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.
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?
Dissing Ann is one of the reasons I let my NR subscription lapse, among other reasons. They couldn't take her passion. Just too alive to be endured.
All that junk about "compassionate conservatism"--at the NR they're DISpassionate conservatives. Cold fish. As Enchiladita said today, and really caught my ear when discussing the tepid nomination of Mel Martiez to the RNC, don't they have any passion about anything?
The NR never bothered, in all their years, to lend any serious ear to the evangelicals, or religious right, or Christian Conservatives, or whatever you want to call them. They'd publish the occasional visit-to-the-zoo article about evangelicals, and even let a former convert to Catholicism from conservative Protestantism (Dreher) write a few columns. A southerner, even, imagine that.
The religious right will simply have to accept that its only legitimate goal is for the government to stop helping its enemies (i.e. not implementing or funding liberal social engineering). Any desire for religious-right social engineering (e.g. the Internet gambling ban) must be explicitly disavowed.
(My answer: They need to undo the damage by actively pushing for repeal of nanny-state measures such as the Net gambling ban, the various bits of Net censorship that the courts haven't cleaned up yet, etc).
Methinks what we have here is a lashing out at the messenger.
What in your mind constitutes a "religious nutjob," the influence of which in the GOP is sending you screaming to teh exits? This near atheist is just curious.
I noticed the term years ago because it was so monumentally self-flattering --a class of people set apart by their superior vision and intelligence. After all, those not in the "creative class" would by extension be stupid classless drones.
The trouble with having our "literati" isolated in the NE cities of NY and DC is the obvious one of near-sightedness. When you're a conservative at a cocktail party, you have to endure the sophisticates' ridicule of those ignorant rubes who believe in Jesus Christ. After a while, you get to thinking that the whole world is like that.
Reagan knew who Joe Sixpack was. And he never treated Joe like an idiot.
Joe Sixpack is much smarter than NR thinks he is, and he knows where he's not wanted.
Or, even, having a regular spot on their masthead for someone Not Our Kind, Deah. After thirty-odd years, it wouldn't kill 'em.
At least there's Human Events, Frontpagemag, etc.--but it galls me that erstwhile longtime conservative publications never notice on which side their political bread is buttered on--until they need someone to blame for going hungry. I guess you didn't catch the CATO last week.
Class and cultural snobbery has been around since rocks cooled, and always will. To be honest with you, I don't know anybody, none, zippo, nada, where religion is a central theme in their life. In fact, I know few who bother to go to church/temple at all, and nobody but nobody talks about religion in conversation except myself, and I do it as a hobby and matter of intellectual interest. So I guess there real is a cultural divide when it comes to interpersonal contact.