FOX News gives $1 Million to republican Party - Page 2

However, you're assuming that all these actions will be additive in opposition; they might just as easily be additive in support.

Imagine putting on a campaign ad that says, "The Republicans supported a bill in Arizona that required aliens to produce documentation of their legal status if stopped by the police." Guess what? 70% support in the U.S. for that law.

Campaign ad: "The Republicans supported keeping the Bush tax cuts." Republican ad: "Yes, including indexing of the standard deduction to inflation, the elimination of the marriage penalty, and the elimination of the "Death Tax." About 70% support for those items in the U.S.

Campaign ad: "The Republicans opposed the building of a Muslim Cultural Center in New York." Republican ad: "Yes, a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, on a lot where the landing gear of Mohommed Atta's plane's landing gear came to rest, and financed by money from Saudi Arabia and Iran." At least 60% current support in the U.S.

Campaign ad: "The Republicans helped pass a Proposition in California that outlawed gay marriage." Republican ad: "Yes, it restated Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as one man and one woman." About 60% support in the U.S., maybe more.

It MAY be that each of those items will activate a dedicated opposition to the Republicans running for office. Or it MAY be that each item will pick up a little more support for Republicans running for office.

But I hope you can see how these issues are not as clear-cut as Democrats wish they were.

Why do you always try to put words in my mouth that I didn't say? Where did I say anything about Congress????

I'm talking about at the Tea Party rallies.

Your attempt at humor and deflection only weakens your stance.

And why are you ignoring my other points?

Again, mrblanche, brilliant reply. And I'll bet those campaign ads will come to fruition and be positive for the Republicans running. I think the Democrats are scared that they might lose the house in this election, and they should be.

This was sent to me recently - a Dr. Seuss spoof - but contains some interesting points discussed here:

Simple. Because Murdoch's donation was about Congress. His corporation didn't donate any money to little bands of wandering minstrels in the street yelling and waving signs. They aren't the issue he's trying to address. The inane ramblings of Republican politicians like Bilbray, Kyl, Graham, McConnell, Maynard, Renacci, Gingrich, etc., are what he's trying to bury in the lower levels of the news to take the heat off the party.

Why try to change the subject to the Tea Party? They claim not to be fully Republican anyway.

Exactly. Which is why I keep digging for the "why's" of the subjects. Muslim Americans died on 9-11. Muslim Americans are fighting terrorists as we post. Muslim Americans are going to work, going to worship, loving their families and friends...and their nation is hating them as a whole. A large number of the campaign ads you mentioned above sound good, until you are finally able to dig out the hatred they came from.

It's the same with gays. It's NYC, no doubt gays died on 9-11. There are gays fighting terrorists as we post, but are forced out of hatred to keep their identities a secret in order to be able to serve their country. Gays are going to work, going to worship, loving their families and friends...and they are being hated as a whole.

They don't sound nearly as good once they are forced to spell out the "why's".

How do YOU know what Murdoch's donation was about? You're a mind reader? And how would that be any different than the dozens of higher donations made. You completely ignored mrblanche's post:

Your hit and run and change the direction tactics defy sensible debate.

By the way...have you noticed who the donation was actually to? The Republican governors' committee.

I know that it wasn't about the Tea Party. They claim they are a grass roots group without party affiliation. That means your reference to the Tea Party didn't even pertain.

I didn't ignore his post. It, in fact, gave credence to mine. Murdoch went far, far, far beyond any single donation ever made by any other group. He isn't stupid, he knew his detractors would jump all over it. Which means, he did it TO be jumped all over. Why do you think he would do that?

Boy, you've got me puzzled. I think I showed pretty well that these donations are not uncommon, and, if anything, the bulk of the donations from media organizations and leaders have gone to Democrats, not Republicans.

And there's the problem. You (and many Democrats) seem to be willing to assume that "hatred" is at the base of those points. You can't imagine any positive reason for their beliefs, so those beliefs have to be based on "hatred" of gays, "hatred" of Muslims, "hatred" of the poor, etc.

And many Republicans ascribe similar motives to Democrats. They are inspired by "hatred" of the wealthy, "hatred" of the successful, "hatred" of Christians, "hatred" of the military, "hatred" of our capitalistic system, "hatred" of freedom.

Until both sides can concede that the core of the other side's beliefs and issues is not hatred, but concern for the country, for the people around us, for our families, for our way of life, for those less fortunate, for freedom in the world, we will never be able to have a reasonable dialogue.

Personally, I don't hate gays or Muslims, and I doubt the President hates the American way of life and capitalism. When we talk in shorthand, we get responses that are based on gut reaction instead of reason. To assume otherwise is to go down the very path of bigotry that Democrats claim they despise.

Those "assumptions" come entirely from there being no explanation given. Using the current example...the mantra seems to be that "bulding a Mosque at ground zero is disrespectful!". Ok, when is someone going to explain WHY it's disrespectful? If completely innocent New Yorkers are being called disrespectful simply because of their being Muslim and their existence in that neighborhood, then that IS hatred.

I completely agree. But I am drawn to the commercial from a few years ago when the mother told the child that wanted to play with her black friend, "why don't you play with those kids over there instead", pointing to a group of white children. Her daughter just asked "why?", and Mom had no answer.

There is that same hesitance to giving answers here. Why is that? What is there no explanation as to WHY Muslim New Yorkers shouldn't have facilities in their own neighborhoods?

Again, I completely agree. I'm just trying to get past all the shorthand (or sleight of hand) on these issues.

Actually, I think she was just pointing out the part of your post that she thought I didn't respond to. I think...