<i>"Until you GOP'ers can get your cart unhooked from the far-right-wing ox that's pulling it, you're going to have to accept the reputation."</i>

Accepting your premise for purposes of a response:

When the GOP starts losing elections, THEN it might be time for them to consider changes ...... whatever works, ya know. :D

You really think these Federal elections are being won via religion? I don't. The appeal of conservatism was displayed well by Flintsone a couple posts back, no mention of Jesus.

In this respect Rush is right:) You guys will continue on the shnide until you accept why it is you're losing, and peoples religion ain't it.

Wait a minute, maybe that's it! The left has always annointed itself "the intellectuals", so much so that it is perceived by them as unchallengable fact. Therefore they don't even look at the rational arguments of the right regarding any variety of subjects as it is so easy to pass it off as "classic conservative faith" rather than a studied/prima facia argument. Hmmm

say abortion..........they would tell you the rights only argument is a religious one, same for gay marriage, etc...

I agree with Daddy. Which is worrisome.

Cegerer, I understand that. What works, works. On the other hand, while your party is way way way over on the religious right, two things should be observed:

1. Don't ask me to consider your party "objective."
2. "Coming together" ain't gonna happen while your party is out on the far edge of the right wing.

Fint....respectfully, I am more than a little amused by your assertion that the very right-wing religious right conservative Republican party is the party of "tolerance" while the party whose main problem is too much diversity and not enough monopolitics is somehow the "intolerant" one. Sorry, but that's a knee-slapper.

Respectfully...from a guy who runs around in the forest wearing a dress..with a bunch of other guys....similarly dressed......that is funny! We tolerate you....even though we would not be caught dead in similar attire.

When you tolerate religous folks, social conservatives, etc equally...and stop calling them knuckle-draggers...idiots, etc....your party will attact more voters.

10-4
GOP does not a lunatic make.
:)

I lived in Salt Lake City for a few years, religions are fine by me :)

I am not afraid of what will happen to me if Christian faiths are given money, or if people in my government choose to have personal faith. This is fine. Even in SLC where %90 of the city is Mormon I never felt threatened, or oppressed (even though it was hard to find a job as a non-Mormon).

It's not myself that Im worried about, it's us as a whole. My needs are met, and if I were selfish I wouldn't even bother to vote. But as a responsible citizen I think its important to look out for others because I know that they have looked out for me and I owe it to them to participate.

What scares me about religion in this country is that its no longer an issue of practicing personal spirituality. Rather, I see the Christian faiths are being used as a political tool of influence. This may not be the case or it may not bother you as a member of the Right, but I think it has great power to destroy.

When I hear Bush speak, he reminds me of a Pastor or a Preacher. My problem with that is that those kinds of people don't ask you to choose what to believe, to consider other viewpoints. or even to think about what is important to you as an individual. They pass down commandments from on high for their followers to believe and not question. They present their interpretations as facts. Therein lies the power of fear over the power of thought. You don't want to be a sinner right? The Bible tells you what to do, right? They are the 12 Commandments, not the 12 Suggestions.

In my opinion, the religious Right uses religious thought to back legislation (ie abortion, gay rights, etc), and then leverages their trust with the faithful to do powerful, unholy, things (i.e. the gutting of environmental policy, the unwaranted liberation of an sinful nation, denial of scientific evidence, etc, etc).

You, as a member of the Right, may not feel influenced by what Im talking about and you may not see that influence in the government, but I think we can agree that its not in the best interests of the people if did exist. My lefty thinking probably makes me more suspicious of this kind of stuff but I hope we can agree that a degree of skepticism when looking at religion and politics is positive for everyone.

Unfortunately skepticism is almost a sinful thing in this country. Its a deviation from the Commandments, its a personal idea outside of some ancient book, its an original thought. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean its wrong.

"12 Commandments?" What the heck?

Face it...the radical religous right was brought out by you liberals....not the GOP. The minute you started going after the school Christmas pageant or play...made small towns give up their traditional nativity scenes or take pictures of churches or crosses off their town symbols (although they had been there for over a hundred years)....You made them concerned.

Then you took the 10 Commandments off the walls of courthouses and schools..and made fun of anyone who was the least bit religous...including our President..You worried them

When you caused the local schools to outlaw Christian religous groups and prayer but allow Islamic ones..You scared them.

...then your liberal Hollywood Icons began to portray their God as a man...having sex with his followers...and you really pissed them off!

Get used to it...they will.

TO state that "clearly conservatives are boud more by the desire for (you can read the rest)" is taking liberties with logic. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are for many of these thigs but do not consider thamselves conservatives, or at least the kind of conservatives that seem to be running the show.

'intolerance of other viewpoints" seems to cut both ways. All I have to do is read past postings on both sides of the fence to see the flaw in that statement. Some are far less tolerant than others. No, fint..I cannot buy the assertation that conservatives have all the answers.

Mock the source if you must(hell, he may have stolen it), but the difference between conservatives a Liberals is summed up like this.

Liberals measure success by how many people they have assisted, Conservatives by how many no longer need their assistance.

This is a profound statement IMO, and goes to the core of our differences. Both want to see people succeed, we just go about it in different ways.

Len: That isn't a bad definition. Now if the two could get together and identify those truly in need (children, disabled either physically or mentally, elderly) and how to reduce the number of freeloaders, we might truly get to that compassionate conservative level that I think most people could embrace.

There has to be room for a joint bi-partisan effort on the societal problems we are faced with.

I'm not going to argue further, but just to say that characterizing conservatives (particularly those who are trying to incorporate their religious moraes into our legal code) as tolerant and liberals as intolerant is seriously twisted thinking.

Len, you are about as reasonable as a twisted thinker can be and I actually have some understanding and support for aspects of your political hopes for my country. Your definition above is another concept that is helpful. I hope I do not sound critical when I say that, while it's nice to pretend that conservatives cause people to no longer need their assistance, I'd be interested to hear how many brownie points you believe should be awarded for the heroic and compassionate act of leaving people to their own devices and, in the absence of assistance, to fend for themselves. That sounds kinda like Dubya's brilliant plan for Social Security.....suggest that people save some money for retirement.

Of course, this is a trap (I might as well tell you since you seem fairly smart anyway) since you'll be playing into the liberals' hands if you start down the road of saying you support methods (a.k.a "programs") to assist the more unfortunate in our society to become self-sufficient without giving them handouts. You see, among us lunatic liberals, one of the main reasons our welfare programs have not been more successful is that they have never been funded at a level that would allow their success. I have ranted several times here over the years about my experiences in public sector employment, and one of my main gripes is that both sides of the isle know how to give everyone an excuse to feel victorious, without actually impacting citizens or workers. Liberals pass an attractive law or create an attractive program.....and the conservatives block the effective funding of that program. See? Everyone's happy. And you can continue to complain that these programs don't work.

So, which is it. Leave them alone to fend for themselves ("Let them eat cake"), or fund the programs that actually help them? If all you're willing to do is leave them alone to contribute or starve, then you don't get brownie points for anything but selfishness. And if you approve the programs....they are not as inexpensive as you'd like to pretend they are.

I have been listen to and reading Tom Wolfe on this subject. He is southern born and mannered, and as about a prominent big city intellectual as you can find..

He talks of how the intelligentsia just donsn't get it. How they mis-understand these middle-America folks as hard-core religious fundamentalists, trying to impose their mores and values across the land. But they are not that religious. They are basically living broad based American cultural values that have not changed as quickly as the right and left coasts, and pretty much want to be left alone.

Get over it. Nobody want to sit next to you in church, unless you want to be there too.

Listen to the trash talk in video games, the "piss Ford" (or whatever) stickers on cars, or try and watch 30 minutes of MTV one day. I am glad they vote they way they do.

See, this is the kind of stuff Im talking about:

from Salon.com:

Jerry Falwell has spoken to Karl Rove three times since the election, and Arlen Specter even called Falwell to assure him he won't block Bush's court nominees. Falwell is now working to shoot down the rising stars of Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani -- they are too moderate for Falwell's GOP. Evangelicals think Andy Card is too moderate, too, the Times' Peter Wallsten reports; perhaps Card is who Bob Jones III was referring to when he told Bush in a letter to "shed" himself of "weaklings who do not share his biblical values."

And a nice little peice by the liberal media (uber-exclusive-liberal-member-access-only):

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-evangelical12nov12,1,4695965.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

From the piece:

"Business as usual isn't going to cut it, where the GOP rides to victory by espousing traditional family values and then turns around and rewards the liberals in its ranks," said Robert Knight, who heads an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, a Christian conservative advocacy group. Knight also said: "The president has to stop endorsing homosexuality indirectly by supporting civil unions and called the Specter issue "a very big test" to see if the GOP leadership understood "the depth of what occurred on Nov. 2."

"If they decide to elevate Specter anyway, they will alienate millions of people who counted on them to begin pushing back liberalism instead of aiding and abetting it," he said.

He's one guy, not even in the administration. We weren't b1tching when Clinton had dinners with Barbra Streisand:)

As I have said, the Republican Party is allowing itself to be hijacked by its ultra ultra ultra right wing and the smug looks on you guys' faces are going to be gone some day soon if you let this continue.

Another thing I have said repeatedly is that I have no hope whatsoever that Dubya is going to "bring this country together." Nope. He's going to shove a right wing christian coalition agenda down everyone's throats. While dismantling Social Security and waging war with all of Israel's enemies. He's exactly the right guy to display the difference between his political orientation and mine.

Falwell may not be in the WhiteHouse, but I have a feeling his God is...

What legislation, either real or perceived has the Bush Admin pushed which you would consider to be authored by the "right wing christian coalition"?

Jerry Falwel did not deliver the votes that elected Bush. You know that. It was Karl Rove reaching out to one small church community at a time. Agenda? Hardly. To be left alone is more like it.
Supe- next vacation, I suggest you drive through swing states that turned red. See America. You will be surprised.

Call me a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist but I think the agenda is a little more covert than that. If it weren't, I don't think it would be an effective agenda at all, and we know that politicians are smarter than that (some, atleast).

I think Bush fosters a sense a "morality" with the church-going public. He uses Biblical-style phraises in his speech. He _wants_ us to know that he is a Christian and that he's following a Christian faith (of some kind, who knows). I think its a tool, a ploy, a way to sell his agenda. When you hear him say: "Ive consulted with God in prayer. I've decided to..." you get a feeling of "oh, this guy is a God-fearing individual who wouldn't conduct himself in an un-Godly manner". It builds trust, blind trust.

That trust can be, and has been, used to:
- carry out "Gods will" to liberate a Godless nation of sinners as a kind of new-age holy-war
- abuse international law (ie the Geneva Convention)
- grant the government the power to descriminate against homosexuals (a lot of these crazies still think its a lifestyle choice!)
- censor our media
- outlaw abortions
- repress science (stem cells, global warming, etc)

When you're doing "Gods work", you can do no wrong. Are any of you Righties at all upset over the nomination of this Gonzales character!?#% The guy is bad-news through and through!!! These people support Bush the man, not Bush the policy-maker.

But this might be the key to understanding our differences. I place my trust in the intellect of my leaders to make good choices, in their ability to think and reason. And Im not limited to liberals, I would gladly vote for Arnold. When he makes choices, I feel that he's thought about the issues and I support him even when we disagree. He tells me his reasons, he doesn't ask me to trust him.

I don't see those reasons, the trust in intellect, expressed in the way you've chosen GW as your leader. This trust in faith BS really worries me because it gives the man a great big permission slip to wreak as much havok as God will allow. Remember, GWs reelection is a mandate from God.