and biological basis of free will.

We could go on and on through sociobiology and cosmology, etc, etc, but to suggest that our understanding of the universe is not vastly more complex than it used to be, and that this complexity doesn’t introduce interesting new ethical and definitional problems seems odd, to say the least. Have you studied philosophy – Hume, Spinoza, etc? How can you say that we did not begin a journy away from absolutism when you consider their battles with Church authorities over Platonic dualism? (or for that matter, Galileo’s battles with the Church). Could such battles take place today? Do you realize the extent to which our (my) capitalist Adam Smith hero was influenced by Hume? (read up on the Scottish Enlightenment)

I can say, that based upon your statement many posts back (about the ignorance of the American public and their need for your wisdom – lol!) your posture towards the world is a decidedly authoritarian one.

Where did I say they need my wisdom?

Anyway, are you saying that you can have a strong democracy and make wise political decisions if people don’t know the basics of their own nation? If they don’t know what’s in the Constitution, what the major items of the federal budget are, who their elected officials are or how they voted on items they care about, or how a bill is passed into law? I’m trying to prevent authoritarianism because if you have an ignorant or uninterested electorate, that power vacuum will be filled by someone.

There are no easy answers – but there ARE answers. Relativism is a cowardly – yet self-flattering, yet self-deceiving- posture.

You’re long on assertions but you haven’t provided any support for why you believe this to be so. I’m one of the people who think that solutions to social problems ARE incredibly complex, subtle, and nuanced. Please provide some evidence why I should not think so.

BTW, people debate about big problems such as unwed pregnancies, druge abuse, healthcare, or illegal aliens, but to give you an idea, try looking at a small, relatively simple problem: How do we get people to save more for retirement? When you think you have an answer, read up on some actual research on the topic by Professor David Laibson at Harvard. Here are some wonderfully entertaining lectures of his at the London School of Economics . . .

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20071121_1830_thePsychologyOfSavingAndInvestmentStickyBiasesAndTheCurseOfEducation.mp3

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20071120_1830_thePsychologyOfSavingAndInvestmentInvestmentForDummies.mp3

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20071119_1830_thePsychologyOfSavingAndInvestmentIntertemporalChoice.mp3

. . . these are great talks and fun to listen to while driving or doing some routine activity where you want to occupy your mind. I listen to stuff like this while mowing the lawn, raking, house-painting, etc.

Peter I have to say well said.
You are operating on another level my friend.
I don’t read much about science and physics except about color theory.

David your right your input to me is useless. Why? Because I have spent the last 8 years listening to people like you and I for one am tired of it. The Bush and the right have failed. They have all but bankrupted this country and lowered our standing in the world.

Have you looked around lately; a lot of people are hurting financially. Your going to sit here and tell me I should be nice to you and your beliefs because you think one should be civil based on your idea of civility. For one I see you picking arguments with every person on this thread; look at the last few posts.

I spell it out for you; I don’t like right wing demigods who think that they know better.

Does this make me intolerant? Yes it does to a certain extent.
The right has had its day in the sun as far as I’m concerned. They have shut people down for years with rhetoric. Such as if you had any opposing views on the war in Iraq you were pegged as being unpatriotic.

Do feel my contempt for you, no not you personally but what you stand for. I am sorry sir but after 8 years of the worst presidency in modern history I am clear out of pleasant bromides.

Very interesting stuff Peter – some of what you are talking about I am VERY familiar with (and if I had the time I would quibble with quite a bit of it); and some of it I have only a cursory knowledge. However, in your eagerness to impress (who?), you’ve managed to miss my point entirely.

Moreover, please stop pretending that you are providing “evidence.” You may be fooling someone reading this – but you aren’t fooling me.

In any case, (and no, this was not my original point) you are expressing a very conventional idea of history and I have to say that I simply and strongly disagree with your rather historically-provincial viewpoint that somehow we have, via your alleged progress, achieved a deeper apprehension of reality, and one that is unique in history. It’s the modern conceit – and a dangerous and arrogant one at that.

Jeff, I’m glad I could serve as a suitable object for your projections (i.e., this is what I meant by your creating and setting fire to straw men all over this thread) so that you could have your little catharsis. I hope you feel better. In case you need it said more directly: NONE of what you have attributed to me have I ever said or argued.

Haha very funny yes I’m over my little cathartic moment as you say.

“NONE of what you have attributed to me have I ever said or argued.”

Could have fooled me.

David your view points are pointing to the right, you even said you have leanings to libertarian party.

I’m a progressive, not a liberal, I’m not wealthy.
I am middle class. I am registered as an independent.

I think we should have a universal health care system.
As this would be good for small businesses, which are the backbone of our country right now.

Phyllis Schlaffly is an ignorant, bigoted slut – a total warrior whore for the Republican party. Why Tom Ashbrook did not attack her immediately after her asinine comment about Democrats being (I paraphrase Ms. Schlaffly here) pro-abortion, baby-killers is beyond me.

The sad thing for the Republicans is that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in the last 50 years. Balanced budget? Did that. Huge number of new jobs? Did that. 100,000 new policemen to fight crime? Did that. Free trade treaties? Did that (dammit). Promote new business development? Did that. Putting people to work fixing roads — whoops! Did that too. He was brutally smart, knew how to get legislation through, was smart enough to know who to talk to. So here are the Republicans — again — promising to balance the budget, fight crime and smut, create jobs while building more trickle-down fanatasies from the creaky memories of Reagan. All the time knowing it was already done by a Democrat. Bless ‘em!

In any case, (and no, this was not my original point) you are expressing a very conventional idea of history and I have to say that I simply and strongly disagree with your rather historically-provincial viewpoint that somehow we have, via your alleged progress, achieved a deeper apprehension of reality, and one that is unique in history. It’s the modern conceit – and a dangerous and arrogant one at that.

Once again, another mere assertion without the slightest attempt to support your thesis, whatever it is.

Essing, I think you are a poseur. My view of history may be “conventional” but at least that makes it well-documented and accessible. If you have an unconventional “everything we know is wrong” thesis then that places even more of an obligation on you to document or support your assertions.

Nelson, I don’t have time to provide to you a thesis of history – and document it for you. LOL! I’m sure you don’t either.

And ONCE AGAIN, stop deluding yourself that you have actually provided evidence for anything you’ve asserted above. If you say otherwise you’re seriously putting into jeopardy your claim to “intellectual rigor.” Talk about posing! LOL!

Nelson, I don’t have time to provide to you a thesis of history – and document it for you. LOL! I’m sure you don’t either.

You clearly don’t have a thesis of your own; you just like to nay-say other people. Your postings are totally content-free. In the time it takes you to write your empty little rants you could easily point us to some academic writings or authors or articles that illustrate/explain/substantiate your views, whatever they are.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Peter Nelson’s thesis is based on the tenants of the Enlightenment and not on
Post-Modernism and deconstructionism.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Peter Nelson’s thesis is based on the tenants of the Enlightenment and not on
Post-Modernism and deconstructionism.

Yes, this is correct.

So if this is Peter’s (your) thesis and what he is basing his (your) comments on how is that you get it David?

Maybe David is a practitioner of deconstructionism?

Jeff,

Are you referring to my “modern conceit”?? I never said anything about deconstruction or postmodernism. No, I’m definitely not a friend of either perspective. Anyway, the enlightenment deeply shaped modernism in many important ways. If that was what you were meaning to ask.

I was being sarcastic.
I have know idea what your philosophy is or that you have one based on Post-Modernism or the Enlightenment.

I prefer the Enlightenment myself, rational thinking and all that.

Yes the Enlightenment was the beginning of modernism, as well as influencing the type of government we have.

Tom Ashbrook was obviously not keeping up with Schlafly’s viciousness. That is understandable. What I don’t understand is this. When the later caller pointed out how mean spirited her statement had been, she replied that it was “what the data shows,” that “91% of Down’s syndrome babies are aborted.” Well, I don’t have the data, but let’s say that proportion is correct. Tom Ashbrook should have called her on it. If 91% of fetuses diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are aborted, that obviously is such a large proportion that it must include a good many registered Republicans doing the aborting. Has Phyllis Schlafly, the supposed expert, ever looked at the correlation of babies born with Down’s syndrome and the proportion of registered Rep’s and Dem’s in electoral districts? I doubt it. She probably doesn’t want to know the answer.

I’m not shocked that she said that, she’s a hateful old bag. What I am shocked about is that she didn’t answer the question she was asked AT ALL and no one called her on it. I’d love to hear her response to the actual question she was given.

I’m SO glad you featured Phyllis Schlafly on your program and I have forwarded on the link to this podcast to my family and friends. The blinders are now off my eyes when it comes to her Eagle Forum and the Religious Right. In Schlafly’s opinion, McCain will not be the leader of the Republican Party, but instead HE will be lead by her and her followers. In other words, McCain will no longer be a ‘maverick’ but their puppet.

I sure hope that anyone who plans to vote for this ticket will do a LOT of listening, especially to poisonous people like Schlafly. This woman, although ‘book-learned’ is dangerous and hateful.

I still think about her comment. I’ve never heard of her before (am from Canada). Did she ever apologize for that comment?

Schlafly’s comment is a completely fair one. This IS the prominent difference between a Republican’s approach to a known birth defect versus a Democrat’s.

Notice how many pro-abortion advocates are quick to call Schlafly “vicious” and “poisonous”. Compare this to the actual practice of abortion.

Nothing is more vicious and poisonous than abortion itself.