Posted on 10/16/2006 8:38:07 AM PDT by IrishMike
The Christian Right better keep their eyes open. The bait-and-switch, hypocrit Democrat candidates in the South and West are proclaiming themselves "pro-life", but they don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, and they are against gay marriage, but they don't think it should be a major issue. Of course, Jesus warned us against "wolves in sheep's clothing", so this is hardly new.
I am NOT surprised. There's a shared agenda in play --- demoralize and anger Christians so we won't vote. Won't work.
If the Evangelical crowd stays home in 2004/2008...Repubicans are toast.
Let's not give too much credit to the evanges - I know a lot of pubs and none are evanges. If ANY of the republican base stays home, they are toast.
I'm in total agreement with you....
Oops, wrong year’s depress-the-vote gimmick.
I agree with you. I must not have expressed myself very clearly, which is not unusual for me. I don't separate my beliefs from my politics either. But I don't count on politicians to accomplish what the church needs to do. Sometimes it works out that way, but not always. Kuo's heart was working with the poor. I applaud that, and think that the best way to do that is to get involved in that type of ministry. He was enthusiastic about Pres. Bush's faith-based initiative and was on staff there. That's an excellent thing to do. But he got disillusioned. They didn't get as much money as the president promised. The problem as I see it for Kuo is that the executive does not approve the budget; the congress does. And rarely do things work out as initially promised. The political system has too many checks and balances in it; it was designed to have hurdles. I just think that he was politically naive.
Dear Harry,
Keep dreaming.
The "Evangelicals elected Bush" mantra is a creation of the mainstream meadia, which must explain the inexplicible (to them)losses of both Al Gore and John Kerry to a man they consider a blithering idiot.
Bush could not POSSIBLY have won because his ideas were better or because he put forward a better vision for America; he must have won because of a sinister cabal of brainwashed robots who flocked to the polls in record numbers in order to vote against Gay Marriage and Abortion and begin the construction of a theocratic state. Christians, unfortunately, can be tarred in this manner because they don't have the protection of Political Correctness and because, deep in their tiny, black hearts, democracts (small 'd' intentional) eat conspiracy theories up with their breakfast. They can't help but believe anything, which is why they're democrats in the first place.
Thus was born the "Evangelicals saved Bush" line which is hardly truthful at all. While Evangelicals probably vote republican more often than not, they are not a monolithic voting bloc that will decide an election all on their own, say like, single women or working-class men.
When Republican/Conservative columnists and opinion writers have to resort to repeating the media's lies as, ahem...bible truth...in order to rally the troops, you know you're in trouble.
From your lips to God's ears. I will be in India on Election Day, but I will be voting early...probably today. Someone posted an article on SoCal early voting areas last night on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720036/posts
And do the secular humanist socialist pacifist Dems?? The Pubs are the better alternative for any values legislation being passed. Not one Dem will bring any of those issues up.
" If the Democrats are in power, the following problems will occur: 1) There will be no protection of traditional marriage, 2) Abortion-on-demand will be encouraged, 3) Religious freedoms will be attacked, 4) The tax-exempt status of many Christian organizations will be revoked, 5) Massive amnesty will be given to illegal aliens, 6) Border protection will not be enforced, 7) We will lose clear and consistent vigilance on the war on terror, and 8) Abandonment of the Iraq war will occur without strategic understanding."
That truly says it all.
Agree with you 100%.
I just think that he was politically naive.
Most likely.
"While Evangelicals probably vote republican more often than not, they are not a monolithic voting bloc that will decide an election all on their own, say like, single women or working-class men."
Had Foley not immediately resigned, we'd be in the unenviable position of finding out just how wrong this assumption is. His actions were his own downfall and not the fault of the party, in the view of Evangelicals. But, this would have tainted the leadership, had there been any sort of attempt to defend him. Democrat strategy depended upon a Foley fight, but they were denied the opportunity. It's important to remember this going forward, because there will be more efforts to peel off or neutralize this important voting bloc.
"It's important to remember this going forward, because there will be more efforts to peel off or neutralize this important voting bloc."
It's been my experience that people of faith come in all varieties. There are just as many black evangelicals (more likely to vote democrat) as there are white evangelicals (which the media would have you believe vote completely, en masse, for Bush), and in many cases, the democratic mantra of social justice (two lies for the price of one) dovetails nicely with much of Christian theology.
I would never assume that Christians, Evangelical or not, will vote one way and one way only. This is what the media would have you believe, but it certainly is not true.
While evangelicals may be important to republican candidates, they simply cannot muster enough votes to decide an election all on their own. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, regardless of which side of the political aisle he or she is on.
I agree with you there and no politician is without flaws but Reagan had one thing going for him that today's politicians don't. He spoke the truth even when he couldn't get Congress to go along with it. Today it is hard to get a Republican to stand up against the IRS or any other government agency. That is what I want. What does the President lose by speaking out even when it is something he can't implement? It is called leadership. There are countless conservative ideas that Americans would support if they had a leader to point the way.
Speak to the people not the Press. That should be the Bush and Republican mantra.
Ignore them at your peril; anger them and get your backside handed to you, as McCain should have learned in South Carolina.
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.