Posted on 03/11/2004 9:36:13 AM PST by presidio9
John Kerry looks strong now; George W. Bush looks weak. What are the chances that John Kerry could actually win the 2004 Election? What are the chances that Democrats could win a broadly based victory in November? Not good. America is not divided into two relatively equal ideological camps. America is conservative - overwhelmingly conservative. The highly respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll in the September 2003 reveals that 59% of the American people describe themselves as conservative (42%) or very conservative (17%) and 35% of Americans describe themselves as liberal (25%) or very liberal (10%). The September 2003 Battleground Poll results are not an anomaly. The two previous Battleground Poll results show an almost identical ideological breakdown. Even if those who identify themselves as moderate or who do not express an opinion regarding ideology are included as actually liberal, Americans conservatives constitute a far greater percentage of the electorate than those other groups combined. So how does President Bush begin to draw the ideological line in the sand? There are several different approaches, and there is no reason not to take each approach slowly and consistently beginning now. President Bush begin the refrain "I am a conservative and my opponent is a liberal."
How does Kerry respond to that? If he acknowledges that statement is true, then he has placed himself firmly in the camp of the minority ideology. If he denies that statement or equivocates, then he opens the door to a pandora's box of past statements and votes. If he ignores the statement, then he allows President Bush to define that issue completely.
But there is a stronger demarcation in American society today, and that vast chasm appears most clear in the success of The Passion of Christ, despite all the Leftist hatred of Mel Gibson and his film. President Bush should fight this campaign on religious faith, and he should fight it in a way that shows just how intolerant and bigoted Leftists are about religion. The Passion of Christ is excruciatingly vivid, but Hollywood has been churning out excruciatingly vivid films with graphic violence, explicit sex and often perverse sex scenes and highly offensive dialogue and images for years. It is the message of The Passion of Christ that infuriates Leftists.
Americans overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was crucified for the sake of mankind. Mel Gibson has done nothing more than restate and defend what the American people believe. President Bush should do the same, but he should restate and defend even more generally held religious American beliefs. How? The Republican Platform ask for a constitutional amendment that requires the words "Under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the phrase "In God We Trust" be on all American currency and coins, and that the existing references to God in our national anthem remain. Most people are not familiar with the last stanza to The Star Spangled Banner, but these lines from that stanza are unmistakably religious:
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: ““In God is our trust!”
The platform provision, endorsed by President Bush, should also make it quite clear that preserving these three formal and long held demonstrations of the religious faith in our federal government are the only demands that religious people will make upon the American government recognizing the importance of God in our public life. President Bush should endorse this amendment and point out that the amendment threatens only the agenda of those people who wish to remove all symbols of God from our existing federal government. This is an amendment, like the Bill of Rights itself, intended to preserve those values which the Founding Fathers considered so obvious that these rights were not included in the original Constitution. What would John Kerry say about this proposed amendment? Kerry could ignore the issue, and appear weak and craven. Kerry could say that the amendment "is not important," and then hear President Bush explain to him that moral values are at the very heart of our national and even our global problems.
Kerry could warn that such an amendment would open the door to a national religion, but because the amendment would only preserve the existing and because the amendment process itself is so arduous, Kerry would look silly. Kerry could warn that the amendment is unconstitutional, but because it is an amendment to the Constitution, then unless it deprives a state of its equal representation in the Senate, it could not be "unconstitutional."
Kerry could endorse this amendment, but if he did so, he would appear to be following President Bush on an important issue and this would badly fracture the Leftist core of the Democrat Party. Kerry could pretend to support the amendment, but if he did so, Republicans could pass the resolution quickly in the House of Representatives and then present it as a resolution in the United States Senate and Kerry would either have to support it or support a filibuster or vote against it.
This issue - we should hope - would sharply divide America, and this division would be reflected in every state and federal election, because states and the federal government all have a clear constitutional role to play in the ratification of constitutional amendments. Republicans in the House of Representatives could compel a vote very quickly on this amendment. What if 340 House members voted for the amendment and 95 House Democrats voted against it? What would those 95 House Democrats say in the November 2002 election? Republicans could convene special sessions of state legislatures. What if the legislatures in South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisianan, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Oregon and Florida passed a resolution endorsing the amendment? Which members of those state legislatures would vote against the amendment? What would the Democrat and Republican senate candidates in those states say?
Leftists love to whine about wedge issues, even as they create wedge issues all the time. Their real concern is when conservatives fight back. It is time to fight back. It is time to ask Americans if they want a government based upon their sovereignty and their faith in a Blessed Creator or if they want a government based upon the sovereignty of judges and other bureaucrats and their faith in atheism. If the question is asked, the good guys - that’s us - will win. Let’s ask.
William Flax
No, not if they are in heaven as you believe with Jesus.
Sure. I am quite bitter about the enemies of my country, my Church, my people, my family and my God.
Doesn't make your emotional response wise, productive, or Christian.
Obviously this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but nobody ever said being a Christian is easy. I am often tempted to hate my enemies. What am I saying? I often HATE my enemies. Its very easy, however no matter how righteous I am convinced my cause is, hatred is never right. That's the polar opposite of Jesus' message. We have to have trust in Him that he can settle the Judicial activism that found the right to abortion, its very very hard, the only thing I can suggest is to actually pray for wisdom and guidance and strength on the issue. You can't wield the power of evil to suit your own gains. No one can. That is the Devil's best trick. It only ends up eating you up. Like the aforementioned Dean. Look at the anti abortion protestors who killed doctors? I am quite certain they had the noblest of intentions in saving the unborn, but look what HATE did for them? Not only did they destroy their lives, it gave the proabortion media talking points till the end of time. It is used to humiliate prolifers and that is undoubtedly the evil their embraced.
NOTHING can separate us from God's infinite love.
Its funny you should say that, its actually quite easy to seperate ourselves from God, and hatred is the key.
Here's a sidepoint for you, you don't need to be milquetoast or stick flowers in guns, but here's a novel suggestion; try sticking to emotionless statistics and hard issues! The people you want to help win elections by convincing them find that amazingly appealing rather than frothing at the mouth screeching.
Your Mr. Spock, emotionless model of human persuasion would be very effective if we were all robots. But we are not.
Tell me about it, which is all the more reason why people need to have better control over their emotions than you; Sure. I am quite bitter about the enemies of my country, my Church, my people, my family and my God.
Perhaps, as a robot, you would not have facial features and, thus, would not be able to self-righteously look down your nose at other people.
See how mean spirited and hateful you sound? This is SO immature, and its another perfect example of how you've lost control. I've said nothing that deservers this personal attack, but you've lost control. Its not to late to turn away from your hate, you're obviously a good person who cares very much for Christianity or you wouldn't post here, but you really need to understand its alot more than a binary political party system
I bet it was bringing up the abortion murdering doctors...that is kind of TKO in the doctrine of anger you are sellin'. Boo-ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.