Republicans “lose” Teresa Sayward to Obama
A couple of days ago, the In Box asked whether socially conservative Republican rhetoric could go far enough in 2012 that it would cost them the women’s vote.
Here’s a big new data point: The GOP has already lost Republican Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward.
I don’t just mean that Sayward has chosen not to seek another term. I mean that in an interview with YNN’s Liz Benjamin this week (video below) Sayward blasted the GOP’s conservative social agenda and tentatively endorsed President Barack Obama.
“If I had to vote today, I’d vote for Obama,” Sayward said, adding, “I really, truly think that the candidates that are out there today for the Republican side would take women back decades.”
Sayward — long an advocate for gay rights and same-sex marriage — also excoriated national Republicans for swerving into culture war battles that pit personal freedom and privacy against religious concerns.
“It’s disheartening to me to see our party move away from what it’s always been about and that is to stay out of people’s lives. Let them live their lives, don’t impose their religion on anybody else. Don’t impose their feelings, let them live and uphold the Constitution. Sadly to say Federally I don’t think that’s happening [with the GOP].”
Sayward has been a popular lawmaker in her district, and in Willsboro, where she also served as town supervisor. Last weekend, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise lauded her as “a tough act to follow.
Tags: election12, politics
.png)
Hurrah for her! Not entirely a surprise, but good news nonetheless.
Good for her to stand up the the bullying.
Welcome to our camp, Teresa. For now we’ll be happy to get your vote, and we’d like you to bring some of your friends here too. We know you’ll keep up the struggle on behalf of the real conservative ideology. Maybe the GOP will eventually be the right place for that, but things change. We do need a functioning two-party system, so when you think it’s the right time to switch your vote back, we’ll have your back.
Assemblywoman Sayward is a true small government conservative and constitutionalist, in a way that few Republicans are anymore.
But it also goes to show that what Democrats now represent are what used to be moderate Republicans used to be.
What about the values that Democrats used to advocate? Pretty much the Green Party is the only choice for progressives.
Like Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers, she is voting with her feet.
Does it say something about a party that it seems to have little to say regarding selection of candidates that represent it! How far does a party go at expecting candidates to ascribe to the party doctrine? For instance a multitude of points make up its platform for the presidential election but do the senators know them, the candidates for the house, the county committee chairman? Or is it the parties each have bigger tents than their opponents are willing to let on?
Franklin Roosevelt joined the Democrats believing he had a better shot at getting elected.
I would probably vote for Obama today also. I need to see what I learn between now and November. She could change her mind again also.
You and me both sister! Republican women are leaving the “angry, white, male”, “barefoot and pregnant”, homophobes in droves. I’m one of them.
She could change her mind?..If she bumps her head!
Following Dede.
Why not stay in as an independant. I’m not sure how long Ms Sayward has been in office. She is the type of people we need in Congress. Free thinkers that see that this is a diverse country and don’t marginalize people that don’t fit a particular mold. The hate mongering by the extreme right has poisoned the politics of this country, and I’m a republican, don’t know for how much longer. Wish she would re-consider.
Teresa will be missed. An independent voice and dedicated public servant.
The Republican Party needs to come up with a better product.
“She could change her mind?..If she bumps her head!”
Maybe but I don’t think so.
Peter, just like the very left leaning part of the democratic party should not have bought the fact that Obama was not that liberal republicans should not buy it that Romney isn’t that moderate. The platform is pretty reasonable just look at his website.
Who cares about the Republican Party? What is important are the ideas. Independents are the future, which does not mean that conservatives even extreme ones are going away.
The Democrats will just split into conservatives and liberals and that will be the new divide.
I mean if Ron Paul is not in the race and my choices are Romney-Newt or Obama I would probably choose Obama, for one reason; he will be the most likely to end the occupations and shrink the armed forces. So she is not crazy although I am surprised she jumped to obama so quickly there are other options.
Mervel, I am not so sure that I would describe it as she “jumped” to Obama. There is a big difference between saying that “if the election were today I would do this” and actually being “lost” to the party as Brian describes it. The election isn’t today.
This is basically what you are saying in this 10:04 comment you probably could change your mind also. If we are at war with Iran and Syria in November you may not want to vote for Obama like you want to today.
Romney made a mistake a week ago and spoke his mind where he told a reporter that of course he does not support a senate amendment to allow a boss to exclude contraception as a choice for his or her employees in their insurance coverage. He said that the government has no place in a man or woman’s bedroom. That is the kind of shift that Sayward wants to see. Of course Romney had to say that he misspoke but once you get out of this right wing morass that is the primary then candidates can speak their mind. But Romney has to get there first.
Same held true for the president. His policies are far more moderate than the rhetoric that he had to use when he was running in 2008. Welcome to the world of presidential politics.
We need two parties to keep everyone honest. Most of us wish that our party or people we agree with would win all the time, but the reality is that that would be bad for the country.
The present Republican Party, at least at the national level, is going off the deep end of nuttiness. They need to lose big so they can reconsider what they are doing.
Paul – yes Romney is probably deep down a moderate and reasonable guy, and Obama is probably a liberal deep down (if I understood all your double negatives). But.. Obama is governing as a centrist and Romney would be forced to govern as an ultra-conservative.
True Paul, I would change my mind.
It’s disheartening to me to see our party move away from what it’s always been about and that is to stay out of people’s lives. Let them live their lives, don’t impose their religion on anybody else. Don’t impose their feelings, let them live and uphold the Constitution.
Not trying to cause a ruckus here today but may I point something out that stuck out to me?
I just heard how the Center of Science in the Public Interest was successful in Coke putting a cancer warning on their product in California.
I understand nutrition guidelines for our benefit. But we all know that primarily, the special interest groups and individuals with this mindset, can be as over the top as some who say they will down their rare double cheeseburgers so stay out of our business.
But here’s my point: Ms. Sayward is concerned about social conservatism and the imposition they place on society.
Aren’t the Liberals imposing their feelings and not upholding the Constitution when promoting demands for food labeling/warnings to the point of micro managing? Aren’t we free to eat what we want to eat?
Kathy – you can still eat stuff (or smoke cigarettes) if there is a warning label on it. I don’t see the equivalence. I suppose we could put a warning label on contraceptives saying that your soul is in danger if you use these. Or a warning label on your marriage certificate saying that if you are of the same sex, or you cheat on your spouse, your soul may be in danger.
Peter, sure you can eat, drink, and be merry with warning labels. But many of these agencies are 501c(3), our tax dollars at work, telling us what we can and cannot do.
There is an unseen “oppression” that goes with the territory. Like everytime I bite into a Glazier hot dog I’m slightly nervous.
So how is Ms. Sayward threatened? Is it wrong to hold to a moral code? Tradition? Maybe some of us do not want our kids to be exposed to social liberalism, either. Ahh, but it would be argued not to enforce it or infringe upon your right not to have a moral code.
Aren’t we both talking about the same kinds of things?
Think about it: just “Merry Christmas” alone is enough to prove my point.
Separation of Church and State taken to unseen heights. We celebrate Christmas only because of one reason, otherwise it wouldn’t be a holiday. Same with Easter.
But the powers that be wish to change the meaning since they are religious holidays and the secular community is offended. In the name of tolerance, no manger scenes, no religious songs sung in school. etc. Well in the name of tolerance, my view is not tolerated!
Have we gone mad?
How far is this going to go?
“Romney would be forced to govern as an ultra-conservative.”
Peter, I disagree. Romney is maybe being “forced” to act like an ultra-conservative, although I don’t really see him doing that, do you? He is leaning that way to get votes in the primary. Just like the president was forced to act like a more liberal guy (close gitmo etc. etc.) when he was running.
Look at Romeny’s plans none of them are what I would call ultra-conservative?
Kathy, everything apparently causes cancer in California despite the fact that it is pretty safe everywhere else.
I agree it is just a waste of money and why bother. I am surprised that they don’t require the waiter or bartender to give you a little speech when he gives you your drink at happy hour tonight! I can’t see that warning label to ignore it when I get my beer or wine in a glass!
Freedom to practice ones religion and separation of church and state are two very different things.
Kathy, I am a practicing Catholic and I hope that I have exposed and educated my children to ACCEPT that there are people who don’t believe as we do. In real life there are different faiths, cultures and genders. Not everyone is the same. That does not make them into to bad people unless they are physically or mentally hurting others. We do not have a right to force others to believe as we do through goverment.
Kathy,
Need I remind you the various religions are tax exempt organizations that are constantly telling everyone what they can and cannot do?
So let’s get rid of all of the tax exempt organizations including the churches.
Snowflake, I agree with you. The Federal Government should not and cannot enforce a religion on its citizens. That’s what the separation of church and state means. That said, the Founders did use God in their documents and prayer in their gatherings. Liberals and those of the secular persuasion wish to remove the name of God. We’re not talking about the various theological interpretations between various churches. We’re talking about God. Period. So what’s the deal here?
Pete, as I was writing, I was simultaneously thinking about the tax exempt religious organizations. I don’t have a problem removing their 501c(3) status. I do have a problem with being offended when we all know that churches uphold a moral standard found in the Bible. Some people don’t like that.
Additionally, I can’t help but emphasize that there is a difference between living a life within moral limits (as many Conservatives believe the Bible provides guidance), and living a life of opposing those moral limits, and then accusing the message as being intolerant, offensive, and/or telling someone what to do through government.
There are extremes in both cases; self-righteous individuals going around policing others, whether it is preaching moral standard or preaching against a moral standard.
I don’t know of any president or presidential candidate who has thought it good to force religion on us. Uphold God and morality as defined by God, yes. Uphold who we know the Founders specifically relied upon (God), yes.
But no one is forcing their personal tenets of faith on anyone.
“…we all know that churches uphold a moral standard found in the Bible.”
Frankly Kathy I see little evidence that churches successfully uphold a moral standard found in the Bible or anywhere else. They preach a moral standard, yes, but uphold it? Not so much. In your next post, you suggest that “conservatives” are known for living life within moral limits; many headlines suggest otherwise.
If some people are oversensitive about “Merry Christmas” and the like, it is because they come from a long history of religion being used as a cudgel, stretching back to the Inquisition, witch-burnings, the KKK and the rants of Father Charles Coughlin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin )
Conventional rules of polite discourse suggest that one should keep one’s religion to one’s self. There’s a lot to be said for that.
Kathy, I think you miss the point in your example. It IS conservative to say “I will decide what I want to eat.” But it is also conservative to say that people should be told what it is they are eating so that they can make an intelligent choice.
It was one thing when people ate grains and vegetables from their own gardens and meat from their own animals and there were no un-natural products available except for whiskey which isn’t too far from a natural product.
But once people start inventing chemical additives that are put in food products it is nearly impossible for an ordinary person to know whether that additive — in your example a carmel coloring — is safe to eat or not. What if they decided to put cocaine into the formula without telling you? Is that their Constitutional right?
What about children? Doesn’t a 12 year old child who buys a product deserve the assumption that the additives placed in their food is safe to eat?
Shouldn’t there be someone to check on the safety of products that are used in foods to make sure they are safe to eat since there are billions of people who depend on a safe food supply of which they have no direct knowledge? What about those Chinese companies that were putting melamine into baby formula? Do you think it was the babies responsibility to decide whether melamine is safe to eat or not?
Walker, no one said the church would do it successfully. Is there any entity on earth that is completely successful? People fall. That doesn’t mean we throw the whole thing out because of imperfection.
Again, the Founders, who were imperfect, included God in the framework.
“But it is also conservative to say that people should be told what it is they are eating…”
Well, not really. It was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican but no conservative, who brought us the “…Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and The Pure Food and Drug Act. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 banned misleading labels and preservatives that contained harmful chemicals. The Pure Food and Drug Act banned food and drugs that are impure or falsely labeled from being made, sold, and shipped.” (Wikipedia again) Roosevelt was the most prominent proponent of Progressivism– pretty much the opposite of conservatism.
Conservatives generally promote laissez-faire, depending on the marketplace to weed out businesses that would poison you for profit.
No Kathy, not in the framework. The framework is the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention God, and it mentions religion only twice.
KHL, it seems like you are splitting hairs with your example of Conservatism.
Besides that, it is not the government’s job to create agencies to tell us how dumb we are about what we eat.
I’m not against the FDA (although I am admittedly not well educated with the FDA’s mission), but I am glad they have guidelines that are excellent compared to other countries.
Finally, I don’t think it’s the 12 year old or the baby’s responsibility. It’s the paren’ts responsibility. Part of what is wrong with how we’ve progressed as a society and nation is that for some unknown reason, the powers that be don’t seem to think that parents have the sense to know how to raise their kids. “Let the professionals do it”. What’s worse yet is parents have abdicated their authority and have let the professionals do it.
Walker, God/Creator is in the Declaration of Independence. Does that count?
Because we see an era where prayer was common place in government gatherings. The first prayer occurred when the British laid siege to Boston in 1774.
Who were they praying to?
It comes down to power and control.
People in general have no problem (unless they really are biased) with very devout practitioners of most major faith traditions including Christianity. They don’t like the idea though that someone or some church is going to tell them what to do or judge them.
As Christians we are pretty well told by our God to spread the Good News, but no where are we told to control or hold power over non-believers etc.
For me as far as morality goes there ARE some public issues where I feel compelled to speak up, but that is it, speaking, I think speech and persuasion is always better than laws and force and control.
Kathy, the Declaration of Independence does not establish the legal framework of the new nation; the Constitution does. Do you think it was an oversight that they left God out of it?
Walker, the intention was to defer to the states on matters regarding to religion.
All 50 states reference God in their Constitution.
Walker, if you are saying legal framework, yes, that is the Constitution.
My comment stated a few posts above said framework only. I was referring to more than just the legal document.
“I don’t think it’s the 12 year old or the baby’s responsibility. It’s the parent’s responsibility.”
Two points: without honest ingredient labeling laws, a parent would be unable to exercise their responsibility, as they would have no way of knowing what was in the products they bought.
And then what do we do about parents who fail to exercise parental responsibility? It’s all very well to say what parents ought to do, but if they don’t do it, what then? Doesn’t it make most sense to get the most dangerous products off the shelves entirely? We used to sell codeine over the counter without a prescription, and Coca-Cola once contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass. Do you want to go back to the days when that was legal?
“…the intention was to defer to the states on matters regarding to religion.”
Would you care to provide a source for that statement?
Walker, I am not opposed to honest ingredient labels but come on, it’s getting a bit loopy. As a mom, I don’t have to buy (and I don’t) most of the food that is full of additives. Mothers have a keen sense of such things. Mothers know how to feed their kids.
Secondly, what do we do with inept parents?Well, define inept. Are you, or someone else, going to tell parents they are inept because you don’t happen to think they should let their kids have blue, sugared drinks or bacon cheeseburgers?
Also, your Coca-Cola claim is not as dangerous as you claim.
back to khl, “But it is also conservative to say that people should be told what it is they are eating so that they can make an intelligent choice.”
and Walker, “as they would have no way of knowing what was in the products they bought.”
I wouldn’t trust the government to tell me, either. Do you how deceptive the word “pure” is in labeling?
How about “natural”.
Let the market sort it out.
Why certainly, Walker:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=84
http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
“Well, define inept.” Well, crack addicts for starters. Take it from there. They are out there.
And “Mothers know how to feed their kids.” Boy I wish! In general, I guess, maybe. But you think obesity is a non-problem? Wow.
So a crack addict mother would be helped with honest ingredient laws?
Obesity isn’t new. It’s also a problem for adults, too. It’s none of our business.
These are issues to be helped within family and community. People helping people. Not passing laws and regulations.
Liberals are guilty, too, for what they blame Conservatives with: telling people what to do.
This probably wraps up the bunny trail I took and I will end with this point Ms. Sayward made:
… stay out of people’s lives. Let them live their lives, don’t impose their religion on anybody else. Don’t impose their feelings, let them live and uphold the Constitution.
That includes over the top nutrition guidelines, parenting, or anything else that is none of our business.