Giving Up On God (Sort Of): How the Dobson evangelical wing hinders the GOP from winning

Ah, not the “if you’re not Roman Catholic you’re not as Christian as you could be” crap. Way to derail the conversation, HO.

May the Pope decrease and Christ increase.

Good point. But I wonder, particularly in California, what the charge was for the second life of his and Laci's unborn baby. Are you positive that the baby's life being snuffed out was ruled homocide?

Libery comes from God. So does government.

I'll definitely agree with the former; the later I am highly skeptical of.

The Catholic Church does not endorse the politician, but they do speak out about Morality and Ethics.

They also badmouth what they call consumerism and greed -- the quest for more and better material things. Funny then, that the vatican has a web site with merchandise availible for sale. Also funny that the Cardinals and Bishops have such posh accomadations. Technically it's not their stuff since they take vows of poverty but why bother when the tithe money provides them with such lucritive access to goodies for use.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph ... is for good men to do the WRONG thing.

Thank you GOP for BHO. Especially you GWB. The biggest mark the Rats ever rolled.

The very existence of the term “pro-choice” is proof that even the most hardened pro-aborts concede that abortion takes a human life. If there was any possibility that life begins at birth, they'd have no objection to being called pro-abortion. They coined the term “pro-choice” because they know abortion can't be defended on its merits, and that's because it's a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

In fact, Kathleen Parker's “oogedy-boogedy” term applies more to the abortion advocates than to Christian fundamentalists. I've never heard a pro-life candidate argue that abortion should be banned because it violates Biblical commandments. The argument always is that it's been scientifically proven that a new human life begins at conception. Pro-lifers invoke DNA, fetal heartbeats, fetal brainwaves, and other scientific evidence to support this claim.

It's the pro-abortion side which tries to evade the issue, which wants the actual abortion procedures kept under wraps, and which has concocted the evasive “pro-choice” term to avoid scientific discussion. And when forced into a discussion of the real nature of abortion, what do they do? They turn to mystical mumbo-jumbo, such as Harry Blackmun’s assertion in his Roe decision that philosophers and theologians had debated when life begins for thousands of years and never come to an agreement because it was just too mystical and ghostly a topic. They even invoked quickening, an ancient concept which held that an unborn child was an empty shell until a ghost entered it, around six months into the pregnancy, an “spiritually enlivened” it. Whenever a pro-abort is forced to deal with real science in an abortion debate, he'll inevitably bring up the quickening argument. He'll say he supports abortion prior to “quickening”. By this, he means it's okay to abort an unborn child in the first two trimesters because a ghost hasn't entered it yet and brought it to life. Talk about oogedy-boogedy!

DOI has no force of law. Any more than Payne's Common Sense has the force of law. It is a statement of aspirations rather than a legal document.

You may howl your insistence to the moon, but case law cites the Declaration as precedent in determining that our rights are inherent within us, by way of the means I have given you. I will cede the point, but only because I wish to discuss it no further- we are at odds and not to be moved, and I do not wish to provide the laborious research necessary to provide the proofs to buttress what is otherwise simply my opinion- Research I have already done previously in the formation thereof...

As a parting shot, you may want to look up a guy named John Van Zandt, and his case defended before the SCOTUS. He was being tried for harboring fugitive slaves, AFAIR, and was successfully defended on the basis of the DOI- That freedom was God given, and above the jurisdiction of courts or any law abridging it without due process. I would look it up, but as I said, I am disinclined to follow it further. I remain thoroughly unconvinced, however.

[roamer_1:] for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Remember you are reading this in translation. Jealousy as an emotion is petty. God is not petty.

I reject your definition outright, and stand by the KJV translation. I guard my principles jealously. That is not a petty thing. It is right and proper for me to do so. Your supposition that "jealous" is used in it's ignoble sense, or that I assumed it as such is an interpretive problem of your own.

Main Entry: jealous
[...]
1 a: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness
1 b: disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
2: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage
3: vigilant in guarding a possession (new colonies were jealous of their new independence — Scott Buchanan)
Merriam-Webster.com: jealous

As to the rest of your comments in this section, it is exactly this that I am pointing to as the unalterable course which will occur by taking Jehovah out of our law and out of our public square. Our laws mean nothing without the Judeo-Christian ethic under which they were written. Without that formal conscience, dutifully applied, humanism will not be defeated, and justice cannot return. The reason that is true, is that a secular state is the definition of humanism in the political sense.

Socratic reason is embodied more in Conservatism by way of Hebraic/Judaic thought and law, and thereby Christian thought and law espoused and inherited by way of England, than it is by the secular Republicanism born of France, as the primary instance.

The difference between the two, The US Constitution, and the Constitution of the French Republic, is precisely that the former recognized the Father, put itself under His care, built it's laws in deference to His Justice and allowed it's people freedom under His auspices, while the latter espoused freedom for the sake of freedom, relying wholly upon the reason of men, and rejecting God outright.

The first represents the free-est, most productive, most inventive, most giving, most blessed country on earth. The other has given us Human Secularism, which breeds Socialism, and then Communism and/or tyranny, and has given us two world wars. Yet it is this secular government which you would champion, the very infection which destroys us now, from within.

The ready evidence for my argument comes from the foundations of the documents- The inarguable primary reference for the US Constitution was Blackstone, whose deference to God in law is not only apparent, but obviously right. Blackstone not only served as foundational reference for our Framers, it also served as a reference for precedence until such time as our country had formed enough precedence of it's own. It was commonly cited even into the 1900's, and is used before the SCOTUS. In leaning so heavily upon our English roots in law and Parliament, our fathers drew upon an hardier root than the supposed "enlightenment" theories "discovered" in the 1700's.

The Declaration for the Rights of Man, however, and the constitution which followed it, carry forward the rotten fruits of European enlightenment- Taking influence from the US formative documents, to be sure, and even the presence of Thomas Jefferson, but bastardizing it all with the influence of the likes of Rousseau to form European Secular Humanism. To wit: Rights are inherent in Man, not endowed upon him, and they are invariably ceded to the state for the greater good.

That is where the secular state must always lead, because even as a benevolent government, with no recognition of Authority above it, and as the sole arbiter of the rights and needs of the people beneath it, it's assumed powers must invariably work to increase it's estate; whatever checks and balances it may have work together to increase themselves collectively as it is in their own interest over the power of the people to do so. Since the purveyors of such pap suppose the power of government provides equality to the people, such increases are always considered to be in the peoples' favor... And so it goes.

The latter is *not*, nor has it ever been the root of the American Republic, and the distinction between the two is readily apparent and immense.

The "Christian" right is more along the size you already defined.. perhaps 30M voters. Other folks who are Conservative but do not identify as "Christian Right" make up the rest of 55 to 60 Million we have seen turn out in the recent several presidential elections. Keep it real.

There, in a nutshell, is why the Republicans are fighting for tiny percentage points instead of swamping the liberals. You have no idea, and seriously only look at the numbers from one election to the next, never bothering to add up the attrition, and never bothering to calculate the natural increases. The Christian Right has babies... Lots of them... yet their numbers, 30m never have increased. Their numbers are always growing statistically- New believers always coming online, converts fleeing the liberal churches, learning the ways of the social conservatives- yet 30m is all they ever muster for the Pubs...

I was 1 Reaganite in 1980. In a generation, I will be 6 solid, hard right Reaganites, with at least 12 grandchildren on the way. How many generations came of age between? Yet you are content to believe than the unchanging value of the Christian Right has been 30m since the 80's, and will always be so.

In fact, the Conservatives should have easily doubled in the time since Reagan, particularly the Christians. It is far more likely that the Republicans have lost them, even as they have lost their way since '94, and I am but the tip of an iceberg. A Limbaugh-like "See, I Told You So" moment awaits, but alas, a new party will probably have to get all that credit.

[roamer_1:] Oh really? Why don't you just tick off for me all the thing the Republicans have done for the Christian Right in the last 27 years? And for the Conservatives at large for that matter?

Gosh I have heard this more often than I would like. I heard it used as a justification to vote for Obama.. and it is just a pile of crap. I will use Kennedy's quote. "Ask not what the Republican Party can do for you, Ask what you can do for the Republican Party."

Screw that noise. I will *not* lend my support to socialists governing from the right, and neither, quite obviously will the remainder of my fellows- those few that still vote for you.

This gets at the fact that the "Religious Right" offers far to often to take its toys and play by itself. And this unreliability becomes a situation where those who need to make decisions discount this block.

It always amazes me how the liberals, barely 30% of the electorate can do what they do, but they always cater to their base. Maybe not as far as their base would like, but it always gets pushed along. Yet when I ask you what the Pubs have done for us, it's base, you cannot answer me (because the answer is close to *nothing*), and basically tell me to shut up and vote.

The Conservatives, all of them, are as reliable as the sun. All Republicans have ever needed to do is offer Conservatives for us to vote *for*. That is the agreement we entered into with you, via Reagan, and it is not we who have been unreliable allies in that agreement. That has been the Republicans.

ANY Republican of good character, who can be proven in his record to uphold the traditional Republican platform and espouses traditional Republican positions, held since Reagan, are sure to get Conservative support- Conservatives will move heaven and earth to elect such a man. And he will win because of it. But that is *not* what we are given.

Now, if the Republicans would care for it's base with half the determination of the left, if it would defend us from liberalism, and promote Conservative values which is why we put them in power, they would be there even yet. So don't come crying to me about unreliability until you can show me Republicans doing their jobs instead of colluding with socialists.

The Conservative Base in its fury at Republicans in Congress that could be "played" by the Democrats to their advantage has given us a Congressional Majority of freaks and kooks, because this knee-jerk behavior of the "Christian Right" is predictable and useful against the Republican Party.

Bullcrap. It certainly is predictable that Conservatives will refuse to reward poor performance, bad behavior, and sleeping with the enemy. I know Pubbies chaff at the fact that they are held to ethics and standards, and wish to be free of them. Fine. But don't cry when Conservatives refuse to support you then. That was not in our agreement.

Sarah Palin is a much more important figure, because rather than being Miss Walkaway, she engages in trench warfare.

Sarah Palin is much ado about nothing. I will predict right here that she will not carry the Conservatives anywhere.

In many states, the idea of stealing seats from Democrats is bizarre. Why, because Republicans have forgotten their core message and ceased to believe in themselves.

No, Republicans are corrupt, insipid, and without principle. They care more about electability and filthy mammon than they do about the truth. Their "core message" was discarded before Regan even stepped down. They have been stifling the faithful ever since.

My advice was to seed the population with faith and then let faith guide us out of our morass. How can you translate that into this bizarre screed against Republican's.

That is because the population was seeded with faith. Reagan accomplished that, and brought Social Conservatives to the table, brought God back into the political sphere. It was part and parcel, joined to Conservatism. And the people cheered. The people ROARED their approval. All Republicans had to do was follow the program, and keep faith with the people.

You are behaving and thinking irrationally and like a loser.. and a loser you shall continue to be until you find your way.

ROTFLMAO!!! I am not a loser!!! LOL! I had nothing at stake to lose. If me and mine are not represented, we have nothing to lose in going elsewhere and supporting otherwise. No, I am quite comfortable with my decisions this season. I am happy to have been a thorn in the side of the traitorous bastard McCain, and I am quite content to force the failure of the Republicans as well. I am also happy to have supported Alan Keyes through the general election, having supported my principles and my conscience fully.

As a Conservative, I will oppose socialism regardless of the party, and I have developed a particular and abiding annoyance for Globalist Republicans. I will rise to oppose them especially, as I consider them a greater enemy to this nation than the liberals on the left, as they stand in the bulwarks of the loyal opposition, pretending to oppose, when all the while they collude and allow.

Be very clear, I do not merely leave the Republicans- I will rise to oppose them, here and everywhere, with every joint and sinew. And if my position can be magnified through the AIP or another suitable party, then there is where I will certainly go.

You see, I am way past "off the reservation". I could really give a damn what your party thinks about anything. It is without honor or principle. I am in full fledged opposition to you, and will remain so.

And as to the twenty years in the wilderness if we break Republican ranks: it would do you well to remember the lesson of the Whigs. They were removed nearly completely within two election cycles, and brought the Republicans into power, standing on their political grave. Do not dream that the feckless Republicans do not deserve the same.

Wrong. How many people was Scott Peterson found guilty of murdering?

Uh-oh Joe... That one's gonna hurt...

Props to Theo!

Excellent post!

Sporadically? In the last 11 presidential elections the Republicans won 7 of them.

I think the author believes that what was then is not what is now. He probably believes that the new generation of American voters ( the ones who voted for Obama ) are UNLIKE the previous generation and it will now stay that way.

So, unless you can show that this isn't the case today and in the future, citing GOP victories in the past isn't going to prove much.

You may howl your insistence to the moon

Not howling. Just stating fact. Drop it. Boring.

I reject your definition outright.

More Boring. What do I care if you accept or reject my definition. What do I care if you "cling to the King James Version" Gees.

hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage

What rival does the Master of Might recognize? Any question of worshiping false Gods is not about any sense of rivalry between the "One true God of All" and any other human folly. Instead, God directs not to choose the way of error because evil grows from error.

The latter is *not*, nor has it ever been the root of the American Republic, and the distinction between the two is readily apparent and immense.

Uh.. just an elaborate restatement of what I said. The point being that God is an assumption for our system of laws and this is what makes America special. Yet, when you attempt to specify the sect and the "allowed" definition of one group over all others, than you introduce a folly into this powerful design. You are more than happy to attempt to engage in this folly and thus are a fool.

Instead, it is the vast agreement of the polity laughs at absurd attempts to remove all religious reference as a means of "leveling" the playing field that has provided a firewall against changing the American system into the French.

It is a frustrating situation but, when you have to argue the Judeo-Christian roots, you are already defeated. The argument itself equates to an attempt at establishment. This logic has been confounding to people of faith who understand the evil that is possible for attempting to change the underlying assumptions of our form of government from flowing from God's grace to flowing from the Dignity of Men. Yet, as such, having to make the argument signifies the very weakness that it attempts to correct. The problem is the greater loss of consensus of faith in American Community as a whole. Thus the appropriate and successful answer is to work toward re-establishing this greater consensus. This aiming at a goal where non-sectarian expressions of faith in the public square once again become "cool". Yet, once again, those attempting to establish directly sectarian expressions of faith in an attempt to push the proverbial "camel's nose" under the tent are bound to hit extreme opposition. The problem being attempting to establish a consensus from a minority position. Which I have identified over and over as overreach.

You have no idea, and seriously only look at the numbers from one election to the next, never bothering to add up the attrition, and never bothering to calculate the natural increases

This whole piece of the discussion flows from you attempting to blather something out of nothing.. the original 30M number was yours. I agreed and you proceeded to try to say that your own number was faulty. This is lame and a waste of time.

Republicans understand that the Black and Latino community as a whole tend to share most of the philosophical basis as the Conservative movement, but that tradition and calumnies pushed by the press and the Democrat party have kept these communities acting in opposition to the greater consensus and their own self interests.

The concession of the organs of communication and the halls of academia created this situation so that claiming majority representation in these institutions should be a core mission of the faithful.

I will *not* lend my support to socialists governing from the right

So instead, you lend your support to the socialists that propose governing from the left. Walk away, walk away.. and you wonder why those who are left make the rules. Walk away as far and as fast and you like and you will always not be represented. Its your choice. Its your foolishness that causes your pain. The Democrats claimed a majority by getting "Yellow Dog" Democrats elected running to the "right" of incumbant Republicans in races where the Republican was clearly conservative. These "Yellow Dogs" vote with the Democrats 70% of the time and give the Democrats leadership 100% of the time. They have chosen to live with the pain of DINO's. Because they wanted power. We have no power and insisting that we cannot live with anything other than purity will assure us 35% of the seats in both Houses of Congress. And thus, leaving our views and agendas dead in the water. This is what you get for your idiocy.

Republicans have no clue how to get the Reagan Coalition back together and all of this posturing and haughtiness is not the way. We also know that trying to be Democrat light isn't the way. Sarah Palin scares the Democrats because she represents a stunning new attack. Republicans have become Joe six-pack. The elite have lost their faith and lost God's grace through their inability to discern what is good and valuable for society. Thus, they are suckered into delusions and hoaxes such as Global Warming and Gay marriage as values. America could and should be able to turn these propositions away with the laughter that they truly deserve, but instead, this stupidity gets a serious hearing.

The left spins the idea that a man should be able to run for President without needing to show his basic records of qualification. This should be laughed out of existence but yet, instead we accept we should fight to force these disclosures. What insanity.

The left is ripe to be exposed by derision and comedy. And, this is part of the way back. Laughing at jackasses.

Don't be one of them.

Sarah Palin is much ado about nothing. I will predict right here that she will not carry the Conservatives anywhere.

And once again, you violate the maxim about keeping your own counsel and rather than removing all doubt about your seriousness. Gees. Good luck with that. Back to being boring. You just expose yourself as being so out of touch with reality as to not merit the time to correct. Which gets to the heart of the balance of this tirade you propose as reasoned disposition. Boring. While facing all but complete loss of power, you wish to damage your own party more. You say Republicans are corrupt and ignore the Criminals you have elected who now claim that they do not even have to attempt lawful behavior because good people such as yourself will always give them a pass while insisting that each and every Republican be a Saint in every way. You are Saul Alinsky's bitch.

Christ is central to my faith, not the GOP nor Dobson nor the Evangelical church. Christ went after the “holier-than-thou” , hypocritical Pharisees, not the sinners. Today we have the well-meaning but loveless, evangelicals who throw rocks at sinners forgetting they themselves were graciously saved while they were yet in sin. When I see/hear/read evangelicals I do not hear the love of CHrist.
I do not hear the Good News. I hear Pharisees.

Kathleen Parker and her camp are clueless and we are commanded by Christ to be a reflection of CHrist to her through love and compassion, and to share His gospel with her (in joy, sincerity and humility).

The GOP is broken because it does not govern by Our COnstitution nor does it have the love of CHrist. They are just another bunch of clubby elites manipulating their supporters for their own gain just like the Dems do.

Republicans won the White house in 2000 and 2004 this is not a distant memory and I do not think that from 2004 to 2008 a new generation of voters has emerged. In 2008 every odd under the sun was against the Republicans, plain and simple.

Ah, not the “if you’re not Roman Catholic you’re not as Christian as you could be” crap. Way to derail the conversation, HO.

I won't say that but I expect in return no comments such as "The Pope is the anti-Christ" and "you aren't saved if you're a Catholic" and "you worship idols" and "God speaks in King James English" (he must hear in KJV by the spoken prayers of some Protestants) and "I believe every word in the Protestant Bible as it is written" (you don't, of course) and "the Catholics/the Pope should sell all their treasure and give away the money" (and then how could scholars study them or people view them if they were in private collections?) and "Priests and Religious live in luxury accommodations while the poor live in poverty" (not true as they do not own anything and some live in the same poverty as those they care for) and "the Pope should allow marriage for Priests and ordain Women Priests" (never going to happen and for good reason. It's about total commitment to Christ and that Christ instituted the Eucharist and as Man was sacrificed on the cross, so a man stands in His place at the altar before God).

I have been Lutheran, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, Charismatic, spoken in tongues, jumped a pew and read "Seven Storey Mountain" by Thomas Merton and "Interior Castles" by Teresa of Avila on my way to Catholicism. Your personal journey is not supposed to copy mine (unless you're my lost twin). Your journey belongs to you and God is plenty big enough, beyond our comprehension. He knows what people need in order to join in worship to Him. I believe God would much rather have a devout Southern Baptist representing Him than a Catholic in name only. The devout Southern Baptist may bring hundreds to God and the Cino may drive thousands away from Him.

Friends now?

Remember that everything surrounding the Bishops and Cardinals does not belong to them. It is an honor and privilege for them to become Bishops and Cardinals, etc. And the beautiful surroundings have a way of making men/women more conscious of how unworthy they are.

Have you stood in the Sistine Chapel? It is awesome. For me, I wanted to be the only person in the room (the chatter disrupted my worship) so that I could absorb it all and worship in the beauty of the place. I felt unworthy and tremendously blessed at the same time.

A rich man buys a beautiful painting or sculpture and thinks “I EARNED this!” A Bishop looks at a beautiful religious painting or sculpture and says “I don’t deserve to even look at this . . . I am worthy only to touch the hem of His garment . . . not to stand in His presence before this painting or sculpture.”

That’s the difference between the two worlds the two men live in.

[jealousy] hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage

What rival does the Master of Might recognize?

While I certainly agree, the definition of "jealousy" I posted contained all the meanings for the word. I took the liberty of highlighting the ones which I thought would apply to God's declaration of Himself as being a jealous God in bold:

1 a: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness
3: vigilant in guarding a possession

Of course, you are free to interpret the passage as you wish, and apply the more ignoble sense of the word if you see fit, but IMO, those I highlighted would fit God's known character just fine, and qualify the use of the word in it's noble sense well enough.

Uh.. just an elaborate restatement of what I said. The point being that God is an assumption for our system of laws and this is what makes America special.

GADZOOKS! Agreement! Whatever shall we do?

Yet, when you attempt to specify the sect and the "allowed" definition of one group over all others, than you introduce a folly into this powerful design. You are more than happy to attempt to engage in this folly and thus are a fool.

Yet this "foolish folly" was the norm for all but the last fifty years of our nation.

Instead, it is the vast agreement of the polity laughs at absurd attempts to remove all religious reference as a means of "leveling" the playing field that has provided a firewall against changing the American system into the French.

Laugh all you'd like, It is nearly completed, and by the same device, all the Christian nations of Europe fell, and Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, our natural brothers, are on the cusp of doing the same. In every case they fell for being to timid to declare their heritage. Every_single_one.

It is a frustrating situation but, when you have to argue the Judeo-Christian roots, you are already defeated. The argument itself equates to an attempt at establishment.

It is that sort of pernicious reasoning that allows the Bible and Blackstone, religious implications and outright declarations in letters by the founders and early presidents, and every sort of Christian law that has ever been written in any state to be discounted, as if it never happened here.

Yet, once again, those attempting to establish directly sectarian expressions of faith in an attempt to push the proverbial "camel's nose" under the tent are bound to hit extreme opposition. The problem being attempting to establish a consensus from a minority position.

But Christians are not a minority in this country, nor have they ever been. It is the liberal left, the Human Sectarians who are the minority, yet look what they accomplish.

the original 30M number was yours. I agreed and you proceeded to try to say that your own number was faulty.

My first interchange with you regarding the Christian Right was here, where I disagreed with your position that Secular Humanists were the biggest voting block in America. My reply was as follows:

That is wholly incorrect. the largest single voting block is still the Conservative Right BY FAR, and it's largest single component by far is the Christian Right. They are 30m on a bad day, and if they are properly motivated, can swell to upwards of 60m without any other part of the Conservative Base. That is approaching 1/3 of the entire active electorate. Nobody beats those numbers.

As you can see, I have never claimed differently than I do now. If the Republicans want to see just how big the Christians really are, as with all of the Conservative factions, they should try meeting their expectations generously, rather than failing to meet their expectations and attempting to negotiate a deal.

[roamer_1:] I will *not* lend my support to socialists governing from the right

So instead, you lend your support to the socialists that propose governing from the left.

What an absurd accusation. What I took away from the Republicans, I took away from them. That does not indicate or imply support for the Democrats. Especially in the light of the fact that I declared where my support DID go, and it certainly supported no socialist endeavor of any flavor. I have no duty to the Republicans or their ideology. It is up to them to be attractive to me. That is not the case, nor has it been the case for some time.

We have no power and insisting that we cannot live with anything other than purity will assure us 35% of the seats in both Houses of Congress. And thus, leaving our views and agendas dead in the water. This is what you get for your idiocy.

Quite the opposite. It is the lack of purity which has resulted in your losses. There is no denying it. And there is no one insisting on 100% Conservative purity either- No one ever has. The standard is met in the Republican's own platform, for Pete's sake, and always has been. If Republicans cannot even put up a Republican, one who meets with their own standard, why blame Conservatives and whine about purity?

You just expose yourself as being so out of touch with reality as to not merit the time to correct. Which gets to the heart of the balance of this tirade you propose as reasoned disposition. Boring.

Check my history. All of this was predicted. Most of the rock-ribbed Conservatives saw this whole thing coming, and have been calling it all the way along. It turns out that the 1%ers around here tend to be the ones who are the most "in-touch", having predicted every failure and success.

But instead of listening, you, like others, continue to ridicule and blame, while openly admitting to having no idea what's the matter.

While facing all but complete loss of power, you wish to damage your own party more.

Let me be very, very clear: It is not my party any longer. If it is being damaged it is only because of it's own duplicities and complicities. Had the Republicans adhered to the least vestige of principle of any kind, they might have a fig leaf to hide behind.

You say Republicans are corrupt and ignore the Criminals you have elected [...]

Ahh, I see... Relative morality. Our criminals are better than their criminals. Are you sure you want to make your stand on that ground?

And I have elected no criminals whatsoever, nor attempted to. If that is your belief, you have failed to grasp the basics of our election process, not to mention simple mathematics.

[...] who now claim that they do not even have to attempt lawful behavior because good people such as yourself will always give them a pass while insisting that each and every Republican be a Saint in every way.

Those who will rise to oppose them from the minority position will be the Conservatives, and I will watch them succeed from the minority to a far greater degree than the current administration and leadership ever did while in power. The ones who let them do as they please, and in fact appeased them, were the so called "moderates", the big-tent "compassionate conservatives", who have set about redefining Conservatism into a lesser socialism.

You are Saul Alinsky's bitch.

Nothing has ever been gained in appeasing and colluding with evil. Nothing has ever been gained in cheering Pyhrric victories. What is required for your defense is proof, and the proof should be in the pudding.

If I am so wrong, you should be able to list the great accomplishments which came of the near 30 years of power we lent to the Republicans. We can certainly see the accomplishments the Democrats can show their own... Even through the course of Republican control.

Show me the error of my ways- Show me how the Republicans have defended and promoted Conservatism, and defended the sovereignty and traditions of this great country against the assault of liberal secularism, which we both know is destroying it's very fabric.

I already know you will point to very little- And what you can point to, the Republicans themselves, purposefully undermined in later years.

Will I rise against the Democrats too? Surely I will, and surely I do. But first there needs to be solid ground to stand upon and offer that opposition. A place where the American people can see a clear difference, populated with statesmen they can trust.

Since Republicans occupy that ground of "loyal opposition" and pose as such, they must be laid low, so that actual opposition can be raised up in their stead. IMO, the Republicans have so sullied themselves as to no longer be trusted at all, but if true Conservatism were to overtake them, and they were to return to the House of Reagan (which is the most unlikely of circumstances), it would be a different story.

As it is, however, and as it is likely to be, The Republicans will continue right down their normal path, ceding what they must to me and mine to get their power back, spouting principle and platitude until that time- And then we will be right back where we are... Bakerites, Globalism and "Shut up and vote." That's because the last thirty years has proven that dynamic to be the true motivation of the Republican powers-that-be.

If I am so wrong, you should be able to list the great accomplishments which came of the near 30 years of power we lent to the Republicans.

Lets see.

The end of the Era of New Deal Regulation of Business and Commerce
The end of Lifetime Dependence on Welfare
60% reduction of taxes while increasing the budget for Defense
The Defeat of Soviet Union
The Defeat of Saddam Hussein's attempt to Cease control of the Middle East.
Channeling China's growth into Commercial rather than Military competition.
Increase of GNP from 2.5 Trillion to 15 Trillion Dollars. 1980 - 2008
Defense of Marriage Act
Restriction of Fetal Stem Cell Research to existing lines
Restriction of Federal Funding of Abortions
Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives
90% of Win on Global War on Terror
Surrender of Libyan Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
Reduction of Coercive Labor Union environment
I could go on and on..

You are dreaming, most numbers quoted for Right Wing Christian Conservatives is 20 Million so 30 Million is stretching it. Unfortunately for you there are as many left wing Christians as there are Right wing. In fact, Secularism still enjoys a solid majority support in the US. Abortion enjoys majority support, in spite of 30 years of attempting to explain this as a horror and the murder of innocents.

The suck hole is in the Churches themselves. Witness the elevation of a Gay Bishop in the American Episcopal Church. You imagine that Christians don't make up the vast majority of "Liberals" in America but they do. Almost 60% of the Catholic vote went to Obama without regard to the fact that the Bishops were starting to say that electing an official who supported the Freedom of Choice Act was an act of Self-Excommunication.

Ultimately we live in a world of difficult realities. You want to live in a world of clear black and white expectations.

The world you say existed in the 50's is a fantasy in your own mind. And a world of 60 Million Right Wing Conservative Christians doesn't exist, if it did, there would be no question about Abortion, Gay Marriage or perhaps even radical secularism.

But for now.. 30 Million Right Wing Christians are not enough to pull together 65 Million Votes on election day. Karl Rove believed he could get to that number reliabily, but it wasn't so. Because of Jack Asses like you. Who would rather lose. Thats ok. You don't want to lie down with them who have fleas, find 35 Million more Right Wing Christians and get them to the voting booth.

My argument all along is that bitch and whine as much as you want. These votes don't exist right now and they won't until the hearts and minds of the electorate support your positions. A majority of Americans don't in many cases. If the Black and Latino community didn't vote for Democrats as a Knee Jerk unthinking proposition, but chose Social Values as their guiding their voting choices, then your coalition would exist. This is what happened in California for Prop. 8. It shocked the left. But, polls show that 60% of Americans are socially conservative. They just won't vote that way for the moment. This block of 25% of the electorate who actually votes goes 90% to the Democrats.

Partially, this is because folks fear folks like you. Who would use the apparatus of the state to impose your sect and your particular understanding of God onto them. They may agree 80% with you.. but they will rebel and block you to protect that last 20.

Ultimately, about ten to twenty percent of the Conservative Right agrees with you. And this disables the whole Republican party. Thus we have almost a super-majority of Democrats in both Houses and A Democrat President who is an unrepentant Socialist, Anti-Life and committed to structuralize barriers so that Christian values may not even be taught in Churches much less schools.

These are the last seconds, to get serious and you are still acting like a baby.

Saul Alinsky, laid out a simple plan. Use their values and high expectations against them. This is why you are his bitch. You are an instrument and a tool of the left and you happily justify it in your world of purity. Well, you get nothing except for the satisfaction that you didn't have to part with your time and money to actually do something .. instead you just whine and moan and go for the Pyrrhic Victory over and over.. good job.

One more election cycle of this and we are screwed.

Thankfully, lots of folks woke up this cycle and they are busy getting off of their asses and making a difference and looking for what can be done rather than on insisting on doing what cannot be done.

A whole lot of Catholic Bishops have found a trace of Backbone.. but this remains to be seen if they will actually proceed to action or will they be happy with a round of empty gesturing. (Like you are..)

Our whole ability to block the most egregious horrors of the next 2 years rests on two RINO senators from Maine and you would let them go too. Because you are an idiot.

There is no Conservative Party. There are no Conservative Candidates on any ballots. Thus, Conservatives cannot win a single election. If you want to create a Conservative Party, have at it. But just understand, it is a life sucking hell hole of a job and if it isn't in place with 60 Million Votes by 2010, then the Democrats will have Super-Majorities in both Houses and the Presidency.. and if they decide, they could outlaw Christian Churches altogether. Its almost already been done in Canada. Its called hate speech laws. Then what do you do.. you attempt to fight them and they put you in prison. You think you can go to the Supreme Court for your rights but they have appointed 6 justices that say you don't have any. And there is not enough Republicans in Congress to do anything but let them do it.

And then one day you find yourself living in USSA and its only the Financial Crisis that took down McCain that is saving us from this right now and 2 RINOs.

I used to have feelings of support for folks like you.. but now I just call you a jerk. Prove me wrong. Give me a Conservative Party. Otherwise, figure out how to walk back and make the Republican party into something worth supporting and quit taking a crap on everyone else's head that is actually trying to do something positive.

Lets see. [...] I could go on and on...

Perhaps you should, as most of that list, as I said already, has been overturned, or misused infamously, by the Republicans themselves.

Witness the elevation of a Gay Bishop in the American Episcopal Church.

Witness the founding and rise of the Conservative Anglican Church in America in it's stead. The Liberal Churches are not growing. They are losing parishioners. Even the mega-churches cannot sustain themselves. At the same time, the Conservative churches cannot build fast enough. They are young, vibrant, and full of children.

Ultimately we live in a world of difficult realities. You want to live in a world of clear black and white expectations.

Most things are black and white.

Ok, here comes the money shot:

My argument all along is that bitch and whine as much as you want. These votes don't exist right now and they won't until the hearts and minds of the electorate support your positions. [...] polls show that 60% of Americans are socially conservative. They just won't vote that way for the moment. This block of 25% of the electorate who actually votes goes 90% to the Democrats.

Here is where you shoot your entire rant down. The reason Conservatives always get big turnout is BECAUSE 60% of the country is Conservative. The reason they don't turn out for Republicans in general is because Republicans don't give them anything to turn out *for*.

You are looking to capture more of the 25% that vote all the time, I am telling you to appeal to the 60% of the entire population that believes as I do. Reagan knew to do so. Gingrich knew to do so. That is why the Conservative reserve is so deep. The closer you get to Reagan, the more likely you are to get people out of their busy lives and into the voting booths. I really don't understand how come y'all can't grasp this. Conservatives vote Conservative.

Saul Alinsky, laid out a simple plan. Use their values and high expectations against them. This is why you are his bitch. You are an instrument and a tool of the left and you happily justify it in your world of purity.

The instrument and tool of the left are the appeasers, just as the appeasers who tried to pacify Hitler. What is needed is a clear choice between the right and the left- an ideological difference, an opposing force. That is not the Republicans by any means.

Well, you get nothing except for the satisfaction that you didn't have to part with your time and money to actually do something .. instead you just whine and moan and go for the Pyrrhic Victory over and over.. good job.

The Pyrrhic victory would be the one leaving socialists in charge of both parties- Electing MccAin't would have been the Pyrrhic victory. This is the only chance for a win of sorts- Deposing the Bakerites may allow the Reaganites to ascend, so that a true opposition to the liberals may in fact begin to form.

My time and my money were purposed to that task, and in the support of selected Conservative candidates and causes. So I did not sit and whine as you accuse. I DID, and I still DO, and I am quite happy with how things are going.

One more election cycle of this and we are screwed.

We are screwed anyway without a loyal opposition.

Our whole ability to block the most egregious horrors of the next 2 years rests on two RINO senators from Maine and you would let them go too. Because you are an idiot.

If you invest ANY hope in the Senate for any purpose, then it is you who is the idiot. MccAin't and his gang will see to that. Any hope there is lies in the House, and it lies with the Conservatives in both parties.

Then what do you do.. you attempt to fight them and they put you in prison.

ROTFLMAO!! They may put you in prison, but not me.

And then one day you find yourself living in USSA and its only the Financial Crisis that took down McCain that is saving us from this right now and 2 RINOs.

MccAin't was never going to win, regardless of the "financial crisis". And yes, you may keep your RINOs too. They will vote with the liberals anyway (all three of them, I mean).

I used to have feelings of support for folks like you.. but now I just call you a jerk. Prove me wrong. Give me a Conservative Party. Otherwise, figure out how to walk back and make the Republican party into something worth supporting and quit taking a crap on everyone else's head that is actually trying to do something positive.

I am doing something positive. You just don't like it, because you are too short sighted to see the truth of things. You ask me to support the Republicans, but I will never do so, unless they return to Reagan Conservatism, and that they will not do. So the impasse will stand, and I will continue to do all I can to tear the Republicans down, while building something new in their place.

I will continue to do all I can to tear the Republicans down.

This is the truth about you. Not building anything, nothing.. just barking at the moon. Your heart is half in the right place, but your method will continue the produce obscene results. I am repeating myself.

Also, you say, when the guys with the badges and guns come for you, you will get away or what? I have heard this all before. This is all crap too. Bluff and false bravado.

It gets boring.

We are done.

This is the truth about you. Not building anything, nothing..

I told you what I am doing, and I will continue in that manner. As I said up thread, my allegiances will go where they are best used- probably the AIP on principle, but I am not ruling out others... the Falcon party, perhaps.

And what I contribute to is my business. I owe no help or quarter to rascals and schemers the like of which the Republicans, at least those who maintain the leadership, have proven themselves to be.

Also, you say, when the guys with the badges and guns come for you, you will get away or what? I have heard this all before. This is all crap too. Bluff and false bravado.

Perhaps for some. But they do not have strong sons, good country friends, and hundreds of thousands of square miles of rugged wilderness out their back door either. Taking the Rockies over (or the Blue Ridge for that matter) isn't as easy as you might think.

And if such is my lot, that I cannot utilize such means, then I go to any other fate all the same, without fear, and without regret. I know what is right, and where my faith is laid up. I will stand upon that ground no matter what- Just as my father did, and just as our forefathers did, because liberty is never found in appeasement, or in half-assed compromises.

Have a nice day.