Moore Trouble: Alabama's former chief justice may challenge Bush for the religious vote

Opinion Journal ^ | 02/02/04 | John Fund

[Ohioan]

I completely disagree with your analysis and characterizations. 93% of the GOP are not 'me-too' Republicans.

No they are not. But this Administration, under the influence of Karl Rove is: Examples: Medicare, increasing Federal Invlovement in Education, trying to force Democracy on the Third World, and the real kicker--the issue which determines the future of America--large scale immigration from the third world. I could go on; but the point is that while most Republicans are still willing to support the President, they do not actually support many things in his program.

I don't expect anyone to stampede over to my side. We have to persuade people; and the opposite is equally true. Those on the other side cannot expect people to blindly accept what they choose to do. They must persuade, and if they are not persuasive, that is hardly my fault, or that of other Conservatives.

And this use of the term "purist" is rather strange. There is nothing more basic, nothing less requiring an unrealistic high standard, than the insistence that when a Presidential candidate promises strict construction of his oath of office, he will keep his promise. All of our institutions are premised upon our office holders being trustworthy, keeping their oaths. If we cannot trust that, the whole political process is an exercise in frivolity, and both you and I are wasting our time in this argument.

You are also undermining your position in that argument, by even suggesting that we can compromise our basic integrity, and still be worthy of anyone's support. See what George Washington had to say about that type of politics: Farewell Address.

William Flax

[CyberAnt]

And .. just to set the record straight, I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF ACCOSTING ME .. HERE IS WHAT I SAID:

"people who have all but accosted me"

Looks like you missed "reading" the words "have all but" .. now who wasn't reading ..??

[Don Joe]

How many restrictions on abortion will get enacted with a Dem president

How many have gotten implemented with a Repubican President?

Basically same deal with the rest of the issues you raised. But that's not the issue (in my post). The issue is your personal attack on the guy, for the apparent crime of standing on principle rather than backroom politics.

Backroom politics are what got us where we are. They're the problem, not the solution, as R. Reagan might put it.

[Don Joe]

You are fooling yourselves if you think that 'purists' sinking Bush will result in the GOP stampeding over to your side to express thanks and adopt your stances(and even if they did, it would never be enough, there would always be something for the 'purist' to point to, moan, and once again threaten blackmail.) No, if the 'purists' pout and sink Bush, the result will be a Giuliani/Powell ticket in 2008, against a Dem incumbent, with 3rd parties increasing their totals to a combined 10-15%(Constitution, Keyes/Moore-type, and Green), but splintered and nowhere close to winning. Completely marginalized(and no, if social conservative purists can't get along with the current GOP, they won't get along with a libertine economic conservative purist Constitution party.)

Whoa, stop the presses! Earth to Diddly!

No one's trying to "sink" Bush. All I've seen are a bunch of very disappointed conservatives trying to hold his feet to the fire -- to deliver the goods he sold last time around.

From reading your defeatist paragraph above, a casual reader is apt to stagger away with one question echoing in his head: "If he's right, then why even bother?"

You need to rethimk your stragegery.

[Don Joe]

And I hope you realize that it was put there in humor

Well, I do now, but that's only because you tell me so. I wouldn't have realized it otherwise, because that's not at all the way it comes across. You might want to have a "copy editor" look it over for you if you don't believe my assessment. Have him/her read it, and then ask if it sounds like a real warning, or a humor piece. Just a suggestion.

[Don Joe]

Hey, listen to his argument again.

If muslims are saying they need a "prayer room" in order to pray, according to the tenets of their religion -- and getting "prayer rooms" in public schools, under First Amendment considerations, than tactically, it makes a lot of sense for Christians to demand the right to pray according to their tenets.

I'd think all the "tacticians" would jump on this "opportunity" to wrestle a concession out of the state, instead of attacking the Christians, in essence telling 'em to STFU, get to the back of the bus, y'all don't need no GD 'right' to pray with your mouths."

[lugsoul]

How about this for a dream matchup?--Moore vs. Hillary

That's about the only way Hillary could ever win the WH.

[lugsoul]

He lost his case on purpose. Anyone who knows anything about 1st Amendment jurisprudence - and I assume Moore does, since he did graduate from law school - could see that. His testimony, all by itself, placed his rock in violation of the Lemon test. Now, I don't like the Lemon test any more than Scalia does, but it is the law. The District Court can't change it, nor can the Court of Appeals.

As the CONSERVATIVE judges on the 11th Circuit stated in their opinion, this was an easy case. And what made it an easy case was that Roy Moore, all by himself, purposefully cast his monument as an exaltation of HIS faith above others - and he did it in the name of the State of Alabama. Game, set, match.

[Don Joe]

Thank you for your opinion.

[Mo1]

As I understand your point, I don't think I need to have anyone look at it ... But I will update it and make it more clear as to my reasons for putting it there

It's a long story, but I put it there because TLB was stalking my posts.

[Don Joe]

That nutcase? What ever happened to him? I tangled with him a long time ago, gave up trying to reason with him, finally concluding that he wasn't graced with a full pound of beans at the checkout lane, if you get my drift. Now he's gone!

[TomServo]

What ever happened to him?

He was sent to the "cornfield".

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Does this mean you hate Bush more than Kerry?

[Leatherneck_MT]

No I don't hate either of them.

I think that Bush is doing a fine job in the War, I also think that he has done a few things that are good for America in the Domestic side of things.

However, he does not support the values that I would like to see in a President, and because of this, I refuse to vote for him again.

if we lose the presidency over it. Fine, maybe next time the Republican Party will pull it's head out of it's ass and put a real conservative up for us to vote for.

[tuckrdout]

This tired ole argument against public prayer, is another trick by the enemy, quoting scripture as he did to Christ, trying to get us to forsake the worship of our God, and follow him instead.

Let's remember 1 Timothy 2:8- ""I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands."

Of course Jesus prayed publically [John Chapter 17; Luke 3:21; Luke 11:1 ]; and the Gospel writers record many prayers that they heard Jesus pray in their presence. So obviously, the meaning of Matthew 6:6 is not that we never should pray in public! But rather, that we should be humble and not be a hypocrite who only seeks public recognition, by that prayer. Seeking to impress the other people. Prayer should be from a heart which loves the Lord.

Solomon prayed publically at the dedication of the Temple 1 Kings 8. Elijah prayed publically quite often, one example would be in Kings 18. Public repentance prayers were offered up publically, by the Israelites in Ezra/Nehemiah; the apostles can be found holding a prayer meeting, in Acts 1:12-14; Acts 1:24; Acts 12:12; Acts 20:36; and Acts 4:24-30, where the building was filled with the spirit of God to the point He shook the building--so, God must not have been displeased! Stephen Prayed publically in Acts 7:59-60; These were not "vain words" to please man, but prayers for courage to speak the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Don Joe]

He was sent to the "cornfield".

???

We're talking about the guy with the pathological fixation on Coulter, right? (He struck me as being about half a stroke shy of getting ready to stalk her, as I recall.)

Not sure I catch your reference. (Translation: I am sure I don't catch it. <g>)

[TomServo]

LOL!!! He ranted and raved until JR couldn't stand it anymore and finally put him out of our misery. You can now find him darkening the doorstep of LP.

The cornfield is a reference to the Twilight Zone episode - 'It's a wonderful life'. One of my faves....

[Don Joe]

What was he ranting and raving about? His standard fare of Defending The Honor of Miss Anne? I think I may have prodded him a time or two. :) (Something like "she's scrawney" or somesuch. It didn't take much to send him into flaming orbit. Or out of orbit, flaming, as the case may be.)

His fixation on her struck me as just a wee bit to the far side of creepy.

OK, I lied. It was a helluva lot more than just "a wee bit".

[Don Joe]

PS: Twilight Zone reference -- can you help me out here? What was the episode that had a "Willy Loman on crack" type of character, whose boss kept telling him "It's a push world!"?

[TomServo]

TLB was calling Bush a traitor, a communist, blah, blah...flaming folks (including JR, if I remember correctly)..etc.

Just general TLB lunacy...

I've been racking my brains trying to remember which TLZ you're mentioning. I'll dig out my Episode guide when I get my hands on it. It's currently in another state. :-(...