Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Nov 12, 2004.
If it is wrong for the Prez to have a litmus test, is it wrong for Spector too?
Who said anything about a litmus test Stu? Besides you I mean.
From the emails that I have gotten, many want him out cause he told the prez not to send a pro-lifer to the committe cause he would kill it, pardon the pun. There are many who believe that the sen. has a litmus test, that was the reference.
Sorry I didn't spell that out, many may not be aware why there is a challenge. So thanks.
you may notice the infighting in the original post between more conservative and liberal factions of the republican party. It may look familiar to the democrats and the far left and moderates.
Maybe we aren't as different as you think, then again maybe we are, there are only so many methods of political power?
What litmus test?
I didn't think I'd need to point out the gigantic pink elephant in the room after posting this article, but if it's not perfectly obvious: the furthest right elements of the Republican Party are actively engaging in an ideological cleansing campaign. Spector has to be forced out not only because he's one of the few moderates remaining in the party but also (and let's face facts here), he's not a Christian. All non-believers must go. This is the message.
Well Bush has promised to reach out to those who agree with him. Not much of a stretch for him though. I suppose the corrolary is that the rest of us can piss off.
I am sure that your googles will find the mention of bush not sending him an anti-abortion candidate. I will provide if necessary, i don't think it is.
IJ you can point that same pointy hat at the leftest pinkos in dem party who have done everything in their power to push away the moderates so to keep their narrow minority vues at the head of the donkey.
It is called a power struggle, yes there is one in the republican party right now, and if the dems had some more power to struggle over there would be one there too.
Yes that was an interesting phrase, but atleast it aint pandering.
Not much of a uniter is he? But I suppose you don't care that he flip-flopped on that huh?
Actually I grimised when he said it. But it is the baby vs the bathwater problem for me. Because 100% of my vote went to bush (1 of 1) doesn't mean I am in 100% agreement 100% of the time. I imagine that those on the left felt similarly about kerry, many didn't like kerry, just hated him less.
Well, I hope the evangelicals' faith is rewarded. May they eventually go to Heaven, as they so fervently hope.
But, while they're here with us, they're just another special interest group. AARP, Sierra Club, NRA...All have claims and agendas.
I'm in accord with Specter's "no stalling", but I surely hope that doesn't mean a lack of in-depth questioning. I don't care if a judge is conservative, moderate or liberal so much as the qualifications are real, and the person has a history of striving for objectivity in following constitutional precepts.
Well, my hopes can be idealistic, can't they?
Why is the head of Concerned Women for America a man? I suppose they're so concerned that they can't let women be involved in the process because women can't handle it.
If the fundamentalists go with the Democrats next time, aren't they just fooling themselves into believing that someone will support their radical take on what society should be? I don't believe that any politician expecting to stay in office any length of time is going to do anything too dramatic.
This isn't good for the GOP, they signed a deal with some very radical factions here and they are wanting payment. The GOP as a whole is trying to remain a party that appeals across the board. Jim Jeffords already became in independent. If there is an attempted purge of GOP members who are not conservative enough for the party it will probably split them.
But offering political rewards based on religious positions sounds like regular old cronyism to me.
I am going to jump into this thread to address that question, and then get back out really, really quick-like.
According to some information on the Concerned Women for America (CWA) home page, the Robert Knight quoted in the article is the "director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America". A different page identifies Beverly LaHaye as the founder and chairman of CWA.
The difference between a "special interest group" and "just another special interest group" is that the latter gets their phone messages returned.
Just because 20% of the voters that stated "morals" was the reason that 80% of their vote went to Bush, does not mean that the rest of the nation feels that way. Specter is playing towards the moderate side. Evidently the extremist side is larger than we thought. So much for Bush's second promise to be a "uniter".
I may be wrong, but the term is "constructionist" for those that view the Constitution literally, not something that can be used by "conservative" voices to mean what they want.
I guess "activist" judges only apply to those that don't support "your" view.
Chip, I really doubt there are "more" extremists than you or I thought. What it is, is, they're louder.
Extremists of either Left or Right are more noted for the noise level than the numbers. They're rarely noted for rational thought, for that matter.
Further, all a Bush or a Kerry can do is TRY to be a uniter. Neither can be held responsible for the statements of those who support them. I don't hold Kerry responsible for his supporters using pejoratives against those of us who live in the south, for instance...
That's right, the only thing a political leader can do is try to be a uniter. Now, when has George Bush ever tried?
IJ, you gonna tell me he doesn't think that he's trying for unity? I don't question his sincerity.
Sincerity in no way is synonymous with efficacy...
Real uniters reach out to those who disagree with them.
I certainly do question his sincerity. I judge him by his deeds, not his words.