Conservative does not equal Republican, and Republican does not equal conservative. Case in point:
A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.
The meeting of about 50 leaders, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone, took place at the Grand America Hotel during a gathering of the Council for National Policy, a powerful shadow group of mostly religious conservatives. James Clymer, the chairman of the U.S. Constitution Party, was also present at the meeting, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.
"The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party," said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. "Dobson came in just for this meeting," the person said.
Now, I certainly don't think such an effort is either warranted or helpful, but I do notice that when a socially conservative candidate wins a Repubican nomination, there's very little talk of this group or that coalition breaking off to run a third-party candidate.
A few quick thoughts.
First, please remember this story when you hear Democrats complain that the Republican Party is completely controlled by social conservatives. If such were the case, you'd never hear the all-too-often threats about people taking their ball and going home.
Second, a third-party anti-abortion nominee is going to accomplish only one thing - ensuring the election of a pro-choice Democratic nominee.
Third, if people are floating and leaking stories like this just a few weeks after Thompson's announcement, what does that tell us about their perceptions of Thompson's campaign?
Fourth, this really reinforces that the only thing that can screw up 2008 for the Democrats is the Democrats.
IP, did you do the "find your candidate" test yet? I buried it in a open thread, but would love to see if your affinity for Rudy lines up with positions.
I'm a 94% match with Tancredo, and a 64% match with Rudy. The problem with the survey is that it is way, way too simplistic. For example, it asks if I support a "citizen path for illegals" and how important I think the issue is. Well, given my unorthodox stance on immigration (open quotas wide open, strict penalties for employer violators and future illegals, no amnesty, some sort of competence demonstrated by the Feds), how am I supposed to answer that issue? Same with abortion. Same with death penalty.
Overall, the structure didn't impress me.
I think you just don't like the results :-) Did Fred and Romney score higher than Rudy?
Don't remember - I really didn't look, as I was pretty turned off by the asinine nature of the questions.
:-)
This is probably more about ensuring a pro-life Republican is chosen than actually forming a third party... thats probably why we are talking about it now instead of after Rudy is picked.
If the Council for National Policy and their associated invitees think a less-viable pro-life candidate is preferable to a more-electable one who is pro-choice, good for them. They should adhere to their moral position. As IP points out, this will only serve to further fragment the party and ensure a win for the Dems in the presidential election.
If, on the other hand, they're floating this threat in order to gauge how effective the leverage might be within the party, then it's worth noting that using such leverage successfully would just produce the same result.
Maybe the CNP is pessimistic enough about the 2008 outcome to be willing to make a strong statement to the Republican Party for future consideration?
Maybe their point is that the people shouldn't vote for Rudy because he is "the most electable" - because maybe he isn't.
My general belief is that by asking a large swath of voters that they better drink the Kool-Aid or you'll get far worse is only a slightly less offensive way of telling them to shut up and pay up. It isn't up to the voters to support whoever the gatekeepers put on the ballot, it's up to those who put their name on the ballot to earn the vote. Every time I hear something coming from a Republican along the lines of "you better vote GOP or you'll get X Dem", it makes me want to vomit. If you were worried about fragmentation, you wouldn't alientate those voters to begin with. Compromise isn't fostered by telling people to shut up and toe the line. I imagine you'd get more progress with Dobson by saying you'd promise strict constructionist judges than you will by telling him you'll end up with Hillary is you don't just pack up and go home.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"Every time I hear something coming from a Republican along the lines of "you better vote GOP or you'll get X Dem", it makes me want to vomit. If you were worried about fragmentation, you wouldn't alientate those voters to begin with. Compromise isn't fostered by telling people to shut up and toe the line."
I'm not telling anyone to shut up and toe the line. I'm telling them that they have many options to beat Rudy in the Primary, and if they can't, maybe that says they need to re-think their message and strategy rather than pout, quit and go home.
"I imagine you'd get more progress with Dobson by saying you'd promise strict constructionist judges than you will by telling him you'll end up with Hillary is you don't just pack up and go home."
Which is exactly what Rudy has promised. Yet Rudy's promises on judges are ignored by this group, while Romney's and Thompson's promises on multiple issues are hailed as some sort of conversion.
Seems that the theocons have read the writing on the wall, know that the GOP has no hope of hanging on to the White House after eight years of Bushification, and are angling for the 2012. If they sit out 2008, then they can claim credit when the 2008 wave sinks the GOP. "No, it wasn't that George Bush was the worst president since Nixon that caused us to get such a spanking in 2008 -- it was because we, the theocons, wanted to teach the GOP a lesson about what happens when you dare ignore our demands. Now drop to your knees and say you *believe*."
The Dems couldn't ask for a better line-up: pro-abortion Rudy as front-runner, in second place a Mormon the theocon Christians don't regard as Christian, in third place Grandpa "The Fire in My Belly Went Out" Fred. And every delegate -- well, every male delegate -- who flies into Minneapolis for the GOP convention can take a quick detour to see the Larry "No I'm Not Gay" Craig Toilet Stall in the Minneapolis airport.
Anonymous, keep dreamin'.
The Democrats are going to have to live with Hillary as their candidate. Have you read the NYTimes today? Apparently, many of their top (liberal) columnists were casting similarly negative statements about her. And while a third-party pro-life candidate would be bad for a pro-choice GOP candidate, the liberals are just as likely to put up a third-party anti-war candidate to split the liberal vote.
First the republican platform has indicated that the party is pro-life, it was a party of principle now I guess people are not allowed to have them. Second Dr. Dobson indicates in other stories on this subject he doesn't really like Thompson either, so you can blame someone else for its leak. Third you will forgive me if I don't believe the tiger is saying he is becoming a vegetarian, like when Rudy says he is becoming a conservative during an election. I didn't realize Thompson had to convert on issues.
"First the republican platform has indicated that the party is pro-life, it was a party of principle now I guess people are not allowed to have them."
Oh, goodness. I can't believe we have to go through this again.
Please tell me where I say that people aren't allowed to have principles. If you can't, please don't put words in my mouth.
"Second Dr. Dobson indicates in other stories on this subject he doesn't really like Thompson either, so you can blame someone else for its leak."
Please tell me where I say that Thompson's campaign leaked this. If you can't, please don't put words in my mouth.
"Third you will forgive me if I don't believe the tiger is saying he is becoming a vegetarian, like when Rudy says he is becoming a conservative during an election. I didn't realize Thompson had to convert on issues."
Just one example: Thompson has "converted" on McCain-Feingold, which is of particular interest to social conservatives given the Wisconsin State Right-to-Life lawsuit. Thompson's not a flawless social conservative, no matter how much somebody may wish that he is.
Who's dreaming? Dems know that the first order of business is to get the White House back into Democratic hands, so that we can begin to undo the damage Bush has done to our country and our Constitution. Dems aren't going to be wooed away by a Green Party candidate, because they saw up close and personal what happened in 2000: Nader gave the White House to Bush, and the country has paid an almost incalculable price for it since then, not the least of it being the $800,000,000,000 (and counting, that's only appropriations through 2008) price tag on the wild goose chase in Iraq.
The tent's not big enough for Rush Limbaugh who insulted war veterans, calling those who oppose the war "phony soldiers".
What a scumbag.
Limbaugh insulted NO VETS, The guy he was talking about was a Army boot camp wash out who lied about being in combat, this guy was booted out after 42 days for being a slacker!! , try getting your info from someplace other than the NY Times or CNN.
I have read many of your comments before. My two cents are put towards the question of why does everyone want to attack this subject in a entirely political stance? If you call yourselves pro-life than fight for life. Fight to make an adoption system that doesn't simply allow "unwanted" children to survive but fix the system so it allows these children to thrive. When there is a safe place for children to go when they have no where else to go then, and only then, will you fully win the support of the majority to outlaw all unnessary abortions. I believe many pro-choicers support that stance because of that very lack of an alternative choice and because of the perception of what many see as a greatly flawed system. How can you force someone to bring a life into this world with no options? We can sit here and debate abstinence, personal responsibility, and so many other important issues but why not actually accomplish something while we debate. Find me a politician that speaks of fixing something that will help society and actually has the ideas and ability to follow through. Find me political leaders that not only support just causes but support the reformation of systems that need vast improvements. Show me people that want to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of current institutions and then I'll be ready to hear why I should vote for you or your politician.
On October 1st, 2007 at 10:49 PM, Gregg said:
Limbaugh insulted NO VETS, The guy he was talking about was a Army boot camp wash out who lied about being in combat, this guy was booted out after 42 days for being a slacker!! , try getting your info from someplace other than the NY Times or CNN."
I've read the transcript of Limbaugh's radio show. Obviously you haven't. As IP loves to say, Reading is fundamental.
He said it, he said it in the plural, and he's a scumbag and should be repudiated, not supported.
Given that phony veterans had been big in the news prior to Rush Limbaugh's comments, including MacBeth who was obviously on his mind since he was the topic of a segment less than 2 minutes later in the show... the context seems to support Rush's explanation. His wording could be construed as having been an attack on any veteran who opposes the war but the caller and Rush both specified fake or phony veterans. Neither said that all soldiers who oppose the war are frauds but Rush should have probably made clear at the time he wasn't trying to imply that either to avoid confusion.
I'm not a Rush listener, nor a Rush fan in any way. I don't like talking heads telling me how I should think. But given the surrounding events and the actual words used the situation doesn't seem to add up to the outrageous allegations of people who obviously dislike Rush and just want to discredit a conservative talking head or help their own party's image when it comes to respecting our men and women in uniform.
I'm assuming that Rush, like myself, had been paying attention to the phony veterans (plural) stories coming off the network news (the ABC special from 2 days prior is available on YouTube) including but not limited to Jesse MacBeth. His comments seem to fit with the surrounding events and that context.
This controversy hardly merits legislation by Congress. It merits discussion. The recent Military Times polling shows that military support for the Iraq war has fallen significantly over the years but still remains higher than the general public. The figures seem to shoot holes in the belief that the military overwhelmingly supports the Iraq war, but generally speaking they still lean far more towards finishing the job than bailing. That is worth discussing. This "scandal" is just a distraction and an absurd abuse of congressional power by democrats. A political pundit said something almost, but not quite, but could be... if you ignore the surrounding events and context... possibly interpreted to indirectly offend.
Somehow I think they could find something more constructive to do with their time... but then again, look who's running it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
When there is a safe place for children to go when they have no where else to go then, and only then, will you fully win the support of the majority to outlaw all unnessary abortions. I believe many pro-choicers support that stance because of that very lack of an alternative choice and because of the perception of what many see as a greatly flawed system. How can you force someone to bring a life into this world with no options?
MT Angel, it seems that Mr. Adams is talking directly to you - your question is quite timely.
The only thing interesting about the Limbaugh flap is that MoveOn has shown that they control they debate in the Senate when its in Democrat hands and that said Democrats would rather talk about what some insignificant talk show host has to say and to parse his words on the Senate floor than being about the serious business of running a country.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
It is a non governmental issue. Taxes should not fund abortion. Those that want to support planned parenthood should. Those that morally can't justify paying for the death of a baby shouldn't. It is that simple.
Ours is a society of phillanthropists, let them fund this system, not tax payers. Let them develop programs to minimize the atrocity that is lived by the mother and kills the unborn.
Let them develop the programs through the private sector, to govern citizens towards funding abortion is atrocious in and of itself. The abortion is a private matter between the mother, the baby and possibly a God, not to mention the doctor, (what is the effect on these doctors minds, numbing I'm sure).
Society can and will deal with life if that is the decision. The private sector should take over this abortion machine, Americas government must wash its hands of this one.
"Conservative does not equal Republican, and Republican does not equal conservative" –Does this mean Conservatives are in the Big tent or out, either we are a big tent or not. Just because your candidate is a liberal you shouldn’t kick the conservative base to the curb, because they disagree with Rudy on the issues.
""Please tell me where I say that Thompson's campaign leaked this. If you can't, please don't put words in my mouth."""
"Third, if people are floating and leaking stories like this just a few weeks after Thompson's announcement, what does that tell us about their perceptions of Thompson's campaign?"—
These are your words from above are they not? The sentence includes the word leaking and then blames the Thompson campaign, or are you going to start splitting hairs. Why though out this thread are you associating Thompson with what these conservatives are doing, would this be an attempt at guilt by association?
"Just one example: Thompson has "converted" on McCain-Feingold, which is of particular interest to social conservatives given the Wisconsin State Right-to-Life lawsuit. Thompson's not a flawless social conservative, no matter how much somebody may wish that he is."—
Thompson thought we needed the bill, he did not agree with its final form. I do not know of any Congressman who voted for it that did. That's not a conversion that reality of the process. Your right Thompson isn’t perfect on conservative issues there isn’t one with the money that can win, but he’s a lot closer too the base then Rudy. Conversion is when a candidate who tries to sue a private company which sells a legal product like Guns so that industry might go out of business and then says he didn't mean it.
"Does this mean Conservatives are in the Big tent or out, either we are a big tent or not. Just because your candidate is a liberal you shouldn’t kick the conservative base to the curb, because they disagree with Rudy on the issues."
It means just what I said - that conservative and Republican aren't necessarily the same thing. Why do you need to assume I'm saying things that I'm not?
"These are your words from above are they not? The sentence includes the word leaking and then blames the Thompson campaign, or are you going to start splitting hairs. Why though out this thread are you associating Thompson with what these conservatives are doing, would this be an attempt at guilt by association?"
If you actually will read what I wrote, you'll see that I'm not blaming Thompson's campaign for leaking this - I'm saying that the people who did leak this must not be that impressed by Thompson's campaign.
"Thompson thought we needed the bill, he did not agree with its final form."
He was a co-sponsor. If he didn't like it very much, he could have voted against it or, at the very least, no longer have been a co-sponsor. And I'm not attacking him, just responding to your never ending drumbeat of criticisms of Rudy with an example of Thompson not being the Holy Grail you perceive him to be. But you'll just keep attacking Rudy, while insisting that Thompson is flawless, and keep putting words in my mouth.
I've come to this discussion late, but I'd like to ask Anonymous at 9PM, Oct. 1st, a question. What makes you think a Democratic president will, "undo the damage Bush has caused to our country and our Constitution?" I'll admit, I haven't, so far, paid too much attention to the campaigns, but I have yet to hear any candidate, except Ron Paul, say that, once in office, they'll give up the powers the Executive Branch has accrued over the course of the Bush administration. Or for that matter, the powers accrued by the Clinton administration, the Bush One administration, und so wieter.
No, it's not "that simple." Whether you like it or not, abortion is a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure. For the government to go beyond that and decide against it using what are, to all intents and purposes, against it is inappropriate. Abortion isn't murder.
Which makes it exactly the same as every other medical procedure and still none of the government's business.
I am not attacking Rudy I am pointing out what is/was his stance on major issues of the Republican Party. It’s not my fault Rudy has such a poor record on issues, like the fact he has supported Partial Birth Abortion, something few Republicans support.
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth, when did I say Thompson was flawless actually I said in my last post he wasn't perfect. I don't hate Rudy as you have said and I think it showed real guts going to the NRA to speak.
I think abortion should be left alone, embryonic stem cell research is a good thing, I got no problems with sexual preference but think civil union is a joke, I think pot should be legal, I think the government should tax less spend less and stay out of my business, I think people should be able to smoke in 24 hour strip bars, I think we should have concealed carry, or open carry in Illinois. I'm for a strong military but against this war. I think we should guarantee medical care for children, but not adults. Can I be in the tent?
It's fine with me, but Dobson and some others would rather you (and I) stayed out.
Lucky for us, he's not in charge. He just thinks he is, and the media feeds his ego.
"I think abortion should be left alone, embryonic stem cell research is a good thing, I got no problems with sexual preference but think civil union is a joke, I think pot should be legal, I think the government should tax less spend less and stay out of my business, I think people should be able to smoke in 24 hour strip bars, I think we should have concealed carry, or open carry in Illinois. I'm for a strong military but against this war. I think we should guarantee medical care for children, but not adults. Can I be in the tent?"
Actually, I think there is probably a significant portion of the public (if not the majority) who pretty much agree with you on all of that. I think you should own the tent. The public posturers who pass for national candidates and parties these days should be renting it from you.
Thanks, Kevin, but you're a Dem, and it's a Republcan tent. Still haven't heard from them.
I don't have to read the transcript, I heard it on the radio the first time. Harry Reid, Dick "Turban", John Murtha should be censured for the comments they have made about our soldiers!! Durbin, "They are Nazis", Murtha,"They are Murderers", Reid, "The war is lost", and not to forget Ms. Clinton who voted to cut funds for guns and bullet proof vests for the troops, after SHE voted for the war. Where is the out cry from even one Republician??? are these people scared of Move On.org and the Clintons?...Gutless all of them!
I think McCain Feingold as an issue resonates far less than abortion, guns, judges, and a host of other items. McCain Feingold did not inherently favor one side over the other in its passage. However, when Republicans cross on these other issues they are siding primarily with Democrats and giving Dems an advantage.
How much Rudy will lose in the general in terms of Republican fall off, third party or not, is a big question. I am long way from really figuring that one out. There's a lot to be heard between now and November about whoever our nominee is.
"McCain Feingold did not inherently favor one side over the other in its passage."
True - it favored the legacy media.
"How much Rudy will lose in the general in terms of Republican fall off, third party or not, is a big question. I am long way from really figuring that one out."
I think that it's anybody's guess at this point, and that nobody really knows.
"There's a lot to be heard between now and November about whoever our nominee is."
I agree completely.
straight from one of the horses mouth - from the Family Research Council Action update:
and
"If we surrender on life, what is left to defend?"
Failing to get a pro-Life nominee isn't the same as surrendering. Running a third-party pro-Life candidate isn't the same as surrendering, either, but will yield the same results.
Remember all the deficit hawks who supported Ross Perot in 1992? How did that work out for them?
"Some say that it is naive to hold such a black-and-white position, given other important issues and the dangerous state of world affairs today."
They'd be right.
"Let me assure you, with a background in the military, law enforcement and anti-terrorism, I understand the threats we face. But we ultimately have to ask the question, what do we stand for? What will we fight for? If we surrender on life, what is left to defend?"
The ability of him and his countrymen to freely debate such issues along with many other important ones and work to forge a more perfect union to secure the blessing of liberty. If that's not worth defending to this guy, he needs to talk to his proctologist about his misplaced cranium.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"However, I will not support a candidate or a party that will turn its back on the unborn - even if it's for tax cuts, tough judges, and national security."
Brilliant, since tough judges are the only ones who can do anything about it.
Gordy, I don't think you fully realize how offensive the "supporting Perot gave you 8 years of Clinton" sentiment is. And guess what, if the GOP had listened to those deficit hawks, we might not have a Democratic Congress now, and likely, a Democrat in the White House in 08.
So come Novemeber 2008, you tell me how well it works out.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Remember all the deficit hawks who supported Ross Perot in 1992? How did that work out for them?
Clinton reversed the "trickle-down" economic policies that created that huge deficit. By 2000 we were running a massive surplus. I'd say it worked out pretty well for those folks, at least for a while. If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years it is that electing a Republican president is going to mean larger deficits. By that undeniable logic, supporting a third-party candidate to undermine a Republican nominee is the best choice a deficit hawk could make.
What you all seem to be missing in this picture is the politics. The Republicans have owned the pro-life folks for so long that it is almost incomprehensible to consider that they could stray from the flock. Yet very little has been done by Republicans to address the abortion issue. It is almost as if ... oh, I don't know ... the party doesn't WANT abortion to go away as an issue. Almost as if criminalizing a woman's right to choose would kill the issue and allow the pro-lifers to think about something else on election day.
Furthermore, as a Christian who opposes abortion, I have to tell you that it is almost impossible for me to vote Republican any more. So many of the GOP's policies fly in the face of scripture and what I personally believe to be government's role in society. I am not the only Christian who has a hard time voting Republican just because they are supposed to be "pro-life". This third party might have more to it than just the abortion issue. There are serious concerns about the environment, globalization, pornography, and a long list of other issues in which the Republicans seem to be disinterested, at best. Maybe it is time for a party that is serious about protecting life and American values like responsibility.
"The Republicans have owned the pro-life folks for so long that it is almost incomprehensible to consider that they could stray from the flock. Yet very little has been done by Republicans to address the abortion issue."
Unless they can get some more Supreme Court justices who agree that there are no substantive due process protections or those protections of liberty due not include a fundamental right to be free from government intervention in your private life when it comes to abortion related medical procedures, or that there is no compelling State interest that overwhelms said fundamental right to privacy... there isn't much they can do. The lower courts would be in a position of having to uphold the current stare decisis of the Supreme Court for the most part and throwing out any legislation Republicans push to the contrary.
If you haven't noticed the GOP has been working hard to appoint strict constructionists to the bench in hopes of changing that. Little may have been accomplished but that is hardly the same as saying that little has been done.
"So many of the GOP's policies fly in the face of scripture and what I personally believe to be government's role in society."
If you believe that government policy should be establishing the policies of your scripture then you should be sure to get the latest and greatest copy of the Constitution (the one since 1791) that prohibits that kind of crap. Your scripture is not the Supreme Law of the Land... nor should it be.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
No one is saying my scripture needs to be the law of the land. But I certainly hope I still have the right to support candidates who advocate policies with which I agree. As a Christian it is pretty important to me to support candidates who believe government should act in a responsible and moral way. That doesn't go against the Constitution in any way.
But I definitely appreciate the general argumentative tone and angry response. It is comforting to know that whatever I write I can always count on you to take the exact opposite position, even if you contradict yourself in the same comment.
I'm sorry if I construed "So many of the GOP's policies fly in the face of scripture and what I personally believe to be government's role in society." to mean that you thought the government should be implementing your scripture as policy. Perhaps you meant this in a way I didn't quite see? It sure did not come off as meaning that scripture merely influences your vote, even though such influence may obviously be contradictory to what the government is empowered to do and thus not translate to actual policy. Pardon my confusion.
I don't get angry. Sometimes I get annoyed, but never angry. Feel free to stop by at the blogger happy hour next Tuesday, I'm hardly the beligerent guy you seem to think I am. I get along with everybody, especially those I disagree with. I still miss arguing with TeacherMan (can hear the groans already). Now being argumentative... now THAT is something I'm all about. I question everything.
"It is comforting to know that whatever I write I can always count on you to take the exact opposite position, even if you contradict yourself in the same comment."
I tend to comment when I disagree as opposed to just saying "amen" to posts I do agree with. Part of my argumentative ways I guess. I'm sure we agree on some issues. Perhaps moratoriums on the death penalty, more funding for the VA, that Bush sucks on managing the Iraq occupation, that social services are necessary for the poor/disabled to at least some reasonable extent... things like that. If not those, perhaps something else. I'm not sure I've met someone I disagree with on everything... except Communists. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Gordy, I don't think you fully realize how offensive the "supporting Perot gave you 8 years of Clinton" sentiment is."
It's not a sentiment, it's reality. And I can't help it if reality is offensive.
"And guess what, if the GOP had listened to those deficit hawks, we might not have a Democratic Congress now, and likely, a Democrat in the White House in 08."
I completely agree.
"Clinton reversed the "trickle-down" economic policies that created that huge deficit. By 2000 we were running a massive surplus. I'd say it worked out pretty well for those folks, at least for a while."
By raising taxes during the first half of his first term. There was no restraint of the growth of the Federal government during Clinton's two terms (or during GWB's two terms, either). Not quite the deficit reduction that most Peronistas were hoping for.
Again, the social conservatives who made the threat are certainly free to support whomever they want. I just disagree with their analysis - they think supporting a third-party candidate will result in greater progress on socially conservative issues. I think it will be the greatest setback they've ever seen. American political history over the past 100 years provides plenty of evidence to support my analysis, and not theirs. But they're free, of course, to do whatever they want.
Glock et al-
The Constitution has no such prohibition about using anyone's personal values, no matter where derived, as a yardstick to measuring policy. If you're talking about the "Wall of Seperation" derivation of the First Amendment, I'd like you to explain how the Bill of Rights, designed with the explicit purpose of protecting individuals against government intervention, can be cited as cause to suppress individuals expressing their values at the ballot box or in public discourse. This isn't to say that I think Scripture should be adopted wholesale as the law of the land, but it is absolutely and indusputably the right of a voter to believe that and vote accordingly. Power in this country comes from the bottom, not the top. I find it patently offensive that certain people discuss the religious right (which I've been falsely labeled a part of), the designated boogyman of politics, in a way that suggests they should simply not have a say in the government. If you believe that, fine, stop taxing them.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Does pro-life support of the BOP mirror the solid Dem voting of blacks? Is it taken for granted?
It sure did not come off as meaning that scripture merely influences your vote, even though such influence may obviously be contradictory to what the government is empowered to do and thus not translate to actual policy. Pardon my confusion.
Well, you are confused. I used the term "personally" which is all any of us really do - we base our votes on our personal beliefs. It is actually pretty fundamental to the democratic process and yes, like millions of Americans before me, I am looking for candidates who reflect Biblical principles in the way they run the country. George W. Bush, however, does not seem capable of being any less Biblical at this point, in my opinion.
You might trace back the origins of some of the laws that you believe are NOT the "establishment of policies of scripture". The right to life, for example, evolved quite clearly out of religious principles. Private property, universal education (for women too!), the abolition of slavery, the 14th amendment, the civil rights movement. All have strong roots in the faith community. It does not take much analysis to see that faith has played a very important part in the lawmaking process of this country from the founding. Heck, even Woody Guthrie was known to warm up crowds with old gospel numbers. And some of the most radical anit-war folks from the 70s turned into the Jesus People. Their influence is still being felt today on both sides of the partisan divide.
You could almost say that our country wouldn't be half as free as it is today if it wasn't for the believers who stepped up and put their faith into action.
"I used the term "personally" which is all any of us really do - we base our votes on our personal beliefs. It is actually pretty fundamental to the democratic process and yes, like millions of Americans before me, I am looking for candidates who reflect Biblical principles in the way they run the country."
Personal beliefs are all fine and good. But legislating one's personal beliefs can get pretty hairy if those beliefs include limiting the fundamental rights and liberties of others without a compelling State interest or involves powers the government lacks under the Constitution. Due to that Constitution, Biblical concerns are just as irrelevant as Koranic or Satanic concerns when it comes to deciding whether or not the government is so empowered or if such a compelling State interest exists. I can understand that you prefer a candidate that has personal beliefs that are similar to yours, but I can't understand how anyone can appreciate liberty and support a candidate legislating his personal beliefs so that other citizens must abide by them. I don't know if that's what you're trying to suggest, as you seem to be avoiding denying it, but I hope that you understand why I believe and support the idea that laws must have a secular purpose and implementation in order to preserve liberty for all.
"You might trace back the origins of some of the laws that you believe are NOT the "establishment of policies of scripture". The right to life, for example, evolved quite clearly out of religious principles. "
I don't support throwing out murder laws just because the religious texts say, "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder," etc. There is obviously a compelling State interest involved with such laws that can be easily justified for secular reasons within the enumerated powers of government. You may be able to trace the support for some laws to various religious beliefs or movements but that does not negate the fact that the laws must be secular in nature and implemented as such. You can give religion credit for all sorts of wonderful things, but there is always an eerie silence about why a nation alleged to have been founded as a "Christian nation" didn't implement such ideas from the start if religion was to credit for these developments that came later, some over a century later.
Some of the awful injustices that you pointed out and gave religion credit for correcting were also justified using religion to maintain those injustices (sexual and racial equality especially). A familiar trend of the divine getting credit when things work out well and a deafening silence about the divine's blame when they do not. Giving the divine credit is all fine and good but that hardly justifies legislating ideas with religious origins generally given that we know that religious justifications can be both good and bad, especially if its of a religion or interpretation of that religion you don't agree with. There needs to be a secular rationale and implementation within the enumerated powers of the government, always keeping in mind that our government was established to secure the blessings of liberty. A tyranny of the majority forcing their personal beliefs upon others at the expense of liberty is something the founders specifically wished to avoid.
The United States government is neither a direct democracy nor a purely representative democracy for this very reason. The democratic influence is kept in check by the separation of powers between the branches of government, one that formerly had an appointed half (the Senate prior to 1913), one whose two top officers are elected by State appointed electors (the rest are appointees), and one that is entirely appointed. Binding all of them are limited enumerated powers under the Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land and provides checks and balances to help ensure they are held to it. Your appeal to the democratic process falls flat on this matter.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed