Progressive Conservatives

[GoodWitch58]

I appreciate the serious respones.

I have no problem with our beliefs influencing our behavior...I just have a problem when "your belief" is pushed down "my throat". Our country was founded first and foremost on Freedom...in fact Roger Williams and his group that came to be known as Baptists came to this country to get away from the religion that was being forced on them in England.

For many years, people were able to worship as they pleased. I grew up in a very conservative church...but, the minister never preached politics from the pulpit; nor was it something that was discussed as a church community.

There were not groups such as Focus on the Family that were in fact political organizations...

Conservatives were interested in all the things that 30ashopper listed above, but they were not trying to convert the government to their brand of religion.

I actually believe the Republican Party will not keep the South....but that is a story for another post.

I hope the religious frenzy stops, because I believe that a country that welcomes all people, cares for one another, and works to uplift the world...is a better country. It is the ideal of America that has made us different...and that ideal offered freedom to all--it did not offer it only to fundamental Christians.

 

[Bob]

.. that doesn't change the fact that more Democrats voted for it than Republicans. If the dems hasd refules to push it, it never would have passed, and we'd be implementing something else far less costly. For that, Democrats must take most of the blame.

so bush, bernanke, and paulson ask for the bailout, one is crafted, they all three endorse the plan, and the dems are "at fault". sure, ok

 

[30ashopper]

I appreciate the serious respones.

I have no problem with our beliefs influencing our behavior...I just have a problem when "your belief" is pushed down "my throat". Our country was founded first and foremost on Freedom...in fact Roger Williams and his group that came to be known as Baptists came to this country to get away from the religion that was being forced on them in England.

You and me both. I'm curious though, you used the term "religious frenzy", I honestly haven't seen it as that extreme. It's true Bush is a very religious man, but I don't see this frenzy you speak of. Maybe these groups have become more vocal or grown in size? I honestly don't know as I don't pay much attention to it. But for example Focus on the Family has been around since the late 70s. Is your perception maybe just a biproduct of our new found freedom of information through the internet, or do you feel they have more sway today over political leaders?

 

[Bob]

Would that be the party of Barney Frank & Chris Dodd & "THE ONE" who took the most campaign contirbutions & put former Fanny Mae Execs as campaign advisors? This is NOT a one party problem Bob.

nov. 4th may show you otherwise.

 

[poppy]

There is one big reason that you see little from the last eight years that resembles a conservative- because Bush is NO conservative. He is a RINO, a wolf in R clothing and the biggest disaster to conservatives since...well, his daddy. Bush has much more in common with Obama than he will ever have with the party of Reagan.

As to where "religion" enters in, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Under those principles the nation flourished. Abandoning those principles will lead to ruin.

Then why in the hell did conservatives keep supporting him? There is one area where Bush and McCain are the same, they both have daddy issues. They were both irresponsible brats with discipline problems who are now trying to live up to the family name by making the rest of us suffer for their personel mistakes in life.

I was taught in school that this country was founded on religious freedom. Freedom of and from religion. We have God's self proclaimed chosen one in the oval office now thanks to the aid of the religious right and look how that has turned out.

Pushing a Christian agenda is no better for us than pushing an Islamic agenda. Why not use the Golden Rule for guidance, it is peculiar to no religion and is useful for every occasion in life when dealing with our fellow man.

 

[GoodWitch58]

You and me both. I'm curious though, you used the term "religious frenzy", I honestly haven't seen it as that extreme. It's true Bush is a very religious man, but I don't see this frenzy you speak of. Maybe these groups have become more vocal or grown in size? I honestly don't know as I don't pay much attention to it. But for example Focus on the Family has been around since the late 70s. Is your perception maybe just a biproduct of our new found freedom of information through the internet, or do you feel they have more sway today over political leaders?

It is true that Dobson has been around for a long time, but according to what I have read/observed, he has changed his approach drastically since about 1994.

The Republican party appeared to decide that they could win a majority of the vote if they persuaded the religious right that Republicans were the "chosen" party; they would save the world...using the fundamentalist voting bloc.

I believe that is one reason why one sees people of modest means vote for economic polices that will hurt them the most...it is not rational, but it is sold as religion dressed up as social or family values. this is the only reason I can see for McCain choosing Palin. When I have asked on this Board and elsewhere what about Palin is persuasive the only answers I have received are: 1. I like her; 2. She's one of us; 3. She is anti-choice. In fact, I am not sure that even McCain made a rational decision where she is concerned; to listen to him defend (or praise) her now, it is quite evident than he doesn't really believe what he is saying.

It is well known that McCain is or was a more moderate Republican; once he hired the Bush campaign team and chose Palin, rather than a more moderate Republican, woman or man, he aligned himself with the fundamentalist religious sector of the so called "base"--and we have seen the results...

The frenzy I referred to was not meant to be about just this election, but the 2000 and 2004 as well. One sees it in local government races too. Many Republicans appear to be more interested in being "against" a Democrat than "for" the Republican ticket...it is a campaign driven by fear...

I do agree that the Internet and 24/7 news have allowed more of the population to be informed or misinformed as it were, than ever before. I also believe that more people are involved in this election because they (R & D & Is) are fed up with the Bush polices and truly want a country that is united, not divided. The Republicans won (barely) in 2000 because of the successful tactic of fear-based division--this time people are looking for unity and the tactics of smear and fear do not appear to be working as well.

BTW: if Jeb Bush had been president, instead of George W., I believe we would be in a completely different place today. I worked with Jeb when he was the Secretary of Commerce for Florida. He is a bright man; not easily manipulated; more inclusive to those who are "different" from him; and, while his poltics were not always 100% what I could agree with; he was respectful of Democrats and Independents, and he worked hard for Florida. He was for his policies, not just against someone's else's. He certainly would not have led us to this place as he brother has...IMO.

 

[30ashopper]

Then why in the hell did conservatives keep supporting him? There is one area where Bush and McCain are the same, they both have daddy issues. They were both irresponsible brats with discipline problems who are now trying to live up to the family name by making the rest of us suffer for their personel mistakes in life.

I was taught in school that this country was founded on religious freedom. Freedom of and from religion. We have God's self proclaimed chosen one in the oval office now thanks to the aid of the religious right and look how that has turned out.

Pushing a Christian agenda is no better for us than pushing an Islamic agenda. Why not use the Golden Rule for guidance, it is peculiar to no religion and is useful for every occasion in life when dealing with our fellow man.

There is nothing more American than "pushing" a particular agenda poppy, that's as American as apple pie. (Freedom of speech, remember?) There is a huge difference between promoting ideals and forcing religion down someone elses throat. I think this is where a lot of secularists get confused.

 

[30ashopper]

It is true that Dobson has been around for a long time, but according to what I have read/observed, he has changed his approach drastically since about 1994.

The Republican party appeared to decide that they could win a majority of the vote if they persuaded the religious right that Republicans were the "chosen" party; they would save the world...using the fundamentalist voting bloc.

Well, that's their business and their right. It's up to the Republican party to decide, as whole, how much influence this particular group has over their public image and policies. Obviously with Bush they held a lot of sway in single issues, hopfully that will moderate a bit.

I believe that is one reason why one sees people of modest means vote for economic polices that will hurt them the most...it is not rational, but it is sold as religion dressed up as social or family values. this is the only reason I can see for McCain choosing Palin. When I have asked on this Board and elsewhere what about Palin is persuasive the only answers I have received are: 1. I like her; 2. She's one of us; 3. She is anti-choice. In fact, I am not sure that even McCain made a rational decision where she is concerned; to listen to him defend (or praise) her now, it is quite evident than he doesn't really believe what he is saying.

I've repeatedly said on this board Palin was a play for disaffected Hillary voters, and I believe that's one of the primary reasons he chose her. The other was to rally the base, which worked.

It is well known that McCain is or was a more moderate Republican; once he hired the Bush campaign team and chose Palin, rather than a more moderate Republican, woman or man, he aligned himself with the fundamentalist religious sector of the so called "base"--and we have seen the results...

By hiring Steve Schmidt? Schmidt is a moderate. He has worked with Rove, but I wouldn't say he was part of Bush's team. He himself has vehemently denied this. His approach is somewhat similar. But I have to say, I think he's done a good job in light of what he was up against. I'm reminded of 'Celebrity', I think that was a stroke of genius.

The frenzy I referred to was not meant to be about just this election, but the 2000 and 2004 as well. One sees it in local government races too. Many Republicans appear to be more interested in being "against" a Democrat than "for" the Republican ticket...it is a campaign driven by fear...

I do agree that the Internet and 24/7 news have allowed more of the population to be informed or misinformed as it were, than ever before. I also believe that more people are involved in this election because they (R & D & Is) are fed up with the Bush polices and truly want a country that is united, not divided. The Republicans won (barely) in 2000 because of the successful tactic of fear-based division--this time people are looking for unity and the tactics of smear and fear do not appear to be working as well.

I agree. Maybe people are getting tired of it, I certainly am. Hence my interest in seeing the Republican party go into hibernation for a year or so. (mid terms in 2010 will be an interesting test of what they have learned.)

BTW: if Jeb Bush had been president, instead of George W., I believe we would be in a completely different place today. I worked with Jeb when he was the Secretary of Commerce for Florida. He is a bright man; not easily manipulated; more inclusive to those who are "different" from him; and, while his poltics were not always 100% what I could agree with; he was respectful of Democrats and Independents, and he worked hard for Florida. He was for his policies, not just against someone's else's. He certainly would not have lead us to this place as he brother has...IMO.

I agree, it's unfortunate, Bush may have killed his chances of ever running. His views are much more in the mold of Ronald Reagan than any other candidate I know of. I miss having him here in Florida.

 

[poppy]

There is nothing more American than "pushing" a particular agenda poppy, that's as American as apple pie. (Freedom of speech, remember?) There is a huge difference between promoting ideals and forcing religion down someone elses throat. I think this is where a lot of secularists get confused.

You can push, but when pushed back Christians complain they are being persecuted . I don't push my beliefs on them and I expect the same courtesy.
There is no confusion, I know when someone is trying to force religion down my throat.

Freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to try to pass legislation to force me to live by their religious doctrine. I don't think you would like someone trying to force another religion on you. I live by my own set of values, most being similar to yours minus the imaginary friend.

 

[mossyhead]

nov. 4th may show you otherwise.

That may very well be which is interesting since the Democratic Congress has a much lower approval rating than GW & the candidate that has not always gone along with Congress is McCain. Obama has been a follower of Democratic policies.