scoutingagain

Gerrymandering is a practice protected by both major parties. It heavily favors the party in current power as well as incumbents, hence there is little incentive for those in office to do much about it. The only hope might be in those states where citizens can put up ballot initiatives on their own.

SA

Yes all elections are run locally. I should have more properly said national office, i.e Presidency. But keep in mind Republicans also lost 9 of 10 Senate races. Even in more conservative states. These losses were much more that just a poor candidate at the head of the ticket.

Here are some of my incredibly insightful suggestions for Republican political strategists going forward:

1. Don't have party leaders refer to women that use birth control as sluts.

2. Don't be the party that proposes vaginal sonograms for women that wish to exercise their legal reproductive rights.

3. Don't be the party that proposes legislation allowing employers to limit access to birth control for women.

4. Come up with a different approach to illegal immigration other than "self deportation".

5. Don't be the party that comes up with legislation that promotes racial profiling.

6. Come up with a different stategy for minorities other than trying to figure out ways to make it difficult for them to vote.

7. If $ 1 Billion didn't buy the Presidency, next time spend $ 2 Billion and explain how Republicans are the party of fiscal responsiblity.

All I want is a rational choice for candidates and I'm not getting it from either major Party. Like Pack I voted for Gary Johnson.

SA

6.

Unfortunately I don't think the Republicans lost bad enough to engage in the kind of platform reforms needed to expand the party. Some seem to get it. Read at least two or three comments by Republican stategists that reflected the sentiment that there just aren't enough old rich white people out there to win national elections. But the Tea Party wing seemed to reflect the sentiment expressed earlier that they lost because they nominated a candidate that wasn't conservative enough, so I anticipate an entertaining Republican primary season in 2016. Looking forward to a Palin/Trump ticket which might be just enough for the rational moderates to finally break away and do something constructive like reach out to blue dog Dems and form a third party.

SA

Unfortunately I don't think the Republicans lost bad enough to engage in the kind of platform reforms needed to expand the party. Some seem to get it. Read at least two or three comments by Republican stategists that reflected the sentiment that there just aren't enough old rich white people out there to win national elections. But the Tea Party wing seemed to reflect the sentiment expressed earlier that they lost because they nominated a candidate that wasn't conservative enough, so I anticipate an entertaining Republican primary season in 2016. Looking forward to a Palin/Trump ticket which might be just enough for the rational moderates to finally break away and do something constructive like reach out to blue dog Dems and form a third party.

SA

On other ballot questions that might have small effect on BSA policies, I understand Colorado and Washington have essentially legalized recreational use of marijuana. Will the GSS be modified to continue to absolutely forbid it's use in these states or will there be wishy washy language ala use of tobacco indicating units "may" forbid or restrict it's use on unit outings or BSA properties. How will units, councils etc. view it's use outside of scouting by adult leadership?

The most entertaining piece of election coverage I saw while clicking through the channels was watching Carl Rove in denial about Ohio after every network, including FOX had projected the state for Obama. About the only thing I saw during the election campaign and coverage that came close to being worth the some $2.5 billion spent on it.

SA

This was the lead story on the late local news here as well. Also heard the NPR piece and it's been in the local papers. Lots of mis-information on what's in the files and the BSA has not done a good job of explaining what they are. Must be trained by Obama's media team.

Not matter what, this is not the kind of publicity we need.

SA

What NJ said could easily apply to us as well. So far so good, but the perception these cases creates does not help.

SA

It's not so much that Fox out and out lies,it is the way they present a mix of news and analysis that its not easy to tell when they are reporting fact versus opinion. Its also the mix of stories they choose to cover. There have been times they've reported complete misinformation, as have other news outlets. Fox just seems to do it a little more often and its always news/information thats pro-Republican/Conservative. For yuks try searching on Fox News on Factcheck.org. Do the same for the other networks.

BTW, MSNBC is at least as bad a Fox when it comes to objective reporting.

SA

It's not so much that Fox out and out lies,it is the way they present a mix of news and analysis that its not easy to tell when they are reporting fact versus opinion. Its also the mix of stories they choose to cover. There have been times they've reported complete misinformation, as have other news outlets. Fox just seems to do it a little more often and its always news/information thats pro-Republican/Conservative. For yuks try searching on Fox News on Factcheck.org. Do the same for the other networks.

BTW, MSNBC is at least as bad a Fox when it comes to objective reporting.

SA

No, the banner adds have no influence on my voting decisions.

As far as political analysis goes;

1. I don't believe anything adds on television or radio, printed material or other material put out by the campaign's or their surrogate PACs or political parties.

2. The last Presidential debate confirms that one should not believe anything the candidates say either.

Not to mention anything put out by FOX or MSNBC.

Doesn't leave much to go on, with the possible exception of a handful of written media, but that requires one actually read something and assess the content's veracity through other independent sources, that hopefully are not overtly biased.

Getting the straight scoop on a candidate or a political question in general is difficult work. One would hope the media/press would do a better job of correcting misleading information, but they have become part of the problem, not a solution.

SA

"the sponsoring organization is left without cover for not accepting gay leaders."

Exactly. If they feel strongly about the leadership qualities of gay individuals they will be free to not accept them. But they will have to do so based on their own convictions and not hide behind a "National" policy. It's currently the same way for women or religion.

I can't think of much that is more pointless than arguing about which of the two main political parties is morally more superiour than the other.

SA

I was going to bring up the same point. The whole idea of local option as it's currently practiced with gender and religion, is that the CO can set their own membership standards and I'm not aware of any litigation or legal issues with units that don't allow women in certain leadership roles or units that only accept members of a specific religion.

SA

"Why is it that we're only now discovering that the Constitution gives special protections to homosexuals? "

There is nothing in the constitution that gives homosexuals special protections or rights. Most court cases have basically said there is nothing in the constituion that DENIES homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have. That's why the social socialists have had to go back to their legislatures to pass laws to specifically deny homosexuals certain rights and priviledges enjoyed by heterosexuals. The social socialists have used the power of state and federal goverments to deny a specific subset of the population the right to marry who they choose to.

So let's understand who's imposing their views on who through the government.

SA

The downside to this is that the BSA has become so identified with this issue. If it truely wants to serve a broad spectrum of society it needs to be off the frontlines of the culture wars otherwise it runs the risk of being percieved as a subset of one side and ignoring or offending the values of half the country. It is not a sustainable position for membership growth.

There's a reason Chic-fil-et changed it's offical policy on gays. It has nothing to do with the owner's personal position and everything with wanting to be growing business serving a broad customer base.

If the BSA wants to become a cultural icon for religious conservatives they have every right to do so. However they will leave a great many youth that could benefit from the program behind.

SA

I'm not a big Romney fan, at least not the current version of the man and his party. But I don't totally put much stock in the polls. If Democrats think the race is won they are in big trouble. They need people to believe Obama could lose unless they get out and vote for him. We also have 3 debates to get through. Romney may be down by a touchdown or two in the fourth quarter, but there's plenty of time left to come back.

Then there's this. " Its like the super bowl. You just come out rooting for your guy, but you dont change loyalties when the other team wins. " That's the problem with today's politics. People see their "team", "tribe", "guy". Not the country. Most have mindlessly sided with one team or the other. Only a small fraction of the electorate seems to try and analyze the policies and views of each candidate and make an informed decision. The rest are watching FOX, listening to talk radio, NPR and MSNBC to hear stuff they agree with and not challenging their own assumptions. Gary Johnson is looking better & better.

SA

I'm thorougly disgusted with both parties as well and have considered voting for Johnson and may still do so.

SA

"Counseling, education, torture "

Like I said, allow the principal to beat them with a stick before providing the pill. It apparently works in some school systems for plagerism.

SA

"See the Warren vs Brown race in Mass"

If Scott Brown were to run as an Independant he'd win easily. His biggest negative in Massachusetts is the scarlet® behind his name. Heck they guy didn't even go to the Republican National Convention because he didn't want to be seen with the national crowd. Mitt Romney was a strong backer of Brown in his initial Senate race. One of the few prominent Republicans to do so. Now Brown barely acknowledges any association with Romney.

SA

"Romney has said he would prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions. "

Romney has said a lot of things he says he didn't mean or believe. If they guy said the sky is blue I'd have to go check. Full disclosure: I did vote for Romney for Govornor and thought he was a reasonably decent cheif executive. At this point though I can't tell if that's the guy that would show up in the Oval office or not. I'm inclined to go with the devil I know.

SA

I may have forgotten the Death Panel. Havn't run into it yet.

SA

"Mass. Democrats out number Republicans 3 to 1. Basically it's a one party state."

FYI, Registered independants outnumber both Democrats and Republicans.

As a resident of MA and having been under Romney care for the last 6 years or so I can say that as one who is employed and has access to health insurance through my employer the biggest impact of Romneycare has been.....um....hmm... can't think of any.

The biggest impacts have been to the previously uninsured. The primary goal of health insurance reform more that 6 years ago was to address the issue of those not covered by health insurance. Under Romneycare, 98% of MA residents are now covered by some form of health insurance, and those that are not, and can afford it, now pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance. I know Romney said it wasn't a tax until his handlers told him to say it was a tax and I'm OK with calling it a tax. So when Romney says he didn't raise taxes in MA he's not telling the truth. Suprise. Another major difference is reasonably priced health care insurance is availabe to the individual through the insurance exchange. One no longer needs to be tied to a company sponsored plan to access affordable health care insurance. The biggest downside has been for the newly insured to find a Dr. So many people signed up for health insurance there is a shortage of primary care physicians.

Generally polls have indicated people approve of Romneycare by a 2:1 margin or so. There hasn't been an exodus of businesses from MA due to health care insurance. Some small businesses may have been affected as they are now required to offer(offer, not pay for) health insurance. Yes, the cost of health care insurance has gone up over 6 years but not more so than nationally.

Romneycare was the Republican approach to universal health coverage. It relies on the private insurance market. As Beav noted earlier it was essentially a program developed by the Heritage Foundation in response to Hillarycare which would have been more like a single payer system. Republicans generally supported Romneycare, including the individual mandate, until it was implemented by Democrats. If Romney had been nominated in 2008, he would have highlighted it as one of his signature achievments as Governor. Republicans would be extolling the virues of the individual mandate as the essence of individual responsiblity and Democrats would be attacking it as a sell out to the insurance industry and the individual mandate as a tax increase on those that can't afford it.

So it's not just Romney, it's nearly the entire Republican party that's flip flopped on this.

SA

" I am not enamoured by either candidate but I am much more inclined to vote for the guy that did not double our national debt in three years "

FYI, Ronald Reagan is not running in this election.

Through the end of fiscal 2011, the National Debt has increased by approx. 38%.

Republicans are NOT the party of fiscal conservatism. Not that I believe that Democrats are. There may be good reasons to vote for a Republican candidate but being fiscally conservative is not one of them. As Governor of Massachusetts Romney dramatically increased State revenues through additional fees and implemented the largest broad based tax increase in years. Romneycare. The idea this guy is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

He is, as Pack has pointed out and by his own admission a pretty pragmatic business person and is capable of making decisions without regard how they impact individuals.

SA

"and that homosexuals be executed. "

Does that mean homosexuals would be ineligible for leadership positions in some Iranian youth organizations? It would be good to know if we shared some values.

SA

Yes, those Northeast liberal elites simply don't know how to control their children. Perhaps if they were more like Texas, children would know their place in school.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/25/texas-school-district-changes-corporal-punishment-policy-after-complaints/

A reasonable compromise would be if a student requested birth control or the morning after pill, they would be beaten by the principal before the request was granted. Personally I would have requested being spanked by my sophmore English teacher but never had a need for the services then.

SA

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)