Skip to comments.Bobos say no-no (National Review urbanite frets about religious conservatives bringing us down)
Posted on 11/16/2006 8:19:09 AM PST by Mamzelle
Martin wants to point out that if it weren't for the icky evangelicals, we'd still have Allen as Senator in Va.
If it weren't for the evangelicals, we'd be living in a Socialist Sweden.
Then there's the Jack Warren (Purpose Driven Life) phenomena. The religious who get cold-shouldered by the Republicans who are embarrassed to be seen with them will have somewhere to go.
Muslim are among those Allen was exactly counting on voting for him in the first place. How many Muslims voted for Allen in 2000? That's like saying Allen lost because he only got 10% of the black vote. If he won in 2000 with 10% he should have won in 2006. He must have lost part of his base or independents in order for him to lose.
Hey back in 2000 and before Muslims tipped Republican which helped in Virginia and even kept Michigan in play. Since 9/11 they've gone Dem and now Michigan and New Jersey look impossible and Virginia looks bluer everyday.
And, you know, I'll bet Martin minds it too. He sounds so pained and wincing--Coulter really got it right about NR girlie boys.
So the "creative class" minds not at all voting with the Muslims in VA--10% or whatevah.
Salt is a preservative, but if the nation loses it's saltiness, what good is it? The religious right in this country is a restrainer. Without it, excessive liberalism would have free reign.
Well fine! I'm taking my vote and going home.
If one side were given a clear path for too long, the nation would either become a Stalinist state or a theocracy. With both, the nation still has the freedom to choose. It can "lean" one way or the other, but the nation has restraint.
The religious right is more necessary and has a lot more value than many republicans think.
I don't know whether we're reading the same article.
I thought there was more of a variance of opinion among Evangelicals regarding the war in Iraq. Yes, I would say that this group is among the more patriotic of Americans, but even they can recognize a stupid decision when they see one. The dilemma is this for me; Should we have gone into Iraq in the first place?--- NO. But the president made the decision to go in, we are there, the place is a mess, do we just cut and run?----NO. The Democrats obviously don't have a good enough answer for me. It is difficult for the American psyche to accept losing in war and sometimes we can be bullheaded. I really feel that if we cut and run at this point, the situation will be worse for America than it would ever would have been if we never went into Iraq in the first place. The main problem is that we didn't go in their to kick a$$--we went in there as social workers. So you not only have left over Baathists & jihadis with guns. You have local Sunni and Shiite militias, plain old thugs, and US trained Iraqi security forces with guns all trying to get a piece of the action and seeking vengeance----chaos par excellance. The only chance of salvaging the situation is to do some a$$ kicking--starting with the Mahdi Army. Sadr is an Iranian puppet. If we string his behind up on a lamp post it will send a message to Iran that we're not joking. I know this is wishful thinking at this point in time--Bush ain't gonna go there. So what do you think? Pull out gradually and give the appearance that we've accomplished something more than just removing Saddam Hussein from power? Also---allow every Chaldean Christian to come to the US, because we all know they will eventually be massacred (another thing the Bushies don't give a hoot about).
BOTH parties made the decision to go in based on the same evidence. This is Americas war - not Bush's war as the left would have you believe.
I'm noticing that that loyalty is not reciprocated--Bush has an insane obsession with handing America over to Mexico and seemed quite content Wednesday to throw the conservatives overboard.
Bush risked the WOT so he could canoodle with Vicente. If we can't protect our own borders, if he had no regard for American sovereignty, we can't turn this mess in the sand into a democracy.
I suppose he wants to go back to the days of permanent minority when the country-clubbers were the pubbie base?
The evidence was quite faulty. I agree that it is America's war, not just Bush's. But Bush is the Commander in Chief. The thing about the left is that they would be against Bush no matter what he did or didn't do. I am against him for what he did. (but at least we got two good SCOTUS appointments out of it).
You are ill-informed. NAFTA (Clinton and Bush) is the future. Even Ross Perot has learned this fact and is building his new factory in Guadalajara, Mexico. He will hire 170 engineers along with the hundreds of staff. Homes will be built for them as in "housing tracks". Americans will move there and commute back and forth. Perot's project will be copied by many others. The time will come when the enviromentalists will destroy even Mexico. However, Capitalist will move on to other opportunities.
A stupid move. What he saves in salaries will be spent to maintain a small private army to protect his personnel from the corrupt Mexican mafia. Holding executives for ransom is a growing business.
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.