A Moment Of Silence

25 Responses to “A Moment Of Silence”

1. Roger Abramson writes
   September 21st, 2009 4:58 pm

   He’s right.

2. Donna Locke writes
   September 21st, 2009 5:36 pm

   It is not a mistake.

3. MTfan writes
   September 21st, 2009 5:43 pm

   Maybe they endorsed him because they stand up for what they believe regardless of party - something the republicans don’t understand

4. Odom's Tanning Bed writes
   September 21st, 2009 6:12 pm

   It looks like TN RTL sold their souls to Mike Turner. Wonder what they are getting in turn?

   It’s time for a REAL Tennessee Right-to-Life organization that won’t play these games.

5. BluePyramid writes
   September 21st, 2009 6:14 pm

   MTfan, Republicans understand standing up for what one believes, but I think Republicans who take issue with this move by TNRTL are concerned they are winning this battle at the expense of the war and their move will ultimately hurt their cause.

6. Josh writes
   September 21st, 2009 8:27 pm

   Republicans shouldn’t seek the endorsement of TRTL for political reasons. The endorsement should go to those who best represent the pro-life movement. If Republicans separate themselves from the pro-life movement, they will lose a lot of evangelical support. If Republicans lose evangelical support, they are looking at huge losses.

7. Casada's Hair Pommade writes
   September 21st, 2009 10:05 pm

   Poor Glenn, after he loses this race he may be too upset to even fix his hair and go out in public. I also worry for my friend, Jim Tracey’s Hair Spray. I wonder if Jim will feel like fixing his hair after his protege, Pat Marsh, loses. Poor Jim he’s already lost that race once before to one of those Cobb boys and it’s about to happen again.

8. Mark Rogers writes
   September 21st, 2009 10:11 pm

   MTfan,

   What makes TN Right to Life the ultimate arbitrer of what is an acceptable position on anything? Is NOW the authority on women’s rights?

   Do you really think that the majority of Tennesseans actually agree with either organization on the whole of their agenda? Not likely Pilgrim.

   Josh,

   It is the very nature of any democratic society that no Right is absolute. Therefore it is importnt to have groups that defend specific Rights but when they try to impose one Right over others, the system shuts down. That sort of thinking was led to the Civil War.

9. ned writes
   September 21st, 2009 11:10 pm

   “It is the very nature of any democratic society that no Right is absolute.”

   Yeah, and it’s a good thing that we live in a republic.

   Gee, can we agree that TnRtL is the ultimate arbiter of who TnRtL wants to endorse in a political contest?

   This sure sounds like an instance of being damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. And I think TnRtL would damned for not at least once in a while demonstrating it is not a Republican Party stooge.

   If a candidate–if a party, is really concerned about the sanctity of innocent human life, he/it won’t go squishy on abortion out of spite.

10. Mark Rogers writes
    September 21st, 2009 11:56 pm

    Ned,

    So what happens to the political process when Right to Life and the NRA and the Libertarians and the Chamber of Commerce all start demanding 100% loyalty to their agendas?

    Democracy requires compromise. Remember Reagan’s dictum about people who agree with you 70% of the time being friends.

    And, by the way, show me a Right that isn’t somewhat limited by other Rights or by public policy choices.

11. Josh writes
    September 22nd, 2009 5:24 am

    Mark,

    As a Republican, I wish that someone would have run for the seat that was more pro-life (apparently) on the Republican side. The Democrat is considered more pro-life in this case. He got the endorsement. That is the person whom should have gotten it. Republicans have strayed from what much of the base has wanted recently. It has been to their own detriment. Is this another case?

    Furthermore, rights are absolutes. They are self-evident, endowed by the Creator, and unalienable.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –

12. Steve Steffens (LWC) writes
    September 22nd, 2009 7:31 am

    (gets bowl of popcorn, sits back to watch)

13. sueyyyy writes
    September 22nd, 2009 8:43 am

    I always love pro-life men since they’ve all known the “discomfort” of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and the challenge of breastfeeding. I like popcorn too so this should be most interesting.

14. sueyyyy writes
    September 22nd, 2009 8:44 am

    Sorry. As one man told me once, I don’t know the pain of football and being cleated so it’s all equal.

15. TNVolunteer73 writes
    September 22nd, 2009 9:41 am

    Sueyyy

    If you dont like Cow Crap on your feet don’t walk through the Cow pen barefooted.

    I am pro-choice the choice should be made before conception.

    Wait if the woman gets a choice, so should the father, if the woman CHOSES to have the child, then the Child should be her responsiblity.

    Pro-Choice discriminates against the father.

    Hey You are the one that is pro Choice.

16. sueyyyy writes
    September 22nd, 2009 10:02 am

    In case you’ve never noticed some women/girls get pregnant in spite of their “choice” not to: aka, rape, incest, etc. Of course men have a choice. Keep it zipped up!

17. Mark Rogers writes
    September 22nd, 2009 11:18 am

    Josh,

    The Declaration’s use of ‘Rights’ is meant to frame the principles that will underpin America’s new society.

    Please find me a ‘Right’ in the Constitution that we do not limit in some way.

    Life? If you don’t think the death penalty takes care of that, you can be drafted into the military and get killed.

    Property? Taxes and eminent domain.

    Speech? Libel laws.

    Guns? Limits on types of weapons and carry permits.

    Religion? Both freedom of and from are regularly imposed upon.

18. ned writes
    September 22nd, 2009 7:32 pm

    Mark,
    How is the fact that every right is “relative” the “essence of living in a democracy”?(actually, most of the rights are expressly not limited–the limitations come in their application or construction).

    And whichever of those groups is best able to recruit, fund, elect and “whip” elected officials will see their policy preferences prevail. I don’t see a legislator’s job as taking a poll and deciding how to split the baby (pun not intended, but noted). But it is interesting to see so many people assuming that TRtL never really means (or meant) it when they claim to be more principled than partisan.

    Josh,
    I think you’re right.

    Sueyyy,
    I guess you’re arguing that “’discomfort’ of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and the challenge of breastfeeding” are reasons enough to think that abortion is right?

    My (female) wife is every bit as opposed to abortion as I am, though she is wise enough not to waste time arguing about it on blogs.

19. Mark Rogers writes
    September 22nd, 2009 9:41 pm

    Ned,

    I didn’t say that Rights were relative. I said that we limit all Rights when they conflict with other Rights.

    As for TNRtL, I don’t care whether they are principled or just playing for power. Without the Republican Party, they would find their issues getting far worse treatment.

    In this case, whether they are principled or cynical, they are using very marginal differences to suggest that the Republican Party must kowtow to them. That is unacceptable. Unless you want every group to have a litmus test so that American politics becomes even more divisive.

20. ned writes
    September 23rd, 2009 1:21 am

    Well, you said that “no right is absolute.” That leaves, “relative.” I’m sure those pesky Abolitionists really got on everyone’s nerves. Ditto for MLK, Jr.

    “Unacceptable”? Says who?

    This whole debate is ironic, because TRtL would have been content with a couple of the Republican candidates’ positions on the sanctity of innocent human life, and they are content with the Democrat candidate’s views on the sanctity of innocent human life. Is it “[]acceptable” for us to get to vote in the primaries, or should let the GOP Central Committee pick our candidates? I’m guessing you think all us little people should sit here under the table and take what crumbs elected leaders are willing to give us, huh?

21. Mark Rogers writes
    September 23rd, 2009 2:43 am

    Ned,

    Show me an ‘Absolute’ right, one where government does not impose some restriction.

    If you want to vote in Republican primaries but switch sides when your candidate doesn’t win, then don’t pretend to be a Republican. More specificlly, I don’t care how you vote in the General but don’t endorse a Democrat and then come back after the election and try to be a Republican again. That doesn’t make you principled, it makes you a bully.

    Go form Ned’s All Or Nothing Pro-Life Party. Cost the Republicans control of both Houses and see what happens to your agenda.

22. dontcallmemikey writes
    September 23rd, 2009 5:04 am

    “I don’t care how you vote in the General but don’t endorse a Democrat and then come back after the election and try to be a Republican again. That doesn’t make you principled, it makes you a bully.”

    Or - it makes you a person who votes his/her conscience … something the *used* to be the norm.

    Parties are artificial, arbitrary groupings of people who more or less feel the same way. Just because the GOP may espouse some of your beliefs, no person owes them a lifetime of votes … especially since the GOP has made such a long trip from reality to the fringes of society.

    The TnRTL has no debt to the GOP - they want votes. Pure and simple. If they feel Cobb gives them those votes, so be it. Democrats are willing to accept that Cobb may not be 100 percent, but for now he fills most of what they want from a candidate. The GOP, on the other hand, is becoming like the old Chinese or Soviet parties - 100 percent loyalty, and loyalty to party is loyalty to state. And, like in the Kent Williams case, they’re perfectly willing to marginalize themselves even further to make this point.

23. ned writes
    September 24th, 2009 12:18 am

    Mark,
    So are you conceding that you asserted that all rights are relative, and that this fact is the “essence of democracy”? That was a peculiar assertion.

    I guess some things aren’t and shouldn’t be negotiable. I think an example of that is whether or not we should be able to own and traffic in people like property (a major sticking point which led to the Civil War). And there is often a tension between securing influence in the short-term and building for wider or deeper influence in the long-term.

    It is humorous (aren’t you a political consultant?) to hear you refer to playing tough with politicians as “bully[ing].” I must have a different view of whose interests should take priority in our political system. TRL needs to have influence over a majority of elected officials in order to advance its interests, and having influence over the leadership of the majority party is even more important, but–at least for now, the GOP needs to have the votes of pro-lifers to achieve majority status. I think TRL would be right to buck the GOP if the GOP is merely feigning ideological affinity regarding abortion to garner pro-life support.

24. Mark Rogers writes
    September 24th, 2009 12:47 am

    Mikey,

    In some instances I would agree with you. In this case, I don’t. Consider the two reasons that have been mentioned for the endorsement of Cobb, that he will only vote for a pro-Life Speaker and his position on cloning and stem cell research

    As has been pointed out, there is more chance of you endorsing Mike Huckabee for President than the Tennessee House Republicans nominating a pro-choice member as Speaker. Are there even any pro-Choice members in Leadership?

    Regarding stem cells and cloning, those are not state issues.

    In reality the differences between the candidates on issues of interest to TN RtL is probably not very great. But the difference between the two parties on this issue is huge. Given that, why endange control of the House over two issues that are effectively meaningless?

25. Mark Rogers writes
    September 24th, 2009 1:10 am

    Ned,

    No. I didn’t say that Rights are relative. I said that ‘Rights’ in context of the Declaration are like Forms which we humans sitting in the cave try to understand from their reflections.

    Rights in the Constitutional sense are similarly concepts that are to be fleshed out by law and judicial interpretation.

    The Constitution has been amended to abolish slavery, removing that Right from the original document. But does a person have a Right to sell himself or herself to another? Could I offer to do your bidding for 10 years, with provisions about you not killing me or otherwise inflicting permanent harm, in return for $100,000 to pay for an operation for my child?

    Now is there a difference between enslaving someone and someone offering to be enslaved? The former restricts your right to limit someone’s freedom but the other restricts my right to exercise my freedom over myself. Is there a more fundament example of government control of individuals?

    As I asked Mikey, do you really think that the Republicans would nominate a pro-choice Speaker? Certainly you must see the absurdity of that objection to Marsh. Hasn’t the Republican Party done in one year what TN RtL has desired for years regarding the state Constitution? What more could they want?

    Since NFIB endorsed Marsh, why are you and TN RtL opposed to small business? If the NRA endorsed Marsh, why would you want to oppose gun rights?

    I hope you see how absurd and dangerous this is becoming. Do you really want a political process where different single issue groups fight over their individual interests with no room for compromise?

    As for the ‘bullying’ what else do you call someone who says ‘let me win or I will turn over the table and ruin the game for everyone else’?