Sadly, No!

Uh, nope.

Hey, an abusive daddy is still daddy, right?

some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

In the spirit of bipartisanship and reconcilliation I extend my hand to Mr. Rove and say "Finally we agree on something.."

Kevin - Do you expect the Democrats to court Evangelicals?

Is using OFB (or any gov't dept) for partisan purposes illegal?

Kind of like Blacks in the Democratic party.

The Republican Party is just a criminal organization, through and through.

They're going to catch on, and the Foley scandal might make them catch on this month -- and, while it might not mean votes for Democrats, it might mean fewer votes for Republicans as the conservative Christians retreat to the purity of their churches and away from the impure hurlyburly of politics.

And that's fine with me.

Cleverly done. Phase II in the attempt to cut the Republican base out from under the next election.

Kind of like Blacks in the Democratic party.

I guess you think that whole civil rights/voting rights thing was just a big con job.

rnc is correct. Phase one being the massive explosion of the debt, the ignoring of the Constitution, and the placing of the electoral interests of the party above the welfare of 16 year old children.

... are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?

No.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

So how long will it take for Rove to make Kuo either retract his story or insist that he was misquoted. Longer than Diulio or O'Neill?

No, Phase I was, among other things, the Foley scandal and "Allen is a Jew."

Believe me, Democrats do not want to be running on the economy or national defense. Getting conservatives to stay home might do it.

Democrats have never been able to win on what they really stand for. They can only make Republicans lose.

Five bucks says the next shot will be the "Bush abortion" urban legend.

If the Republicans cynical attempt to exploit the Schiavo case didn't make it superabundantly clear that they despise the people who vote for them, it's hard to know what would.

rnc, what flavor is the koolaid on your planet?

That's true rnc. If only babs had aborted her trisomy 21, GW, much of this self induced national misery could have been avoided.

That particular group has an enormous capacity to ignore facts and evidence in favor of what they want to believe, and they particularly reject statements from "outsiders," regardless of the evidence on which the statements rest. So I would say that they will ignore all the problems as coming from Satan or Satan-inspired people.

Do you expect the Democrats to court Evangelicals?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth

Actually the Democrats have more in common with rank and file evangelicals than most think. For the most part they are just Americans like you and me. They are looking for stability and hope in a very scary world.

The evangelical leaders on the other hand are just as cynical as their Republican clients.

5 will get you 10 that guys like Rove were saying this behind the backs of the evangelicals:

"...poor Jesus, he didn't get paid for walking on the water...".

It would be in his nature to say something like that.

But then again, both the 'Pukes and the bible-thumpers had a scandal like Foley coming to them and chewing a big chunk off their asses.

Karma can really suck at times.

Believe me, Democrats do not want to be running on the economy or national defense. ... rnc at 10:30 PM |

As long as the Bush regime makes fools of its followers, its only followers will be fools.

Of course the Democrats can run on thier economic and defense record. The Clinton admin saw a booming market, fiscal responsibility, and effective action in the Balkans. At the current count, Clinton is definitely a better war president than GW. The Balkans puts him ahead. The democrats at least run government. The republicans are trying to grind it into the dirt.

The democrats are not great. But republican administrations have out spent previous democratic ones, time and again.

What is this economy/defense thing? The republicans are proven loosers in both these areas. Are the democrats asleep?

The not so bad lack all conviction while the predictably inept are full of a passionate intensity.

rnc

From your point of view as a partisan outsider, what do Democrats really stand for? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ron - did you hear the McCaskill-Talent debate on KCUR?

Evangelical conservatives will ex-communicate Kuo before they believe anything bad about Bush.

Wow, this increases my respect of Tucker Carlson slightly ...

re-reads the part of Al Franken's "Lies" where Carlson was dishonest about the Paul Wellstone memorial

Nope, still a hack.

Who Would Jesus Defraud?

are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?

Since they live in a faith-based world, the answer must be No.

A significant portion of the actual questions posed by Democrats to nominees to the Federal courts are veiled -- clumsily (and phoned in to Schumer, Kennedy, et.al., by the likes of People For the American Way), but really mean: "Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?"

That gets folks attention. Also there's that general condescension, vituperation and mockery thing from the secular left. The Goldberg, Phillips, NPR, TPM, Kos/FireDog, "authoritarian" tag is a blast too. Love those guys.

Karl Rove is a slightly more sophisticated version of Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes of A Face in the Crowd - Distain for the "hicks" who support him - Could only Karl have an open mike and rolling camera moment as well.

Global,

Missed the fireworks - Really liked her, but Talent seemed to attempt to come off as a "Gosh, I'm really reasonable and a nice guy" - Was this an attempt to play beyond his base?

Believe me, Democrats do not want to be running on the economy or national defense.

This is what comes of people simply believing stuff, without actually looking out the window.

Democrats: budget surplus
Republicans: secret earmarks, budget deficit

Democrats: North Korea stops building bombs, nothing happens
Republicans: North Korea starts building bombs, d etonates one. Ignore 9/11. Bomb Iceland when something happens in Mexico. Use invented "War on Terror" to scare people and win elections, while doing nothing about actual terror - and why should they? As long as they accomplish nothing, electorate seems to believe they are accomplishing something. Until, that is, recently, when electorate begins to wonder what all this money and all these dead people are actually accomplishing.

By all means, let's have this conversation. A party that can't actually do anything with the government they control, is going to make us safer? Hohohohohoho!

Lemon.

I do not know if Ted Haggard still meets regularly with the president, but Bush believes in what these evangelical conservative leaders have to say, and people like Haggard are beyond 'nuts.' They really want to create an electoral block of righteous servants to control elective office and assert their agenda. The people who follow them will not give up the ghost easily. The power of large groups and mass media has been harnessed by evangelical conservative leaders, and the people who follow them do not obtain mainstream information without a fine filter and a direct admonition to honor and obey God's anointed.

"... are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?" Kevin Drum

After just watching Bill Moyers tonight on the question of whether God is green in regards to the burgeoning environmentalist movement, or as they call it creation care, within the Evangelical movement I think this process is already underway. I think what has been happening are the pebbles at the beginning of the landslide within the base of the Evangelical movement moving them away from the cynical exploitation by the GOP powerbrokers. Ever since Reagan brought them in along with the then young Turks within the political element of the Evangelical movement (Ralph Reed for one example) they have been a strong base for votes to gain/hold elected office/power with only lip service to their agenda. They are seeing just what kind of success having a so called born again President with a "Christian" GOP party controlling both houses of Congress has brought them and even for a mindset that is first defined by the tenets of their religious faith it is hard to miss just how little things have changed for the better for them.

I think the GOP and many of it's partisans that today mock the idea of evangelicals and the liberals/lefties ever making common cause are going to be in for a very rude awakening in the not too distant future, and I am going to love watching their shock as the "nuts" they have relied upon for political power stop being their sole vote preserve. I really liked one comment I heard from one Evangelical on that show, that to be Biblically consistent can require political inconsistency. Indeed, one of my reasons for holding the current leadership of the religious right in such contempt is how blatantly they have sold out their faith to the service of a political agenda/ideology instead of the greater agenda/ideology of the faith they claim to profess believing so deeply. I grew up around true faith holders and I respect true faith holders as I have mentioned in the past. These are not such, their so called representatives here are not such, if anything they resemble in the Bible most are the Pharisees.

...if anything they resemble in the Bible most are the Pharisees.

Yeah, that was always my pet name for Charlie the Troll.

Crooks and Liars has video of Olberrmann covering the book:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/11/olbermann-exclusive-dissecting-new-book-tempting-faith/

Craigie the sad thing is that this current crop of trolls don't even try. They just type whatever over-used retread line of sh*t that pops into their head.

btw are you busting out the wig for All Hollow's Eve?

The whacked out Jesus freakshow? Kevin, your preaching to the choir. The bible thumpers were hijacked by Rove and we all knew it in 2000. Tucker is seeing the writing on the wall...finally.

btw are you busting out the wig for All Hollow's Eve?

Huh? Is my cover blown?

Surely someone would want to use those Rove-via-Kuo quotes in an ad about Foley. If the shoe was on the other foot, the Repubs would do it in a flash.

The Republican party at the moment looks like the British Tories in 1996 more than anything else. John Major sought re-election based on a 'Back to Basics' fake moral campaign while Tory MP after Tory MP got caught up in sleazy sex or corruption scandals.

It's the self-serving cynicism and hypocracy that ought to be the story of Foleygate. Appointing him chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children while knowing of his taste in under-age teens.

The only part of this story that's hard to believe is that evangelical leaders, the ones who actually get to vist the White House, are religious nuts. One would assume that they are just cynical con-men, Robert Tilton types, birds of the same feather as Rove.

Pssssst...Hey, Republicans hate gun owners too!

Like I said a few days ago, are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?

FDR was accused of conning the social liberals and socialists. It was even said, in 1937, the "The New Deal is dead."

True believers are always disappointed by elected officials.

It was the center-left that brought direct funding for private and parochial schools to the Netherlands. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen here.

I don't know if you've ever read Gary North's books, but even his friends call him Scary Gary. I am a Christian person but not an end timing, rattle snake kissing fatalist hypocrite, and their are many of us that aren't.
Plz Don't blame all Christians for the behavior of the action of these politicians. This is certainly fallout from the Abramoff, Delay, Cunningham, Safavian etc that they have seen or heard about, and well, too bad it had to hit the Republicans Around election time. Tsk Tsk.

Dang what happened did someone shoot the trolls with SOMA?

It is unlikely the Christian right will accept the national Democratic party (local is different). The Democratic Party kicks racists, homophobes, etc. but anyone who slams Christians is welcome. The Christian right gets access with the Republicans, and ridicule with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party kicks racists, homophobes, etc. but anyone who slams Christians is welcome. >/i>

Name me one national Democratic Party leader who slams Christians. Just one.

*crickets*

Razorboy -- please don't use trisomy as a butt of a joke. Trisomy 18 was one of the most painfully sad things ever to happen to our family.

We offer a variety of travel related services, including discount and cheap travel, travel guides, cheap insurance quotes,discount hotels, hotel chains, cheap airfare, and discount car rental.

If I had to diagnose Bush, I would say he more likely has hypoxic/ischemic brain damage. Or syphillitic sementia. Take your pick.

Democrats have spent 2 generations mocking religious conservatives, and they wonder why Evangelicals don't vote Demo ?!?!?!

Gee, Frazier, what a fascinating point. Workd long on that?

The two party system has maybe another decade, then we will have at least one more on the national stage. If I were a betting woman - and I am not - I would venture the hard right social conservatives will be the core of the Republican party, socially moderate but fiscally conservative voters will be in the Democratic camp, and the first third party to garner electoral representatin will be liberal socially and fiscally, with environmental issues at it's core. Like the Green Party in Europe or the Pacific Party in the Pacific northwest.

I could be wrong. I'm not after Jeanne Dixon's gig. Just pure speculation.

Of course Democratic candidates for higher office hate Christians. That's why Carter taught Sunday school and Kerry goes around with a Bible and a rosary. Dukakis practices Greek Orthodox Christianity because he hates Greeks, Orthodox people and Christians. It's all part of their evil plan to hijack Christianity by getting a Democrat elected Pope, like that Heath Ledger movie.

Thank all you conservatives for your brilliant insights that a handful of party activists represent the views of a party's leaders. I had no idea that kid with a Che shirt in your freshman philosophy seminar represented FDR, Stevenson, JFK, LBJ, RFK, McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Apparently this is a completely uniform group. It's nice to know that. That makes things simpler without all those pesky facts and nuances.

The worm is turning folks, and what a show it is! My evidence? An incredible night of television, full of people who truly get it. These voices had no platform a few years ago, now they are all over the place. Their influence has got to be powerful.

1. Bill, “national treasure” Moyers. He reported on how the evangelicals are becoming environmentalists and breaking with the Bushies who they accuse of being in the pockets of the energy lobby. "You can fool some of the people some of the time..."

2. Jon Stewart. When has such an effective voice for progressive ideas (or any kind of ideas, for that matter) ever been heard on the national scene? Can’t forget Steven Colbert, either.

3. Anna Quindlen on Charlie Rose. She said about 20 true things. The Dem candidates have only to listen to her. It is our job to make sure they do.

4. The best was last. Eve Ensler, author of “The Vagina Monologues” on Tavis Smiley, absolutely blew me away. She is so quick, so well spoken and so right, she gave me tears and goose bumps. The women came across as anything but the cold “feminazi” formulation of Rush Limburger. They were love and compassion and family and every good thing incarnate. That is how you win.

5. With the Repuglies everywhere falling on their faces and with so many effective voices for goodness out there, this has to be the end for the whole Republican gestalt of fear and loathing. If God is on anyone’s side it has got to be the Dems. Follow these people and we can not only turn the country around, we can turn the world around.

If the Republicans cynical attempt to exploit the Schiavo case didn't make it superabundantly clear that they despise the people who vote for them, it's hard to know what would.

Gawd, that was awful. And I was so ashamed of my Senator, Bill "long-distance diagnosis" Frist. He's a Presbyterian from Belle Meade (the toniest, old-money-est of neighborhoods/townlets in Nashville). But he was out there in front of that thing, and at Just-Us Sunday like he was a foot-washin' Baptist from Bug Tussle.

And that's not even getting into his pissing all over the Hippocratic Oath, not only with Ms. Schiavo, but with his insistence that AIDS can be spread via sweat and tears. The man was a successful heart-lung transplant surgeon. There's no way he believes that crap, but he said it on the record.

Thing is, he ran as a moderate. Tennessee is conservative, but people here don't like wingnuts.

I've taken great joy watching him screw up his position as Majority Leader. I realize I'm laughing right along with that racist bastard Trent Lott, but I don't care. His presidential run will be a festival of hilarity.

The two party system has maybe another decade, then we will have at least one more on the national stage.

Bzzzt! Thank you for playing! Nah gah hap'n. The system is set up for a two-party system. Unless one party utterly collapses, which is not bloody likely, the closest you're going to get is Ross Perot. And he had jillions of dollars.

年终总结 工作总结 竞聘演讲 八荣八耻 和谐社会 治理商业贿赂 社会主义荣辱观 社会主义法治理念 和谐社会专题 教师节专题 党员先进性教育 社会主义新农村 心得体会 述职报告 调研报告 事迹材料 工作报告 汇报材料 反腐倡廉 三农问题 十一国庆节专题 科学发展观专题 五五普法专题 七一建党专题 五一劳动节专题 庆祝中秋节专题 八一建军节专题 活动策划 企划文案 征文演讲 计划规划 中国文秘网

There are people who would still vote Republican even if Denny Hastert had personally sodomized their five-year-old.

Sorry, the evangelicals are still struggling with entering the modern world -- when will they finally accept that science is reality and evolution is true?

There is a fundamental willingness to oppose reality and believe/follow misleading leaders (charlatans) in the evangelical community.

Well, it's been pretty clear to me for a long, long time that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others in the inner circle are NOT Christians.

They appear to belong to some sort of Druid-like death worship cult....

'There are people who would still vote Republican even if Denny Hastert had personally sodomized their five-year-old.
--Nancy Irving

Nancy, that is one nasty, nasty visual. I think I am gonna be ill.....

The Christian Right knows where things stand. They know that the GOP's economic agenda takes precedence over the social issues they care about. They're not disillusioned, because support for Bush and the Republican party are just the ways they express their hatred of liberals. Bush and the GOP are a vehicle for them, too. No matter how little they get in policy terms, the enemy of their enemy is still their friend.

And tell one of those "christians" that Jesus Christ was a liberal and you can see their heads explode. My cousin stopped talking to me when I pointed out that obvious fact.

More shoddy thinking from the left. Do you really want social conservatives to figure out that they're being conned? You just assume that would be a good thing where in fact it'd be good only if they pick up their ball and go home sulking. Much more likely is they'll redirect their fanaticism and become more politically efficient - or possibly worse the GOP could actually start taking them seriously! Is that what you want? Nobody wants these wackos taken seriously. It buoyed my spirits to know that Rove thinks that way too, I didn't start thinking "Hey, theocons, y'all wake up now". Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are people who would still vote Republican even if Denny Hastert had personally sodomized their five-year-old.
Posted by: Nancy Irving

Word!

Democrats have never been able to win on what they really stand for.

Conning evenagelicals is your idea of winning on
what the Republicans really stand for ?

I've been watching the Christian Right play Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy-pulling-away-the-football for more than 20 years now, and I keep thinking that at any moment they'll wise up. But they never do.

"... are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?"

The social conservative movement is just another form of populism. Those sorts of people really have no allegiance to left or right so much as they want to listen to the guy who says what they want to hear. Remember that William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat.

Kevin asks: are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?

About the same time they concede the planet might be just slightly more than 6000 years old and that dinos were killed in the Flood.

We're not talking about people capable of rational thought.

make that 'dinos were NOT' - eek.

Sorry 'bout that.

In case nobody has noticed, anyone that takes the Bible literally is an idiot. I don't know how else to put it. They need a good education. They also happen to worship authority--which makes them prime targets for fascists of every stripe. There is a reason why fascism was born in Rome. These people are sheep. Victims all their lives. Deluded and self-righteous. They are a plague.

Is the far left ever going to catch on that they are being pandered to by the Democrats?

Case in point: Iraq War.

They all talk the talk during the campaign or on the TV shows "We need to pull out now!".

But when the votes are counted?

Case in point: Gay Marriage.

Again, a lot of good chatter in the off season, but the issue is missing come platform time.

Case in point: NHC

I don't see that as a plank in the platform

"are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?"

No, because they're to fucking stupid.

Jay forgets that the Democrats are in the minority.

How is the Minority Party supposed to fix these issues when the Republican Majority is too busy chasing male pages? Your boy Foley was in the cloak room playing butt pirate with underage boys while Democrats were trying to get their amendments heard.

Your side has done a good job of removing input from the Minority Party in legislation, and when we take the House and Senate (God willing) I expect Reid and Pelosi will leave the rules as they are and effectively end the Gingrich revolution, permanently rendering the Republican Party to oblivion for all time. Or close to that.

Is the far left ever going to catch on that they are being pandered to by the Democrats?

Good point. I mean, the Democrats have controlled all three branches of the government for, what, 10 years now? And still the haven't moved to pass any of that legislation. All we get is homilies and excuses.

Is the far left ever going to catch on that they are being pandered to by the Democrats?

Hey! Check out this cool documentary; I think it should pretty much answer a lot of your questions.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

May have already been covered...BUT IMHO the most damning thing Tucker said is that there are "elites" in the Republican party!

"How is the Minority Party supposed to fix these issues......" - frail rider

Well they could start by just adding those issues as leading issues in their campaigns and election platforms. Do ya think?

"Your boy Foley was in the cloak room playing butt pirate....blah blah blah" - frail rider

And your Pussy Pirate President was too busy getting hummers while NK built a bomb.

"...permanently rendering the Republican Party to oblivion for all time. Or close to that." - frail rider

You do have delusions of grandeur.

You're a pathetic left wing puppet.

Sadly, I don't hold on to James of DC's happy thoughts about the direction things are going...I WANT TO...but 2004 damaged my ability to "think positively"...still, when our daughter (who has been brain-damaged since 16 by exposure to BORN AGAINS) begins to actually "question" the likes of GWB (a paragon because he says he's BORN AGAIN) and shows signs of actually returning to the CRITICAL THINKING she grew up learning to do in our home...perhaps I can have some hope. Think it "turned" when the pastor of their NC church recently told her that the partner of her uncle wasn't "in heaven" because he lived for 26 years "in sin"...course she should have seen that coming...but, delusion is right next to that RIVER IN EGYPT!!! I want to believe!!!

And your Pussy Pirate President was too busy getting hummers while NK built a bomb.

Donald Hall? Is that you?

Dancer, think for yourself and quit letting others influence your soul.

True happiness and the true value of your life is within your own soul and will never be found externally.

You'll always be disappointed if you're looking on the outside for sense and validation.

for any person that claims to be christian and still vote republican demonstates without a doubt that, that person either is not knwoledgable, or has no understanding of the meaning of the teachings of Jesus. Let the buyer beware.
.

997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

Well they could start by just adding those issues as leading issues in their campaigns and election platforms. Do ya think?

No, the better way is to add amendments to legislation, but the Republican majority blocks those. Thanks for playing. Empty rhetoric doesn't really get the job done--effective legislating does. Learn something next time before you post.

And your Pussy Pirate President was too busy getting hummers while NK built a bomb.

How many bombs were built on Clinton's watch?

Zero.

Bush 43?

Six.

Do the math.

Isn't it just like Jay to think that he can still blame Clinton for everything that goes wrong in the world but still hold himself up as a paragon of personal responsibility and virtue? Last time I checked, blaming a guy who hasn't held a shred of Constitutional power for six years fell into the category of passing the buck. If something happens on your watch, you own it.

Jay would have us believe that when the ship of state has run aground that the current Captain can just whine about what his predecessor did or didn't do and get a pass.

Sorry, the world of adult responsibility doesn't work that way. No wonder it scares you and causes you to jump up and down excitedly like a pervert on speed.

Posted by: Jay on October 12, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK
KInda arrogant and ignorant of ya to lecture people on the state of their souls don't ya think Jay Jay?

Re-read the gospels, try and hear Christ's message.

Of course!

Evangelicals are teh gullible, it's in their very nature!

That's the main reason you need to keep politics and religion separated.

Jay:

The difference, Jay, is that Democratic politicians don't pander with left-wing talking points the way Republicans pander with social conservative talking points. Lefties don't have expectations of, say, an immediate pullout from Iraq or a repeal of the Patriot Act or DOMA the way Evangelicals have for the banning of abortion or gay marriage.

Besides which, the activist anger this cycle isn't coming for hardcore ideological leftists. It's coming from extremely angry center-leftists who'd be absolutely fine with enacting the Democratic platform as is.

Bob

"Last time I checked, blaming a guy who hasn't held a shred of Constitutional power for six years fell into the category of passing the buck. If something happens on your watch, you own it." - frail rider

You obviously have no fusking clue as to the workings of the Clinton/NK relationship and agreements.

"No wonder it scares you and causes you to jump up and down excitedly like a pervert on speed." - frail rider

Unfortunately, you're just too stupid to have a conversation with. Bye.

"Re-read the gospels, try and hear Christ's message." - Nemesis

The message comnes from within. Listen.

rmck1,
I believe that the Republicans do less pandering when it comes to the social agenda. They put it right out front that traditional marriage should stay intact and that same-sex marriage should be banned. They say that publicly a lot.

When, Howard Dean was cornered on the issue he stated that the platform of the Democrats was to uphold traditional marriage. And that set off a buzz throughout the left community. Why don't the Democrats publicly campaign on same-sex marriage?

"Lefties don't have expectations of, say, an immediate pullout from Iraq or a repeal of the Patriot Act or DOMA the way Evangelicals have for the banning of abortion or gay marriage." - rmck1

C'mon Bob, you can't be serious.

- Murtha panders to the far left every time, calling for immediate redeployment.

- "We killed the Patriot Act" - Harry Reid.

Jay:

Jay, that's quite an endorsement, coming from you :)

NK kicked out the inspectors *after* the Axis of Evil speech.

'Nuff said.

Bob

You obviously have no fusking clue as to the workings of the Clinton/NK relationship and agreements.

The ones that effectively keep the North Koreans from developing Nuclear weapons?

The ones that worked?

Yeah, sorry. Keep passing that buck.

Clinton had an agreement with Kim Jung that in exchange for his promise to not develop nuclear weapons, we would provide him with technology and money and would not require ANY INSPECTIONS for 5 years, from 1998-2002.

ENOUGH SAID.

In 2002, when confronted, Kim Jung acknowledged that they had been working on nuclear weapon technology all along.

What a shock!

And you consider that a "working agreement"

Enough said.

No, but not because they're blind or stupid. It's because evangelical, conservative Xianity is all about appearance, not substance. If you SAY you're saved, you're saved, and you stay saved forever, regardless of what evil you commit after getting saved.

The wingnuts support the repugs because the repugs pay lip service to Xian positions, and that's all that really counts.

You don't actually think the wingnuts WANT gay marriage and abortion outlawed, do you? Then their power and influence - and money - would disappear with the issues.

Wake up, people. Wingnut Xians are about appearance, power and money - nothing else.

Murtha panders to the far left every time, calling for immediate redeployment.

That's hilarious! Cut and Run Jay says that Murtha is pandering when he, himself, said that the Iraqis need to take over fighting the insurgents?

Isn't that what Murtha has said? That the only way the Iraqis are going to take responsibility for fighting the insurgency is when the Americans pull back?

Cut and Run Jay comes full circle on one blog thread--on the one hand, Democrats never offer ideas but here's Murtha offering the one idea that the Republicans actually seem to be wholeheartedly ready to support once the election is over.

Jay is a pervert on speed--how else to explain how readily he abandons one train of thought and moves on to the next contradiction? His blind acceptance of Republican talking points has left him with no wiggle room. He doesn't know what he believes anymore, thanks to the fact that the Republicans keep changing their positions faster than Mark Foley can hop up and down and dry hump his little page in the cloak room.

In 2002, when confronted, Kim Jung acknowledged that they had been working on nuclear weapon technology all along.

And Bush kept giving the North Koreans financial aid.

Nice accountability dodge, there.

Jay:

You make precisely my point. The politicians who cater to the religious right bring up a straw man. There's never going to be enough support for an anti-gay marriage amendment -- mainly because it would be the first time ever that a Constitutional amendment would be used to limit, rather than expand rights. It's as much a vain, empty promise as an amendment to ban abortion.

Gay activists are split on gay marriage. One strand of opinion calls it inevitable; if not now, then sometime in the future. Another strand says that marriage is fundamentally an institution governed by the churches. So when Howard Dean says the Democrats support traditional marriage -- Dean also courageously signed one of the first civil union bills in the country. What gays genuinely care about are equal legal rights, not so much whether those rights are put under the rubric of "marriage."

Murtha isn't "pandering;" he's offering his honest assessment which many Democrats share. The difference is, we aren't deluded into thinking the whole country is going to support immediate redeployment, nor do we consider it something worth crusading for -- if we can get a fundamental change of direction on our Iraq policy. *That's* something upon which all Democrats agree. Otherwise, we have differences of opinion on what that change of direction would entail.

We aren't burdened, like Christian rightists, with a few hardcore, unequivocal positions which are simply unrealistic to achieve as broad national policy.

We're willing to compromise and hear other points of view in a way that the other side simply isn't.

Bob

Jay:

Nuclear inspectors were living in NK.

That's why Kim kicked them out.

And that was after the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Bob

Jay on October 12, 2006 at 10:37 AM:

And your Pussy Pirate President was too busy getting hummers while NK built a bomb.

Um, no...During Clinton's time in office, NK was basically paid not to build a bomb. In comes Dubya with his cowboy bluster and 'Axis of Evil' bullshit, and cuts ties with NK...who then starts trying to make a bomb.

Hell, if getting beejers would make Dubya half as effective as Bill Clinton, I'd be happy to buy the Preznit a couple the next time he visits Nevada....

"The politicians who cater to the religious right bring up a straw man. There's never going to be enough support for an anti-gay marriage amendment -- mainly because it would be the first time ever that a Constitutional amendment would be used to limit, rather than expand rights. It's as much a vain, empty promise as an amendment to ban abortion." - rmck1

If you're so convinced of that, why doesn't the left demand a national referendum?

"What gays genuinely care about are equal legal rights, not so much whether those rights are put under the rubric of "marriage." - rmck1

I would say 90% of conservatives favor civil unions.

"The difference is, we aren't deluded into thinking the whole country is going to support immediate redeployment, nor do we consider it something worth crusading for --" - rmck1

I am referring to the "far left" who want out now! Sensible Democrats excluded. Murtha has been too often a voice for the far left.

"We aren't burdened, like Christian rightists, with a few hardcore, unequivocal positions which are simply unrealistic to achieve as broad national policy." - rmck1

Christian rightists comprise probably less than 10% of all conservatives.

You are burdened by the "far left" as the right also has the "far right" burden. I think the "far left" hurts Democrats more than the other.

"Um, no...During Clinton's time in office, NK was basically paid not to build a bomb. In comes Dubya with his cowboy bluster and 'Axis of Evil' bullshit, and cuts ties with NK...who then starts trying to make a bomb." - grape

"And Bush kept giving the North Koreans financial aid." - frail

um.....you guys need to get your talking points straightened out.

"And that was after the "Axis of Evil" speech." -rmck1

um......a little news for you. Calling a spade a spade does not result in bomb making. Giving them money and technology in exchange for promises, usually does result in the aforementioned.

Just FYI.

Jay,

Are you one of the bamboozlers? Or one of the bamboozled? Start your post with "um..." if you're in on the con. I won't tell anybody.

Jay:

Your analysis is *way* off. First, Democrats recognize that "gay marriage" is a thoroughly bogus issue -- a straw man designed to stoke up homophobic bigotry and get social conservatives to the polls. A national referendum? For what purpose? Gays feel that these issues should be handled by the states, as per community standards. You know -- federalism. Something which conservatives used to favor before Rove and others figured out how to turn gays into the new blacks for cynical reasons they don't believe in themselves.

You may be right that a large majority of conservatives don't buy into this bullshit (heh, certainly Mary Cheney, Kirk Fordham, Jim Trandhal or Mark Foley wouldn't, just to name a few) -- but the small minority of social conservatives who *do* have a disproportionate impact on the public debate. They're the ones who organize the stupid petition drives to get the anti-gay marriage referenda up in all those red states.

The Christian right has a *much* stronger influence on GOP politics than the "extreme left" -- primarily a figment of wingnut imagination -- does on Democratic politics.

Murtha is hardly any spokes-marine for the likes of hardcore antiwarriors like Hostile or Secular Animist. He just happened to say what they had been saying since before the invasion -- but otherwise they'd consider him a pork-driven Pentagon shill. (And he's maybe not the brightest strategic thinker out there, truth be told.) But it's a tremendous credit to Murtha that his voice broke through and lent credence to a view too long outside the mainstream of opinion. A view that's trickling into the opinions of people like John Warner and James Baker, incidentally.

Murtha was just ahead of the curve, is all. More and more analysts are taking strategic redeployment seriously.

Bobl

More inane blather from Cut 'n Run Jay:

I would say 90% of conservatives favor civil unions.

If you're so convinced of that, why don't the conservatives demand a national referendum?

I am referring to the "far left" who want out now!...Murtha has been too often a voice for the far left.

Funny. I don't recall Murtha asking for an immediate withdrawal. Please cite your source for this assertion.

..you guys need to get your talking points straightened out.

Nope. Unlike you, we don't operate off of a list of preplanned talking points distributed by the RNC.

Giving them money and technology in exchange for promises..

Oh, don't forget inspections, which stopped when Dubya threw Clinton's good work on nuclear nonproliferation out the window.

Back on topic: When partisan slacker hacks like Tucker Carlson have moments of rational thought like the one Kev posted, I'd say that social conservatives are definitely beginning to catch on. I remember telling a evangelical, right-to-lifer buddy back after the 2004 election that he was being used for his vote. Back then, he said, "maybe so".

Haven't spoken with him in a while, 'cause he moved...But I wonder what his thoughts are now?

Jay:

If building a nuclear weapon was "evil" in itself, than the good ol' USA is the most evil nation on the planet, because we invented the damn thing, have the most of them and are the only nation to have ever used them on people, besides.

That's not what makes the NK regime odious.

But rushing forward a program to build nukes is hardly insane when you consider Bush's stance after the "axis of evil" speech -- where he basically sent the signal to Kim that his country's next.

Who *wouldn't* rush to build and test a nuke under that circumstance, eh?

Bob

Funny. I don't recall Murtha asking for an immediate withdrawal. Please cite your source for this assertion.

No less an authority than THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Um...okay, that's all I got...

"gay marriage" is a thoroughly bogus issue -- a straw man designed to stoke up homophobic bigotry and get social conservatives to the polls." - rmck1

um....right. That's why judges from Mass. to CA. have been trying to override the electorate on this issue.

"They're the ones who organize the stupid petition drives to get the anti-gay marriage referenda up in all those red states." - rmck1

Again, it's the judges that do that.

"A view that's trickling into the opinions of people like John Warner and James Baker, incidentally." - rmck1

I agree. This is a view though that has been thought of all along. There has never been any plans to stay in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Iraqi gov't needs to get stronger and less dependent on the US military. At some point, soon, they need to take care of their own country.

"Oh, don't forget inspections, which stopped when Dubya threw Clinton's...blah blah" - grape

There were NEVER inspections. That was part of Clintons great agreement, no inspections for five years 1998-2002. PAY ATTENTION.

"If building a nuclear weapon was "evil" in itself, than the good ol' USA is the most evil nation on the planet, because we invented the damn thing, have the most of them and are the only nation to have ever used them on people, besides." - rmck1

This coming from a graduate student at the Jimmy Carter school of liberalism. The atom bombs was used in Japan, not a nuclear bomb.

Your post strongly suggests that the US is just as evil, and harbors the same ill intentions of many of our foe. I strongly disagree and that belief is at the core of our dispute.

This is somewhat off-topic from the useless discussion here about North Korea and Iraq, but the right-wing evangelical and fundamentalist Christians will continue to vote Republican if for no other reason than the ability to continue packing the Supreme Court with jurists who are sympathetic to their issues.

There were NEVER inspections. That was part of Clintons great agreement, no inspections for five years 1998-2002. PAY ATTENTION.

Not true. The "no inspections" was the result of Saddam kicking the inspectors out, and Republicans tying Clinton's hands so he couldn't do anything about it - though Clinton DID Bomb Iraq's suspected sites. And it was 24/7 Monicagate, wag-the-dog, obstructionism from the Republican congress.

OBF, we're talking about NK, not Iraq.

Pay attention.

The atom bombs was used in Japan, not a nuclear bomb.

Not that there's any sense in the incoherent, thread-spamming rambling that poor Jay desperately chuffs out...but what the hell is the above statement supposed to mean? Aside from the obvious grammatical problem and sentence construction straight from a third-grade stylebook -- an atom bomb is "not" a nuclear bomb?

WTF?

What is the source of its explosive power then? Good 'ol American pride? Patriotic fervor? Spittle?

"Funny. I don't recall Murtha asking for an immediate withdrawal. Please cite your source for this assertion." - ibc

Well, here you go:

Politics
Murtha: Military Supports Call for Iraq Withdrawal
by Melissa Block

All Things Considered, December 1, 2005 · U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania with strong ties to the military, catapulted into the spotlight recently with his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha says U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq support his position

That's funny, I thought we were talking about gullible evangelicals falling for the "we're God's party" bullshit from the corporatist fascist Party of Mammon and Good Old Boy Networks.

GOP? More like MOP.

There were NEVER inspections. That was part of Clintons great agreement, no inspections for five years 1998-2002. PAY ATTENTION.

Poor Jay - can't think for himself, can't stop jumping up and down and jabbering like a stuck monkey on acid.

IAEA North Korea Inspectors Recall the Day When…
IAEA Board Meets 6 January to Consider Next Steps on DPRK Issue
Staff Report
03 January 2003

The IAEA’s last inspectors to leave North Korea did not come home empty handed. They brought back all metal seals that North Korean authorities had cut at safeguarded nuclear facilities at the Nyongbyon site in December 2002, in preparation to restart nuclear operations frozen since 1994. Nuclear material under safeguards in North Korea is now left without any Agency monitoring.

[snip]

Dr. Yousry Abushady, IAEA Unit Head responsible for safeguards implementation in the DPRK, was the Agency’s key contact point for its inspectors in Nyongbyon. He recounted what happened when North Korean authorities took steps to reopen a sealed plutonium reprocessing plant, cutting the metal seals and disrupting surveillance equipment.

“The inspectors were asked to leave the country immediately,” he recalled. “But first our inspectors witnessed our surveillance equipment being turned off and our seals removed. The DPRK authorities covered all surveillance cameras and pointed them to the wall.”

Besides the broken seals, the inspectors managed to retrieve all video cards and tapes from the 15 cameras that once provided 24-hour monitoring at North Korea’s frozen nuclear facilities. Around one hundred North Korean officials and staff watched as all monitoring equipment was dismantled at Nyongbyon.

The IAEA inspects the North Korean nuclear programme under a safeguards agreement that Pyongyang concluded with the IAEA in 1992, pursuant to North Korea’s membership in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Additionally, under a 1994 Agreed Framework between the North Korea and the United States, IAEA safeguards inspectors monitor specific nuclear facilities and activities that were “frozen” under that deal.

Dr. Kaluba Chitumbo, Head of the IAEA Safeguards Operations Division for the Asia Pacific region, explained that the IAEA’s role had two aspects. The first, to see that the “freeze” was in place and that North Korea’s nuclear facilities were not operating. The second, that safeguards were in place – to verify that nuclear material (such as spent fuel) was not diverted. In implementing their work, Dr. Chitumbo said that IAEA inspectors had provided the DPRK with a detailed list of what activities were required for the Agency’s respective monitoring and safeguards roles.

Mr. Abushady says during the time that IAEA inspectors were in the DPRK they were treated with respect and never feared for their safety. Their base was a simple guesthouse with basic amenities. An inspector’s mission in the DPRK would typically last two weeks, with two inspectors assigned to work together for three periods per year. During an inspection, normally they would visit more than one facility per day, which DPRK authorities would be notified about the previous evening. They would also conduct surprise inspections that were carried out within an hour.

What else do you have to go on Jay? What other illusions are you operating under?

Well, there you go, Jay. This "Melissa Block" has deliberately distorted what Murtha said, and you propagate the distortion.

Murtha was never for "Immediate Withdrawl"

There's a bigger difference between "Immediate Withdrawl" and "Redeployment" - than there is between "Atom Bomb" and "Nuclear Bomb". (Perhaps you're referring to Thermonuclear Device?)

An atom bomb is a nuclear bomb.

Fission and fusion are both nuclear reactions.

Bob

Had Jay said "thermonuclear" instead of "nuclear," he might've had a point.

Bob

Cut 'n Run Jay on October 12, 2006 at 12:56 PM:

There were NEVER inspections. That was part of Clintons great agreement, no inspections for five years 1998-2002.

- North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program by Larry A. Niksch, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division:

In May (1994) North Korea allowed the IAEA to complete the aborted March inspection. In June, North Korea's President Kim Il-sung reactivated a longstanding invitation to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to visit Pyongyang. Kim offered Carter a freeze of North Korea's nuclear facilities and operations. Kim took this initiative after China reportedly informed him that it would not veto a first round of economic sanctions, which the Clinton Administration had proposed to members of the Security Council.

Read the "Diplomatic Background to the Agreed Framework and Amending Agreements" section for a good overview. NK balked at inspections at first, but allowed them later on.

- Timeline: North Korea's nuclear weapons development from CNN.

- Negotiating With Nuclear North Korea:

In 1999 we used the agreement to gain access to a suspicious site identified by intelligence.

And for shits and giggles:

- The two faces of Rumsfeld:

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change.

PAY ATTENTION.

I do. It's just that it's hard for you to see that with your head lodged in the GOP's ass.

Pale Rider:

Nice job on that :)

Jay:

The judges who've ruled in favor of gay marriage happen to be correct as a Constitutional matter, IMHO at least. But of course since they're ahead of the public opinion curve, they're derided as "activist judges" yada yada. But "the electorate" who opposed them with referenda and legislation are a hard core of social conservative activists who'd do literally *anything* to stop the deadly spread of same-sex love. They're vastly overrepresented. If the folks who opposed the Iraq war were half as organized, there never would have been a favorable vote on the IWR. This is what I mean by the disproportionate impact of hyperorganized Christian activists.

And no, I was obviously not intending to argue that the US is an "evil nation" for developing the bomb. Merely saying that if NK was "evil" for wanting a bomb, then we are "evil," too, by that reasoning. The intent, obviously, was to demonstrate that the reasoning is flawed.

NK saw developing a nuke as a rational response to Bush's beligerent approach to them.

Bob

Well at least we now know why W and Dicky think of the evangelicals as "lollipops"!

Cut 'n Run Jay on October 12, 2006 at 1:14 PM:

..quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha says U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq support his position..

"Quick" as in a period of months, versus "immediate", Cut 'n Run Jay. Should have PAID ATTENTION in your 9th grade English class...or was the parent homeschooling you weak in that particular subject?

..Just asking..

I must defer to the excellent heavy lifting of the one known as grape_crush...

Translation: It is easy to fool people who believe in fantasy.

"Funny. I don't recall Murtha asking for an immediate withdrawal. Please cite your source for this assertion." - ibc

Well, here you go:

That wasn't me, Jay, but grape_crush...

You should never feel you have to blockquote "All Things Considered" to me. Our relationship is built of sterner stuff than that. I believe everything you write unreservedly.

mhr:

No, African-Americans have economic issues that line squarely up with Democratic policy. Not that this singles out American blacks; it's the same with most Hispanics (minus older Cuban-Americans with their homicidal levels of Castro-hate), Jews, etc. A few generations in this starts to change, of course, and voting patterns become diversified (I'm rather ashamed, personally, of all the Irish-American right-wing punditry out there), but as the Democrats have always been the party of the working class, it's perfectly appropriate.

And certainly no Democratic "elite" types feel *contempt* for African-Americans the way that, say, libertarian-minded conservative intellectuals feel for the Biblical literalists in their uneasy coalition.

How could any self-respecting liberal feel contempt for the culture that gave the world jazz?

Bob

Pale Rider:

I was going to slap Jay around over the NK nonsense he was spewing but you did that well enough for me. It never seems to occur to these twits that NK only had plutonium to make bombs from and that since that plutonium was under seal and watch by the IAEA until after the Axis of Evil Speech this placed it squarely on Bush43's watch. The trying to blame Clinton thing here is even more pathetic than usual. He got the more dangerous and easier to create plutonium sealed and manufacture stopped and where the NKs cheated they did so by trying to enrich uranium, something far more difficult, time consuming and resource intensive. They were nowhere near the level necessary for weapons grade enriched uranium and likely would not be for years to decades when their violation was found out. So because they decided to "punish" NK for the breech of agreement Bushco enabled NK to take out those plutonium rods on their watch, reprocess them on their watch, and apparently try to detonate an atomic fission device based on that reprocessed plutonium on their watch, yet it is not at all Bushco's fault in Jay's mind. Which is of course proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jay is trolletariat and not worth taking seriously, let alone trying to have an honest disagreement with, hmmm?

Sorry so late to this interesting thread.

It's so funny to watch the echo chamber progressives on this thread continue to think the all evangelicals are stupid nuts.
Keep falling into those some of those irresitable traps don't you.

There are a few problems which make it very difficult for a modern evangelical to maintain intellectual consistency and vote for Democratic candidates.

1. Democratic commitment to Roe v. Wade - This is probably the biggest issue. The Democratic party fully supports a bad parsing of the Constitution which makes it illegal for conservative states to pass abortion laws through their own state legislatures. We are not pro-life because we want to ram our morality down your throats. We believe that the morality of a nation means something and that allowing the sacrifice of nascent life due to the whim of the mother does not make for a better society. Granted this is just our moral opinion, but the debate on these types of laws belongs in the State House not in the U.S. Senate where Democratic senators use a litmus test for against all Supreme Court nominees.

2. Inability to at least condemn the radical left. Major Democratic nominees usually do not slam Christians. But they do nothing to stop the radical left from their demonization of Christians, their leaders, and the things we care about.

3. Radical interpretation of the so-called separation of Church and State in the Establishment Clause - Democratic leaders have continued to push this to the point of ridiculousness. Example - Last years "Holiday Program" at my daughter's elementary school included Kwanza songs, Chuanakah songs, Winter songs - Everything except any Christmas hymn that dared to mention Christ. This because the administation is so afraid of law suits from major Demcratic party contributor - the ACLU.

There are many more issues. The point is that evangelicals end up in the Republican party because the Democratic party has show-stopper issues. It did not used to be this way.

Does this mean that people like Ralph Reed can take advantage of some Evengelicals for his own political gains. Probably yes. But some of the fault of this lies in the Democratic party which has made much of its platform so repugnant to intelligent evangelicals that they become easy prey for people who finally seem to give them a political voice.

You can mock me as a "stupid troll" or you can listen and learn. Your choice.

John Hansen:

Why do you have such a problem with the rule of law?

1. Democratic commitment to Roe v. Wade - This is probably the biggest issue. The Democratic party fully supports a bad parsing of the Constitution which makes it illegal for conservative states to pass abortion laws through their own state legislatures.

No, Democrats aren't "pro-Abortion." They believe the law says a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. Conservative states are passing laws in direct contradiction to the law of the land in order to force the Supreme Court to hear their case and possibly overturn Roe v Wade. Which side is more dishonest? And do you want to be governed by people who OBSERVE the rule of law or by people WHO PLAY TRICKS in order to subvert the rule of law?

2. Inability to at least condemn the radical left. Major Democratic nominees usually do not slam Christians. But they do nothing to stop the radical left from their demonization of Christians, their leaders, and the things we care about.

Show me one Democrat who slams Christians, please. I have no idea what you're talking about. The quickest way for Pale Rider to get in trouble with his brothers and sisters on the left side of the aisle is to return to the subject of his absolute hatred of Michael Moore. I'm not going there. You confuse the diversity of opinion in the Democratic party with the one-opinion-only Republican Party in your statement.

3. Radical interpretation of the so-called separation of Church and State in the Establishment Clause -

Well, sorry. It's the rule of law, again. The law separates the church and the state. What part of that can't you figure out?

Seems like you're just mad that the laws don't favor your preconceived set of values. It's sort of like you're mad that the courts, the legislatures, the Congress all decided to go to Branson for vacation and you wanted to go to Six Flags. You didn't get your way and now you're pouting because the adults have decided to go in another direction.

Scotian:

Which is of course proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jay is trolletariat and not worth taking seriously, let alone trying to have an honest disagreement with, hmmm?

Pale Rider needs to show one troll the back of his hand so that the other trolls know who brings the thunder and the lightning into the shit storm of their life.

I must say--the work people are doing to fight the trolls is excellent lately. I am humbled by the efforts of others to smack the shit out of these perverted little beasts and I work hard to maintain the honor of being able to post here.

Pale Rider:

I have no problem with the rule of law. What I have a problem with is people like you read the Constitution, apply your understandings to the simple language that is contained therein, and then declare someone who disagrees with you one with contempt for the "rule of law". I think you really have a problem with arrogance.

You know, there used to be a time when people said what they really meant.

I realize this is fiction, but I'm going to put this on here, primarily because I love how profound it is in its simplicity and how it illustrates what the world used to be like:

From The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Josey Wales "You'll be Ten Bears?"

Ten Bears- I am Ten Bears

J- I'm Josey Wales.

TB- I have heard. You're the Grey Rider. You would not make peace with the Blue Coats; You may go in peace.

J- I reckon not. 'have no where to go.

TB- Then you will die.

J- I came here to die with you... or to live with you. Dying ain't so hard for men like you an' me, it's livin' that's hard. When all you've ever cared about's been butchered and raped... Governments don't live together; people live together... Governments don't always give you a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from ya. I came here like this so you know my word of death is true; and my word of life is then true... The bear lives here, the wolf, the antelope, the Comanche, and so will we. We'll only hunt what we need to live on, same as the Comanche does. Now every Spring when the grass turns green and the Comanche moves north, we can rest here in peace. Butcher some of our cattle and jerk beef for the journey. The sign of the Comanche, that will be on our lodge. That's my word of life.

TB- And your word of death?

J- Here in my pistols, there in your rifles, I'm here for either one.

TB- These things you say we will have, we already have.

J- This is true. I ain't promisin' you nothin' extra. You're just givin' me life and I'm givin' you life. And I'm sayin' men can live together without butcherin' one another.

TB- It's sad that governments are cheapened by the double tongue. And there is iron in your word of death for all Comanche to see. And so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that two warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death.

It shall be life.

What I have a problem with is people like you read the Constitution, apply your understandings to the simple language that is contained therein, and then declare someone who disagrees with you one with contempt for the "rule of law".

That's what the Republican Party does every single day, dude.

Or have you been asleep for the last six years?

John Hansen:

> Sorry so late to this interesting thread.

Not at all. Glad to have you here.

> It's so funny to watch the echo chamber progressives on this
> thread continue to think the all evangelicals are stupid nuts.

Experts agree: Biblical literalists are stupid nuts.

> Keep falling into those some of those irresitable traps don't you.

The reality-based community leads to certain inescapable conclusions
based on irrefutable evidence. You can call it a "trap," if you
like, but it's more properly-speaking falsification epistemology :)

> There are a few problems which make it very difficult for
> a modern evangelical to maintain intellectual consistency
> and vote for Democratic candidates.

A modern evangelical could have an equal or greater problem voting
for GOP candidates, depending on which issues on a broad palette of
those with a religious imperative s/he chooses to prioritize. For
instance, evangelicals are becoming more outspoken about protecting
the environment. And, of course, there's opposition to the Iraq war
and the death penalty (we know how the GOP feels about those two).

Now, these might be "liberal evangelicals" and you might disagree
with them theologically -- but they're still evangelical Christians.

> 1. Democratic commitment to Roe v. Wade - This is probably the
> biggest issue. The Democratic party fully supports a bad parsing
> of the Constitution which makes it illegal for conservative states
> to pass abortion laws through their own state legislatures. We are
> not pro-life because we want to ram our morality down your throats.
> We believe that the morality of a nation means something and that
> allowing the sacrifice of nascent life due to the whim of the mother
> does not make for a better society. Granted this is just our moral
> opinion, but the debate on these types of laws belongs in the State
> House not in the U.S. Senate where Democratic senators use a litmus
> test for against all Supreme Court nominees.

Shorter John Hansen: We want to ram our personal morality
about abortion down the throats of every American.

Listen, John -- the GOP would never repeal Roe or even significantly
chip it away in the SCOTUS, because it knows if it does it would
create a huge Democratic organizing issue. American women are not
going to slouch towards El Salvador (where abortion is criminalized),
thank you very much. And yes -- that includes Republican women.

This is why organizing around repealing Roe is such a total sham.

> 2. Inability to at least condemn the radical left. Major
> Democratic nominees usually do not slam Christians. But
> they do nothing to stop the radical left from their demonization
> of Christians, their leaders, and the things we care about.

There hasn't been a politically significant "radical left" in American
politics since the 30s or a terribly vocal one since the 60s, and the
few bombtossing voices of the hard left today have virtually no power.

There is no "demonization of Christians." What there is is a dialogue,
very much in the mainstream of American history and tradition, which
supports the First Amendment. It is the Christian churches which have
a hugely disproportional share of political power (the NYT is running
a series on the incredible economic incentives bestowed on churches
and church groups since Bush came to power), and what they're doing is
coveting *more* power through the time-honored technique of projecting
their own power-lust onto a conveniently demonizable enemy:

"Radical leftists." Heh.

> 3. Radical interpretation of the so-called separation of Church
> and State in the Establishment Clause - Democratic leaders have
> continued to push this to the point of ridiculousness. Example -
> Last years "Holiday Program" at my daughter's elementary school
> included Kwanza songs, Chuanakah songs, Winter songs - Everything
> except any Christmas hymn that dared to mention Christ. This
> because the administation is so afraid of law suits from major
> Demcratic party contributor - the ACLU.

Wow, what a tolerant guy *you* are, John. Maybe the Jews in
your daughter's class don't want to sing songs about the divinity
*she* worships? Maybe it would be nicer in a public school to
sing about things all the kids have in common when your daughter
could come home and you could have a lovely singalong with your
family or with her Christian friends or your church, with all
the Christ-praising hymns you could shake a stick at?

Why do you feel the need to force *your* Christ down *our* throats?

Why do you insist in pretending that your
particular conception of god is universal?

> There are many more issues. The point is that evangelicals
> end up in the Republican party because the Democratic party
> has show-stopper issues. It did not used to be this way.

That's correct. America isn't necessarily a more believing nation
than it was, say, 60 years ago. What has changed is that the mainline
denominations have faded in influence while the evangelicals and
fundamentalists have responded to the waves of cultural change that
inevitably accompany the tremendous prosperity this country achieved
since WW2. These organizations have a Theistic, literalist bent
with a much greater emphasis on the Old Testament than the mainline
churches, and are thus more comfortable aligning with secular power.

> Does this mean that people like Ralph Reed can take advantage
> of some Evengelicals for his own political gains. Probably yes.

Ralph Reed has fortunately been disgraced by his dalliances with
Jack Abramoff. As I say -- you're getting too close to secular
power, and you're starting to get burned. Pride goeth before a fall.

> But some of the fault of this lies in the Democratic party
> which has made much of its platform so repugnant to intelligent
> evangelicals that they become easy prey for people who finally
> seem to give them a political voice.

It's home for overt homophobes, crypto-racists and "headship"
misogynists. The Democratic Party stands for equal rights for all
-- and Theistic strains of Old Testament-heavy fundamentalism is as
anathema to democratic values as it was in the days of those great
Deists Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

> You can mock me as a "stupid troll" or
> you can listen and learn. Your choice.

While I disagree with you profoundly, I've
never thought of you as a troll, John.

Bob

John Hansen:

The facts speak for themselves...

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

John Hansen on October 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM:

1. We are not pro-life because we want to ram our morality down your throats...Granted this is just our moral opinion...

Super, John. But ramming your moral opinion down our throats is wrong at the federal, state, or any level. At what point do your moral opinions supersede another person's individual liberties?

But I digress...It is the conservative evangelical community's committment to the faux conservative evangelicals in the GOP that makes me question your claim that it's "it very difficult for a modern evangelical to maintain intellectual consistency and vote for Democratic candidates." Judging by the devotion of modern evangelicals to the GOP despite their very unChristian actions, I have to say that intellectual inconsistency is almost a requirement...

2. Inability to at least condemn the radical left.

So much for 'turn the other cheek'...Not that there is a groundswell of condemnation from 'modern evangelicals' for some of the hateful swill peddled by the likes of Falwell, Dobson, et al...And I haven't heard of a member of the 'radical left', however that is defined at the moment, going out and shooting someone for doing something they don't agree with. Can you say the same, John?

3. Radical interpretation of the so-called separation of Church and State in the Establishment Clause - Democratic leaders have continued to push this to the point of ridiculousness.

'Radical' as in backed up by decades of court decisions and the documented intent of the writers of our Constitution and early US governance? Please...Oh, and name a few current 'Democratic leaders' that are saying you should take the Christ out of Christmas...

Does this mean that people like Ralph Reed can take advantage of some Evengelicals for his own political gains. Probably yes.

Remove the 'Probably' from the quoted statement, and you have a winner. You get taken advantage of when you place your need to impose your faith on others over good, accountable governance.

You can mock me as a "stupid troll"..

Not stupid, just narrow-minded and easily-led. And not evil or bad, either. Neither of us is 'the enemy', as much as some would like to have you believe that.

This is the one thing I LOVE about GOP Governance.

It's beautiful to watch them scam the relgio-nut rubes. Suckers!

We believe that the morality of a nation means something and that allowing the sacrifice of nascent life due to the whim of the mother

So rape victims, incest victims, and women carrying a doomed fetus abort on a "whim" eh?

Enough about abortion already. Jesus christ. I lived in Wichita in 1991 (the "Summer of Mercy.") Those fucking idiots that invaded my town are on the top and bottom of my shit list, and take up a fair chunk of the middle. Everyone has long since made up their mind about it, and nobody is giving any ground. So enough already. If I can't trust a woman with a choice, I sure as hell can't trust her with a child, now can I?

Not every abortion is birth-control after the fact. There are fetal pathologies, and not everyone is cut out to raise a special needs child. There are health considerations for the mother. There is rape and incest. Remove the option and punish these women, some victims of violent crime. (Oh right - she shouldn't have been born a woman. Probably deserves whatever fate befalls her, huh?)

As to a fetal demise, I do not see why it is so wrong for a couple to make the decision to terminate a doomed pregnancy. The longer a pregnancy continues, the more risk to the mother. If a doomed fetus dies in utero, the mother has a very high chance of facing a potentially life-threatening complication called DIC (disceminating intravascular clotting). The leading cause of DIC is intra-uterine death. The complications that a woman - who is already here, has a life and may have other children to consider takes presence in my mind. I have seen a woman die of DIC and leave young children. It was heartbreaking and unnecessary.

Inability to at least condemn the radical left.

Wrong! Plenty of us condemn the radical fringe on both sides of the political divide.

Radical interpretation of the so-called separation of Church and State in the Establishment Clause

If churches want to enter into the realm of influencing policy, they have breeched the divide and should pay taxes. I am just as pissed off at my own synagogue for advocating passage of Missouri's Amendement 2 as I am at the Catholic Church for advocating against it.

I have lived all over this country, wherever the military sent first my father and then my husband. I have never seen a Christmas display torn down by court order. I am left to conclude that it may have happened once, it took on a life of it's own, and everyone has their hair on fire about it still.

How could any self-respecting liberal feel contempt for the culture that gave the world jazz? Why, some of my best musician buds are Negroes, bro!

"Nuclear material under safeguards in North Korea is now left without any Agency monitoring."

North Korea Admits Nuclear Program
NewsMax Wires
Thursday, Oct. 17, 2002
WASHINGTON -- North Korea has acknowledged it has a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of an agreement signed in 1994 with the Clinton administration, U.S. officials confirmed late Wednesday.
The announcement, which came early Thursday Korean time, has stunned South Korea, which then urged its communist neighbor to abide by all anti-nuclear agreements. The prospect of nuclear weapons in the North is likely to upset the delicate peace process that has recently restarted between the two Koreas.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said North Korea was in violation of its agreements and the Bush administration is consulting on the matter with Congress and U.S. allies.

"Under the agreed framework North Korea committed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to come into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Stanzel told United Press International.

The agreed framework called on North Korea to halt its weapons program in exchange for U.S. assistance in building two light water reactors.

The State Department called the North Korean acknowledgment a "serious violation" of the agreed framework and urged Pyongyang to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a "verifiable manner."

"We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea. This is an opportunity for peace-loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge."

lover of mankind:

Well, there's always Wynton Marsalis -- not to mention Stanley Crouch :)

So no -- not *all* cultural liberals necessarily approve of the words (music's different) of self-conscious defenders of jazz as a cultural artifict.

Bob

"Pale Rider needs to show one troll the back of his hand so that the other trolls know who brings the thunder and the lightning into the shit storm of their life.

I must say--the work people are doing to fight the trolls is excellent lately. I am humbled by the efforts of others to smack the shit out of these perverted little beasts and I work hard to maintain the honor of being able to post here." - frail rider

For every mindless post of yours citing links, conservatives can match you with their own links. In your little partisan mind, yours is the only one worthy. You're a puppet.

What a pathetic worthless piece of puppet shit you are.

Have a nice day.

Jay:

If you want to cite NewsMax, then go post on LGF.

Thanks,

Bob

rmck1, if you don't consider all viewpoints, move to North Korea. Jimmy Carter liked it.

If churches want to enter into the realm of influencing policy, they have breeched the divide and should pay taxes.

What divide are you referring to? They may (depending on the exact action) be in danger of breaching the statutory rules governing tax-exempt non-profits, but they certainly haven't come anywhere close to breaching any constitutional barrier. The religion clauses protect the people, individually and in their private religious assemblies, from government, they do not limit political expression by the people, individually or in any kind of assembly.

"The secretive North is an enigma as far as its military capabilities are concerned. And its nuclear development also remains shrouded in mystery since it kicked out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and then withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 1993"

"They don't yet have nuclear devices that can be delivered and their carriers are at the development stage," said Pavel Zolotarev, an arms expert with the US and Canada Institute in Moscow.

"Still, there is general agreement that unless the North scraps its nuclear program or is forcibly stripped of it, Pyongyang will be able to launch a nuclear strike within the next decade."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3313044,00.html

And yet liberals want us to believe that Clintons program of containment and appeasement worked and just since 2002, when Bush called the spade a spade, did NK decide to go nuclear.

hmmm..............

Chris - Are you familiar with Prop 2 on the Missouri ballot this fall?

That is the one that has my hackles up right now. I saw a voters guide that was distributed at a Catholic parish. It was damning peoples souls to hee if they voted for Prop 2. Every parish in town has signs all over their property "Vote No on Proposition 2."

Being a firm believer in the sacrosanct nature of the divide, I also gave my own Rabbi an earful about my synagogue placing signs on their untaxed property urging voters to vote Yes on Prop. 2.

I tjhink they were damned to hell, too.

Chris - Are you familiar with Prop 2 on the Missouri ballot this fall?

Well, not that the specific proposal has any relevance to any of my points, but yes, I've looked it up.

That is the one that has my hackles up right now. I saw a voters guide that was distributed at a Catholic parish. It was damning peoples souls to hee if they voted for Prop 2. Every parish in town has signs all over their property "Vote No on Proposition 2."

Being a firm believer in the sacrosanct nature of the divide, I also gave my own Rabbi an earful about my synagogue placing signs on their untaxed property urging voters to vote Yes on Prop. 2.

Allowing people to place distribute such flyers or place such signs doesn't seem to violate the federal statutory rules governing tax-exempt nonprofits like churches and synagogues, and it certainly doesn't violate any Constitutional divide.

You are, of course, well within your rights not to like such activity in general, or on particular issues, or on particular sides of particular issues, and to complain about it to the leaders of the religious communities involved.

But I have no idea what "divide" you think is being breached here; its certainly not the Constitutional barrier against government mandating or interfering with religious practice laid out in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment that is often referred to as the "wall of separation between Church and State".

For every mindless post of yours citing links, conservatives can match you with their own links.

Cite, please?

We get this from conservatives around here:

Unfortunately, you're just too stupid to have a conversation with. Bye.

I've seen braver and stronger titty babies...

are social conservatives ever going to catch on to the way they're being conned by the Republican Party?

It's hard for a battered spouse to leave an abusive relationship.

I'd advise libs to set-up up a battered social conservatives center to take in those poor troubled souls when they finally have had enough.

"But I have no idea what "divide" you think is being breached here; its certainly not the Constitutional barrier against government mandating or interfering with religious practice laid out in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment that is often referred to as the "wall of separation between Church and State"."

That separation thing works both ways, pal.

Here's the deal, the way it's supposed to work. Government may not interfere with church worship, fine. So they get concessions like tax exemption, not available to regular citizens.

As well, churchs may not interfere with government. To do so is a violation of that deal. Get into politics, you're into government's territory.

They are stepping across the line into political advocacy if they are putting up signs on their property.

Rather than have the government step in and tell them how to worship, which you seem to fear and yet nobody (except the Christianists) is advocating, it seems rational that they should simply have their tax-emxempt status revoked.

They are now, by their deeds, political organizations as well as churches and synogogues.

If you think it is unfair that churches should have their tax exemption taken away for political activity, what do you think about the Bush Admin doing exactly that?

Of course, the Bushistas are just narrowly focusing on churches that take an anti-war stance. (Because, you know, "thou shalt not kill" and all that holy stuff?) Churches that promote the GOP agenda and candidates are left alone. Not just left alone, but funelled tax dollars through the Office of Faith-based Initiative.

So? It's a-ok to narrowly enforce the law against churches that disagree with policy while ignoring, and paying off with tax dollars, those that help you politically? Or is it better to enforce the exemption policy completely and fairly, and keep tax dollars out of churches?

Or would it be better to simply revoke ALL religious tax exemption, and at the same time give all religious outfits the right to participate in politics? (This is the route I'd take- let them participate in politics like any other group of citizens, but tax them fairly as any other group would be as well.)

Jeez, we are soooooo off-topic here...

Remember the original topic? The one about Fundie reaction to current GOP scandal as evidence that they are being taken for a ride?

A commenter at The News Blog made an excellent point about the effect Foleygate will have on depressing not just the vote but the activism of church women. Not only will many "church ladies" be witholding their votes, they will not be running the phone banks, canvassing, or any of the other grass-roots GOTV activism that they have been providing in the past, thus forcing the party to spend money on these things that they didn't have to spend before.

Meanwhile, GOTV and volunteerism among Democrats seems to be higher in this election than at any time in recent memory. (I have no proof, just my own opinion on this.)

Church ladies may be deferential to their husbands in public, but privately and amongst themselves, they are seething mad. Virtually every woman, particularly in the uber-patriarchy that is a fundamentalist church, knows full well the harm done by sexual predation by men in positions of power. Most have experienced it themselves. Many will punish the GOP for covering this up. It is a huge betrayal to the "family values" voters.

And anybody who understands fundamentalist churches knows that while the menfolk are in charge, the women really run the place. Always.

Jay slobbers:

The atom bombs was used in Japan, not a nuclear bomb.

Once again Jay wins the Dumbest Troll of the Day Award. Congrats! Your fruit basket is in the mail.

That's it. He is either eleven years old with anger issues or he is to stupid to get out of bed without a helmet. And he calls me idiot? Hoo boy.

Why would religious conservatives catch on to having been taken for a ride by the Bush/Rove/Republicans when we democrats have failed to catch on about the 100 orders that Bush-Cheney-Paul Bremer forced the Iraqis to accept in their Constitution?

Out of all of the mistakes made by the Bush administration in Iraq (right after actually going there in the first place), the 100 orders is really the lynchpin for all that has gone wrong there. It's the proof that "liberating" the Iraqis was never Bush's intention. It's also the reason it was so difficult to get other nations on board as partners - Bush didn't want to share the booty.

Iraq had a Constitution that Bush declared null and void. You'd think we would have gotten a clue from that, about what he was going to do to our Constitution if he ever got the opportunity. Bush imposed a Constitution the Iraqis, which was a blueprint for making certain that Iraq was never a sovereign nation again, and that Bush couldn't be prosecuted for war crimes.

We're going on almost 4 years of occupying Iraq and most Americans have never heard of these 100 orders by Paul Bremer, and MSM has never reported on it.

`The Hand-Over That Wasn't - Illegal orders give the U.S. a lock on Iraq's Economy' by Antonia Juhasz.

Among the 100 orders was (order 39) privatizing Iraq's resources (oil) and preventing Iraqis from ever owning anything in their nation again without having an American (western) corporation's as a business partner. Iraqi farmers aren't even allowed to use their own seeds, they're required to buy, use and grow GMO seed from Big Agriculture (order 81). We destroyed Iraq's ancient seed stores, the oldest in the world, and then we force this on them.

`Baghdad Year Zero', by Naomi Klein.

Before we get too smug about having recognized Bush and Republicans as posers, we've got some housecleaning of our to do.

Until Democrats (the DLC) stop talking about "redeploying" (instead of pulling out of the Middle East entirely) and start talking about the mess that Corporatism has left us in, we can only presume that our party's leaders (and their Corporate Masters) intend to pick up where Bush will leave off if they ever get into power again.

And he calls me idiot? Hoo boy.

Did he? I missed that?

You kick ass, darlin'. Don't be listening to no blog thread troll...

ps: when do we go shoe shopping?

Democratic commitment to Roe v. Wade - This is probably the biggest issue. The Democratic party fully supports a bad parsing of the Constitution which makes it illegal for conservative states to pass abortion laws through their own state legislatures. We are not pro-life because we want to ram our morality down your throats. We believe that the morality of a nation means something and that allowing the sacrifice of nascent life due to the whim of the mother does not make for a better society. Granted this is just our moral opinion, but the debate on these types of laws belongs in the State House not in the U.S. Senate where Democratic senators use a litmus test for against all Supreme Court nominees.

Why does it belong in a State House, as opposed to a Federal Courthouse, where the individual citizen's rights as guaranteed under the Constitution are protected against the tyranny of a majority that does want to cram their morality down throats of all? Those who don't want abortions are free not to have them. I can't think of a better example of "pushing one's religion and morality onto another" than what anti-choice Christians are doing.

Would it make any difference to you, or would you just adjust your argument (because Goddamnit, you just can't see any other point of view on how another person ought to live his or her life, but your own), if you knew that at the time of the founding of this country, abortion was prevalent and legal? It happens to be true. If the founders didn't recognize a zone of privacy, they easily could have included a restriction. And don't say that the founders held back because they thought abortion should be left up to the states: There were no anti-abortionists waiting to pick up the cause for a hundred years - and even then was for protectionist business practices.

Abortion only became illegal as a means of regulating commerce and protecting the business of surgeons (mid-wives and pharmacists were who women sought out when they wanted to terminate pregnancies, and the newly coined profession of surgery wanted to get rid of their competition).

If abortion is outlawed in the U.S., women with money will always be able to get one. They will be able to travel anywhere in the world where it's legal, France, for instance. What outlawing abortion in the U.S. does is sentence poor women and women who don't want to have children or aren't ready to have children, to lives of dissatisfaction. It will sentence both the women and the children to lives of poverty, which is well-documented already. This will be a more conflicted world than exists now - children raised by people who didn't want them. Our prisons are already overflowing with people who didn't have the best upbringing.

You're also living in a dream world if you believe that women will give their children up for adoption once forced to have them. Or that there are homes for all children whose parents have given them up. Even now, there are about 500,000 children languishing in foster care - a miserable way for children to grow up.

Even now, there are about 500,000 children languishing in foster care - a miserable way for children to grow up.

Perhaps if we had sane, reasonable leaders we could find a way for gay couples to be foster parents in this country instead of demonizing them.

There you go wingnuts--write it down. The Democrats want gay couples to be foster parents. Shout it from the rooftops.

Jay (*damn* I must be bored):

>> If you want to cite NewsMax, then go post on LGF.

> rmck1, if you don't consider all viewpoints, move to North Korea.

There's an old expression, Jay: You're entitled to your own
opinions. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. I
started posting on the NYT Iraq fora in the Fall of '02, and for
the first few weeks or so, my views were fluid on the invasion.
My gut told me a war would be wrong, but I seriously considered
the frightening possibility that Saddam has some really nasty
weapons up his sleeve and pondered whether an invasion might be
necessary. I debated the pro-war folks with an open mind and
assiduously followed their links. Some would say I was a real
babe in the woods. So I read a lotta stuff from NewsMax ...

And you know what? They were wrong on WMD. They were wrong
on Saddam's connection with al Qaeda. They were wrong on Iraq's
connection to international terrorism. They passed off spoonfed
administration press releases without sourcing them so regularly
that they made Judith Miller look like a model of journalistic
integrity (and she was and is, in comparison).

So NewsMax is what you call a discredited source. Pale Rider spanked
your hard with the real facts, Jay. Be a man and own up to it. You
win debates with facts, not with duelling crossposts. I could win
a debate that the earth was flat if it were only about googling.

Doesn't stop Thomas1 from trying every day, of course :)

> Jimmy Carter liked it.

Diplomats go where they're needed to go, Jay.

One of our biggest problems in the world is that George Bush
won't give the time of day to regimes he happens not to like.

You know what James Baker said about that, right?

Talking to your enemies isn't appeasement.
Wise words from a Republican elder statesman.

Bob

Uh- Roberts & Alito?

I’m satisfied so far…. (plus a host of others bones they throw)

Tucker Carlson is an Episcopagan talking to Chris Mathews a fallen Catholic.

Neither knows squat about social conservatives.

“Why does it belong in a State House, as opposed to a Federal Courthouse, where the individual citizen's rights as guaranteed under the Constitution are protected against the tyranny of a majority that does want to cram their morality down throats of all? Those who don't want abortions are free not to have them. I can't think of a better example of "pushing one's religion and morality onto another" than what anti-choice Christians are doing. “
Roe v Wade is merely an opinion, a judicial opinion-simple precedent. A majority of 5 of 9 justices can impose “tyranny of the majority” just as well as 51% of the population can. In order for this line of reasoning to be valid in a Democracy, one would require a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Then one could safely argue that this is an individual right the court are upholding. (as apposed to the whim of a court)
Heretofore your argument is a historical – abortion was regulated under the police powers of the state governments. (and universally illegal) For a “fundamental right” to be thrust upon the nation through a unaccountable, extralegal means – is tyranny of the most elitist and raw type.

“if you knew that at the time of the founding of this country, abortion was prevalent and legal? It happens to be true. If the founders didn't recognize a zone of privacy, they easily could have included a restriction. And don't say that the founders held back because they thought abortion should be left up to the states: There were no anti-abortionists waiting to pick up the cause for a hundred years - and even then was for protectionist business practices.”

This is total B.S. – feminist anti-history designed as pure propaganda to satiate an argument. Abortion was so universally reviled that it was comparable to bestiality (many States didn’t have statutes against it because they weren’t needed, everyone -everywhere thought it so awful that laws weren’t considered necessary)

Anti-biotics were not available at the time so abortion also carried a strong possibility of death for the pregnant women, further discouraging the practice.

No, Democrats aren't "pro-Abortion." They believe the law says a woman has the right to choose to "have an abortion. Conservative states are passing laws in direct contradiction to the law of the land in order to force the Supreme Court to hear their case and possibly overturn Roe v Wade. Which side is more dishonest? And do you want to be governed by people who OBSERVE the rule of law or by people WHO PLAY TRICKS in order to subvert the rule of law?"

This is all very matter of fact, people passing laws and amendments through their State and Federal Legislatures that dont jibe with a current Supreme Court precedent is not the "playing tricks to subvert the rule of law" on the contrary it IS the law.