Posted on 11/11/2006 12:38:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Ya mean Mark, not the last rodent Speaker of the House. The media largely ignored the latter's shenanigans back in '94.
Social conservative issues win more than 51% of the vote. It is the other issues of war, corruption, spending where the GOP is losing the majority.
Some do, some don't.
Minding other people's business is electoral death.
If left wingers pretending to be christians left we would be better off.
We had a drug addict, apparent closted homosexual, who was evanglical as a means to aquire personal power.
How many other such fakes are out there?
The democrats knew EXACTLY how conservatives react to fraud, they punish it.
"this is the dumbest reason given for why the Republicans lost this election"
agree with you!
Good morning everybody! What an amazing website this is, where a posting can start at midnight and well-informed, intelligent people can argue all night and still not come up with a consensus (except that NOBODY ever heard of this guy until the MSM made him a overnight nutcase celebrity).
Maybe I need a little more caffeine here but it looks to me like the important part of this story is that a large part of the evangelical movement is apparently getting cozy with environmentalist socialist scum who are guaranteed to lead us all straight to H*** or at least into a new dark age.
I agree with you...
It seems that part of the problem is that the republicans have a communication glitch. They need to work on how they communicate their message and who they use to do the communicating.
I say it's a communication problem, at least in part...
Dear Jim Noble,
It is true that the most "radical" version of any social conservative issue will not gain 51% support in the electorate. Thus, 51% of the electorate, at this time and for the foreseeable future, would never agree to an absolute ban on abortion, including chemical abortions occurring from certain forms of birth control. Neither would 51% of the electorate agree to legislate a ban on any and all formal contractual relationships between homosexuals.
But polls show regularly that majorities, even fairly hefty majorities of, say, 65%, would support a ban on all medical abortions except in cases of the life of the mother (not health), rape, incest, and severe genetic deformity.
I'm a "radical" pro-lifer, and I'd go farther.
However, such a ban, with those exceptions, would outlaw 96% of surgical abortions. For me, that's a pretty good start.
And in many states, bans on "homosexual marriage" have passed easily, because these bans have not prevented the ability of the state to set up alternative legal arrangements for homosexuals.
Thus, the heart of social conservative issues will usually carry the day with the electorate in most states. It is the Democrats who are afraid of the ballot box, and who endeavor to nullify the will of the people through judicial activism. Even in states like Massachusetts and Maryland, the liberal scum Dems have tried to prevent the people from voting on the issue of homosexual marriage.
Folks are generally against abortion, and believe it should be generally illegal, with exceptions. Folks are generally against homosexual marriage, and believe it should be illegal, but that homosexuals should be able to order their lives according to alternative legal regimes.
As long as the mainstream of social conservatives are willing to accept half-loafs and slices in the meantime, social conservatives can readily build coalitions and alliances that advance our causes.
With abortion, of course, we will have to overcome the satanic regime of Roe, and this election has set us back tremendously. But that's not because people voted up or down on the issue of abortion on demand, but rather a by-product of the failure of the Republican Party to act like... conservative Republicans.
sitetest
Thanks for the link to the list of churches who are included in Haggard's group. I'm surprised some of those churches would be following the United Nations and their opinion on global warming. I wonder if the members of those churches are aware of the ads being run to support the agenda the UN. I doubt it.
I never heard of Haggard before his recent 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he was a wolf in sheep's clothing all along, considering his stance with leftiest groups.
I think his outing (of whatever it was that he did) effected the results in Colorado. Outside Colorado, the effect was minor.
Dear Clintonfatigued,
I don't think his outing had a big effect, but the article makes a good case that his other activities may have helped to draw away a significant percentage of evangelical Christians from voting Republican.
His efforts to balance out the agenda of evangelicals with the issue of global warming specifically, and environmentalism generally, may have been a significant part of why support for Republican candidates fell from 78% of evangelicals to 50% this year.
That's a devastating blow. If Mr. Haggard's efforts was a substantial part of the reason for that decline, then his effect on the election was pretty significant.
sitetest
Going too far with an issue is what causes electoral death. For instance, if we limit restrictions on abortions like banning partial birth abortions or parental notification, it is a huge winning issue. Even if we just exclude things like life of mother, rape, incest, it is still a winning issue. It is only when they try to ban all abortions with life of mother as the only exception where the pro-'choice' position becomes the majority. Likewise, with gay marriage. It is a big winning issue if you are just wanting to limit marriage between a man and a woman. But when you also try to ban civil unions you lose support. For the most part, social conservative issues were a winner in this election. There were three states where ballot initiatives went too far and probably hurt us.
But really, this election was backlash against Bush mostly. The MSM was very successful the last few years at beating Bush down, and Bush did not take the attacks seriously enough until it was too late. The MSM media talked down a great economy and talked down a semi-successful war effort and was able to drive Bush's support way down.
Ohhhhh....You had me going for a second! I thought that when you wrote "we would win," you were talking about Republicans!
I attend a "religious right" church. When Haggard's scandal came out, we were like, "Who's Haggard?".
Haggard was accused of buying meth for a gay lover.
Haggard's is in the CO-05. We still held that seat and CO's gay marriage ban passed.
I'm not sure about his case, but i heard that he "admitted to" some of the allegations, guess he is at least looking for forgiveness.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard. He had nothing to do with the elections.
That was a completely unnecessary and insulting statement.
Does anyone know how the Democrats won this election?? I would like to know. Not one Dim complained this time around, that votes were illegal, messed with the counting electronic black boxes or anything else they usually come up with. The GOP didn't complain either which I found totally amazing. The Democrats ran a video on HBO the week before the election called HACKING DEMOCRACY..which is still running. It is a real hit piece..and I am sure was run with the idea it would be the jump off place after the election if they won. Does anyone know how they won and if they have seen the HBO video??
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.