bush too liberal for christian right????

[scalf]

[img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] word around the capital....d.c.


bush has openly courted gay votes by extending dialogues with the human rights campaign..(largest gay group)...and has given some support for gay marriages, gay parent adoption, and same sex living partners/opposite sex living partners(in d.c.)

word is 4 milllion far right christian conservatives did not vote in last election, which was real reason election was close....

look for bush to get ugly if he has to...jmho..gl [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]

[Chris Alger]

Might be Rove's doing: just when Bush is taking a (little) heat on Iraq and economy, shore up support from moderates by creating the appearance of a schism between Bush and the nazis. Two items: in an NPR interview last fall with Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, about the surprising GOP strength at the polls, all Reed spoke about was his gushing endorsement of Bush's spectacular leadership. Covering a right-wing convention a few months ago, The Nation's correspondent noticed participants were virtually unanimous in their devotion to Bush.

My impression is that most "Christian" right organizers are more interested in conquering Iraq, crushing Palestine and building space-based missile systems than any religious agenda, which makes Bush their logical hero regardless of what he does domestically. It's not as if they're going to bolt for Robertson because of "extending dialogue."

[Jimbo]

"My impression is that most "Christian" right organizers are more interested in conquering Iraq, crushing Palestine and building space-based missile systems than any religious agenda, which makes Bush their logical hero regardless of what he does domestically. It's not as if they're going to bolt for Robertson because of "extending dialogue." "

Gee! I'm for all of those things and I'm not even a Christian. Cool!!

[andyfox]

They're not Christian either; they're "Christian" as Chris pointed out.

[MMMMMM]

It's rather interesting how the Left often tries to portray simple self-interest--including self-preservation--as somehow unenlightened or primitive.

If Hezbollah says that their slogan has been, is, and will be: "Death To America!"--I guess we can take them at their word, because they have already murdered hundreds of Americans. Would it be "unenlightened" or "nazi-like" to wipe out Hezbollah--or might it just be common sense?

North Korea threatens to set fire to our cities, but a missile defense is a right-wing reactionary idea?

Islamists wish to destroy the West, but that's not the fault of Islam? Yet taking the Koran literally is a clear prescription for the terrorism of all non-Muslims (and as such it is being practiced in many parts of the world --especially and most horrifically now in Sudan).

Saudi imams routinely call for the destruction of America and Israel--but we should take pains to not offend them??? How about we just tell them like it is: that they're preaching nonsense, and if they really want a war, just keep it up?

Appeasement never, never works. It always encourages them to push further.

Iran too must be dealt with.

I submit this general theory: that that Left likes to see us weakened because it somehow appeases a subconscious guilt, in much the same way that a compulsive gambler really wants to lose in order to assuage some hidden guilt or feelings of low self-esteem.

So it makes perfect sense that those who feel most guilty about the role America has played in the world would like to see us weakened, and our enemies strengthened: Chomsky, Alger, etc., and others to a lesser degree display this trait.

Well the good news is: we're getting stronger despite all the BS and problems and the massive foreign giveaways. Just more proof that the American system works, and works best. And America has also done far more good in the world than any other country--although of course the Blame America First crowd never looks at that side of the equation.

[adios]

Bush is a lot more intelligent than many give him credit for.

[Cyrus]

"America has also done far more good in the world than any other country--although of course the Blame America First crowd never looks at that side of the equation."

I'm sorry but it's not an equation, as any informed mathematician around here would confirm. It's an inequality.

(I would like to characterize America's position versus the world as a gross inequality --- but you would never find that term in a math book, so I won't.)

[John Cole]

Yes, he's much more intelligent--and much more pernicious--than I gave him credit for.

[ACPlayer]

It is the start of the 2004 election cycle. Not having to move right to win the Republican nomination he can move to the center early as opposed to waiting for the nominating convention.

[MMMMMM]

"Equation" in this sense is also a figure of speech.

America has done less harm than the two other behemoths of recent times (USSR and China), and more good than any other country--so it is indeed an inequality. Yet the focus of Chomsky et al is so unweighted as to be perverse.