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.
Apparently the Bushies have a vested private interest with Mexico. OK you can say that Fox's party is better than the PRI that ruled Mexico for 70 years (they could easily make a comeback)--but all in all Mexico's government is still oligarchical and corrupt. I take a semi-Buchananite approach to immigration. (If you take a full fledged Buchananite approach, it can border on racism) It is primarily the upper classes of American society that are benefiting from illegal immigration. Does it really matter that American will no longer be a majority white country in 2050? (i'll be dead) Buchanan sort of laments this in a round about way. On the face of it no--but the question arises that a flood of people who remain unassimilated not only in language but in attitudes will change the essence of what America has historically been. Basically, it will not be the same country because the civil values will be inherently different. The left sees this as an attack on the inherent goodness and self worth of the individual immigrant--it is not.
Yeah, the Mrs. Snows of the party do like their humble, cheap, easily intimidated house help.
I didn't see that in the article. Sabato wants you to believe that, but we know, by now, that he's a demowhore.
The article is really about changing demographics in border regions. For example, fairfax county has an influx of new residents from more liberal Washington and Maryland. These residents are moving because their politics have made their former residences uninhabitable. Unfortunately, they bring their same stupid political beliefs with them. Leftists have a lot of trouble understanding cause and effect.
Richard Pombo had the same problem here in CA. New residents from the liberal Bay Area cost him his seat.
I think what we are seeing in DC (with the election of lott) is the sheltered intelectual snobs trying their take over of the belt way.
Catholics, a few Jews, one secular Anglican...it seems to have missed the attn of NR that evangelicals even exist, much less make up a huge part of the conservative voting base. Although, every once in a while they'll run a story on conservative non-Catholic Christians a la "National Geographic Presents"...usually with a title like, "Evangelicals Might Not Be So Awful" or some such patronizing stuff.
Meanwhile, Obama is flattering a very influential Christian writer and pastor of a very large evangelical church...with some good success.
The GOP and the GOP "intellectuals" treats conservatives, and conservative Christians, like the Dems treat blacks.
Ps--I don't think the litterati (sic) are happy with the Lott election. Lott owes no loyalty to Bush.
Perhaps evangelicals should stage a mass "talking in tongues" and "falling down on the ground in spasms" rally at the mall in DC?
That would show them.
Who's Jonathon Martin?
No, without you, we would have attracted a lot more votes that were otherwise driven to the other side.
I myself almost did not vote because of religeous nutjobs. The day of voting, I held my nose and decided to do it one last time. And I was one of the 537 Volusia county voters who put W over the top in 2000. Stood on a street corner with a W sign during the recount. Poll watcher, and member here since 1997.
If you nutjobs are still around next election, I might vote dem.
BTW, when you respond, please fall on the floor and talk in tongues, nutcase.
Oh good. I'm not the only one that noticed.
Much like Davis, Oliver says Republicans dont need to abandon their conservative philosophy to win in places like St. Louis and Fairfax County, they just need to talk to these suburbanites where they are.
You may see that as just code words, but if you take it on its face value, there is some truth in it. I don't know about Missouri, but it looked to me like Allen was trying to play a "good ol' boy" card that he didn't really have and didn't have to play to win, and that cost him the election. The next winning Republican will be more able to juggle the substance rural voters want with a style that won't grate on suburbanites.
You live in a dream world. Half of the house dems were elected as social conservatives. Your opinion of religion notwithstanding you don't know much about the recent election or the demographics of the current republican party.
To be blunt, the republican party can not win anything without those evil religious types.
"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." - - Revelations 3:14, The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
(By the way, the literal translation is actually "vomit", not "spit".)
The last time I checked FreeRepublic was still Conservative and Pro-Christianity. Maybe you think your 1997 sign-up gives you immunity to trash Christians. Maybe you're right.
The way the democrats are acting we will be as soon as they take over Congress.
I still can't believe a Muslim was elected in this country post 911.
Before the election, the NRO had CATO expressing its distress at the social conservatives. Now, post election, we're once again the rube in the room.
And Polly--I've follwed NR for decades, all through the Buckley years when it was a largely lachrymose publication, but the only game in town. The religious right took the GOP from being "principled", idle, moribund, tea-sipping losers to being the vigorous Reagan party in power--and the NE purebreds never got over the embarrassment.
This Martin stuff is in a long line of NR's sterile expressions of distress over having to deal with a rural Protestant tradition.
pollyannaish, you're right.
Mamzelle, you write very well. And you're quite the provocateur (provocateuse?).
Who are you? Ann Coulter?