Breaking the 11th:
Speaking Ill of Republicans

Republicans — By on August 11, 2005 at 1:35 am

[Note: My friends at In the Agora have declared today “Breaking the 11th,” in honor of Ronald Reagan’s famous 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” As they point out, “Of course, Reagan himself often broke this rule, with good reason, and so shall we.” “Breaking the 11th” is a day for us to rise up and hold Republicans accountable for not upholding the principles we claim to value. In honor of the holiday (and with apologies to Eliza Kazan) I am “naming names”: expressing my displeasure with certain key Republican leaders.]
In the past weeks intolerable rumors about my political position have been circulating in the blogosphere. I want to make my stand clear:
I believe that Republican activities confront the people of this country with an unprecedented and exceptionally tough problem. That is, how to protect ourselves from a dangerous and alien conspiracy and still keep the free, open, healthy way of life that gives us self-respect.
I believe that the American people can solve this problem wisely only if they have the facts about the GOP. All the facts. Now, I believe that any American who is in possession of such facts has the obligation to make them known, either to the public or to the appropriate Government agency.
Whatever hysteria exists–and there is some, particularly in the blogosphere–is inflamed by mystery, suspicion and secrecy. Hard and exact facts will cool it.
The opinions I have are sixteen weeks out of date, but they supply a small piece of background to the graver picture of Republicanism today. I have placed these opinions before the House Committee on Un-American Activities without reserve and I now place them before the public and before my peers in the blogosphere:


Bill Frist — So Frist believes both that embryos are human beings and that if we have an excess number of them it’s okay to kill them for research purposes. Some people see that as inconsistent. I see that as they type of hedging that will get you a six-figure salary as a lobbyist for a biotech firm after you retire from the Senate.
John McCain — McCain is the Ross Perot of the Republican Party. You can admire his character, his charisma, and his personal achievements. But you would have to be nutty as Perot to think he would make a worthy President. The Arizona Senator has a tendency to throw his support behind measures that, while well-intentioned, overstep the legitimate authority of the federal government. He made a mess of campaign-finance reform, he proposed taking legislative action against Major League Baseball and the players over the steroid scandal, and he threatened to hold up every piece of legislation in the Senate if House leaders didn ‘



  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Hallelujah brother
    And all God’s people said:
    “Amen”

  • Rob Smith

    I don’t know why Joe chose to pick on George Allen. Before he came along the Redskins sucked. Of course they still do, but it’s not George’s fault since he died in 1990, well before evil, non-genius Dan Snyder took ownership of the team.

  • Doug

    As another Christian conservative Republican, I must say that I almost entirely agree with all of your points. Not having been a Marine, I can’t talk about Ollie North. I do think that his “War Stories” show on Fox is quite good, and he has done some very good correspondance work on the war for them. Obviously that says nothing about his character in any way.

  • Former GOP

    I have long contended that Christians who do obeisance to the GOP will have that elephant turn around and gore them. But don’t look to the other side; the donkey kicked us in the head a long, long time ago.
    I no longer affiliate with any party. The Republicans lost me when they decided for open borders, big government, federal tax breaks that were erased by GOP legislators in the states who raised state taxes, corporate malfeasance, legislating away American jobs in favor of non-American workers, boneheaded pork projects, and a platform that runs off one item: GOP self-interest rather than the best interest of the American people.
    Now that the GOP stinks as badly as the Democrats, there’s little to differentiate the two parties other than the abortion issue (which the GOP’s done nothing about) and the fact that the GOP still has a shred of backbone when it comes to standing up to terrorists. Wow. So much for a two-party system.
    We had a special election in my district just a few days ago to replace a GOP rep who presided over the most Republican-voting district in the United States and the GOP candidate dropped 20 percentage points over the the rep she was replacing. Even hardcore Republicans ARE fed up with the GOP in a lot of ways. I hope the party gets the message.

  • HDX

    I used to think that the GOP used power as a means to an end. An end that would be a better America. I now realize that power was not the means…..it was the end.

  • http://JeffBlogworthy.com Jeff Blogworthy

    Amen. I am ambivalent about your Rove somments though. Not very substantive.
    As for Pat Robertso, I think he is theologically in left field. He’s just wack.

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I don’t have a problem with Robertson as a Republican. I do, however, have a problem with the way he conflates being a Christian with being a Republican. It’s not only shameful and despicable but horribly misguided. Robertson should be free to speak for Republicans all he wants. But he needs to stop being treated as if he speaks for evangelicals.
    You forgot Robertson’s ‘political theories’ about rich Jewish bankers secretly running the world…including the Bush family (at least Bush Sr.). Are you sure your only problem with him is ‘conflating’ Christianity with Republicanism?

  • dc daniel

    Great post, Joe. Your words reflect the attitudes of a great many of us. I would really like to see more churches partner with the left on some of the social issues they raise (genocide and human trafficking come to mind), but there’s so much arrogance and condescension toward Christians it becomes nearly impossible.
    “But because my neocalvinist views on policy are rooted in the Bible and Reformed theology, they will often differ, sometimes profoundly, from the standard party line.”
    I would love to read something expounding on that statement.

  • Chris Bohnker

    P.J. O’Rourke has lost a lot of humor, at least in his columns. But his books are still excellent. Give War a Chance is good, classic P.J. Humor. I highly recommend it.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    DC I would love to read something expounding on that statement.
    Although I started on it in this post, I never really developed the ideas in any detail. Thanks for reminding me that I need to take that topic up again.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick (Gryph)

    “Over the past twenty-five years, Evangelicals and Catholics have learned to set aside our theological differences in order to become “co-belligerents” in a shared struggle to prevent secularism from becoming the dominant religion.”
    This isn’t quite an honest statement. Evangelicals and Catholics have joined forces to enforce or compel Christianity to be the “dominant religion”. It is a war, but you forget to mention the main objective.

  • http://shortattnspan.knowinpart.org/ Kevin

    So what’s the difference between a party that is pro-abortion and a party that says it is pro-life but it can’t do anything about it because those mean ole minority Democrats won’t let them? Seems to me the Republicans are either shining us on or they’re ineffectual, neither of which is an argument for voting for them.
    And if they run an overt secularist in `08 then get used to saying it: “President Hillary Clinton”.

  • dc daniel

    Thanks for the link, Joe. I’ll be sure to check out the previous article.

  • Rob Ryan

    Secularism is not a religion, despite the attempts of fundies to portray it as such.

  • Terence

    How about Bush being the first president to ‘officially” advocate
    a Palestinian state within the only democracy in the Mid-East? I admire Bush for several reasons, but the US will rue the day that they went along with this betrayal of Israel. Those at LGF went bezerk when I made this point, but a little research will confirm that Bush was the first.

  • Don in Phoenix

    My prediction for 2008:
    The candidate whose public policy statements and viewpoints are most in line with the FULL gospel of Christ will win the presidency. Remember, the FULL gospel includes some economic and social aspects that are not in line with the views of the majority of Republicans.
    Republicans would do well to remember that William Jefferson Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 by running as an Evangelical (Southern Baptist), with a fellow Southern Baptist running mate, against a “mainliner” from New England who was apparently more concerned with keeping taxes low than making the economy more livable for those of us at or below the median income.
    We could do much worse in America — we could have a self-proclaimed war hero who is also a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic (but has truly earned neither label). We could have a bona fide war hero who, in 2000, managed to offend ALL of us Evangelical types. Or, we could have a President who believes that following Christ requires caring for the poor, and that since the majority of the Church has refused to take that calling, government should do so. After all, this is a Christian nation, is it not?

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Don After all, this is a Christian nation, is it not?
    Um, no. It’s an American nation with a large number of Christians. There is a huge difference.

  • http://www.JeffBlogworthy.com Jeff Blogworthy

    Secularism, Secular Humanism, and Atheism are all religions – despite denials from liberals.
    Why? Because they are all faith-based ideologies.

  • bean

    Another name that belongs on your list: James Dobson. While Focus on the Family does some good things, the organization is becoming an embarassment (Sponge Bob being only the latest). Through its creation of a perfectly legal but patently dishonest “political” wing (dishonest in the sense that it’s not fooling anyone as to the distinction between itself and the “nonpolitical” Focus), it has allowed Dobson full vent, and when you allow someone like that full vent, he inevitably puts his foot in his mouth. Worse, he’s surrounded by yes-men, so no one is going to call him on it.

  • http://danweasel.com/ Andrew

    Great post Joe. Exactly my thoughts, both the general warning (watch out for those tusks) and the specifics. Probably the single thing which most frustrates me of all the things you mention is the conflation of Republicanism with Christianity, for which Robertson is not the only one responsible.
    Former GOP,
    I’m pretty sure that the open borders idea is much more Bush than it is RNC, so you probably don’t have to worry about it remaining party policy unless the next GOP pres is from the Bush camp. As it happens, it is this policy that I am most impressed with Bush for. Open borders not only take a strong stand for the global good of humanity (something which coincides with the concerns of Christianity) but are against nationalism (which doesn’t coincide with Christianity).

  • http://www.christianhills.blogspot.com pjlr

    What you are seeing reflected in this blog is the beginnings of a gradual disintegration of evangelical support for the GOP. Without the evangelical vote the GOP can’t win. The evangelical vote will most definitely not go with the Dems, but there are probably enough democratic votes to win elections against GOP candidates who don’t have the evangelical vote. If this disintegration of support is going to happen, what is the alternative in 2006 or 2008 for evangelicals?
    I would advocate for less splintering and more unity in putting pressure on GOP incumbents with the threat that other GOP candidates will replace them in subsequent elections until eventually the platform of evangelicals is taken seriously.
    There is nothing sacred about being a Republican, but there is something very diabolical about allowing Dems to win in 2006 and 2008.

  • http://www.JeffBlogworthy.com Jeff Blogworthy

    pjlr,
    You are right, but if the GOP goes with someone like Bill Frist, it’s over. Let’s hope a real leader that we can respect steps up. It will be interesting to see what happens if Cheney decides to run. Besides the health concerns, evangelicals have some problems with him also.
    It is difficult to know where Cheney stands on many social issues. He is so quiet, he didn’t even make Joe’s list.
    Democrats are so scary I don’t even want to think about it – but I’m not voting for some mealy-mouthed Republican alternative.

  • http://danweasel.com/ Andrew

    I would advocate a third party centered around evangelical values if I thought anyone would take it seriously.
    There is this I suppose.

  • http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com Richard

    Joe, I kept waiting for you to address the profligate spending. The party of “fiscal responsibility”, which controls both Congress and the White House, makes Clinton look thrifty.

  • http://www.christianhills.blogspot.com pjlr

    Andrew: I don’t think it’s about taking a third party seriously. Even if every evangelical voted a third party it would not result in a victory for that third party. It would certainly be a moral victory, but would hand the presidency and a bunch of senate and rep seats to Democrats.
    Third parties have done notoriously poorly in elections. I don’t think evangelicals put enough pressure on local and state politicians. A grass roots movement has to take place before a third party has any kind of a chance.
    There are enough evangelical votes to put either side over the top, but not enough to win on their own.

  • http://www.onlinecasinos.multiservers.com Online Casinos

    be carefull to give everyone a chance to freely express themselves Online Casinos

  • Don in Phoenix

    There’s one kind third party I would take seriously: one that would focus on electing Godly individuals to state legislatures and local offices, which have the real power in our Federal system, rather than the White House. A third party that had a strong presence in state houses around the nation would be able to field congressional candidates in subsequent years, and then be a force for good in Washington, brokering power and ensuring that neither the liberals nor the conservatives could govern without their participation.
    We would need to get American Christians accustomed to the concept that Christ-like character is a far better predictor of good governing philosophy than is agreement with two or three or sixteen cardinal points of political ideology.
    Look at the last eight Presidential elections; compare the candidates, and tell me what was the decisive factor, if not Christ. Though it is neither exclusively nor officially the case, America is certainly behaving, on the whole, like Christianity (and particularly Evangelical Christianity) is not only merely acceptable, but preferable in political leadership.
    If the GOP puts forward a secularist Chamber of Commerce or NRA candidate, regardless of his or her interpretation of the commerce and takings clauses of the Constitution, and the Democrats choose any centrist that can credibly articulate faith-based reasons for his or her policy choices, the Democrat is likely to win.

  • http://www.newcounterculture.com/log/ John Climacus

    God gave us a brain to use and one of the things that distinguishes Christianity from other systems of belief is the idea that we are supposed to use everything we have. We don’t subjugate reason to emotion or fact to fantasy. Our faculties are meant to be employed in toto.
    Suggesting there is some alternative to the GOP while we exist in a two-party system is nothing more than a party game, if one is serious: ie., would you prefer John Kerry?
    So this exercise detailing the faults of a list of prominent Republicans or the RNC is fine in theory. Goodness knows the Republican leaders all have their faults, and as Christians we can never allow our central principles to be reduced to Ken Mehlman’s talking points.
    But criticism like Joe’s leans toward defeatism in practice. We want to correct our prominent representatives, not tear them down or disqualify them. Listing Ann Coulter and Condi Rice as part of the problem seems both uncharitable and unrealistic.
    We don’t have Jesus Christ to vote for. We only have regular folks who are all as fallible as anyone else.
    I sympathize with Joe on his list of goats. John McCain and Bill Frist sure needed to be called out. The other observations are important as well. But it might be more accurate to indicate who the good guys are, or at least to note where some of the folks on the list are good potential leaders.
    We do have some heroes in the GOP leadership. I think if we believe we’ve been the recipients of Good News, we should generally be inclined to point out the positives of our situation when we must draw attention to the negatives.

  • jd

    Joe:
    I’m confused about your comments on Karl Rove. It sounds as if you believe all the hype about him being this evil genius. Can you explain your apparent dislike of this guy? Your post smells of the paranoid lefties who think Rove is behind everything. Can’t it be that people support Bush because he is the exact opposite of Bill Clinton? He stands on principle, he articulates strong stands on a few major issues, and he doesn’t poll to find out where he ought to vacation.
    I agree with most of your post, and with many who are dissatisfied with Republicans. But, puhleeze, until there is another real choice, Democrats don’t deserve any consideration at all. At least we can all agree that Republicans are the lesser of two evils. The Dem leadership and their power brokers (NARAL, People for the American Way, ACLU, Michael Moore) don’t appear to have any moral constraints.
    Obviously, I’m saying that I am and always will be a Republican, that is, until something better comes along. That doesn’t mean that voting Republican trumps my belief in Christ as lord and Savior of my life. There is constantly conflict between my life as a Christian and the choices I have to make as a member of the human race. The notion that there might not be a conflict between evangelicals and the Republican party is laughable. Once again, I think we can all agree that Republicans are not perfect. In fact, they are the worst political party in the whole world–except for all the rest.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Suggesting there is some alternative to the GOP while we exist in a two-party system is nothing more than a party game, if one is serious: ie., would you prefer John Kerry?

    I am a registered Republican and I voted for Kerry. First, President Bush did lie I think about WMD’s in Iraq (or at least the buck stopped there). Christians need not be pacifist; but they need to be very slow to want to go to war. We should have taken Saddam Hussein out in 1991; we had no real right to invade 12 years later. Second, the Republican Party has forgotten about fiscal conservatism. The only President in memory to balance the budget was President Clinton. I believed Kerry would try again; and the President Bush (tax cuts during a war?) had proven he didn’t care. Finally, as my 24 year old Navy daughter pointed out President Bush as Governor of Texas refused mercy to at least one death row inmate who there was reason to believe might be innocent. This, coupled with the invasion of Iraq, casts some doubt on how sincerely (despite his stand on abortion) he really honors life.
    Also, Joe said good things about Condi Rice. He wants her to run for President.
    Overall, Joe is correct. The Republican Party does not carry Christian’s, or Christ’s, aspirations. We need to look at each candidate carefully and balance their positions against our moral and Biblical standards.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    pjlr I would advocate for less splintering and more unity in putting pressure on GOP incumbents with the threat that other GOP candidates will replace them in subsequent elections until eventually the platform of evangelicals is taken seriously.
    And what happens if they don

  • Terence Moeller

    “The Republican Party does not carry Christian’s, or Christ’s, aspirations. We need to look at each candidate carefully and balance their positions against our moral and Biblical standards.”
    If that is the case how could the person who made the above statement justify his vote for Kerry? Better not to vote at all than to vote for an avocate of partial birth abortion, same sex marriage, etc., etc., etc. I believe that as voters we are morally culpable for the decisions of those whom we support – especially when we know ahead of time where they stand on the issues. If you don’t like Bush, and you feel a moral responsibility to vote, then vote for yourself. In either case it will not change the course of the election – just make yourself feel better. But to try to justify support for a truly sinister candidate like Kerry on Christian principals is sophistry at best and at worst a betrayal of those pricipals.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Terence,
    Thanks for the edifying criticism. We elect people not to carry out God’s will (it is not a Christian government) but to perform the role of government. For many years I chose not to vote for people. And certainly the Kerry – Bush choice perhaps qualified for a return to that policy. It was my personal belief that the candidates role as Commander-in-Chief and shaper of our domestic tax policy was more important than his views on abortion [especially since I suspect both their public positions may have reflected pandering and not sincere belief] – something that the President may or may not have a chance to have any effect on. [I would not even assume at this moment that John Roberts would be an example of an effect against abortion].
    Gays, and gay marriage, is a horribly overblown issue that I think really has sunk to demogoguery on the parts of folk like Santorum. If we are worried about people living in sin and threats to Christian marriage there are more serious issues to deal with than the 5% of the country who are gay.
    For instance, how about all the married couples where one or both of the people were previously married and divorced for reasons other than adultery. I think that is probably much more than 5% of the population; and they, like gays, are living in unrepented sexual sin – endangering their standing with God. How about a federal amendment banning those marriages; or banning divorces without adultery altogether. How about making adultery illegal? Again, a much worse sexual sin and a much greater threat to marriage.
    Frankly, I think homosexuality is a sin that 95% of the country have no problem avoiding; and talking about it will piss off less people in the country, and your congregation, than some of the other more serious sins around like adultery; or the need for lifetime sexual abstinence after a divorce not based on adultery.
    Kerry was right on a political level on this. Did we really want the federal government taking control of a state-controlled issue like marriage by a federal gay marriage amendment? States did already have the right to ignore other states marriages. The US Gay Marriage Amendment was a political ploy, and bad law, which could only clutter up the US Constitution; and give more power to the federal government. This just isn’t any version of Republicanism I am comfortable with. I dealt with gay marriage where it should have been dealt with – by voting for the Oregon Marriage Amendment. Kerry’s opposition to obvious political grandstanding was one of my reasons for voting for him. And this was a negative in President Bush’s column.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Oh, I think the #1 quality a politician must have, and be held to, is honesty – not bearing false witness. Otherwise, there is no way to gauge how we should vote; and no way a puralistic democracy can function.
    I could not vote for President Bush after perceiving he lied to me on Iraq. Too big an issue, too big a lie.

  • tom

    We should have taken Saddam Hussein out in 1991; we had no real right to invade 12 years later.
    We had every right, since the first Gulf war never ended. Saddam signed a cease fire that was contingent on his cooperating with the UN and other international organizations in disarming and destroying the WMD that he most certainly did have. He used them against the Iranians. He used them against his own people in Halabja. At the end of the first Gulf war he admitted to having more than 8,000 litres of VX gas. He never complied with the terms of the cease fire. He defied 17 consecutive UN resolutions over 12 years. Do you think the 18th would have made any difference?
    He may have been bluffing, but everyone, including the UN, the French, Germans, British and Russians believed him. Even his own generals believed him. Read the accounts of the Iraq war. We captured soldiers equipped with atropine injectors (an antidote to nerve gas) who were absolutely positive that the next unit over had the chemical weapons.
    Being mistaken about something is not the same as lying. As for 9/11 and Iraq, there is far more evidence linking Saddam to al-Queda through the ancillary organization Ansar al-Islam (which has morphed into “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a self-chosen name), so even though there is no smoking gun between that one day in September and Saddam (although I think there’s still plenty of smoke). Saddam was a proven menace to the region and an incipient Hitler. History will judge that Bush did the right thing.

  • http://www.JeffBlogworthy.com Jeff Blogworthy

    jchfleetguy:
    Oh, I think the #1 quality a politician must have, and be held to, is honesty – not bearing false witness.
    Oh, you mean like pumping oneself up to be a war hero, lying about the events in Vietnam, lying about one’s role in the war, lying about where was during the war, lying about working for the CIA, turning one’s back on one’s fellow soldiers, and betraying one’s Catholic faith to the point where communion is refused? Integrity issues like that?

  • Terence Moeller

    Right on target Tom!
    Also noteworthy is the fact that Bush would have had to know much more than the UN, and the Clinton Administration (which stated that Iraq had WMDs) in order to be labeled a liar by agreeing with that proposition. If you were in Hussain’s position and had WMDs, given a year’s notice, and 100 billion dollars to spend, don’t you think you could get rid of the evidence?

  • Ed “What the” Heckman

    bean wrote:

    Another name that belongs on your list: James Dobson. While Focus on the Family does some good things, the organization is becoming an embarassment (Sponge Bob being only the latest).

    For the record, Dr. Dobson was absolutely correct about the We Are Family Foundation which produced that video. Proof is here. There is further proof linked to from that post.

  • Terence Moeller

    “Thanks for the edifying criticism. We elect people not to carry out God’s will (it is not a Christian government) but to perform the role of government. For many years I chose not to vote for people. And certainly the Kerry – Bush choice perhaps qualified for a return to that policy. It was my personal belief that the candidates role as Commander-in-Chief and shaper of our domestic tax policy was more important than his views on abortion [especially since I suspect both their public positions may have reflected pandering and not sincere belief] – something that the President may or may not have a chance to have any effect on. [I would not even assume at this moment that John Roberts would be an example of an effect against abortion].”
    All I can say regarding the above comment is that we all have our priorities, and if tax issues are more relevant to you than human life issues, than that speaks volumes about the “Christian” base of support for Kerry. According to this writer’s “moral and Biblical standard” we should have supported Kerry and his new fangled tax plan because these matters trump life and death issues.
    Get used to it. As the GOP grows, it will become proliferated with these profoundly practical sentiments.

  • shari

    The Dr. Dobson spongebob thing is false. Look up wikipedia. He never ever said spongebob was gay. It was a liberal media hoax. You wont be able to find any statement by him stating that. People can dislike Dobson but they should not lie about him.

  • jd

    fleetguy:
    I thought you were much smarter than your posts on this topic suggest. Bill Clinton balanced the budget? Without Republicans in congress it would never have happened. Or was it just coincidence that the budget is finally balanced after Republicans take over after 50 years?
    The whole notion of voting for Kerry because you think Bush lied is ludicrous. I refer to Jeff Blogworthy’s post about Kerry’s prevarications. Bush is basically a decent honest guy as politicians go. How you can even mention honesty on the one hand and praise Clinton on the other is beyond belief. There’s something about your voting that doesn’t make sense.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    I actually gave more than tax reasons – you probably just picked the weakest because you didn’t notice the other two or three. There are a lot of life and death issues involved in the government of the United States other than abortion.
    Consider this on abortion: Let us say that President Bush gets two Supreme nominations; and the Supreme Court reverses Roe. [That is not a given since O’Connor turned out to be a “disappointment” on the abortion issue. Something about getting on the court changes peoples perspectives sometimes.] We are actually at square one. First, will they reverse without restriction? Maybe. Even if they do, wouldn’t abortion then be under control of the states? Wasn’t that the whole argument – that the Supreme Court should have never seized control of abortion by judicial fiat and taken it out of the control of the voters at the state level? So what we end up with is 50 state fights to remove abortion completely.
    Certainly, you do not expect a Constitutional Amendment can be passed do you? [That is really the only real legislative solution: got 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states?] Or do you want the Feds to continue control of abortion at the Congressional level? So that will be the only issue Federal legislators get vetted on for the next 10 years. Every time Congress changes hands abortion gets voted down or up again. Great.
    Obviously removing Roe will give us that opportunity – but this country is divided 50/50 on this issue. Are you ready to make this THE political fight in EVERY state for EVERY legislators position in the country for the next 10 years?
    This is a hearts and minds issue. We will convince people to make abortion UNCHOSEN over time because we are right. However, it is not the most important issue for the government of the United States; and I am not sure we are ready to split this country down the middle on this issue. You know, right in the middle of the war on terrorism.
    jd
    Remember Bill Clinton vs the Republican congress on the budget deal – and “shutting down the government”. Remember Clinton winning, and the Republican controlled House looking stupid. Sorry.
    And I didn’t vote for Clinton after he lied about Monica either.
    Jeff
    You act like all that about Kerry’s war record was proven. I must have missed that. BTW: I knew Kerry right after Vietnam and I know what his character was long before he was a politician.
    As near as I remember, and you can link otherwise if you like, Kerry was NEVER refused communion – that was a myth.
    Tom
    I agree. Saddam was a monster. Deserved to be gone in 1991 before we hung the southern Shia out to dry. And I think the Iraqi people will form a stable government with our help; and the end result will be good.
    We are acting very honorably right now; and while we are pushing the political process to a conclusion – we are not attempting to control the outcome of that process. No complaints. We may not completely like the government that comes out in the end; but it will be elected, and not a dictatorship. Very good news for the Iraqi people and the region.
    I am not in favor of doing anything other than what we are doing now. I am just not an “ends justify the means” kinda guy. President Bush came out and said that he was basically misled by the CIA report. If you were President of the United States, and one of your agencies screwed up that badly and hung you out to dry what would you have done? President Bush didn’t roll nearly enough incompetent heads to convince me he was misled by his intelligence. Sorry, I am from Missouri and Harry Truman was right – the buck stops on the President’s desk.
    And just from a military strategy point of view: wasn’t it wiser to apply more pressure to finish the job in Afganistan; rather than open a second front in Iraq.
    General
    The last election is over, and I was not really interested in revisiting it.
    My point was that the Joe is right. There is no political party in this country that DESERVES Christian’s support. Each candidate must earn it each election. If the Republicans, or the Democrats, take us for granted (and are right) then we are fools.

  • Terence Moeller

    “I actually gave more than tax reasons – you probably just picked the weakest because you didn’t notice the other two or three. There are a lot of life and death issues involved in the government of the United States other than abortion.”
    True, there are other life and death issues that were raised, including same sex marriage and the the Iraq war. The reason the abortion is paramount is that without life, other matters regarding sex, war, and taxes are moot. It is a watershed issue that separates the sheep from the goats.
    You said, “The Republican Party does not carry Christian’s, or Christ’s, aspirations. We need to look at each candidate carefully and balance their positions against our moral and Biblical standards.”
    I agree to the extent that the GOP never meets those standards, but to presume that Kerry more closely meets them is silly. This is not Daily KOs, bra.
    Concerning partial birth abortion Kerry advocated the legal right to suck the brains out of a viable baby when it is 3/4 the way delivered. Most literate “Christians” surely must have been aware of this when you voted for him. I may be naive, but isn’t this totally antithtical to Christian principals?
    Concerning same sex marriage.
    The fact that for the first time in the history of mankind the institution of marriage is about to be redifined, should wake up most Christians. Instead you call it a “horribly overblown issue,” as if it were the latest from Aruba. The truth be told, Bush and Kerry are not too far apart on the issue, and both have steered toward some euphemism that advocates a “let’s pretend marriage” called “domestic partnership.”
    Concerning Iraq, Kerry, who aspired to be Commander in Chief, stated: “It is the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.” Those words, in the heat of battle, must have seemed like a desert spring to the jihadists. I suppose that if Kerry had been elected in 2004, by now, he would have reinacted the fall of Saigon in downtown Bagdad. If he and the rest of the left had supported the effort to liberate Iraq before, during, and after the war, there is little doubt that we would not be in the stalemate that we are in today. The jihadists are playing the left like a trained monkey. If you can’t even see past that, how can you presume to be lecturing informed Christians on the weighter issues of life? Might I suggest Daily KOs?

  • jd

    fleetguy:
    Remember Clinton saying that Republicans would starve old ladies and children by their budget cuts? Remember that Clinton won, but that most of the Contract with America went through and that it’s still in place? Remember that whenever Clinton wins it’s always for the good of Bill Clinton and only by coincidence the good of anyone else? Everybody says he won, but as usual, his win was style over substance. Your appraisal of the Clinton years is as typically shallow as most conventional wisdom.

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    Remember Clinton saying that Republicans would starve old ladies and children by their budget cuts?
    Nope. Please direct me to the quote.
    jd, your last comment is rife with innuendo and unsupported allegations.
    Terrence,
    Here’s a quote from a Kerry spokesperson published a while ago:
    Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Terrence

    I agree to the extent that the GOP never meets those standards, but to presume that Kerry more closely meets them is silly. This is not Daily KOs, bra.

    Hey, I made a choice on some issues. Abortion almost pulled me to President Bush despite all the rest. Not quite. That doesn’t make me Daily Kos material. Mellow out a little. I do not quite expect any politician to be “right with God”. I think the Catholics are in fact correct when they say an elected representatives may have to act against his conscience, and church teaching, in order to represent the opinions of those who elected them. That is a tough call for a politician in my mind – one that pundits do not have to sweat over.
    Incidentally, the intact D&X procedure (only one of three used in that circumstance) was done on about 600 babies a year in the US. It should have been made illegal (there were two other procedures that covered life of the mother situations). In a close election many issues could have sunk Kerry – his opposition to banning this procedure (even without protection of mother) was just one of his foolish mistakes.
    That said, he was actually right to oppose the bill that passed – it was a useless waste of time. A ban on this procedure wasn’t getting past the Supreme Court without an exception for the life of the mother. So why did the Republicans waste their time passing a bill that they had to, as “literate” Congressmen, know the Supremes would rule unconstitutional? Was that sincere concern for those 600 lives; or political grandstanding in an election year? Get self-righteous on someone else.

    The fact that for the first time in the history of mankind the institution of marriage is about to be redifined

    Its not even the first time in the history outlined in the Bible. Hardly mankind. Let’s take what Paul might have known about when he wrote Romans and I Corinthians:

    “Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and Martial (first century A.D.) are just two of the authors who write about stable same-sex relationships between men. Cicero writes, e.g., about a male couple ‘united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he [Curio] had given him [Antonius] a matron’s stola.’ (Philippic 2.18.45) The stola was the distinctive dress of a married Roman woman . . . We see that with Nero, emperor from 54-68 A.D., and thus the emperor during the height of Paul’s career. Nero married two men in succession, both in public ceremonies. The spouse was given the honors of an empress.” – Walter Taylor, The New Testament on homosexuality: Denying God’s purpose

    Christ redefined marriage; and as I pointed out even Christians conveniently disregard a few of the more difficult parts of His definition

    I suppose that if Kerry had been elected in 2004, by now, he would have reinacted the fall of Saigon in downtown Bagdad.

    I have no clue what Kerry would have done. President Bush has frankly conducted this war nobly, but poorly. I do not really blame him for that – hindsight is 20/20. However, his 41% approval rating on Iraq he has earned on his own

    If he and the rest of the left had supported the effort to liberate Iraq before, during, and after the war, there is little doubt that we would not be in the stalemate that we are in today.

    Silly really. First, there is hardly a stalemate in Iraq. Second, one of the major things that I admire about President Bush is that he has not allowed criticism to stand in the way of his war strategy: At this point, the glory (and the mistakes) are his. If the constitution is not written; or voted down in October; or the Sunni’s reverse their current plan to participate in the December elections – then mounting opposition may make your comment prophetic. It is just not real yet.
    It’s actually kind of nice to have Al-Queda show up from all over the planet to throw down in Iraq. I think they will be isolated by the Sunni (a process well-along: they are already having to threaten the domestic parts of the terrorists to keep them in line); and we will get a chance to wipe out another good chunk of their infrastructure and troops. It is truly hard on the Iraqi people – who have been the jihadists primary target and not the “evil” US troops.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    This is incredible, but off topic: A message to Cindy Sheehan from Mohammed at Iraq the Model. Also, a Sunni vs jihadi example: Iraqi Sunnis Battle To Defend Shiites

  • bean

    For the record, I never said Dobson was “wrong” about Sponge Bob. I said it was an embarassment because the connection was so peripheral as to be ridiculous.
    Dobson very wisely says with regard to marriage and to child-rearing: choose your battles. The battle over Sponge Bob was not a wise one. It was yet another case of Dobson shooting off his mouth before he thought. Same as comparing “black-robed” judges to “white-robed” KKKers and those who want to experiment on embryonic stem cells to Nazis. And no, before you misrepresent what I said again, I do not support embryonic stem cell experimentation. The issue is that, while I think they’re seriously mistaken, advocates for stem cell reserach are not motivated by the racial animus and eugenicist worldviews of the Nazis. It’s just another case of Dobson’s big mouth.
    I used to work at FOF. I know what I’m talking about. The man is a loose cannon, no matter how much good work his organization does.

  • Terence Moeller

    Tyler stated:
    “Making “clear exceptions for life or health of women” is very much a part of the pro-life mainstream. The fact that the bill that Kerry oppossed left out such an exception is a glaring error on the Republican’s part. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be inclined to say that this was done so intentionally, so political hay could be made out of the fact that Kerry “supports” partial birth abortions, a statement that takes a naive view of the process that goes into debating and voting on bills in Congress. Ergo, the statement, “Concerning partial birth abortion Kerry advocated the legal right to suck the brains out of a viable baby when it is 3/4 the way delivered” is off-base and, approaching a bold-faced lie.”
    The above statement appears to be right out of the GNARL playbook.
    1. The AMA has publically stated that partial birth abortion is “never necessary to save the life of the mother.” The reason that they suck the brains out is to compress the head so that delivery
    is more convenient. If they had any concern for the infant they would do a C section. But then again that would result in a live birth and defeat their whole purpose.
    2. The reason that the “life and health of the mother” clause was
    not included in the ban is that the “health” of the mother canard
    was being used for the most trivial reasons i.e., psychological health, self esteem health, freedom from C section scars and a host of other lame excuses. It provided a loophole large enough to justify killing the infant for virtually any reason.
    3. Kerry and Clinton before him did in fact support partial birth abortions — which does in fact involve sucking the brains out of infants when the are 3/4 delivered. This is not a “bold-faced lie.” This is reality and until you come to grips with it you will only be deceiving yourself – not the people on the forum. Clinton himself vetoed two Senate resolutions that sought to ban the procedure.
    You asked . . .
    “Are you saying that you oppose civil unions in addition to homosexual marriage? This puts you outside the mainstream of social conservativism, I think. You sound like you’re criticizing Bush for being “Kerry-lite,” which sounds a lot like the criticisms many of the insane-left levy against the more moderate Democrats. (The ones I like, by the way.)”
    Yes, I oppose “civil unions,” as do over 70%
    of “social conservatives” according to a national survey taken
    two months before the presidential election. Moderate is a relative term often used in politics to describe radical agendas.
    I did not vote for Bush and I think that his decision to support civil unions was a capitulation to the same “insane left” that you seem to want to distance yourself from.
    Fleetguy:
    Actually I am much more “mellow” with the Daily KOs folks because most of them are lost souls who don’t know any better. But I have far less patience with those who do know better.
    You are obviously a very intelligent person and given the fact that you have “tasted of the heavenly gift,” more is expected from you than secular humanist propaganda cloaked in Christian rhetoric. Please consider this an exhortation not an insult.
    Regarding partial birth abortion you stated:
    “He (Kerry) was actually right to oppose the bill that passed – it was a useless waste of time. A ban on this procedure wasn’t getting past the Supreme Court without an exception for the life of the mother. So why did the Republicans waste their time passing a bill that they had to, as “literate” Congressmen, know the Supremes would rule unconstitutional? Was that sincere concern for those 600 lives; or political grandstanding in an election year? Get self-righteous on someone else.”
    As I said to Tyler, “the life and health of the mother” is nothing more than a ruse to continue this barbaric practice. A ban with this provision included is a waste of time because
    practically anything can fall under the definition of “health.” If I understand you correctly we as Christians should not strive to outlaw abortions because a constitutional amendment would never pass, because if it were reduced to a state’s rights issue it would be a constant battle, and because
    the Supremes would surely overrule any ban on partial birth abortion that did not include a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. Instead we should wring our hands and allow the open season on infants to continue without a whimper. We should support people like Kerry and Clinton who have opposed every effort to limit abortions and who find their greatest support from GNARL and Planned Barrenhood. By the way, there were over 600 partial birth abortions in N.Y.C. alone last year.
    Your rather obscure references to same sex marriages in ancient Rome do not qualify as a “redefinition of marriage.” This is a brand new phenomenon that the homosexual lobby wants us to believe is commonplace. Before last year can you name one state or country in history that has ever institutionalzed same sex marraige?
    You stated: “Christ redefined marriage; and as I pointed out even Christians conveniently disregard a few of the more difficult parts of His definition.”
    Chapter and verse, please. I do recall that Christ rebuked the Pharisees saying, ” Have you not read that he that made them at the beginning made them male and female. . . What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
    (Matt 19:4)
    He did not redefine marraige – he clarified it once and for all as a union between man and woman.

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    Terence,
    From Andrew Sullivan, a conservative and a Catholic (both by his own admission and by the standards of western political thought as a whole, I think. Mind you, this is from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, hardly a bastion of the insane left. Sullivan is gay, though.):
    So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.
    This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for?
    Let me be practical here. If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? If one member of a young gay couple is badly hurt in a car accident, why is it a conservative notion that his spouse not be allowed to visit him in the intensive-care unit?
    Those are basically my questions for you with regard to civil unions. You may be right, maybe 70% of social consevatives do oppose civil unions for queer people. Frankly, I’m disappointed. Maybe I just met the most forgiving 30% of y’all. My question, basically, is why? I mean, it’s pretty obvious that adultery is a worse sin than homosexuality, at least according to the New Testament, and you’re not trying to pass a law that says adulterers can’t visit their spouses in the hospital the way homosexual couples in states that don’t allow civil unions can’t, are you? You might want to comment on JCH’s (that’s John to his friends) scriptural argument for civil unions. There haven’t been any commentors of your persuasion with regard to the issue at hand, and I think that you’d benefit from the discussion.
    I did not vote for Bush and I think that his decision to support civil unions was a capitulation to the same “insane left” that you seem to want to distance yourself from.
    Selfishly, I hope many other Conservative Christians do so with regard to the Republican party over the next few elections. That will help the moderates out considerably. If you’re calling Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and Arlen Specter as the “insane left,” a term I use to refer to Michael Moore, Al Franken (who is at least funny once in a while — Have you seen Stuart Saves His Family?!) and Maureen Dowd, it’s going to be hard for us to see eye to eye. I’d love it if you keep not voting for Republicans, though. I think the Arlen Specters will be just fine without you. Look at me, trying to scare someone I consider a religious extremist into re-joining the Republican party. What the hell am I doing?!
    As far as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, I’ve always agreed that the ban is probably a good thing. The letter in support from the AMA seems enough of a reason not to oppose it. My issue now is that you didn’t answer John’s point that O’Connor (Nominated by Reagan, mind you — does he, by extension, qualify for the “insane left?”) was previously on record saying that without the loophole you’re bemoaning, the law was unconstitutional. The Republicans knew that the law would get struck down. It follows that their intention really wasn’t to end the procedure, even if they didn’t like it, as neither you nor I do.
    Really, though, shouldn’t you be making your case to the American public? If PBA is so bad, shouldn’t you say
    “I oppose abortion in general, oh the sexually active women of America, but if you do have one (which I think you shouldn’t) please have one in the first two trimesters, without the procedure known as PBA?”
    You won’t have to ask permission from the Supreme Court to do this, either. You can also say
    “Oh you sexually active youngsters. I truly believe that premarital sex is wrong for a number of reasons. But let’s put that aside for a minute. Abortion, which I feel is akin to murder, is very wrong. You would help wash the bloodstain from the collective hands of America, as well as your own, if you only take every possible precaution, using the most successful forms of birth control, if you do have premarital sex (did I mention that I think that that’s wrong?).”
    While I think that NARAL is guilty of some nutty offenses, especially recently (and think that PP isn’t so bad on that front, and does some very important non-Abortion-related work besides) and elements of the pro-choice extreme are complicit in the disturbingly-high (to say the least, for some) number of abortions we see every year. I think that those opposed to abortion would see a drastic reduction in the procedure, in any variety, if they took the sort of tack that I’m sketching out for you, Terence. Is it ok for a social conservative to bracket premarital sex for a while if promoting birth control will drastically reduce the numbers of abortions? (Or, to paraphrase Monty Python, Is every sperm sacred?) Is keeping your hands clean of sticky issues so important that it trumps saving hundreds of thousands of lives by drastically reducing the number of unwanted fertilized embryos that there are to be aborted?

  • http://tolleblogge.blogspot.com Russ

    Amen, and double-amen on the last half of the list.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Terrence

    If I understand you correctly we as Christians should [1]not strive to outlaw abortions because a constitutional amendment would never pass, [2]because if it were reduced to a state’s rights issue it would be a constant battle, and [3]because the Supremes would surely overrule any ban on partial birth abortion that did not include a loophole large enough to drive a truck through

    Quick note: only two doctors in the country did the procedure that was under argument in the intact D & X discussion. They may have both been in NY.
    [1] I think a constitutional amendment may indeed pass – just not tomorrow. Best case numbers put those willing to restrict abortion to rape, incest, and life of the mother at about 53% – up about 5 points in last 5 years. That number will gain momentum – especially since NARAL is going to start stressing the need for responsibility and a reduction of abortion numbers (because they know we are winning). In ten years, if we keep educating about abortion 2/3 of the population may be ready to see this as killing and not fair choice.
    [2] How much reduction of abortion do you expect if Roe is repealed? With the populations split nearly 50/50; and the last 3 polls on Roe showing an average of 61% in favor of keeping Roe; and 32% in favor of overturning – just how many states do you expect to outlaw it.
    [3] What is the point of writing laws the Supreme’s will kill? What does that do? There are two other more used procedures for late term abortions – I think rather than jump through the “life of mother” hoop they would move to another procedure. Especially with the AMA opposition to the one in question.
    Frankly, this is a puralistic democracy and there are simply too many people who do not equate abortion with killing your next door neighbor. We are moving the population, and have been, and we should continue too.
    Finally, it is never possible to legislate morality; unless a good majority of the culture agrees that something is immoral. There were over 700,000 abortions in 1973 before Roe had a chance to take effect. If Roe were overturned tommorrow – how many would happen in 2006?
    As Joe has said, the goal with abortion is not to make it illegal, it is to make it UNCHOSEN.

  • http://www.dellgines.com/?p=72 Dell Gines

    Evangelicals…Do We Consider Ourselves Enough?

    In our life, in our communities, in our politics, in our political discussions…are we applying the principles in these scriptures?
    1 Corinthians 13:1-8
    1 IF I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become …

  • jd

    Tyler Simons:
    I will admit I wouldn’t know how to find a quote like that coming from Clinton. It was 10 years ago. Obviously I have never forgotten it. But that doesn’t make it less true. Clinton and the Democrats actually said Republicans would starve children and that old folks would be eating cat food or dog food if the Republican budgets went through. Outrageous, ain’t it? Do you actually doubt they said it? They’ve said worse about Republicans and they used to get away with it. They can’t get away with it like they used to because there are alternative news outlets now.
    So my short statement is rife with innuendo and unsupported allegations? Like Clinton doing things good for Clinton and only coincidentally good for anyone else? Like most of the Contract with America being enacted and still in effect? I think you just like writing things like “rife with innuendo and unsupported allegations” because it makes you sound intelligent. Check out Major Garrett’s book “The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America continues to Shape the Nation.” The Conventional Wisdom says Clinton won that 1995 budget deal, but guess whose policies actually endure and which party actually had more influence in balancing the budget. The notion that Democrats give a damn about balancing budgets is laughable. They only talk about it if it’s a convenient way to beat Republicans. Style over substance, just like Clinton.
    I’m sorry but I have a difficult time with anyone (whether it’s you, Fleetguy, or James Carville) who supports or defends Bill Clinton. We are still feeling the effects of the harm that man has done to this country. To defend Bill Clinton and then to accuse George Bush of lying is beyond belief. I do not for one minute believe all politicians lie like Bill Clinton. As Bob Kerrey said about him back in 1992: “He’s not just a liar. He’s an unusually good liar.”

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    I will admit I wouldn’t know how to find a quote like that coming from Clinton. It was 10 years ago.
    I would suggest typing “Clinton” “starve” “old folks” “dog food” in varying combinations into google. If he actually said as much, you’d probably get a number of hits from right-wing blogs and websites detailing, for the record, exactly where and when he said it. I couldn’t find any such source, after numerous combinations of those words, which leads me to believe that this is a story that someone made up sometime. Maybe I just failed to come up with the right combination. The burden of proof’s on you, hombre. It’s a lot easier to proove a positive than a negative.
    The notion that Democrats give a damn about balancing budgets is laughable. They only talk about it if it’s a convenient way to beat Republicans. Style over substance, just like Clinton.
    Thank God, then, that we have both a Republican administration and a Republican congress. Now the budgets are really balanced. What about the notion that the Bush administration gives a damn about balancing budgets?
    As far as innuendo goes, jd, I wasn’t referring to the whole contract with america thing. I haven’t read the book you referred to, nor any others about the contract with America. I was referring mostly to this:
    Remember that whenever Clinton wins it’s always for the good of Bill Clinton and only by coincidence the good of anyone else?
    Unless you’re a clairvoyant, it seems to me, you are in no position to evaluate the actual motivations behind Clinton’s actions. Yeah, he abused his position to get some action — you’ll never get me to say otherwise. To claim that everything he ever did was for his own personal gain, though? That’s unsupportable innuendo. If you can prove that everything he ever did was for his own personal gain, or that he accused Republicans of starving old people and making them eat dog food, please do. I never really liked the guy all that much, anyway. If you continue to make outragous claims you can’t back up with evidence, though, I don’t think anyone should take your opinions on this matter all that seriously.
    To defend Bill Clinton and then to accuse George Bush of lying is beyond belief.
    I could turn this around on you. I could ask, “How can you be so aggressively opposed to lies and mistakes with regard to Bill Clinton, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Bush Administration lied about WMD in Iraq, gave absurdly rosy estimates about the predicted time of our deployment in Iraq and the reception that our troops would receive there and continues to imply that there is a direct link between Iraq and the Saudis who flew planes into the World Trade Center?”
    But I won’t.
    I’m not saying that Bill Clinton never lied. You’ll never, ever hear me say that. I’m accusing you, however, of lying about Bill Clinton. (I do doubt that Clinton said the things you mention.) You might just be making an honest mistake (in which case, a little humility would have helped) or I might be making a mistake. (In which case, I could easily be set straight with evidence that Clinton made the statements you claim and that everything he’s ever done was done for selfish reasons.)

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    I have been having a parallel discussion on abortion with some liberal Christians and conservative Christians here. It caused me to post at my house.

  • Terence Moeller

    Tyler,
    My response to your last post is in brackets below . . .
    From Andrew Sullivan, a conservative and a Catholic (both by his own admission and by the standards of western political thought as a whole, I think. Mind you, this is from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, hardly a bastion of the insane left. Sullivan is gay, though.)
    {{ Considering what actually goes on behind closed doors, the terms “gay” and “social conservative” are antithetical.}}
    So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.
    {{ The policy is to avoid creating an entirley new bureaucracy around a small, but vocal minority’s sexual picadillos.}}
    This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for?
    {{ They are for common decency, which has been in short supply
    from the homosexual community. They are for keeping one’s sexual appetites, however bizarre, in the closet where it belongs, and out of our classrooms, churches and public institutions. }}
    Let me be practical here. If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this?
    {{ There is NOTHING stopping them from making a trip to the bank to clarify their financial arrangements.}}
    If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others?
    {{ There is NOTHING stopping them from signing a will granting that all their propery be inherited by whomever they wish. }}
    If one member of a young gay couple is badly hurt in a car accident, why is it a conservative notion that his spouse not be allowed to visit him in the intensive-care unit?
    {{ Provisions for this can be made without creating a new homosexual bill of rights.}}
    Those are basically my questions for you with regard to civil unions. You may be right, maybe 70% of social consevatives do oppose civil unions for queer people. Frankly, I’m disappointed. Maybe I just met the most forgiving 30% of y’all.
    {{ Be honest, at least with yourself. You are not a “social conservative.”}}
    My question, basically, is why? I mean, it’s pretty obvious that adultery is a worse sin than homosexuality, at least according to the New Testament, and you’re not trying to pass a law that says adulterers can’t visit their spouses in the hospital the way homosexual couples in states that don’t allow civil unions can’t, are you? You might want to comment on JCH’s (that’s John to his friends) scriptural argument for civil unions. There haven’t been any commentors of your persuasion with regard to the issue at hand, and I think that you’d benefit from the discussion.
    {{ If there is a hierarchy of sexual sins it certainly places homosexuality and adultery at the top.
    Romans 1: 26 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (NASB)
    Selfishly, I hope many other Conservative Christians do so with regard to the Republican party over the next few elections. That will help the moderates out considerably. If you’re calling Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and Arlen Specter as the “insane left,” a term I use to refer to Michael Moore, Al Franken (who is at least funny once in a while — Have you seen Stuart Saves His Family?!) and Maureen Dowd, it’s going to be hard for us to see eye to eye. I’d love it if you keep not voting for Republicans, though. I think the Arlen Specters will be just fine without you. Look at me, trying to scare someone I consider a religious extremist into re-joining the Republican party. What the hell am I doing?!
    {{ Yes, I consider Specter and any advocate of partial birth abortion part of the insane left. “Moderate” is a term used to describe Republicans who subscribe to policies that in the past were considered radical by any standard. It is the slippery slope syndrome. By the way, I have never been a member of the Republican Party, but in my opinion, they are light years of the Democrats in terms of Chrisatian values. }}
    My issue now is that you didn’t answer John’s point that O’Connor (Nominated by Reagan, mind you — does he, by extension, qualify for the “insane left?”) was previously on record saying that without the loophole you’re bemoaning, the law was unconstitutional. The Republicans knew that the law would get struck down. It follows that their intention really wasn’t to end the procedure, even if they didn’t like it, as neither you nor I do.
    {{ O’Conner was a big disappointment to most Christian conservatives as were the majority of Republican appointments in the last decade. Her opinion that the law banning partial birth abortion was unconstitutional is nothing more than the ramblings of deranged woman who should have retired long before she had. The provisions for the “health of the mother” that became the major impass would have rendered the ban useless.}}
    Really, though, shouldn’t you be making your case to the American public? If PBA is so bad, shouldn’t you say
    “I oppose abortion in general, oh the sexually active women of America, but if you do have one (which I think you shouldn’t) please have one in the first two trimesters, without the procedure known as PBA?”
    {{ I resent you cavelier attitude. It only demonstates to me that
    you are so jaded that I am wasting time trying to reason with you.}}
    You won’t have to ask permission from the Supreme Court to do this, either. You can also say
    “Oh you sexually active youngsters. I truly believe that premarital sex is wrong for a number of reasons. But let’s put that aside for a minute. Abortion, which I feel is akin to murder, is very wrong.
    You would help wash the bloodstain from the collective hands of America, as well as your own, if you only take every possible precaution, using the most successful forms of birth control, if you do have premarital sex (did I mention that I think that that’s wrong?).”
    {{ That is the perscription of Banned Parenthood, and it isn’t working.}}
    While I think that NARAL is guilty of some nutty offenses, especially recently (and think that PP isn’t so bad on that front, and does some very important non-Abortion-related work besides) and elements of the pro-choice extreme are complicit in the disturbingly-high (to say the least, for some) number of abortions we see every year. I think that those opposed to abortion would see a drastic reduction in the procedure, in any variety, if they took the sort of tack that I’m sketching out for you, Terence. Is it ok for a social conservative to bracket premarital sex for a while if promoting birth control will drastically reduce the numbers of abortions? (Or, to paraphrase Monty Python, Is every sperm sacred?) Is keeping your hands clean of sticky issues so important that it trumps saving hundreds of thousands of lives by drastically reducing the number of unwanted fertilized embryos that there are to be aborted?
    {{ The tack that you are sketching out reflects the same mentality as passing out needles to junkies. By helping to facilitate something that causes harm in the interest of alleviating greater harm, is not being “the salt of the earth,” as Christians are called to be.
    This talk of abortion and homosexuality is depressing. Both practices seem to be an obsession among those most committed to destroying themselves and the culture around them. Thier advocates who call themselves Christians would do well to heed what the Bible says on the matter. They may think they can pick up a little “fire insurence,” make new friends, and find a new soapbox for their heresies in the church, but unless they turn away from these filthy abominations, they will die in their sins. This is the last word I have on the matter. Repent! }}

  • Ed “What the” Heckman

    bean wrote:

    For the record, I never said Dobson was “wrong” about Sponge Bob. I said it was an embarassment because the connection was so peripheral as to be ridiculous.

    Dr. Dobson made a factually accurate statement that the We Are Family Foundation which produced the video is (or was) promoting a homosexual agenda. What is embarrassing about stating the truth? Just because the MSM took what he said and twisted it and put words in his mouth in an attempt to embarrass him (and all Christians who agree with him) does not make his original statement any less true. The video was designed to promote the We Are Family Foundation. They promote a pro-homosexual agenda. How is pointing out an agenda of an organization which targets children an embarrassment?

  • bean

    No, that’s not quite how it happened. The video was produced by an organization that linked on its web site to an organization that had a pledge for kids that included sexual orientation under its list of things to tolerate. The connection to a gay rights organization was third-hand.
    Again, choose your battles wisely. It was a case of Dobson speaking too quickly and then having to do damage control afterwards. He does it all the time. He just did it again on trying to explain why Judge Roberts did pro bono work for a gay rights organization. He trotted out some likely-sounding explaination that turned out to be completely wrong.
    I have nothing against Focus on the Family as an organization. It does good work when it concentrates on marriage, child-rearing, pro-life issues and the like. It damages the cause of Christ when it shoots from the hip, gives out Michael Moore’s home address and phone number and the like.

  • Terence Moeller

    jd,
    I remember that quote from Clinton. It has been talked about for
    years on the blogs.

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    If that quote has been talked about for years on the blogs, (none of which I found via google) surely you can give me the original source, right?
    Terrance, I can’t believe you totally blew off my questions about directions I think people who really don’t like abortion should look. Does everyone else agree that since I’m a heretic, you don’t even have to think about what I say? That speaks volumes about your compassion, or lack thereof, I think.
    If partial-birth abortion is so bad as to warrant its own ban, doesn’t it follow that other forms of abortion are (slightly?) less bad? If not, why bother banning one procedure if the killing is going to continue anyway. I’m honestly curious.
    If Jesus placed homosexuality at the top of the list of really bad sexual sins, can you point me to the place where he says so? I’ve found a couple places where Paul says it’s bad, but I’ve missed the ones where Jesus does. Please enlighten me.
    By the way, I never called myself a social conservative. I called Sullivan a conservative, which is different, and applies mostly to economic issues. He’s a libertarian, which is mostly the opposite of social conservativism.
    Oh, wait, you said that you’ve said all you can on these issues. I guess I’m talking to myself here. Oh well, I thought we could have a discussion. Come over to my blog if you ever change your mind.
    -tcs

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    By the way, Terrance, you have no idea how funny it sounds to me and my friends hearing someone accuse John of promoting secular humanist propaganda. You’re digging youself a pretty deep hole, brother.

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    Oh, sorry for misspelling your name. That’s really bad. I hate doing that, honestly. Someone called me Steven Tyler once, you know. (Actually, I kinda liked that one.)

  • Ed “What the” Heckman

    bean wrote:

    No, that’s not quite how it happened. The video was produced by an organization that linked on its web site to an organization that had a pledge for kids that included sexual orientation under its list of things to tolerate.

    You obviously didn’t actually look at the link I posted. The video was produced by the We Are Family Foundation. It uses the song “We Are Family” to promote the foundation. The video is still being promoted through their web site.
    Furthermore, everything I linked to was either still on their web site when I wrote those articles or was found in either Google’s or The Wayback Machine’s caches of the wearefamilyfoundation.org web site. The original pledge reads:

    Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America’s diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.
    To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.
    To fulfill my pledge, I _________ will examine my own biases and work to overcome them set a positive example for my family and friends work for tolerance in my own community speak out against hate and injustice.
    We Share A World
    For all our differences, we share one world. To be tolerant is to welcome the differences and delight in the sharing.

    This pledge was written by Tolerance.org and appeared on their web site at http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp.
    At the time I wrote that post, they still had a page on their site titled “101 Ways to Combat Prejudice” at http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/ADL_101Ways_YourComm.htm. (The page is no longer there.) This is one of the suggestions:

    Meet with school and community librarians and local bookstores to discuss ways to highlight literature that is representative of all cultures and sexual orientations.

    And here are a few books from their resources list which appeared at http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/TEACHERS/wfc_resources.asp:

    • “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.
  • Ed “What the” Heckman

    Tyler,
    Jesus clearly stated that marriage was intended to be one man and one woman for life. Furthermore, the only exception which God grudgingly permitted was divorce in the case of adultery. He even went further to state that the only other acceptable sexual behavior was abstinence (that’s what eunuch means):

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    Ed.
    I think you’re reading a little too much into this passage. Don’t worry, you’re not alone — Origen and other early Christians took this passage too seriously as well and, literally, made themselves eunichs for the sake of heaven. (If I remember correctly, Origen used rocks! That’s devotion for you.)
    I think that Jesus is speaking figuratively when he says “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?” I don’t think he is knocking homosexuals here, he’s developing his thesis that adultery and divorce are sinful failures of relationships. I agree with this. The question is, of course, whether or not queer couples can achieve this “one flesh” relationship. Many of the ones that I know, I think, do. What about your homosexual friends? Are you sure that they can’t? What do they have to say about this?
    As far as Genesis goes, do you really think that God created two people out of thin air (or earth or something) and told them stuff? Are you a 6000-year-old-earth creationist? If not, I don’t think there’s any way to read Genesis as a direct order to every person. Adam and Eve are intended, I think, to stand in for humanity in general. I’m not arguing that everyone should go gay. That would make it impossible for humanity to “be fruitful and multiply.” This command doesn’t say that every human must bear children. That should be obvious after reading Jesus’ praise for eunichs and Paul’s demand “Those who have wives should act as if they have none.”
    Homosexual non-human animals really exist. (Do squirrels lead in a sinful, fallen world? Will that explain this?) Current animal behavior theories suggest that these same-sex couples in squirrel, penguin, and other populations help the communities by taking care of the young that their natural parents can’t (because they’ve died) or won’t (because they’ve had too many offspring, etc.) If we are to extend this line of thought to homosexual adoption, we can see how queer people can enable the human race to be fruitful and multiply.
    Oh, by the way, lesbians undergoing artificial insemination, a process that many straight, biblical Christian women undergo, I’d imagine, can apparently be fruitful and multiply, as long as you think that that’s what Christian women are doing by undergoing the procedure.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Ed,
    Scripturally you are right. Homosexual acts are sin. Tyler isn’t going to agree with you (those darn liberal theologians) but I do.
    My question is “so what?”. This is 5% of the population; and it is not even an attractive sin for more than another 2-3%. [Unless of course you think our children are going to be attracted to the obviously more interesting homosexual lifestyle] It is a sin on the same level with heterosexual non-married sex – and a lot more than 5-10% of the population is attracted by THAT. People quote Romans 1:

    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    Clear enough. And the “desire toward one another” kills temple prostitution and pederasty. Also, it is the first thing on the list – but there is a much longer list:

    28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God [this list cannot be in order of importance, can it?], insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    . Everyone should be seeing my point here (even with those planks in their eyes); and be dropping those first stones they were ready to throw. Paul has now got everyones attention – what next: Romans 2:

    1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

    Paul may be picking on homosexuality particularly; but he goes on to say that we have no grounds to judge homosexuality (or pretty much any other sin) without incuring judgment on ourselves.
    Terrence asked me how Jesus redefined marriage. There are some truly revolutionary verses in the New Testament. Adultery is a Ten Commandments level sin (I am actually not a real believer in “levels of sin” – I think all are equally bad) but lets let at Jesus first on marriage:

    Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart . . . 31 “It was said, `WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    and to finish all the possibilities: you covered Matthew 19:9 up above. How rampant is this in the church? In how many married Christian couples is one of the partners previously divorced for grounds other than adultery? They too are living in unrepented sexual sin; just like a gay couple.
    It gets worse: Paul equates sexual relations to marriage: 1 Cor 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” If someone had sex before marriage – they didn’t. Paul presents sex as what creates a one flesh relationship. Even the Catholic Church has recognized that two people could “marry each other” in this way – and let the sacrament and legality catch up later. Of course, this is also the basis of common law marriage and patrimony. If you had married someone by having sex with them; broke up that relationship for reasons other than adultery; and are married again . . .
    But even with this entirely ironclad and conservative view of marriage, how did Jesus say we should react to this top 10 sin: “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
    Why are conservative Christians running around with planks in their eyes casting stones at gays? Why are they worried about gays “redefining marriage” when I think too few Christian marriages are living up to the incredible definition Christ put in front of us?
    Frankly, because it is an easy political and moral target; and your congregation is going to be much happier with you.
    BTW: How can ANYONE redefine God’s marriage? Is He that powerless that He cannot protect His most important earthly sacrament? Do we think God checks the laws of the State of Massachusetts in deciding whether someone is married in His eyes?

  • http://watchpost.blogspot.com Tyler Simons

    Do we think God checks the laws of the State of Massachusetts in deciding whether someone is married in His eyes?
    Good question!

  • jd

    tyler simons:
    I haven’t found where Clinton or anyone said Republicans would starve kids with their budget “cuts.” I’m not ready to concede the point yet; but I’m close. This is a big meme on the right; if it ain’t true, lots of people will be surprised.
    As to “innuendo” about Bill clinton: you say I must be clairvoyant; I say, no, just observant. I truly believe Bill Clinton to be one of the worst men to have ever held the office; maybe not the worst president, but the worst human being. You cannot have much decency in you to screw a woman your daughter’s age, and to then be seen walking around carrying a Bible in and out of church. To screw around with Gennifer Flowers; with some Miss Virginia; with Dolly Kyle Browning; with Paula Jones; with Katherine Willey; with Sally Perdue; the list is long and mostly unknown; and then there’s Juanita Broaddrick. This is a married man who screws everything he can get his hands on.
    Contrast that with the public image. He feels your pain. He cares deeply about the downtrodden. He is the first black president because he cares so much about black folks. He came into office saying his would be the “most ethical administration in history”. Oh really? I didn’t hear anyone ask him about ethics. Why did he feel he needed to protest his innocence before he’s even been charged?
    His is the most ironic presidency in history. He said he feels your pain. I happen to believe that this is a man who feels no one’s pain but his own. He is a sociopath. He feels no remorse, or guilt or shame; not as you and I know it. How can anyone go on performing at the level of governor and president while at the same time living the lie he was living? You and I would be crippled by shame and remorse. This man lived as if the other life wasn’t even there. This man lived large because he was able to completely ignore the devestation he left behind; he is a man without a conscience as you and I understand it.
    He lied about the condition of the economy when he came into office, saying it was the worst economy in 50 years. The fact is that it was already on the rebound when he came in. He lied while running for governor of Arkansas when he told a reporter he wouldn’t run for President. He just lied to New York magazine a couple days ago, when he said he would have gone after Bin Laden if given the chance. It has just come out within the last few hours that he definitely had the chance to go after Bin Laden, but he didn’t do it. Bill Clinton’s character is there for all to see. He seduces the voting public the same way he seduced women; and then he does the same thing to both.
    Now let’s talk about innuendo. You have no proof that Bush lied about WMD. If he lied, then so did the United Nations, the US Congress, the intelligence community, Bill clinton, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore, and probably even Dennis Kucinich. They all believed Saddam had WMD. The whole world believed Saddam had WMD. He HAD WMD. I don’t know where they went.
    It is becoming more clear that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Remember, the 9/11 commission said there was “no STRONG connection”. They didn’t say there was NO connection. I would argue that any connection with Al Qaeda is dangerous. If you want to know more read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
    and this: http://nationalreview.com/interrogatory/hayes200406020847.asp.
    A lot of people have been accusing Bush of lying. As I said before, Bill clinton has done more damage to this country than we know. I think the accusations of lying against Bush are examples of the damage done by Clinton. We have definitive proof that Clinton was a liar. Those of us who were deeply offended by his character were probably over the top in our accusations of his lying. In our defense, I would argue that none of us could believe that the American people didn’t throw him out of office. If the press were not 90 percent liberal, he would have been thrown out. The point is that it’s easier to accuse a sitting President of lying, since the last one was so blatant. Make no mistake. I think a liar like Bill Clinton is quite rare. To have 2 guys in a row with a gift for lying like him would be highly unlikely.
    How about you backing up your contention that Bush lied, or gave “absurdly rosy predictions” about the outcomes in Iraq. Remember that some of those predictions have come true. Most Iraqis have welcomed Americans with flowers and open arms. There is a democracy in place. It’s ugly but it’s there. It took the United States 9 years to get a constitution. It was pretty ugly, too.
    As I said, your defense of Bill Clinton while accusing Bush of lying is beyond belief. The contrast between the two men couldn’t be more stark.

  • http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/ jchfleetguy

    Jd
    I agree with you entirely about President Clinton’s moral reprehensibility – he is indeed a study in something.
    I cannot prove President Bush lied about WMD. I just believe he did. I “knew” when the runup to the invasion started and President Bush was insisting Saddam had them; Saddam was saying he didn’t; Bush said prove it; etc. that once the war commenced they wouldn’t be found. Maybe I’m clairvoyant. Even when all those other people said he they believed the CIA report – I didn’t.
    I think President Bush was looking for a reason to go after Iraq from the first day in office. Since I support what we are doing now – this isn’t a huge issue to me. I didn’t vote for him last election; and he won’t be a choice in the next one. Frankly, I wish he had just said that Saddam was a brutal maniac; that we made a mistake in not taking him out in 1991; that the Iraqi people were suffering horribly under the sanctions; and since Saddam was a maniac (and not suffering) he just didn’t care about his people.
    I am not sure Congress would have given him authorization under those conditions; but we actually might have isolated some NATO folks better. After all, I think the French and Russian intelligence services told THEM there were no WMD (maybe we should hire them and fire the CIA)

  • jd

    fleetguy:
    I don’t know if Bush was looking for an excuse to go into Iraq. It’s hard to imagine that he was. What President in his right mind wants to go to war? So I guess you think 9/11 was just a convenience for him to go in and attack Iraq. Do you think he would have attacked Iraq sooner or later, anyway?
    I admit that it certainly looks like we were misled. The fact that no WMD were found is extremely troubling. I agree with you that even if he did lie about WMD, which I have a hard time admitting, he probably saw that Iraq was a singularly dangerous country and the one country that could not only provide him with the political opportunity to fight the war on terror, but also the one country at the heart of all the trouble in the Middle East.
    I don’t understand people who don’t see that Iraq was the only country of its kind in the world. It was ruled by an absolutely ruthless dictator. That dictator had unlimited resources. (Forget the Waltons and Bill Gates. Saddam was the wealthiest man in the world.) He had exhibited his willingness to attack his own people, other countries and a former president of the US. His country was a haven for terrorists. He had the desire and capability to give WMD to enemies of the United States. There are many other countries in the world with some of those qualities, but none with all of them.
    I guess you can see I’m sensitive to the notion of putting anyone on the same level as Bill Clinton. They tried to do it during impeachment by saying all politicians lie. That’s not a helpful judgment. Why bother to be discerning about any of them then? If they all lie, our votes don’t matter.
    I am dead serious about the long lasting effect Clinton has had on the country. From teenage oral sex to turning logic on its head in political discourse, Clintonism is everywhere.

  • http://blog.nelmezzo.net/index.php/archives/23 nelmezzo

    Speaking Ill 0f Republicans

    Evangelical Outpost has a wonderful post on