Religious right relishes chance to push agenda

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Religious right relishes chance to push agenda

Abortion and gay marriage to be targeted as moral crusaders demand election payback

Oliver Burkeman in New York
Friday November 5, 2004
The Guardian

A mood of elation permeated the ranks of evangelical Christians in the United States yesterday as it became clear that the election marked a watershed moment for their chances of implementing a conservative moral agenda - above all on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

Buoyed by exit-poll results suggesting that moral issues had weighed on voters' minds even more than terrorism, activists vowed to use their victory to push the second Bush administration to ban same-sex unions at a federal level and to move the supreme court to the right. "I think it's quite possible this could be a turning point," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Group lobbying organisation.

"We're seeing from the exit polls that conservative Christian voters turned out in record numbers ... so we certainly will be pressing for action on key items of our agenda, and we will not be shy about claiming that our influence was significant in the outcome of the election."

In a post-election memo obtained by the New York Times, Richard Viguerie, a rightwing direct-mailing campaigner, issued a warning to the Republican party. "Make no mistake - conservative Christians and 'values voters' won this election for George W Bush and Republicans in congress," he wrote.

"It's crucial that the Republican leadership not forget this - as much as some will try ... Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Morality turned out to be a key motivator in an election apparently dominated by the Iraq war, terrorism and the economy. According to exit polls, 20% of voters put moral issues at the top of their list - more than any other issue - and 80% of them were Bush supporters.

"George Bush speaks our language of faith, and John Kerry doesn't," said Carrie Earll, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family, an influential conservative group.

"Right now, we live in a time when the economy, Iraq and the war on terror are big topics - so the fact that social and moral values took precedence over those, even in wartime, is an indication that this is fundamental to who we are as a people."

A decisive energising factor appears to have been measures banning same-sex marriage, which passed in all 11 states where they were on the ballot. Campaigners in Ohio claimed to have registered tens of thousands of new voters intent on supporting a ban, implying that voting for Mr Bush might have been almost an afterthought for some.

"That certainly galvanised the church," said Ms Earll. "The fact that there was a presidential election was just another factor. People would have gone to the polls to vote on the marriage amendment whoever was on the ballot for president."

With several supreme court justices likely to retire, the victory also leaves anti-abortion campaigners more hopeful than ever that the complexion of the court could be shifted to eradicate the current tenuous majority in support of "Roe versus Wade", which reaffirms abortion as a constitutionally protected right.

Self-destructive

Holding open that possibility was a central part of the Bush campaign's effort to energise its Christian conservative base and reach the millions of evangelicals who stayed home on election day in 2000.

But a leading moderate Republican told the Guardian yesterday the tactic could prove self-destructive if pushed further. "If Bush deliberately or inadvertently appoints enough judges to overturn Roe v Wade, the worst-case scenario is that it's the beginning of the end of the Republican party," said Jennifer Blei Stockman, co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice. "It wouldn't be long before the outrage would spill into the voting booth, and it would only be a matter of time before the Democratic party ascends to power that will last for a long time."

In pandering to evangelical conservatives, Ms Stockman said, Republican strategists had "been feeding a monster who now has the party by its tail". At least 75% of Bush voters do not consider themselves evangelicals, she said. "The keynote speakers at the Republican convention were all 'pro-choice' moderates, from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Rudy Giuliani to [New York governor] George Pataki. Was that just a masquerade or was something of substance communicated?"


Conservative Republicans argue that talk of an imminent reversal of Roe v Wade is fearmongering, though they are far from reticent themselves in using lurid and shocking campaign messages.

"On the immediate front, let's ban partial-birth abortion," said Ms Earll, referring to the late-termination practice to which Mr Bush has declared himself opposed. "Right now, we have a supreme court that says it's a constitutional right to stab a nearly born infant in the back of the head and suck its brains out."

American views on abortion, however, may be less sharply divided than the vocal campaigners for each side make out, said Corwin Smidt, a professor of Christianity and politics at Calvin College in Michigan. "The percentage of Americans who want total free choice has been going down, but there has been no real increase in the percentage of people who want to eliminate all abortion," he said.

 

assemblage

Senior member
May 21, 2003
508
0
0
I saw Pat Robertson on TV last night. That little fella has been trying to take over the world for a while. Now he's holding Bush's strings and Buch will dance and we the world will suffer and gnash their teeth.

Did you hear about the Christian oriented theme parks he'll be making?
 

Luck JF

Senior member
Sep 4, 2004
203
0
0
George Bush is one of us. He doesn't need anyone to pull his strings. He is the leader right now in this fight against abortion.
He did not hide his position. He clearly stated that he believes unborn life should be protected. The backlash the article references already happened. That huge backlash only amounts to 48% of the vote going to Kerry though. Most people I talk to think abortion sucks and would be happy to see it done away with. Obviously more people voted for an anti-abortion candidate than the pro-abortion candidate. Liberal threats mean nothing now. Your side lost, you don't have the numbers to do anything. The side of good and right prevails. This should tell you that something about your beliefs is wrong.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Luck JF
George Bush is one of us. He doesn't need anyone to pull his strings. He is the leader right now in this fight against abortion.
He did not hide his position. He clearly stated that he believes unborn life should be protected. The backlash the article references already happened. That huge backlash only amounts to 48% of the vote going to Kerry though. Most people I talk to think abortion sucks and would be happy to see it done away with. Obviously more people voted for an anti-abortion candidate than the pro-abortion candidate. Liberal threats mean nothing now. Your side lost, you don't have the numbers to do anything. The side of good and right prevails. This should tell you that something about your beliefs is wrong.
Damn that Kool-Aid you are drinking must be potent!
As a potential Christian Soldier it is your duty to God to enlist and fight the Lords war!:roll:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As a potential Christian Soldier it is your duty to God to enlist and fight the Lords war!

Agreed. The islamofascists are threatening America and Christians all around the world. As well as Israel. How can the end of days come true if Israel doesn't exist? It is imperative that you serve the lord and enlist.

 

Tylanner

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2004
5,481
2
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As a potential Christian Soldier it is your duty to God to enlist and fight the Lords war!

Agreed. The islamofascists are threatening America and Christians all around the world. As well as Israel. How can the end of days come true if Israel doesn't exist? It is imperative that you serve the lord and enlist.


If George Bush ever says anything close to that I will push to impeach him.(yes I'm high ranking!! ;)0

But he won't say the things you want him to say :)
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: Luck JF
George Bush is one of us. He doesn't need anyone to pull his strings. He is the leader right now in this fight against abortion.
He did not hide his position. He clearly stated that he believes unborn life should be protected. The backlash the article references already happened. That huge backlash only amounts to 48% of the vote going to Kerry though. Most people I talk to think abortion sucks and would be happy to see it done away with. Obviously more people voted for an anti-abortion candidate than the pro-abortion candidate. Liberal threats mean nothing now. Your side lost, you don't have the numbers to do anything.
Well duh. I didn't expect my side to win. I was actually suprised my candidate for Senate got as high as 2%!
The side of good and right prevails. This should tell you that something about your beliefs is wrong.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA...that's good stuff. Whatever you're smoking, gimme some. Being in the majority does not make on good and right.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As a potential Christian Soldier it is your duty to God to enlist and fight the Lords war!

Agreed. The islamofascists are threatening America and Christians all around the world. As well as Israel. How can the end of days come true if Israel doesn't exist? It is imperative that you serve the lord and enlist.
Major difference: Israel is a religious based state run by secular rulers. The US is now a Secular based state run by religious rulers.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens >80% don't practice, much more than in the US.

Fascinating ain't it?

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Here's a problem I have with this. Religious Right voters have always had high turnout, and in the past two decades have always voted Rep. As if they have an alternative party? The Republican party owes them nothing, and they realize that can demand nothing. They get what little crumbs the party deems necessary to keep them on board. Where are they going to run to? Some third party? Perhaps, but then they have NO say instead of at least some say in the Rep. party.

So, I don't think the RR voters won this. The moderate and indepedent voters won this one for Bush.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Here's a problem I have with this. Religious Right voters have always had high turnout, and in the past two decades have always voted Rep. As if they have an alternative party? The Republican party owes them nothing, and they realize that can demand nothing. They get what little crumbs the party deems necessary to keep them on board. Where are they going to run to? Some third party? Perhaps, but then they have NO say instead of at least some say in the Rep. party.

So, I don't think the RR voters won this. The moderate and indepedent voters won this one for Bush.
So if the Democrats run a Moderate next time we won't have to worry about the Evangelicak Whackos carrying the day for the Republicans?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Mill
Here's a problem I have with this. Religious Right voters have always had high turnout, and in the past two decades have always voted Rep. As if they have an alternative party? The Republican party owes them nothing, and they realize that can demand nothing. They get what little crumbs the party deems necessary to keep them on board. Where are they going to run to? Some third party? Perhaps, but then they have NO say instead of at least some say in the Rep. party.

So, I don't think the RR voters won this. The moderate and indepedent voters won this one for Bush.
So if the Democrats run a Moderate next time we won't have to worry about the Evangelicak Whackos carrying the day for the Republicans?

Possibly. It might be possible to get some of those "whackos" to vote Dem. or for a moderate if people wouldn't insult them so much. Doubtful, but then there are some of us that have "whackos" in our family, and when you insult them we aren't so inclined to support your party.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Mill
Here's a problem I have with this. Religious Right voters have always had high turnout, and in the past two decades have always voted Rep. As if they have an alternative party? The Republican party owes them nothing, and they realize that can demand nothing. They get what little crumbs the party deems necessary to keep them on board. Where are they going to run to? Some third party? Perhaps, but then they have NO say instead of at least some say in the Rep. party.

So, I don't think the RR voters won this. The moderate and indepedent voters won this one for Bush.
So if the Democrats run a Moderate next time we won't have to worry about the Evangelicak Whackos carrying the day for the Republicans?

Possibly. It might be possible to get some of those "whackos" to vote Dem. or for a moderate if people wouldn't insult them so much. Doubtful, but then there are some of us that have "whackos" in our family, and when you insult them we aren't so inclined to support your party.
My Party? I'm an Independant and I voted against the Dub more than I voted for Kerry. I(f the Republicans run someone who isn't a wingnut like the Dub is in 2008 I'd be just as likely to vote for him as I would be the Democtatic Candidate,

As for insulting those who live in Blue States, most understand that Red States weren't all Rube States. However all Rube States were Red States.
 

Kilgor

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
3,292
0
0
As for insulting those who live in Red States, most understand that Blue States weren't all Boob States. However all Boob States were Blue States.

:)
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Mill
Here's a problem I have with this. Religious Right voters have always had high turnout, and in the past two decades have always voted Rep. As if they have an alternative party? The Republican party owes them nothing, and they realize that can demand nothing. They get what little crumbs the party deems necessary to keep them on board. Where are they going to run to? Some third party? Perhaps, but then they have NO say instead of at least some say in the Rep. party.

So, I don't think the RR voters won this. The moderate and indepedent voters won this one for Bush.
So if the Democrats run a Moderate next time we won't have to worry about the Evangelicak Whackos carrying the day for the Republicans?

Possibly. It might be possible to get some of those "whackos" to vote Dem. or for a moderate if people wouldn't insult them so much. Doubtful, but then there are some of us that have "whackos" in our family, and when you insult them we aren't so inclined to support your party.
My Party? I'm an Independant and I voted against the Dub more than I voted for Kerry. I(f the Republicans run someone who isn't a wingnut like the Dub is in 2008 I'd be just as likely to vote for him as I would be the Democtatic Candidate,

As for insulting those who live in Blue States, most understand that Red States weren't all Rube States. However all Rube States were Red States.

Your party was the Democrats in this case. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but in this case it was the Dems, so wouldn't you think my statement is applicable? No need for us to play semantics about it.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Let's run Lieberman (Othordox Jew) against a moderate Republican and see who wins.

Now that would be interesting...