Conservatives had a big rally this past week, and it featured the first straw poll for republican nominee for president in 2012. Guess who won! Ron Paul, 31% Romney 22% Palin 7% Palwenty 6% Pence 5% Gingrich 4% Huckabee 4% Too bad Paul will be 76 years old if he ran in 2012.
It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").
I'd agree with that. The social issues for now seem to be taking a back seat. Maybe that's not surprising given the state of the economy. However, it's curious to look at that list of "candidates" and note how many completely different viewpoints are represented. Should be interesting to see how it shakes out. barfo
^which is good. But neo-cons are still ruining not only the conservatives but the entire republican party.
Have Republicans ever been that much dominated by conservative Christian social issues? They've very effectively used it while campaigning to draw in the voters (gay marriage, abortion, etc). But what's really been the lasting policy effect? A gay marriage ban in some states that's obviously going to be completely eroded in a generation. No major changes to abortion law. Declines in capital punishment. Raising abstinence as a means of birth control got highlighted, but it only seemed to point out how meager the results are from abstinence education. Nothing to show that really seems to have demonstrably changed the course of the nation. I guess there's been a rise in anti-Darwinism. But I don't think it's really a result of Republican leadership. More of a grass-roots school board thing. I guess gun freedoms have been strengthened, but that always seemed to me to have more appeal among the libertarian types than the christian types. When I think of the lasting impact Republicans have had over the past 15 years, I think of wars, tax cuts and deregulation. Not exactly the kind of stuff on the top of Jesus's priority list.
In spite of, or because of, Republicans controlling the white house and congress for most of the time since 1980, we have a black president and two of the last three secretaries of state have been black people (one a woman). I think that the republican appointees to SCOTUS have ruled against govt. when it comes to the taking of property, as well. Oregon has an assisted suicide law. Many states have legalized medical marijuana, too. Though republican administrations have made token noises about fighting those things. We've also had 2 major banking crises, the first being the S&L one. Though I place 90% of the blame on the Democrats for the latest one.
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there. My point is that Republicans have long campaigned as "the Christian party", but when you look at the results you don't really see much "conservative Christian" in their legacy. Were I a conservative Christian, I'd feel pretty burned that they keep selling me that they understand my agenda, but once they get my vote they don't generate lasting results for me.
I agree, sort of. On one hand, you have GHW and GW Bush's legislative accomplishments. Those would be a clean air act (environmental!), a civil rights act (disabilities act), education (no child left behind), health care (medicare prescription drugs), infrastructure (highway bill was the biggest spending bill in history, before the so-called stimulus one passed in 2009), etc. Going back to Reagan (and W), you have a real rescue of Social Security and an attempt to fix it. All pretty big ticket Progressive agenda items, none particularly religious in nature or anything like that. Those are off the top of my head, there are certainly others. Oh yeah, big funding of fuel cells (global warming), and funds to fight AIDS in Africa. On the other hand, you have guys like Ashcroft and Bill Bennett (quite religious) holding high appointed offices. We had the so-called gag order (by executive order) for overseas family planning clinics, and the general government policy (that even democrats agree with) forbidding the use of federal funds for abortions. War on Drugs, War on Crime - both of these fill our jails, and not particularly fairly. On the latter (abortion, funds), I'm pro-choice but generally agree that we shouldn't be funding or promoting abortions overseas. We may be a secular society, but for certain many other nations are not. It's none of our business, and downright interfering with their culture and societies. Funding abortions here is obviously the right and fair thing to do as long as we're funding any/most health care procedures. Though I don't see govt. has any responsibility to make abortions easy or cheap.
I have never once heard the repubs labeled as such. In fact, although just an opinion, but I doubt 50% of registered repubs attend church regularly. But sibce the party platform calls for morality, it should come as no surprise most church goers vote that direction. I mean, they have to identify with some political party.
as a big government social liberal, I would rather see small government conservatives in office over "compassionate conservatives.
It really started up with W. Bush in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative example of his election into governor smear tactics on a side note, here's a reminder of why liberals got their panties in a twist (mine are still a little)
I agree with that first part mostly Denny, but the second/third part is misleading. They cut funds that taught non-abstinence only programs. (IE how to use a condom). There is a big difference between "abortion" "birth control/condoms" and "abstinence only"
Not exactly true Denny, CPAC had a straw poll last February. Results: Mitt Romney - 20 percent Bobby Jindal - 14 percent Ron Paul -13 percent Sarah Palin - 13 percent Newt Gingrich -10 percent Mike Huckabee - 7 percent Mark Sanford - 4 percent Rudy Guiliani - 3 percent Tim Pawlenty - 2 percent Charlie Crist - 1 percent Undecided - 9 percent That was the first straw poll for the 2012 election.
I've never really seen them as "the Christian party" but rather the not explicitly "anti-Christian" party. Were I a conservative Christian, which I'm not, I'd understand my choice as between party that's generally tolerant of and willing to allow me to do my thing in peace and a party that's generally intolerant of me as a person and often openly hostile to my beliefs.
Huh? How, specifically, are Democrats "anti-Christian?" I guess you could argue Obama is the first president (of either party) to even acknowledge atheism as a legitimate subset of America in an inaugural address. Acknowledging us atheists seems to be a big Christian no-no. But there is not a single Democrat in the House or Senate who is a self-described atheist. Not one. (Appalling, really, when you consider that more than 10% of the US are atheists.) If you don't see the Republican party as "the Christian party," then I don't know what to say. That's certainly my perception. You look at the states with the highest attendance of churches, and they're all red states. If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are Republican.
I think you're proving my point here. Let me pick out a couple points here: 1. The fact that no Democrat "self-describes" as an athiest. 2. The fact that "If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are..." and pose a simple narrative. Many athiests and nominal Christians do not like Christians in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box, and do not like the fact that they feel uncomfortable self-describing as athiests. In general, these folks tend to the Democratic party. And despite the big tent rhetoric of saying there are no "self-described athiests", there's an undercurrent of anger (It's appalling. I can't be me while you're being Johnny Bible Thumper over there) and fear (I have to pretend to be something I'm not, I can't describe myself the way I really would). Actual, serious-minded Christians tend to know this, and therefore don't consider the Democrats any sort of option at all. Very few rational people want to belong to a group that they feel doesn't like or respect them.
Let's try switching your words around and see how it sounds: Many Christians and nominal Christians do not like atheists in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box. Thanks to Scientologists, we're now only the second most despised group in America. (Kind of depressing, if not for the fact that we're also the fastest growing religious group in America.) Anyway, clearly only one party in this country is even willing to even acknowledge me and others like me. The Democrats. But I don't really see how that translates into persecution of Christians, particularly among Democratic leadership. I think Democratic leaders are much more naturally dis-inclined to wear their religion on their shirt (the major exception being Bill Clinton) than Republicans. But Clinton, Obama, and Carter are clearly every-sunday-church-goers. They all are pretty darned sure that the bible is the one true voice of God, Christ is their savior, God actually listens to their prayers, etc. I suspect any of them are far more likely to sneer at me than you over religious beliefs.
