Who's not yet convinced the fundies control the Republican Party?

Here’s the latest from the GOP leader in the Senate, fresh from ramming “Terri’s Bill” through during vacation (free reg, don’t worry):

It was hard enough for you guys to claim your party didn’t represent closet racists when you had Trent Lott in your leadership. Can you claim just as earnestly that you don’t represent religious bigotry either? How much else can you try to excuse away before it dawns on you who now controls your party and what it stands for?

It’s hard to tell who is using whom in this action. It’s probably mutual.

Religion plays well, and politicians are slimy bastards.

This is no more an indication of “fundies” controlling the Republicans than African-Americans controlling the Democrats when the Dems cater to that lobby.

I few minutes after seeing this report, I saw that my alma mater has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus - at the invite of the Campus Republicans. Whatever moderate Republicans are still out there are only just hanging on. Of course, all of this pales next to George W. Bush putting his seal of approval on BJU.

Then your answer to “How much else can you try to excuse away…?” would be “A whole lot more, my capacity is infinite”?

I’m not a Republican (nor a Democrat), but I could point out the same thing about the Democrats and Robert C. Byrd, so I’d drop that ad hominem right away.

Of course, the fundamentalist right is the reason I’m not a Republican, so I can’t disagree with that part.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that, at least in the last 5 years or so, the theofascists have demonstrated a greater degree of control over the Republican platform then African-Americans (to the extent that they even have a common set of political goals?) have over the Democratic platform?

I’m an atheist who often votes republican.

I simply don’t see anything regarding religion that scares me coming from the republican party these days. They control all branches of government. If they wanted to shove religion down our throats wouldn’t they be doing it right now? It’s not an election year. They’re running the show. But, I just don’t see it. Certainly not in the OP. As JM pointed out, that’s just politics as usual. Democrats certainly do the same sort of thing with groups of all kinds including religious ones.

Whenever time comes to put their money where their mouths are, politicians of all stripes bow down to religion. Point out to me, please, all the openly atheist democrats?

No, you could not point out the same thing, so you can drop that lazy lie right away. We’ve been over that repeatedly in GD, as you doubtlessly know. Byrd outgrew and repudiated his past. Lott did nothing of the sort. Do a quick search on “Lott” and “Council of Conservative Citizens” if your memory is really that bad.

If you vote for them regularly anyway, there’s no difference worth claiming. Your protestations are a form of denial, nothing more.

Maybe you’d drop the tu quoque if you realized that Byrd has gone out of his way to repudiate his past views and admit he was wrong. Lott, not so much.

Yeah, if my Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, doesn’t shut his yap about how he accepted JC as his Personal Savior, I’m going ballistic. Bad enough when Governor Pataki does it.

I have a stong distate for the relgious pandering of the Pubs. The recent Terri Schiavo fiasco was disgusting, and it appears that the Pubs are paying a bit of price for that. But can the Republicans be said to be “controlled” by the religious right? I don’t see it. What major religious oriented legislation are the Pubs pushing? I can see them using religion as one way of pushing for “conservative” judges, but Republicans have ALWAYS wanted conservative judges. The anti-SSM agenda, again, plays well throught the US-- not just among the religious right.

If anything, I see the Pubs using the religious right more than the other way around. Not that I find that to be anything th cheer about, but it’s a whole different issue than if I really thought the relgious right was calling the shots.

And he was effectively thrown out for it.

So wait, their argument can be paraphrased as “when we were assholes, we did this, and now they do this, so now implicitly they must be assholes”

I mean, you’d think the Republicans wouldn’t be so quick to bring up images of Strom Thurmond, and the like.

And yes, I know that it was dixiecrats back then. However, it’s pretty clear that the dixiecrats went to the Republican party when Johnson signed civil rights legislation.

If the thought of the Senate Majority leader promoting an agenda from atop the dais of a protestant megachurch makes you want to hammer pencils into your ears, wait until you read the piece in this month’s Rolling Stone about the Dominionists. This is the most disgraceful, infuriating thing I’ve read in… well, about ten minutes, as this is The Dope, after all…

To allow a group like this - a biblical literalist group that pushes enthusiastically for the hyperChristianization of every aspect of our daily lives in which the federal government plays a part, to the purposeful exclusion of all other religions - to have virtually unfettered access to the White House descends well below simple pandering into the realm of true obeisance.

Come to think of it, I am having trouble thinking of any actual legislation that they managed to push through, with the possible exception of SSM ammendments that also banned civil unions. Civil unions, or some other kind of non-marriage officially recognized same-sex relationship is, IIRC, much more broadly supported then SSM.

And, although not legislation, they did get John Ashcroft in the AG’s office. Making an entire department sing “Let the Eagle Sore” has to earn them some serious Evil Points. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, it’s sort of a shame that I’m a registered Libertarian and don’t vote for Republicans, despite their feelings that I’m wasting my votes, now isn’t it?

I thought Clinton got the credit for promoting BJ universities. :confused:

I’m just going to go ahead and assume you meant “Sore” as a pun. Anyway, that’s not the point. That would be: Anyone who apparently thinks the Star Spangled Banner is insufficiently patriotic has several key screws loose.

Hey! Class of '91, University of Faint Promise (aka UST). My Alma Mater too!

Don’t forget “Terri’s Bill”, already mentioned, and the stem-cell research limits that are going to cause deaths in the name of saving them, or (at state level) the continuing resurgence of creationist preaching in the schools, or abstinence-only sex ed that has led to increased teen pregnancies …

And why deny that this latest fundie hate campaign is about judges’ nominations and confirmations? Is there any doubt that that subject is driven by a desire to overturn Roe, or that that is driven mainly by the fundie religious agenda, requiring a claim that the 21st century is “against people of faith” and is therefore driven by people who lack faith?

Don’t be silly, people.