The Democratic Party is primarily composed of moderate conservatives and Christians. Very few liberals, much less atheists or Marxists.
The fundies,the gun lovers and the defense of marriage anti gays are voting against their self interests in so many ways by their overwhelming focus on one issue. They give the repubs a chance to make the system into something fiscally rewarding to themselves.
They would be better off developing a party of their own. Develop a Gun Nutter party. Start a party that wants to just give gays a miserable life. Call it the Anti fag in the name of God party.
The Religious Right needs to start a party of their own. I would suggest The Religious Wrong. But to throw in with the Repubs does not give them a thing.
Looks like the Republicans have already started to distance themselves:
From ABC News interview with Dubya:
I think this is a mite simplistic. The trick was that his appeal was able to encompass several different groups. Some people saw him as you describe. But he also appealed to cultural conservatives (before they were utterly resigned to being cranky cultural revanchists), as well as hawks & business interests.
As one who reads Daily Kos, well, daily, let me tell you that you are dead wrong. The Left is more upset with Obama’s Cabinet picks than the Right is. They’re practically calling him a Republican over there. It’s actually annoying me a bit.
We got in bed with the religious whackos in the 70s. I wish we would get out.
And we’re told by historians that Reagan success coincided with the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980’s–with the abortion issue first intruding on presidential politics.
As one who refreshes DK hourly, I have to quibble with that characterization. Some people are up in arms about some choices (like Holder), but the frontpagers think that for the most part, Obama’s chosen good people who can implement policies the country needs. I think most Kossacks think “Enh, not the people I’d tap, but I like some of them, and the rest aren’t that bad. I’ll trust his judgement, at least for the time being.”
I know. The first political party I ever registered for was the Conservative party. I campaigned for and voted for Richard Nixon, once, anyway. Roe v Wade drove all of the people who think their religion would make good public policy into the conservative wing of the Republican party. Barry Goldwater had some archaic views on civil rights, but was spot on when it comes to personal liberty, and if he could see what they’ve turned into he’d slap someone.
And there’s somehow something wrong with those things? :rolleyes:
And shallora, last time I checked, Obama isn’t even in office yet. Wait until he’s actually President officially for critism to start. There’ll be plenty.
Oh, and I loathe Michael Moore. And I don’t really know much about Ayers, but from I do, the man was indeed a terrorist. What he’s doing now, I have no clue, but I’m certainly not a fan.
Like it or not, I believe that religious tests for offices are oh, I dunno, unConstitutional? And the last time I checked, the president puts his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution. He doesn’t put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
GAH!!! Clothahump, for once, you and I agree on something!
ETA: Bill Door, Barry Goldwater was a good man. Even as pinko-commie-lefty as I supposedly am, I really do admire him. He wasn’t against civil right so much, he just felt that that particular bill was too overdone. But he had voted for previous ones, and helped integrate the army in the 1950s. And like I said, he was very much pro-choice-his wife was one of the founders of the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood, and later on in life, he was also for gay rights (a grandson of his came out of the closet). He was very upset and disturbed with the increasing power of the Religious Right.
LonesomePolecat believes that gay rights and non-promotion of ‘white culture’, whatever the fuck that is, are both bad things, yes. He’s described his views before, but this forum prevents me from describing my opinions of them. And him.
What can I say-when the man’s right, he’s right.
You’re right, and I didn’t mean to make it sound like the entire blog, including editors, was thinking that. It’s a minority of the diaries, but they’ve been pretty vocal throughout the last few weeks.
The blinding light you think coming from Reagan's halo is actually coming from Lincoln.Political parties of the mid 1800s and earlier bear no resemblance to the ones today. Andrew Jackson was not anything like a modern Democrat, and Lincoln was not much like modern Republicans. Lincoln drew his votes from what we would now call call socialists, union workers, those with low incomes, and citizens of bigger cities. Democrats at the time attracted individualists, capitalists, the wealthy, and those in rural areas. So much has changed that you really can’t compare politicians from today and 150 years ago.
Indisputable.
But as long as Lincoln has an (R) adjacent, I’ll quibble “most popular Republican in history”.
That’s misleading, and not even technically true. Lincoln wasn’t as popular a president as Reagan was. Lincoln is a more popular ex-president than Reagan, though.
That’s not true. Putting aside the South, which was solidly Democratic, the Democrats in the North and Midwest were strongest in the cities, among Catholics, among recent immigrants, and among industrial workers.
Republicans were strongest in rural areas, among farmers, among business owners, among professionals, and among evangelical/revivalist Protestants.
Name one book that all people on the “religious right” are guaranteed to have read and believe in.
Now name one book that all people on the “secular left” are guaranteed to have read and believe in.
I can’t think of any; could you give us a clue?
Now, if you had said “name one book that they all claim to believe in, regardless of whether or not they’ve read it”, that might be a bit easier.