AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Irishk,

I want Palin to be one of the front-runners to ensure that the GOP losses. Palin's 18% support will do the trick.

@cicerone imposter,

Back in 1976, I lived in NH. I registered as a Republican in order to vote against Reagan by voting for some other Republican.

Reagan lost the primary then withdrew from the Presidential race only to come back stronger and serve two terms.

While I felt triumphant when Reagan withdrew, I have come to regret what I did.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Rockhead wrote:

cough...
I don't understand what you are talking about with regards to the "main-stream media" affecting the Repub's selection of a candidate, Okie. Romney being a Mormon, Kennedy a Catholic and others being Jewish or even Muslim seems to be an issue within the party, not an issue in the electorate at large.
Do you think that Romney's religion will be a factor within the Repub party when it comes to selecting a candidate?
Thanks for responding with your thoughts.

Here are my thoughts. The mainstream media dislikes anyone with strong Christian based moral convictions. Although JFK was Catholic, they did not perceive him as having strong religious convictions. Remember his romantic adventures, which they admired more than they had any problems with Catholicism? He was their camelot, and he struck a cord with their rebel attitude of the 60's.

Romney on the other hand, they are more than opposed to anything Mormon, because that religion does not harmonize with various modern liberal beliefs and sympathies. Examples would be abortion, gay marriage, etc. Because of that, I would predict an all out assault on Romney just by virtue of his Mormon beliefs. Perhaps in lesser races other than president, the issue would not attract as much attention, but not when the presidency is considered. Keep in mind here that neither am I Mormon, and I find some of their beliefs somewhat strange, but having traveled Utah and having been around Mormons, I recognize them as law abiding and patriotic Americans.

Unfortunately, there are some hangups within the Republican party about Mormons, and I believe even Huckabee is on record for saying something dumb about that.

The issue of Jewish and Muslim, I think that depends upon the candidate. There are still many people that think Obama is Muslim. Frankly, I do not know what he is. I doubt seriously that he is Christian, though he was connected to that supposedly Christian church in Chicago. But it was not very traditional Christian, that is for sure, as its beliefs were based upon "BLT," and it gave one of their big church awards to Islamic leader, Louis Farrakhan.

In general, religion is not a big deal with Democrats as long as the politician subjugates their religion to the Democratic party line, but they will always make it a big deal with any of their opponents, if they think they can use it to sway the voting public. You see, I do not think the Democratic Party acts out of principle. They instead act out of their own self interest and power.

I have written this several times, but morality or religion with Democrats are based upon social morality or public morality. Private beliefs and morality take a back seat to their Democratic Party beliefs and agenda. If any Democratic Party candidate subjugates his or her religion to the party agenda, that is all that matters, and so their candidate's religion is not an issue. In other words, they are Democrats first and individuals second. In a sense, Democrats first and most important religion as big government Statists, is the State (or government). In contrast, Republicans are generally individuals first, and politicians second. Party politics generally take a back seat to their individual beliefs, including their religion, and therefore this rubs the mainstream media the wrong way. Consider what I have said with a few politicians, such as Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and Romney. I realize I have stereotyped what is typical of Democrats and Republicans, but this is my honest opinion based upon my observation of politics for a few decades.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

POM is a very neurotic version of okie.

I take that as an insult, George. From what I've read of her posts, we have little to nothing in common.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And, yes, georgeob, pom's opinion is representative of the opinion of the people of the state. We have much too much experience with the man.

Please tell me you are kidding, MJ, for the sake of the future of Massachusetts.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

From what I've read of her posts, we have little to nothing in common.

Yes, my IQ has three numbers.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, How can you arrive at such a conclusion when you don't even know yourself! Your contradictions tells most of us you have no principle, common sense, or logic. You have the audacity to think your opinions have value; they don't. That's the reason why your opinions are constantly challenged. The only person on your side is ican; another conservative who doesn't understand numbers, because he's as static as the numbers he posts.

0 Replies

Nope, okie. Not kidding. We had four years of Willard. That was roughly three years, 11 months, and 29 days too many. You have had no experience of him. We have. You can't believe anything he tells you, because tomorrow he'll deny he believes anything he said yesterday. We've seen it. And the appalling thing is, crappy and incompetent as he is, he's the best of the potential Republican candidates. Tim Pawlenty? Sarah Palin? Geez louise, you've got a lot of nerve thinking the Democrats are harming the country, when those are the best you guys can come up with.

And remember, okie, Romney the Mormon was elected in probably the most strongly Democratic state in the country (the last of three ineffective, indifferent Republican governors--he soured us on that whole concept). WE didn't make an issue of his Mormonisn. Our newspapers and TV didn't. When he started changing his politics to pander to the right, yes, that we made an issue of.It's the right wing who regard Mormonism as the next thing to heretical--or maybe yes heretical--that makes a big thing about it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I would like to add something to MJ's reportage, because reportage it is.

Despite its history, religion just is not important in MA today. I say despite its history because the one thing that kids carry away from the Colonial period is that MA was founded by religious dissenters.

The Puritans would later persecute many people during the Salem Witch Trials because they were seen as being in league with the devil.

Quakers -- members of the Religious Society of Friends --were also persecuted. They were hung on Boston Common.

After the Great Potato Famine and the immigration of the Irish to this state, Roman Catholicism dominated. In fact, in the town where I live, there are still churches that are considered Irish, Polish (another more recent wave of immigrants) and French (French Canadians who walked here when the Canadian economy failed them).

Of course, there is the lingering image of the old Protestant families: Lodges, Sewells and Saltonstalls, etc.

How do I know religion is not that important: Massachusetts ranks 44th in the nation in terms of church attendance.

Who leads? Some of the states where education is the poorest:

Church Attendance by State (from Wiki)
Rank State Percent
— National average
1 Alabama 58%
1 Louisiana 58%
1 South Carolina 58%
4 Mississippi 57%
5 Arkansas 55%
5 Utah 55%
7 Nebraska 53%
7 North Carolina 53%
9 Georgia 52%
9 Tennessee 52%

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
From what I've read of her posts, we have little to nothing in common.

Yes, my IQ has three numbers.

With a decimal point in front Wink

0 Replies

@okie,

Really? You should have at least mentioned that the biggest problem with Romney's religion, isn't with Liberals - it's just another flavor of Christianity to us, and no crazier than most - but instead with Fundamentalist Christians. Who make up the Republican 'base' in large part. These cats REALLY don't accept Mormonism.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

pom wrote:

Quote:

7 Nebraska 53%

.

Betcha their prayers to win in the casinos haven't worked.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? You should have at least mentioned that the biggest problem with Romney's religion, isn't with Liberals - it's just another flavor of Christianity to us, and no crazier than most - but instead with Fundamentalist Christians. Who make up the Republican 'base' in large part. These cats REALLY don't accept Mormonism.Cycloptichorn

I should file this post of yours for later reference, cyclops, so that I could remind you when the Dems attack Romney in a general election, that is if Romney might make it that far and be the Republican candidate.

I think though that the Dems will attack Huckabee equally as vicious if he should make it that far.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Why not file your own posts to be consistent in what you say.
You ask us to dig into your posts to show your contradictions, and we do, but you fail to acknowledge them.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

okie, Why not file your own posts to be consistent in what you say.
You ask us to dig into your posts to show your contradictions, and we do, but you fail to acknowledge them.

Perhaps, that is because he is confused over which posts he writes as okie and which he writes as ican.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

Report: George W. Bush aides violated Hatch Act

An Office of Special Counsel report concludes Bush aides illegally worked to promote Republican candidates in 2006.

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/24/11 3:46 PM EST

During the 2006 midterm elections, White House political aides to President George W. Bush engaged in widespread violations of a federal law which limits partisan political activity by government employees, a long-running federal investigation has found.

A 118-page report issued Monday by the little-known Office of Special Counsel cites numerous violations of the Hatch Act by staffers in the White House Office of Political Affairs. The report concludes that federal taxpayers footed the bill for improper activities that were intended to advance Republican political candidates.

“The entire [Office of Political Affairs] staff was enlisted in pursuit of Republican success at the polls and many OPA employees believed that effort was part of their official job duties,”the report concludes. “Based on the extent of the activities described below, OSC concludes that the political activities of OPA employees were not incidental to their official functions, and thus U.S. Treasury funds were unlawfully used to finance efforts to pursue Republican victories at the polls in 2006.”

The report also finds that, during the 2006 election cycle, Office of Political Affairs staffers “tracked the amount of money raised at fundraisers held by Republican candidates and national, state and local Republican groups.”

The Office of Special Counsel also found “a systematic misuse of federal resources” in 2006, when Bush administration cabinet members traveled to the districts of members of Congress whom the White House designated as priority candidates. The inquiry found that many of the trips that had been designated as official business and billed to the Treasury were primarily political and part of a White House-directed effort called the “final push.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48072.html#ixzz1BztaqQGR

Exactly as reported here by yours truly in 2006, denied by right-wing apologists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This article from today's Salon points out something that I have long felt, indeed, known to be true: that there is no such thing as an honest and straight-forward conservative.

So, Supreme Court Clarence Thomas neglected to report his wife Ginni's income from a right-wing think tank. Or maybe "neglected" is the wrong word, because that sounds sort of benign or accidental. It's more like he refused to do so, for years. Thomas' wife is a longtime conservative activist, and she worked for the influential Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007. In his financial disclosure forms, under "spousal noninvestment income," Clarence Thomas just checked the "no" box, every year.

Of course, everyone knows that Ginni Thomas is a partisan political activist who makes her living working for right-wing groups. So checking "no" in that little box every year is not just deceptive, it's also pretty pointless. Unless you are simply against the idea of "disclosure" itself, on principle, as Thomas seems to be.

He will probably not be punished for this, by the way, because it's extraordinarily difficult to "punish" Supreme Court members for anything.

This odd practice of routinely lying on forms was brought to light by the watchdog group Common Cause, who also recently wrote a letter to Eric Holder criticizing Thomas and Antonin Scalia for attending fancy Koch-sponsored functions before ruling, in Citizens United, that restrictions on corporate electioneering be lifted. * Of course, neither Scalia nor Thomas believe that their personal and professional ties to the conservative movement should cause them to recuse themselves from politically sensitive cases. ** In fact, their attitude tends to be that everyone should just shut up and stop complaining about it. As Garrett Epps writes in The Atlantic, they -- along with Republican fundraiser-attendee Samuel Alito -- are openly flouting years of judicial etiquette. And they don't really care. Scalia generally acts like he'd be much more at home on talk radio than in the Supreme Court. (Scalia's Constitution lesson for Michele Bachmann and the incoming Tea Partiers was scheduled for today, by the way.)

Maybe the way to think about this without getting all upset is to just admire the refreshing honestly of a deeply, openly partisan Supreme Court. (Except that it's basically partisan in one direction, because Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't fishing with Joe Biden.)

* Our resident blind acceptor of all things rightwing, okie/ican, will blithely say that accepting money from the koch brothers is fine but accepting money from George Soros is a sign of Satan.

** These same hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, liar, thieves or all of the above, scream and kick if a liberal or centrist is nominated to their rotten to the core group. Ruin America is their battle cry.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

yawn

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

pom, There are many "honest and straight-forward conservatives." Blanket claims that there is none is overboard and uncalled for. I'd like to see some balance in your political posts, because you otherwise write coherently. You mirror okie from the opposite side when you make statements that are extreme.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thank you, ci. Well said and very accurate, except for your comparison of pom to me. There is no valid comparison, whatsoever.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know