Sunday Discussion Group

March 26, 2006

Tomorrow, some of the leading ultra-conservative figures in the religious right movement will kick off the “War On Christians” conference in Washington, DC. Attendees will learn — or rather, be told — about America’s moral decline, and why liberals, gays, the cultural elite, the media, and the federal judiciary are responsible.

Perhaps most importantly, the event’s organizer, Baptist minister Rick Scarborough, who tried to create a mini-theocracy in his Texas hometown in the 1990s, will also unveil his new book: “Liberalism Kills Kids.”

“Liberalism Kills Kids” is a groundbreaking work which documents the devastating failure of America’s 40-year experiment with liberal statism. From the deaths of 44 million unborn children, to skyrocketing rates of out-of-wedlock births, to the divorce epidemic, to the destructive demands of the movement to normalize homosexuality — the book exposes a cultural coup d’etat that has left our families gasping for air.

If you’re a fringe fundamentalist, this is the place to hear pearls of wisdom from luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly, Lou Sheldon, Bill Donohue, and Alan Keyes, among others.

On the other hand, you’ll also find three leading House Republicans (Tom DeLay, Todd Akin, and Louis Gohmert) and two leading Senate Republicans (John Cornyn and Sam Brownback), the latter of which is considered a credible presidential candidate in 2008.

My question, in a nutshell, is this: How in the world is this considered politically acceptable?

Obviously, members of Congress and presidential aspirants can speak to whomever they please. But in 2006, there seems to be no far-right fringe nut too far over the conservative cliff for GOP leaders to avoid. If Ward Churchill organized a conference in DC, no elected Democrat would want anything to do with the event. If one were foolish enough to agree to speak at the event, Republicans and the media would, with some justification, quiz the lawmaker on whether he or she agreed with every foolish remark ever uttered by a far-left activist.

And yet leading conservative lawmakers seem to think nothing of an appearance — in an election year, no less — in front of a thousand fringe activists and personalities who are anxious to establish a Taliban-west like government in the United States. Chances are, no journalist will approach Sen. Cornyn, for example, with a list of breathtaking quotes from Schlafly or Scarborough, asking why he’d want to associate himself with such nonsense.

Why is this? Why are Dems hesitant about their connections to Michael Moore or MoveOn.org, while Sam Brownback will enjoy hobnobbing with Alan Keyes at the “War On Christians” conference? Why doesn’t the media consider this scandalous?

Discuss.

Democrats, elected ones anyway, have lost the will to win. Out of power for more than a generation, the Republicans did everything it took (including committing voter registration fraud and actual voting crimes) to turn their numerical minority into winners.

Democrats haven’t had the stomach for the grubby work of campaigning. I can’t see that they have it now, even when the GOP are handing them enough issues every month for whopping Democratic victory. No campus demonstrations over anything (Abu Ghraib, Katrina, cost of education, e.g.). Unable to raise more than three Senatorial votes just to Censure (scold) a President who knowingly, admittedly, blatantly violates the Constitution? Looks pretty wimpy to me.

Maybe the newly returned Iraq vets, or the thousands who lost jobs or pensions through manipulative outsourcing and stock fraud, have enough “fire in the belly” to turn the tide. No one else seems to give a damn. Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman and their ilk are always more than willing to bloviate from the comfort of a Sunday morning TV studio, but such celebrity ass-kissing will never stir the party faithful to action.

Democrats, in power for a long time since 1933, had the power to defeat a major Depression, set up Social Security, win WWII and Korea, then began taking life easy during the 1950s. As with the history of all art movements, grandeur and grit turned to mis-guided confidence then arrogance (LBJ’s war in ‘Nam, the War on Poverty), then finally the baroque and irrelevant (Political Correctness). They even forgot how to play election-year politics: they had virtually no poll checkers in 2000, meekly accepted defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court, etc.

After all we’ve been handed, this ought to be our year, but I don’t think so … not at the moment, not when I observe the “life is good” behavior of virtually all Democrats in office.

  • Because they are now the CCCP – the Compliant Complicit Corporate Press. Bought and paid for by those who now control the national agenda. The “media” as real journalism, with standards and ethics, is dead. Outrage is dead. Class warfare is dead. Reason is dead. Money won. Greed won. Bullies won. The Congress is dead to oversight. Technology is rigged to favor the “haves and the have-mores.”

    This is just a partial list, but it is a good start to explain the lack of media outrage ….

  • I think its a combination of the two comments above, but its also what I’ve come to call the ‘Sinclair Midset’: ie. “It Can’t Happen Here”.

    Yes, the rhetoric and agendas involved by the participants of this ‘conference’ are extreme and fringe. The trouble most Americans have (myself included to some extent) is taking them at all seriously precisely because we *believe* right down to our bones that these clowns can’t take over the country and reshape it in their image.

    The fact that the GOP leadership and senior lawmakers hob-nob with them in a way actually re-inforces this; these guys are already so corrupt and have so mis-managed the country, we (or at least I) don’t believe they take this stuff seriously and won’t actually try to enact their agenda.

    But then, that’s pretty much how the protagonist felt in Sinclair’s book, isn’t it?

  • Ward Churchill never got a single Democrat elected anywhere at anytime. Schlafly’s been a Repub party stalwart for 50 years now.
    Churchill represents no “base” for the dems, Sheldon, Donoghue et all if not actually representing the base of the Repubs, say the things lots of them like to hear.
    Dems would never be seen with Churchill because the repubs and the press would be all over them for associating with a nutjob. The Dems and the Press are afraid to call religious nutjobs nutjobs for fear of offending the religious. To use a favorite phrase of the right, calling relgious nutjobs what they are would be politically incorrect.

  • I agree with Martin with regard to Ward Churchhill. His analysis also extends to Micheal Moore. They have no base.

    MoveOn.org is a different story; obviously MoveOn.org is all about its base. In an environment in which the traditional media can be bullied into submission by the right wing, there is a huge price to pay for associating with MoveOn.org. Hence ,ultimately, as it often does these days, the question comes down to asymmetric treatment of the left and right in the traditional media. That is a topic for another day.

  • The dilemma is so difficult because it is almost definitional.

    The “Progressive” movement has long included a “good government” movement, which itself includes the belief that governing shuold be about merit, not who can best shout everyone else down. The “Progressive” movement has been about rationality — we refer to ourselves as the “reality-based community.” But our intellect tells us that attacking who someone associates with is less rational than debating they issues that person directly espouses. The “Progressive” movement differentiates itself from the Republitheocrats by its tolerance and respect for others and for dissent and diversity. That makes it hard to use strong (i.e. disrespectful) language in attacking others, and again, makes it hard to attack others for whom they associate with. The “Progressive” movement is about a more civil and civilized society; no-holds-barred, gutter-level political death matches are anathema to the society the Progressive movement would like to develop.

    Machiavelli’s best known premise, “the ends justify the means,” and the modern “truism” in response — that the ends don’t justify the means — are far too simplistic. If an ambulance exceeds the speed limit to get a heart attack patient to the hospital, the ends (saving a life) most assuredly justify the means (speeding). The key is having the judgement and sense to know when the ends might justify exceptional means, and what means are therefore acceptable.

    Which is a verbose way to say Dems need to stop being doormats.
    We need people to start calling the Bush League Administration and its axis of weasels on cozying up to theocratic thugs. And we need to realize that we can still face ourselves in the mirror after we do so. Heck, we might find it therapeutic. And besides — we really could never stoop as low as them. And on a more serious note, we don’t have to. We can accomplish what we need to without becoming villains, but we probably can’t unless we can find a little more spine, a little more rightous indignation, a little more ability to show those among the American people who would consider supporting us that we can and will fight for them. Right now they have no reason to believe that, so they pay the protection racket of the bully mob because they don’t think they have any real choice.

  • Democrats need to start being “smart” with precision attacks that split Republican fissures.

    Example….When Bush was asked to reflect on the apocalypse, he froze.
    The wheels were spinning…. if I answer for my religious base, I’ll lose my big money base, but if I deny my religious base, they’ll turn away…. so I say “I’m a practical guy, I just haven’t thought of it.”

  • What a day for historians, thirty years from now. No one
    will understand this period. The worst president in history
    hardly stirs a yawn from the opposition party. Conyers is
    ignored. Feingold causes panic among fellow Democrats.
    The DLC stampede to the right as the public shows its
    scorn for the rightward direction this country has taken in
    poll after poll after poll.

    The immigration bill results in a massive demonstration
    of 500,000 in Los Angeles, while the crime of the century –
    the disastrous invasion of Iraq – hardly musters a peep
    among the American people. Just a passive expression
    of disapproval in the polls.

    Don’t ask me, CB. I can’t explain any of this. This road
    to hell has been clearly marked, unlike the proverbial
    one paved with good intentions. And yet, like lemmings,
    we continue to march along, aware in one sense, but
    oblivious in most, of our demise as a great nation.

  • It’s not just this conference, though that certainly is an easily-recognizeable threat/event.

    Glenn Greenwald has two good posts about the deeper meaning of what we are talking about here, in his description of what Bush’s thumbing his nose at Congress with the talk of the “unitary executive” means, and about the definition of “loyalty” among the Right as revealed in the Ben Domenech crash. I highly recommend a trip to his blog to read the two most recent posts there.

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

    What we are really dealing with these past five years is a coup d’etat by a revolutionary movement, and it happened right in front of our faces because the thought that “it can’t happen here” is in fact so ingrained in our national life. The Democrats aren’t stupid morons like some have been posting above. The situation is analogous to that which existed after 1789, when the nations of Europe opposed to the French Revolution failed to understand the nature of their opponent. They used what had worked before then in opposing nation-states, only it didn’t work against the revolutionary army raised inFrance, and they were defeated because they could not comprehend their enemy. If the Democrats in Washington are morons then so are we all, for not seeing this.

    It’s like Sinclair Lewis said in his book: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

    Life is now following fiction. And that’s hard to recognize and believe. When you go around saying things like this to “normal” people, you end up sounding like someone who left their tinfoil hat at home. But that doesn’t make it any less true. These people have been working every waking minute of every day for the past 50 years to accomplish this.

  • I think that Bush’s 2000 campaign appearance at Bob Jones University may have had something to do with this phenomenon. The press certainly did make a big deal about that, but they quickly discovered that nobody really cared, or that those who cared were just a small minority. From that point on, I would say that they figured that nobody cares who republicans meet with or get support from.

    Also, the somewhat controversial people who support the Democrats are a bit more well known than those who support Republicans, aside from the big religious figures like Pat Robertson. Many more people know of Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Jane Fonda, Harry Belafonte etc., than Alan Keyes, Phylis Schafly etc.

  • Democracy has been hijacked by capitalism. And Jesus is coming along for the ride with the window down and him waving to his blissed out fans while his buddies count stacks of cash in the back seat.

    It’s been about power and money for a long, long time. If religion is the key to more of that sweet stuff in the early 21st century, then welcome to the party. Snake handling and speaking in tongues have hit the big time.

  • “Why doesn’t the media consider this scandalous?”

    Even if you assume that they do consider this to be scandalous, consider the reaction if a reporter or media outlet takes on this story.

    I would segregate the american public into three main groups – those who are already aware of this and disapprove, those who aren’t religious / don’t follow politics are not interested in the issue, and those who at some level view themselves as more moral or religious as others, and see this development as a GOOD thing.

    Any story on this topic will be “preaching to the converted” to the first group, ignored by the second group, and will upset the third group. Since so much of the news media today is based on what will get ratings, a story like this just doesn’t meet the proper criteria. There is no sensastionalist hook or juicy sound bite that can be run again and again – news stories are judged based on what is captivating, not what is relevant.

    That’s why alternative news outlets like weblogs are so valuable – they kick up a stink about issues like this until hopefully, a large enough percentage of the population (and the MSM) begin to take notice.

  • The media and, to a lesser extent, the public accept events like this and elected officials attendance for a few reasons.

    First, and most importantly, progessives, liberals, Democrats, or whatever you want to call them have conceded a large part of the “which way is the country leaning” debate to conservatives. Since the late ’80s “liberal” has become a dirty word, and conservatives have insisted that the country has become more conservative. Democrats have certainly tried to shake the liberal stigma by moving more to the right and becoming “moderate.” Hence, it’s OK for conservatives to associate themselves with the religious nutsos, but it’s not OK for Democrats to associate with liberal MoveOn and Michael Moore.

    Second, the media and the public equate evangelicals and fundamentalists with Christianity in this country. They’re politically active and public to the point of being confrontational about their beliefs. Therefore, they make good copy. What I don’t understand is why mainstream denominations refuse to state these groups aren’t representative of the full spectrum of Christian faith.

    Third, I think Ed Stephan is correct in saying Democrats have lost the will to fight. What would make this conference even more newsworthy would be Democrats protesting the language coming from participants and the attendance of GOP congressmen. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen. Democrats will continue to shy away from criticizing religious groups, after being told they need to appeal to religious voters.

    Fourth, for this to be scandalous and shameful, Republicans must have the capacity to feel shame. The presence of Delay, Cornyn, Akin and Brownback demostrate they do not.

  • hark (#9), there you go again. My feelings, exactly. No need to post as you’ve said it better than I could. I’m absolutely dumbfounded by what’s happened to this country and I despair of it ever getting better before it gets much, much worse.

  • prm (#14), I believe you’ve hit a key point here in that mainstream religious spokesmen are almost as responsible as the press for the deterioration of our public discourse and, through that, what our country has always stood for. They have abdicated stating an alternative view on fundamental religious questions like war, tolerance and taking care of our fellow citizens; views that make up what should be a Christian debate between mainstream and fundies. In the absence of this, our politicians are afraid that criticizing even the worst of the fundies amounts to criticizing Christianity in a religious country,ie. political suicide. That is why the fringe Taliban seem to rule with impugnity, even though they are a small minority. This must stem from denominations historically wanting to get along and not heighten religious tensions by speaking out against the beliefs of others. But that outlook was really for a bygone era. True “Christian” tenets adhere to the liberal Democratic line, not the greed, corruption, arrogance and indifference to non-fetal life that the Republicans of today personify. Those of us who are religious (I’m not one), tolerant and sane should insist that their leaders speak out and counterbalance the nutjob contingent.

  • Dollar bet says Brownback is the GOP nominee in
    ’08.

    No one else running is hot enough for the Talibornagains, and if they stay home, and don’t vote, it’s ’96 all over again.

    He’ll be given a mild, reassuring VP pick, to make him easier to sell.

  • One more right wing president like Brownback with repubs holding congress, with electronic voting machines, upcoming supreme court vacancies, the electorial college bias towards red states, and you can turn out the lights, the democratic party is over. It will be republican red regular and republican blue lite. The pretense of a two party system but only one choice.

  • Because we don’t attack them on it. Because our Congressmen are wimps and our media is conservative.

  • Actually, I think Frak (#16) makes an important point. I’ve often heard people say of the Muslim world “why aren’t the moderate clerics speaking out against the way bin Laden has hijacked their religion?” But we don’t have to look to the other side of the globe to have that debate: why haven’t leaders in mainline churches taken the lead in denouncing hateful Christianist rhetoric?

    I think in some ways the apparent “overnight success” of both the political and religious right (of course it actually was a slow process dating back to Goldwater), and the amount of that success, has scared the mainline churches much like it has scared the establishment Democrats. Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches were all losing size already — they are afraid if they denounce the faster growing evangelical churches, they may seal their own fate and shrink faster. Not unlike the establishment Dems who believe that they have to be “Republican-lite” or risk the Rebups taking all of the moderate independents and leaving the Dems a small minority party.

    The question I would ask instead is, if you are already trending down, and being moderate hasn’t stopped it, what really do you have to lose by trying something different? And if the only way to be bigger is to be something you aren’t, is it really worth it?

  • Personally, I think the entire mess started quite some time ago, with the “self-esteem” fiasco in public education. It was no longer acceptable to tell someone that they were wrong on certain things. A good example of this is the college campus of today. Take a good, hard look at all the kids who got into college, but couldn’t read, write, spell, add, or subtract. Next, look at all of the “remedial” coursework available to the incoming freshman; stuff that should have been acquired during high school—and sometimes even as far back as middle school—, but “self esteem” was more important than getting one concept right before moving to the next concept, even if the “skipped-over” concept was prerequisite to others. Consider that we’ve become a nation of teaching to standardized tests, to make everyone an equal (read: sheep). Admission counselors are handing out “study guides” that are little less than copies of the actual admissions exams, and professors are inundated with demands for “the answers” to even a snap quiz. In short—the United States has spent several decades creating this monstrosity; this bloated Titan that can no longer see a wrong, and point to it. Moderates and Liberals alike can no longer argue that the conservatives are too extreme, because “everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs, no matter how absurd they may seem.” They cannot argue against it, because they’ve been taught from childhood to not argue against it. Even when the far-right fringe starts chanting about their theocratic, dominionist gumbo, a big chunk of society will not stand up against it—again, because they’ve been taught to “not challenge someone’s ideas and thoughts, for fear of trampling on their fragile self-esteem.” The end result of it all? People who would take all your rights away can say whatever they want, because their self-esteem has become more important than whether what they want is right or wrong; good or bad; fair or unfair.

    This chasm—this ridiculous abyss—is the logical result of some three to four decades of restrictive “non-restriction.” It’s the same thing as what happened to the saving-and-loans; it’s the same thing as what happened to Enron; it’s what’s happening to society in general—and to the MSM specifically.

    As for the politcal side of things? I don’t think the Democrats should keep wallowing in the mud, trying to find one or two “core” issues. Every issue that’s out there right now—all the dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds—come under one of two headings: Incompetence, and Deceit. Each and every one of the myriad issues and events that have played out over the past several years is a smoking gun. It’s more than a smoking gun. It’s a heavy piece of field artillery. Why settle for firing one or two cannons repeatedly at your enemy’s line, when you’ve the opportunity to hit them with a full-fledged artillery assault?

    To turn the mainstream media back around into a real news organization, they need to be slammed around a bit. Ask THEM why they can’t ask the tough questions. Ask THEM why they keep playing the shill for Stonewall Scottie, instead of reporting that “he didn’t answer the question.” Ask THEM why “White House Press Credentials” are more important than real news…and real information. Sooner or later, one of them will turn around, because they don’t want ratings as low as Bush’s—let alone Cheney’s.

    As for the political/fundie thing, I’ve a mind to run my flag up tomorrow morning—upside down—and leave it that way. And when people ask me why, I’ll tell them about how some of our nation’s politicians are getting in bed with America’s version of the Taliban.

  • Wow, a lot of the above responses are great. Let me add an issue that has bothered me since the presidential debates.

    We all know that at some level the conservatives are building a house of cards. The problem is that it has been up for so long without any real challenge that they have had time to put some plaster on it and now all these flimsy radical maneuvers are becoming embedded in the public psyche. To the average person, they don’t seem too bad after all. Besides, nobody they know has felt the effects of the diminished Constitutional protections, so what’s all the fuss about?

    What I don’t understand is why the Dems don’t go for the weak link which is George. All it would take is one public meltdown and I think that most Americans would really be taken aback that their leader is so weak. His psychological makeup makes him an easy one to egg on. The guy is always on the edge, unable to handle any type of challenge. Both Kerry and Gore had him during the the debates and they backed off. They were unwilling to expose him for the unsophisticated bully that he is. They were complicit in upholding the charade as George as alpha male and deserved to lose.

    The real question is why are the Dems afraid to expose this? Why are they unwilling to do this necessary psycological battle against the alpha? Do they know nothing of the psychology of hierarchies? Sophisticated niceties ain’t gonna do it at this point. We need someone who is willing to demonstrate lack of fear and reverence for the established leaders and expose their weak underbellies.

  • From Raw Story… Here’s a promising approach from Newt (of all people) .

    Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: “Had enough?”

  • from Molly Ivans:

    The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

    Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

    This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

    Go Molly!!!

  • At least in Ohio, it’s not as bleak as some may think.

    We Believe Ohio held its introductory press conference two weeks ago at the A.M.E. Zion Church in Columbus. The group consists of clergy from across the racial, theological, and political spectra; it includes Roman Catholics, Conservative and Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, and members of fifteen Protestant denominations. Representatives of other faith traditions, including Islam and Hinduism, have been invited to participate, but they have not yet joined.

    We Believe Ohio will focus on issues of economic and social justice, rather than divisive “moral” issues. Some of the members were among the 31 Columbus-area clergy who signed the petition requesting the IRS to investigate political involvement by local fundamentalist churches, and some (most?) are not.

    http://www.webelieveohio.org/

    —–

    About Us

    Since November 2005, a group of over 100 pastors, priests, rabbis, cantors, and actively committed lay leaders from Roman Catholicism, two traditions of Judaism, and over fifteen Protestant denominations have met to discuss what we as people of faith can say as one voice speaking on behalf of the poor and on behalf of those who have a wide-ranging viewpoint on the intersection of faith and public policy.

    We are racially diverse. We are men and women. We come from a wide range of theological diversity as well. We are conservative, moderate, and liberal on the spectrum of faith and public policy! We serve urban, suburban, and rural people in our houses of worship. We hold in common a deep and abiding love of the God whom we serve.

    We also share in common our strong belief that we must act and speak in public ways to support the poor, the children, and those who are voiceless and un represented in our times. We will speak with love to power as we serve God in these times.

    Our Values

    As people of faith we believe that…

    All people are created in the image of God.

    All People are both equal and equally deserving of justice.

    As Americans we believe that…

    Our governments exist for the common good of a populace that is rich with religious and cultural diversity.

    Every citizen has a responsibility to participate in the political process of democracy.

    Every citizen has the right to make political decisions freely, without coercion or threat from any individual, group, or institution.

    As American religious leaders we believe that…

    God calls us to raise a prophetic voice that directly engages the powerful.

    Our prophetic voice must sound with greatest conviction for the sake of people who are vulnerable or threatened.

    —–

    I am pleased to say that my own church is among those supporting We Believe Ohio.

    And this afternoon, Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and author of “God’s Politics,” and Russell Johnson, pastor of a conservative megachurch in Lancaster, Ohio (one of the two named in the IRS petition referenced previously) and founder of the Ohio Restoration Project, headlined a “town meeting” on faith and politics. The two men see eye-to-eye on some issues, even if they disagree on how to address them. They disagree on other issues. For instance…

    Johnson believes the poor deserve help, but that the help should be provided by private (including church-supported) charities instead of by the government. Wallis believes that budgets are moral documents and should give priority to those in need.

    Johnson decries “secular” education, and supports a balanced presentation of evolution and intelligent design in the science curriculum.

    Johnson praised the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, defended the rightness of their cause, and stated that a withdrawal from Iraq would be seen as a victory for radical Islam. Wallis was clear that the war should not have been fought, and that nearly every religious organization opposed it before it began.

    Not surprisingly, Johnson was outspoken in his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. Wallis favors policies that support childbearing such as increasing availability of medical care and child care. Perhaps his best line of the day was something to the effect that the unborn should stay unborn for as long as possible. Wallis doesn’t favor a ban on abortion – indeed, he believes the recently enacted South Dakota abortion law was passed solely as a challenge to Roe v. Wade – but does favor restrictions such as parental notification. He also stated that outlawing gay marriage will not address heterosexual marriage issues. Wallis didn’t say much about abortion during the presentation, but I asked him about it afterwards. Another spectator suggested that Wallis should run for political office himself, but Wallis replied that his calling was elsewhere.

    Both men were civil, and genuinely seemed to respect each other’s viewpoints. Nearly a thousand spectators attended, and all were attentive and well-behaved, with the exception of one woman who began screaming at Johnson during his statement on Iraq. I sat next to a member of Johnson’s church, and we had a lively discussion on gay marriage during the intermission. You can guess which sides we were on.

    Meanwhile, at the same time, four or five thousand rallied at the Statehouse across the street to protest restrictive immigration policies. All in all, a busy day in Columbus.

    Wallis will speak at Xavier University in Cincinnati tomorrow night and at Ohio State University on Tuesday night.

  • CB wrote:

    Why is this? Why are Dems hesitant about their connections to Michael Moore or MoveOn.org, while Sam Brownback will enjoy hobnobbing with Alan Keyes at the “War On Christians” conference?

    Because the right takes the initiative to talk about Michael Moore and MoveOn.org as if it’s a given that Democrats should be ashamed to be associated with them closely at all. When the Repubs say it as if there’s not a doubt about it, the Dems don’t think “Well waitasecond. I am not all going to take this for granted, coming from this person. Hell, maybe I’ll even do the opposite. I’ll give them the other side of the coin. Without conceding at all that I’m associated with whoever (until I’ve checked the facts for myself) I’ll talk about what I do know is valid about that person’s argument, and challenge the challenger as to why they won’t associate themselves with that. I’ll make it sound as if I think them ridiculous for having opened their mouths to make a challenged like this!” The Democrats don’t stop to conceptualize what the Repubs are doing and to meet it toe-to-toe. Once the Repub sound bite gets out about how whichever person is no good, momentum can build behind that because the MSM have taken up reporting assertions instead of facts.

  • Dems get defensive. They help the GOP create the reality it wants to create.

    A Dem type response would be, “Oh, well if Michael Moore really stands for that, then I don’t support him in that.” Why say something like that? Are you goind to give credence to these liars before you checl their facts? Before you make sure that what they are saying a person believes is a correct characterization of what he believes?”

    Better not to respond to the challenge at all. Tell them what the GOP should or shouldn’t be associating with instead.

  • I think that Dillon (#13) made a pretty good point. Even if this “War On Christians” conference was pasted on the front pages of the dailies nationwide would it rate more than a yawn?

    The breadth of the right-wing noise machine, its finanaciers, think tanks, etc. is truly mind-boggling in its scope. The Abramoff scandal is really just scratching the surface, and even that one will give most people information overload. When we can get the public to understand what Hillary Clinton called “the vast right-wing conspiracy” then stories like this will start getting traction.

  • I guess one could instead ignore the poorest Americans, allowing them to go without healthcare or without food before they go to bed. All while giving tax breaks to multimillionaires. That would be fine. Or, you could allow oil companies to scorch the earth in Africa and take the resources from the peoples living there. Or, you could release attack ads against your presidential opponent, claiming them to be “For Truth,” but later having them proven to be 100% false.

    Of course, that is not the teaching of Jesus. “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me.” Yet, Republicans support these programs every day.

  • was “liberalism kills kids and puppies” taken? in related news, ben domenech announced today that he’s writing a book entitled “liberalism kills kids”.

  • STARK, RAVING PSYHOCITICS

    What you about to read is going to hurt some (for you conservatives) but necessary. The truth is always necessary. So, here we go:
    My name is Armando Gomez and I’m putting together this and I may provide and answer to the confusing question why Americans are voting against their own self interests. And the basic answer is that their (White America) sense of history and self-worth has come into question. To them this is unacceptable—at any and all cost; which is what’s happening at this moment. Realistically, all this began to manifest when Ronald Reagan was elected as president. But in all honestly, I believe it really started with the Vietnam War and its shocking and unacceptable conclusion: we lost. And it wasn’t just the war we lost—we also lost our president, Richard Nixon. This sent a shock wave, border to border and coast to coast of White America. This proved that the war was a phony and President Nixon a liar. This forced Americans to question the very core of their moral foundation and their sense of purpose—their purpose of self-righteous, which they believe is their destiny and guided by the Light from above. All this imploded when Nixon tanked. But within a couple of years a new and up coming Right Wing movement (the neo-conservatives) went to work, scoring one victory after another in their religious sectors, in their communities. And I believe all this was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation. The Foundation’s tactics: Accuse the liberals of anti-family, anti-God, anti-America, anti-mother, anti-marriage, anti-fetus and in short: anti-liberal all around. With the help of the “liberal” media they made the word liberal an expletive (remember the “L” word?). And all this was funded by the multi-right wing millionaires and corporations. And I believe you know who and what they are. What this movement accomplishes was to exonerate America of its failures, and blame “The Fall” on the dirty, rotten, and back-stabbing liberals. And these Americans went for it, hook, line, and sinker. They had no choice: To accept otherwise, they would have to question their entire “white” history. Without this history—or myth—they will have to accept a more realistic one—according to Ward Churchill. White Americans found that to be totally unacceptable. And for these Americans they are ready to accept any politician, any judge, and any president—any lie—that’ll tell them what they want to hear, especially when Jesus Christ is now considered as part of their American history. That’s why they are more than ready to believe such phonies as Reagan, the first Bush, and this latest disgrace, Bush, Jr. But with the present Americans, it gets worse: they are willing to sacrifice their children’s and their grandchildren’s future, just so they can either be swept up by the Rapture in time or die in their sleep; the complete misery of others had become their sinful and foremost pleasure. Mr. Ward, to me these are the worst and the most rotten cowards any nation unfortunately is straddled with; stinking vermin who aren’t fit to be scurrying about. Their malicious intentions toward Social Security, Medicare, pensions, childcare, the Iraq War and the support for the bankruptcy bill are but short examples of how far these Americans have sunk. The talk I hear is that these Americans are the dumbest pile of rocks on the planet. Wrong: It’s worse. Sept. 11 and the Iraq War only provide further excuses for these self-proclaimed “patriots” to stab their fellow neighbors in the back by trying to dismantle our civil rights—and are the first to turn against our war heroes like John McCain and Max Cleland in a second; a knife behind the door. To them, this further justifies the degradation to our veterans, the hacking away at their medical and financial benefits while allowing fantastic tax breaks go to the rich and corporate America who wouldn’t lift a finger to help our veterans or our nation. So, for these pro-veteran and pro-morality Americans to believe in this new White Direction, provided by the ultra-extreme Republicans, it all proves that they have gone soft between the ears and soft between the legs. In short, STARK, RAVING PSYHOCITICS, not stupid. It’s important to understand this. This is the very core why they can’t or won’t be reached. For any animal can be “educated” —even a flatworm. And that is the answer why these Americans are voting against their own self-interest as they are steering yours, mine, and theirs—and our country—down into the toilet. Can the faults of Liberalism top this? I don’t think so.

  • Bullshit! More Americans than you think have more in common with the thinking of Michael Moore and Ward Churchill. Remember the Silent Majority? What goes around comes around. Liberalism’s inherent weakness is it’s own tolerance and desire for harmony. We don’t kill enough people. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. At least kill these kids parents. They’d kill us in a heartbeat. They are already killing people en masse every where else. They must be stopped by any means necessary.

  • Rick Scarborough is a wannabe idiot fanatic.

    He pays himself about $200,000 per year and spends more than that flying around trying to be a big shot fundie.

    He is a rural redneck fanatic hate mongerer disguised as a Christian Family man.

    Would someone just toss a pie in the face of this idiot…..soon.

  • Oh, geez, the liberal left is proclaiming how terrified they are of us nice Christians again…

    Folks, YOUR way has failed for the past 40 years. Time to find a balance between responsibility, moral absolutes, and acceptance. There is little doubt that most of America’s youth have no moral compass–because parents don’t instill that anymore. With regard to teen pregnancy and abortion, teens (without a way to afford children) have no business having sex, but I suppose personal responsibility is a concept that escapes members of the far left…

    • Comments are closed.