Where's the democratic Karl Rove

[Faithless]

It appears to me, and more and more people, that the democrats don't stand a chance of getting back into the White House unless the democrats have their equivalent of Karl Rove.

Now, I know there's this issue about below-the-belt politics. But I'm not advocating lying. I'm advocating digging-up as much dirt, bringing up as many character issues, etc. as the Karl-monster himself.

Because, quite frankly, Karl and his brand of politics is not going away. And it appears that this brand of politics appeals to the average American red state voter. And you hit at that belt-line as hard and as often as it takes to eventually win, especially when your ultimate goal is to run this country with your philosophical bent.

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can win at national politics by playing the game by intellectual rules. Consider what we're up against. An onslaught of conservative media hype. (Without any offense to the good Christians here) Right-wing religion turning things topsy turvy. And millions of Americans who know and are concerned more about Michael Jackson's supposed shenanigans than they know about George W. Bush's.

Talk about reacting-and-only-reacting, as Kasia mentioned in her thread, that's all the democrats seem to be doing.

The Jeff Gannon thing was a nice start. But if we want to expose the right-wing agenda for what it is, a sham, we need to do a lot more Rove-anating. :rolleyes:

[Banana]

Scares me how no one out there even know who Karl Rove is when he's the one that controls the country.

[sOKaLiBoY]

three words - hillary rodham clinton

[nola]

We need someone to lie on a grand scale, reframe the whole planet, a Democratic Hitler. It should somehow be done in a non-evil way.

[YuheiCarreau]

Well, Bill Clinton had that crazy guy from Louisiana. James Carville.

[Faithless]

Well, Bill Clinton had that crazy guy from Louisiana. James Carville.
Hey, you're right.

Maybe Karl Rove is not so original afterall.

Bring back James, dawn-it!

[A.R.A.M.]

Carville worked for the Kerry campaign I believe. There was some brilliant campaigning in '96 when the Democrats painted Bob Dole as the by then unpopular Gingrich's lackey. The Democrats didn't say Dole without saying Gingrich in the same breath. But I'm not convinced that a Democratic Rove character is needed now. The Republicans are pretty well insulated from any attack, justified or not. And they just turn it around and claim that the Democrats are being partisan, allying themselves with terrorists, or practicing the "politics of personal destruction." The Republicans have a lock on this sort of behavior.

What we need to do is get Machiavellian and destroy the Republican party from the inside. There are divisions in the Republican party, and those need to be exploited. Clinton won because Perot sucked up a lot of Republican votes. It can be done again, perhaps by "helping" the party become even more Taliban-esque, thereby alienating the more moderate wing. The process has already begun; it only needs to be accelerated.

[Faithless]

I like the Machiavellian idea. One way to go after that is to divide and conquer on issues where Republicans are split. One being social security.

But even though the Repubs do wear their insulation well, they aren't completely insulated. :rolleyes:

We've been successful in knocking down the Republican moralists who have had their own sex scandals.

How about re-releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 with never before seen footage?

[hooligan]

I don't think we need a Karl Rove either, what we need to do is come together and seriously bring to light a lot of the shady-ass issues that have been brought up.

[Faithless]

I don't think we need a Karl Rove either, what we need to do is come together and seriously bring to light a lot of the shady-ass issues that have been brought up.
Which is really a Karl Rove specialty.

As it is, we're too busy trying to take the high-road with Iraq and not really laying it on the line.

[Yeahman]

I like the Machiavellian idea. One way to go after that is to divide and conquer on issues where Republicans are split. One being social security.
They aren't very divided on the issue.

How about re-releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 with never before seen footage?
And somehow that should have a greater impact than the initial release?

Anyway, I honestly want to see the Democratic party return to greatness. Some observations...
1. Being a senator is a real liability. Complex senatorial votes can be seen as flip-flopping or pandering.
2. IMO, being seen as aligned with the irreligious left is a huge liability. Like it or not church-going Christians outnumber atheists. The Dems have taken steps more recently to disassociate themselves with the irreligious left but it has to continue in that direction. Ignoring the church-going Christians as Kerry did until the 2nd debate, won't cut it.
3. Can we get someone who's more energetic? Not a screamer like Dean but not a lecturer like Kerry.
4. Rove did a couple of things; Typecast Kerry early and viciously with the "flip-flip" and "anti-veteran" rhetoric and mobilize the evangelicals. The Dems need to typecast their opponent in 2008 early and viciously. A particularly contentious primary usually makes that job easier. As for mobilizing the evangelicals, this ties in with #2. Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns. Yes, there is a price to pay to get voted into office.

I don't see 2004 as a minor loss for the Dems. It should have been an easy one. Have we ever had a president so hated? How the hell did he win? It can't just be campaign tactics. It was that "values" thing. The Dems have to figure out how to reclaim it. And explinations aren't going to work. They need to show that they're different now. They need to reclaim the values on the peoples' terms. That means making the Dem in 2008 look more Christian and more patriotic than the opponent.

[hooligan]

They aren't very divided on the issue.[/qoute]

yes they are

[quote=ye110man]1. Being a senator is a real liability. Complex senatorial votes can be seen as flip-flopping or pandering.

spin, spin, spin, which you are so very good at.

2. IMO, being seen as aligned with the irreligious left is a huge liability. Like it or not church-going Christians outnumber atheists. The Dems have taken steps more recently to disassociate themselves with the irreligious left but it has to continue in that direction. Ignoring the church-going Christians as Kerry did until the 2nd debate, won't cut it.

You're really over-simplifying the issue. there is a significant portion of progressive christians. Church-going Christians aren't all born-agains. And not all Christians think like you. Kerry is Catholic and I'm sure a lot of the people on the Democratic ticket are Christians. Your reasoning makes no sense, it's almost as though the only people who can identify as Christians are simply those who preach about it. In other words, utterly assinine.


3. Can we get someone who's more energetic? Not a screamer like Dean but not a lecturer like Kerry.

"Strategery" "Internets" Need I say more?

4. Rove did a couple of things; Typecast Kerry early and viciously with the "flip-flip" and "anti-veteran" rhetoric and mobilize the evangelicals. The Dems need to typecast their opponent in 2008 early and viciously. A particularly contentious primary usually makes that job easier. As for mobilizing the evangelicals, this ties in with #2. Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns. Yes, there is a price to pay to get voted into office.

It's not anti-Christian. You think it's anti-Christian given your views on abortion and same-sex marriage. It's obvious you speak from a Christian-based identity and you assume all Christians think like you. Unfortunately, abortion and same sex Marriage aren't Christian issues. It was created to become a Christian issue. The problem isn't reclaimation, as you put it, the problem is being able to communicate the those values that the Democrats hold clearly and more digestible for, unfortunately, consumption.

[Faithless]

They aren't very divided on the issue.
They don't have to be. All it takes is key Republicans with fiscal common sense to see that Bush's plan sucks. And there are Republicans who see it that way.
.
...
2. IMO, being seen as aligned with the irreligious left is a huge liability. Like it or not church-going Christians outnumber atheists. The Dems have taken steps more recently to disassociate themselves with the irreligious left but it has to continue in that direction. Ignoring the church-going Christians as Kerry did until the 2nd debate, won't cut it.
3. Can we get someone who's more energetic? Not a screamer like Dean but not a lecturer like Kerry.
4. Rove did a couple of things; Typecast Kerry early and viciously with the "flip-flip" and "anti-veteran" rhetoric and mobilize the evangelicals. The Dems need to typecast their opponent in 2008 early and viciously. A particularly contentious primary usually makes that job easier. As for mobilizing the evangelicals, this ties in with #2. Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns. Yes, there is a price to pay to get voted into office.
I like the sting of the phrase "irreligious left". If only it were true. It might be more appropriate to call them the unEvangelic-nutical left.

Tying in with Evangelicals would be stupid. Tying in with good Christians would be fair. Having good Christians point out the Opie-days of Evangelical puritanism would be even better.

[Yeahman]

[QUOTE=ye110man]They aren't very divided on the issue.[/qoute]
yes they are
Then you can place all your hope in the Reps spliting over that one. I won't be holding my breath.

spin, spin, spin, which you are so very good at.
Continue to ignore Rove at your own risk then.

You're really over-simplifying the issue. there is a significant portion of progressive christians. Church-going Christians aren't all born-agains. And not all Christians think like you. Kerry is Catholic and I'm sure a lot of the people on the Democratic ticket are Christians. Your reasoning makes no sense, it's almost as though the only people who can identify as Christians are simply those who preach about it. In other words, utterly assinine.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
Votes by Church attendence:
More Than Weekly: 37% (Dems) 61% (Reps)
Never: 60% (Dems) 36% (Reps)

"Strategery" "Internets" Need I say more?
No, unless you actually have a point to what you're saying.

It's not anti-Christian. You think it's anti-Christian given your views on abortion and same-sex marriage. It's obvious you speak from a Christian-based identity and you assume all Christians think like you. Unfortunately, abortion and same sex Marriage aren't Christian issues. It was created to become a Christian issue. The problem isn't reclaimation, as you put it, the problem is being able to communicate the those values that the Democrats hold clearly and more digestible for, unfortunately, consumption.
This is exactly what I mean. The Dems can't explain their way out of their anti-religious stereotype. They have to demonstrate it on the voters' terms. You can't tell a devout mainline Christian that abortion is not a Christian issue. You can but it'll be pointless. It's like a Republican trying to explain to you that healthcare is not a social issue. The only way to win your vote would be for them to explain that they really do what what you want but vary in method.

They don't have to be.
To divide a party? Yes, they do have to be divided to be divided.

I like the sting of the phrase "irreligious left". If only it were true. It might be more appropriate to call them the unEvangelic-nutical left.

Tying in with Evangelicals would be stupid. Tying in with good Christians would be fair. Having good Christians point out the Opie-days of Evangelical puritanism would be even better.
Whatever terms you want to use, my point was that the Dems need to get away from the anti-religious stereotype. That doesn't mean having to embrace Falwell but it says a lot when a Catholic can't win the Catholic vote.

[hooligan]

This is exactly what I mean. The Dems can't explain their way out of their anti-religious stereotype. They have to demonstrate it on the voters' terms. You can't tell a devout mainline Christian that abortion is not a Christian issue. You can but it'll be pointless. It's like a Republican trying to explain to you that healthcare is not a social issue. The only way to win your vote would be for them to explain that they really do what what you want but vary in method.

LOL, get your point first, preacher. It's a right's issue. I understand a lot of my Christian friends find ways of discussing and believing in the right of choice, but still adhering to their faith. You're just another abortion hardliner that cannot see past your own faith.

[Yeahman]

LOL, get your point first, preacher. It's a right's issue. I understand a lot of my Christian friends find ways of discussing and believing in the right of choice, but still adhering to their faith. You're just another abortion hardliner that cannot see past your own faith.
One cannot believe that abortion is murder and that murder should be outlawed, and still be pro-choice.
So long as you don't understand that you will not understand why the Bush won.
I've tried very hard to take the "personally pro-life but I believe it's a woman's choice" position. I wanted badly to vote for Kerry. I was strongly opposed to the war. If Kerry was just pro-life he would have had my enthusiastic support. But it's an impossible position.

[Faithless]

To divide a party? Yes, they do have to be divided to be divided.
Now that sounds like something Bush would say.

You don't have to divide a group in half to get someone to notice a group's division. You just have to divide it enough such that the most important members are isolated.
.
Whatever terms you want to use, my point was that the Dems need to get away from the anti-religious stereotype. That doesn't mean having to embrace Falwell but it says a lot when a Catholic can't win the Catholic vote.
Well, there's definitely no achieving this with the Evangelical crowd -- save for those who see holes in Bush in other ways.

But to say that there aren't any good Christian groups that supported Kerry would be a mistake, because there were.

It may be that this is played up a lot more -- especially in the red states.

[nola]

I don't think we need a Karl Rove either, what we need to do is come together and seriously bring to light a lot of the shady-ass issues that have been brought up.I agree with this approach. The people can be creative and come up with a way to win that has class. Just bring out the obvious and get people angry.

[hooligan]

I agree with this approach. The people can be creative and come up with a way to win that has class. Just bring out the obvious and get people angry.

I also tend to believe that there's been so much anger and resentment toward some of the audacious things that this administration has done in our name that a lot of people simply don't really care anymore. Personally, I just want them to shut the hell up and go away.

[Arex]

I agree with this approach. The people can be creative and come up with a way to win that has class. Just bring out the obvious and get people angry.
If there's anything that this last election taught me, it's that a lot of people are just too stupid, or too willfully ignorant to perceive or comprehend what should be painfully obvious.

The entire country should have realized that the Iraq invasion has been a disaster. The country should have realized that what we've done over there has done nothing to secure our borders and make us safer from terrorists. The country should have realized that his incredible deficit spending is putting this country's economic health at risk. The country should have realized that Bush's agenda is skewed more in favor of the big fish, than us little guys, despite the paltry few hundred dollar tax cut most of the little guys received. Despite the obviousness of all of this, people were not angry enough to vote Bush out of office.

Based on the above, I think it's clear that at least one reason the Dems lost is because they placed too much of an emphasis on the substantive issues that really affect our country. It should be obvious now that none of that really matters as much as it should. Issues? Forget issues! They should have just run with the characterization that Bush is a coke-sniffing, drunk-driving, draft-dodging, war-mongering daddy's boy who thinks god speaks through him. Win with "class" you say? That's all relative. It's a lot classier to win with a dirty portrayal based on facts, than to win based off of lies (i.e., swift boat veterans).

RX

[nola]

I know all that but if Howard Dean had been nominated instead of boring, sit-on-the-fence John Kerry anger could have won over fear in 2004. The DNC played safe with the corporate-friendly guy instead of the grassroots guy and we lost. That Howard Dean is now DNC Chair can be a good thing if he can communicate well enough about issues and bring out the peoples' anger. It's possible.

[Shuriken]

To me, "Democratic Karl Rove" is an oxymoron.

Although I would not put anything past a politician, of any party, to hold onto power, I can't imagine the Democratic grass roots having the temperament for the down-and-dirty, win-at-all-costs strategy developed by Rove. For example, if the Democrats were running against a war hero, I can't imagine them launching — or tolerating, for that matter — anything as distasteful as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Now, they might try to trivialize that war service in other ways, but I can't imagine the Democratic base supporting such a vicious, mendacious smear campaign.

That, to me, is the real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

[Yeahman]

To me, "Democratic Karl Rove" is an oxymoron.

Although I would not put anything past a politician, of any party, to hold onto power, I can't imagine the Democratic grass roots having the temperament for the down-and-dirty, win-at-all-costs strategy developed by Rove. For example, if the Democrats were running against a war hero, I can't imagine them launching — or tolerating, for that matter — anything as distasteful as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Now, they might try to trivialize that war service in other ways, but I can't imagine the Democratic base supporting such a vicious, mendacious smear campaign.

That, to me, is the real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
puhahahaha
Do you go to DNC indoctrination classes or something?
There was an entire movie on how Bush allowed 9/11 to happen and killed kids flying kites for oil.

[Faithless]

To me, "Democratic Karl Rove" is an oxymoron.

Although I would not put anything past a politician, of any party, to hold onto power, I can't imagine the Democratic grass roots having the temperament for the down-and-dirty, win-at-all-costs strategy developed by Rove. For example, if the Democrats were running against a war hero, I can't imagine them launching — or tolerating, for that matter — anything as distasteful as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Now, they might try to trivialize that war service in other ways, but I can't imagine the Democratic base supporting such a vicious, mendacious smear campaign.

That, to me, is the real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Well, do you want to get back into the White House or not in 2008?

I don't think the dems are beyond attacks of Republican war vets. There is the stuff about Arizona Senator John McCain --

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story22.htm
McCain's use of the words craven, despicable and scam are mighty powerful and poisonous words from a man who admittedly traded "military information" to his communist captors in exchange for better medical treatment--or who divorced the wife that stood by him while he was a POW, after she became crippled in an accident.

[lethal]

Anyway, I honestly want to see the Democratic party return to greatness. Some observations...
1. Being a senator is a real liability. Complex senatorial votes can be seen as flip-flopping or pandering.
2. IMO, being seen as aligned with the irreligious left is a huge liability. Like it or not church-going Christians outnumber atheists. The Dems have taken steps more recently to disassociate themselves with the irreligious left but it has to continue in that direction. Ignoring the church-going Christians as Kerry did until the 2nd debate, won't cut it.
3. Can we get someone who's more energetic? Not a screamer like Dean but not a lecturer like Kerry.
4. Rove did a couple of things; Typecast Kerry early and viciously with the "flip-flip" and "anti-veteran" rhetoric and mobilize the evangelicals. The Dems need to typecast their opponent in 2008 early and viciously. A particularly contentious primary usually makes that job easier. As for mobilizing the evangelicals, this ties in with #2. Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns. Yes, there is a price to pay to get voted into office.

I don't see 2004 as a minor loss for the Dems. It should have been an easy one. Have we ever had a president so hated? How the hell did he win? It can't just be campaign tactics. It was that "values" thing. The Dems have to figure out how to reclaim it. And explinations aren't going to work. They need to show that they're different now. They need to reclaim the values on the peoples' terms. That means making the Dem in 2008 look more Christian and more patriotic than the opponent.

You know, I disagree with ye110man pretty much all the time, but this time I agree with your points.

Whatever the Democrats represent or are believed to represent (fairly or unfairly painted as such by the likes of Karl Rove), it is supported by a minority in this country. Bush should have easily lost, he was that unpopular.

Being a Senator is a large liability. Being from the Northeast or West Coast is a large liability.

My early candidate for the Dems in 2008 is Gov. Mark Warner of VA. If he can win his own state, he can carry the election with the other traditional states.

[Shuriken]

puhahahaha
Do you go to DNC indoctrination classes or something?
There was an entire movie on how Bush allowed 9/11 to happen and killed kids flying kites for oil.

And as I said on a previous post, I think that Faherenheit 9/11's success was due largely to the fact that the movie scrutinized the workings of the Bush administration in a way that the post-9/11 mainstream media was too timid to do. I heard a lot more liberal criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11's excesses than I heard conservative criticism of the anti-Clinton media in its heyday.

Well, do you want to get back into the White House or not in 2008?

To me, that's the eqivalent of saying, "If you want to go to Heaven, you must sell your soul to the Devil."

You may be right, but I'd like to look for a way of regaining power without stooping to Rove's bloodsport.

[nola]

How can we: 1) bring out issues that anger people 2) that also appeal to Christians and 3) stay classy? It can be done. Of course Dems have tried but Repugs smokescreen these issues (like education, health care, affordable housing, child care) with inflammatory sexual ones like abortion and gay marriage. Can Dean, Boxer et al block the smokescreens? That would be smart and non-evil.

[Shuriken]

The entire country should have realized that the Iraq invasion has been a disaster. The country should have realized that what we've done over there has done nothing to secure our borders and make us safer from terrorists. The country should have realized that his incredible deficit spending is putting this country's economic health at risk. The country should have realized that Bush's agenda is skewed more in favor of the big fish, than us little guys, despite the paltry few hundred dollar tax cut most of the little guys received. Despite the obviousness of all of this, people were not angry enough to vote Bush out of office.

A family member told me that in his view, many Americans wanted to go to war with Iraq just to kill some Arabs in revenge for 9/11. Whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks, he thought, was irrelevant because these Americans were just out for blood. Consequently, when Bush's pretext for going to war turned out to be false, they were quick to forgive him. They then voted him back into office for proving that the U.S. will lash out — at anyone convenient — if attacked.

[nola]

Like children in a playground.

Or better yet pre-empt Repuglican smokescreens. We can be aggressive but not evil/dirty.

[Faithless]

Well, do you want to get back into the White House or not in 2008?

To me, that's the eqivalent of saying, "If you want to go to Heaven, you must sell your soul to the Devil."

You may be right, but I'd like to look for a way of regaining power without stooping to Rove's bloodsport.
Well, that's like wishing for the good old days of Mayberry RFD on TV.

It's almost the case of -- "if you can beat 'em, join 'em."

If you've noticed in the Bush Social Security thread, the Swift Boat Veteran ad producers certainly aren't stopping with their tactics -- they want to take shit shoveling to the next level with their association of the AARP with gays.

Now, obviously, I'm not advocating that sort of bullshit, but if the door opens itself, in the case of Jeff Gannon and the Bush Tapes (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=22161) (which show how simple Bush really is), the Democratic Karl Roves got to know how to fucking bust those doors open and let all that shit out. :eek:

[Yeahman]

To me, that's the eqivalent of saying, "If you want to go to Heaven, you must sell your soul to the Devil."
That's what politics is all about. You need to be able to sacrifice some of your principles for the greater good.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

That's what politics is all about. You need to be able to sacrifice some of your principles for the greater good.

or for your own gain. take ur pick~

[Arex]

How can we: 1) bring out issues that anger people 2) that also appeal to Christians and 3) stay classy? It can be done. Of course Dems have tried but Repugs smokescreen these issues (like education, health care, affordable housing, child care) with inflammatory sexual ones like abortion and gay marriage. Can Dean, Boxer et al block the smokescreens? That would be smart and non-evil.That would be smart and non-evil, but given everything that's happened up until now, you really have to wonder whether it's possible for the American public to sift through the issues (or even be spoon-fed the issues) and realize what is and what isn't really important. After all, this is a country where people actually give a rats ass what Paris Hilton does on a daily basis. The sad fact of the matter is that, despite public opinion polls which suggest otherwise, dirty campaigns and smokescreens all work.

RX

[nola]

True.

[loserbutt]

chris lehane

[Shuriken]

Stop being the anti-Christian party. At least give some decent lip-service to Christian concerns. The evangelicals won't vote for someone who can neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns.

On the last point, Kerry was personally opposed to abortion but didn't want to impose that perspective legally upon others. Also, he was against gay marriage but in favor of civil unions. Don't you think it's inaccurate to say that he "neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns"? (I assume you're referring to Kerry. And if you're not, the majority voters' rejection of Kerry's moderation on these issues is troubling.)

On the subject of Democrats and evangelical Christians: If you're the political party of non-discrimination, how do you accommodate those who feel it is their God-given right to discriminate against others, to deny them equal protection under the law?

[Yeahman]

On the last point, Kerry was personally opposed to abortion but didn't want to impose that perspective legally upon others.
That is an indefensible position. Pro-lifers hear "I'm personally opposed to murder but I believe it should be the murder's choice." The change must take place on the voters' terms. It doesn't matter so much what the candidate says he believes as it matters what the voters think he believes.

Also, he was against gay marriage but in favor of civil unions. Don't you think it's inaccurate to say that he "neatly fit into pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage columns"? (I assume you're referring to Kerry. And if you're not, the majority voters' rejection of Kerry's moderation on these issues is troubling.)
I wasn't talking about Kerry in particular. I was talking about the Democratic party. Kerry aknowledged, after the election, that the party should reevaluate their rhetoric concerning abortion. I question the stategy of a national candidate speaking at pro-choice rallies.

On the subject of Democrats and evangelical Christians: If you're the political party of non-discrimination, how do you accommodate those who feel it is their God-given right to discriminate against others, to deny them equal protection under the law?
You don't accommodate them. I'm not saying that the Dems should cater to extremists. Bush's private conversations reflect the opinion of most Christians on discrimination.
"Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?''
"This is an issue that I have been trying to downplay. I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."
"No, what I said was I wouldn't fire gays. I'm not going to discriminate against people."

Biblical Politics (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6981619/site/newsweek/page/2/)
As for the Democrats, there’s no reason they can’t make the Ten Commandments, and the Bible, their own. These days everyone wants to talk about values. But there is plenty in the Old and New Testaments—and in the commandments themselves—for them to cite. End Social Security as we know it? How does that “honor thy father and thy mother”? If the Lord wanted to honor His own creation—and wanted us to do so, too—by observing the Sabbath, what should that say about our respect for His handiwork (a k a the environment)? And of course there is a whole party platform in the social ministry of Jesus—if the Democrats would only get over their reluctance to talk about it.

Ironically, the GOP began connecting to the Bible Belt at precisely the moment when faith-based claims were making their deepest impact on the Democrats. In 1964, the emerging conscience of the Democratic Party was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The civil rights movement he led was based in the churches. Democrats weren’t afraid of that link then, and they shouldn’t be now.

Whither Dean's Dems? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6994480/site/newsweek/)
The Left is uncomfortable talking about spiritual matters, which puzzles Wallis. He points out with wonderment that the Democrats, a party that during the time of the civil rights movement was led by black churches, allowed itself to get defined as secular. "Where would we be if Dr. King had kept his religion to himself?" he asks. The hard truth dawning upon Democrats is that this is a profoundly religious Christian country, and that’s a political reality that will relegate Democrats to the ash heap of history if they don’t figure out how to respond.
Politics is about connecting. It's no accident that the two Democrats elected president in recent years have been Southern Baptists. Jimmy Carter is a born-again evangelical, and Bill Clinton has a deep appreciation and knowledge of religion.
Dean got the job as party leader because he has edge and attitude and conviction. He understands the need to rebuild the party from the grassroots, and that means taking back God’s politics.
Let's hope that Dean really doesn't understand that and follows through with it.

[Yeahman]

Democrats for Life (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050223-082150-2681r.htm)
Get this: The Democrats are thinking of running a couple of pro-life candidates for the U.S. Senate, one in Pennsylvania and the other in Rhode Island.
What a switch: There was a time when a pro-life person -- someone like Pennsylvania's late governor, the sainted Bob Casey -- wasn't even allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Heaven forbid, he might have changed some minds. Can't have that. Free speech has its limits.
As you can well imagine, the pro-abortion faction of the Democratic Party, which used to be the Democratic Party for all political intents and purposes, isn't at all happy these days.
But the Democrats' own Senatorial Campaign Committee can feel the way the political wind is blowing the way a cat can hear you coming up the walk. The committee is flirting with running Bob Casey's popular son and namesake, Robert Casey Jr., in next year's Senate race against Republican Rick Santorum.
Like father, like son: This era's Robert Casey, who's now Pennsylvania's state treasurer, is pro-life, too. And, like his father, he could be a winner.
Hopeful as this news may be for Democrats who would like to pick up a Senate seat, the prospect is anathema to those like Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Ms. Michelman sounds like she's about to pitch a hissy over this revoltin' development. For the Democrats to nominate pro-life candidates, she says, would mean the party is abandoning its "core values." Abortion is now a core value?
Well, why not? There was a time when John C. Calhoun and the master class in general thought slavery a core value of the Democratic Party, and the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds thought racial segregation was. But the party grew beyond the Dred Scott decision, and, in another age, the Southern Manifesto. Why not rise above Roe vs. Wade, too?
Now some leading Democrats realize their party has to change. Adapt or die and all that. Result: The Democrats could be competitive in Pennsylvania's next Senate race. And Rhode Island's, where pro-abortion Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee could be upset by pro-life Democratic Rep. James Langevin.
Political parties may change, but principles don't. Pro-life voters just might follow their conscience wherever it leads, even into the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, still another euphemism has appeared to describe the pro-abortion position. Have you noticed? Pro-Choice seems to fade in favor of Abortion Rights, as in the opening of an article in The Washington Post: "Abortion-rights advocates are fuming over reports that some key Democrats are backing antiabortion candidates in at least two Senate races."
When a political philosophy has to keep changing its name, you know it's in trouble. Pro-Choice, Abortion Rights, what next -- Reproductive Rights? It's as if these folks are searching for a slogan to disguise what they advocate: abortion on demand.
The pro-abortion side even denies it is pro-abortion. It's only pro-choice. It just wants to give people the choice of aborting their children/babies/unborn/fetus/embryo/blastocyst/microscopic glob of cells of no use except for stem cell research/whatever. But the reality of what is described/evaded keeps intruding, like evidence of a bloody crime.
Think about it: People who favor legalized gambling don't insist on being called pro-choice instead of pro-gambling. Maybe because they're not as queasy about what they favor.
We on the other side of this issue have a secret ally not just in the hearts but the minds of our adversaries. How long can they continue to blink away the basic facts of life, of embryology? And of etymology -- the meaning of words?
Here's my theory: This evasive language is a sign those who resort to it aren't really comfortable with what they advocate. That's why they have to call it something else. In a way it speaks well of them; they have a conscience they must lull. Maybe one of these days they'll face up to what they've been rationalizing ... and stop rationalizing it.
That'll be a great day. When it arrives, there'll be a new respect for life in this country. And the solitary courage and steadfast faith over the years of the Bob Caseys, father and son, will be something for a political party to seek, not shun.

[Shuriken]

That is an indefensible position. Pro-lifers hear "I'm personally opposed to murder but I believe it should be the murder's choice."

If you can't see the difference between abortion and murder, then it's no wonder that the discussion is so polarized.


I wasn't talking about Kerry in particular.

My mistake.

"Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?''

What bothers me is that some Christians and conservatives of other faiths see gays as "sinners" just because of who they are romantically attracted to. So, it is a "sin" in itself for one man to love another or one woman to love another, but it is not a sin for George to love Laura.

There was a time when a pro-life person -- someone like Pennsylvania's late governor, the sainted Bob Casey -- wasn't even allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

On an episode of Crossfire, Paul Begala said that Casey wasn't allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention because he did not support the Clinton-Gore ticket, not because of his anti-choice politics. Begala also said that he was there when the decision was made. In Begala's view, this inaccurate anecdote has been repeated ad nauseum by the Republicans to misrepresent how allegedly "intolerant" Democrats are.

[Yeahman]

If you can't see the difference between abortion and murder, then it's no wonder that the discussion is so polarized.
If you can't see the similarity between abortion and murder, then it's no wonder that the discussion is so polarized.

What bothers me is that some Christians and conservatives of other faiths see gays as "sinners" just because of who they are romantically attracted to. So, it is a "sin" in itself for one man to love another or one woman to love another, but it is not a sin for George to love Laura.
There's a difference between love and lust. Love is not sinful, no matter who it is. Even heterosexual lust is sinful.
It isn't the attraction that is sinful. It's the sodomy that's sinful.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

There's a difference between love and lust. Love is not sinful, no matter who it is. Even heterosexual lust is sinful. It isn't the attraction that is sinful. It's the sodomy that's sinful.

So it's okay for a man to love a woman, and it's okay for a man to love another man, but it's only okay to engage in sexual relations if the loved one is one of the opposite sex?

That is an indefensible position. Pro-lifers hear "I'm personally opposed to murder but I believe it should be the murder's choice." The change must take place on the voters' terms. It doesn't matter so much what the candidate says he believes as it matters what the voters think he believes.

I was under the impression that most pro-lifers don't believe abortion is murder. As far as where I stand, it revolves around whether or not abortion is murder or not, which I still stand undecided on. But if sometime in the future I came to the conclusion that abortion is indeed murder, then I would have no problem opposing it unless the woman's life was in danger as well.

[Yeahman]

So it's okay for a man to love a woman, and it's okay for a man to love another man, but it's only okay to engage in sexual relations if the loved one is one of the opposite sex?
Pretty much.

I was under the impression that most pro-lifers don't believe abortion is murder. As far as where I stand, it revolves around whether or not abortion is murder or not, which I still stand undecided on. But if sometime in the future I came to the conclusion that abortion is indeed murder, then I would have no problem opposing it unless the woman's life was in danger as well.
Most pro-lifers don't believe abortion is murder? Why would they be pro-life then?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Pretty much.


Most pro-lifers don't believe abortion is murder? Why would they be pro-life then?

Sorry my mistake. I meant, I was under the impression that most pro-choicers don't believe abortion is murder~

Pretty much.

So how do you reconcile the fact that while romantic love may be allowed between all people regardless of whether it's male on male, male on female, female on female, etc., one of God's greatest gifts for those who have committed themselves to each other for life (sexual activity) is not allowed regardless of any committment or romantic love between people of the same sex? Do you believe that gays can choose to be straight if they really wanted to through prayer or returning to the church? Do you believe that gays are born gay, influenced by their environment, or both? Or is this all irrelevant to you because of your full faith in the authority of scripture and the church?

I guess I still have mixed feelings about this topic, and my opinions will nevertheless (and have) piss some people off. I'm just interested in hearing other Christians explain their stances.

[Yeahman]

So how do you reconcile the fact that while romantic love may be allowed between all people regardless of whether it's male on male, male on female, female on female, etc., one of God's greatest gifts for those who have committed themselves to each other for life (sexual activity) is not allowed regardless of any committment or romantic love between people of the same sex? Do you believe that gays can choose to be straight if they really wanted to through prayer or returning to the church? Do you believe that gays are born gay, influenced by their environment, or both? Or is this all irrelevant to you because of your full faith in the authority of scripture and the church?
I don't believe sodomy is one of God's greatest gifts. Perhaps it can be considered a misuse of God's gift.
Gays can try to be straight if they really wanted to. I don't know how successful they would be. At any rate, they can certainly refrain from homosexual acts.
I believe that homosexuality is part nature and part nuture. But to me that debate isn't too important. There are those who are born with disorders. There are those who are born more violent than others. I don't think we should somehow act like violence is OK when commited by those who have naturally more violent tendencies. God allows disorders and disease and hardship. But I believe that we write our own tickets to hell. And I say "we" because I too have written my ticket to hell. Everyone has, gay or straight.
Most anti-Christians and even some Christians mistakenly believe that Christianity teaches that homosexuals are more deserving of eternal damnation. The point of Christianity is that everyone is deserving of eternal damnation but through Christ one can be saved. But that doesn't allow us to accept sin. I think what the Bible Belt is pissed off about is that our society is telling us that it's OK to sin.

[Shuriken]

There's a difference between love and lust. Love is not sinful, no matter who it is. Even heterosexual lust is sinful.

Where does "love" end and "lust" begin? Would heterosexual romantic love be as we know it without the reproductive urge? And since we often participate in sex without the intent to reproduce (not right away, at least), maybe that's nature's way of telling us that sex isn't all about reproduction, that it has its own intrinsic value.

In my book, sexual attraction — "lust" — is, in and of itself, a good thing. As someone I know once said, "Sexual desire is the life force." May the force be with you.

Sexual attraction becomes a bad thing only if you assert that attraction upon someone who is unwilling or you make a jerk out of yourself by displaying it. That goes for both gay and straight behavior.

It isn't the attraction that is sinful. It's the sodomy that's sinful.

And this is the great anti-gay legalsim: Homosexuality is behavior. In this way, anti-gay activists can maintain that being homosexual is not what one is, but what one does. By treating homosexuality as an activity (like smoking), rather than as being (like race), this makes it easier to discriminate against gay people.

What if heterosexuality were held to the same standard? "You can be attracted to her, boy, but don't ever, ever have sex with her, even if she's a consenting adult!" Heterosexuality would lose its meaning. It's true that people can form romantic attachments without sexual activity, but these are very much the exception. And although romantic love can endure after a couple has grown old together and stopped having sex, sex is part of what's strengthened their relationship in the past.

Another good comparison is hunger with eating. "It's not the appetite that's sinful, but the consumption of the food." You know what happens to people who are hungry and don't eat, don't you? They die of starvation.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Most anti-Christians and even some Christians mistakenly believe that Christianity teaches that homosexuals are more deserving of eternal damnation. The point of Christianity is that everyone is deserving of eternal damnation but through Christ one can be saved. But that doesn't allow us to accept sin. I think what the Bible Belt is pissed off about is that our society is telling us that it's OK to sin.

Of course I'm in agreement with you on this. We're both Christian after all. Nevertheless I'd like to note though that while the Bible Belt may be pissed off that the general public is growing more and more open towards accepting what they view as sinful practices via the enactment of policy, there are many who believe that homosexual practices are not sinful, either because they are not Christian, not religious, not fundamentalist, whatever. Is it ok or not ok to sin? Well, first of all, we have to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees on what is sin and what isn't. Not everyone follows the same religious text, and not everyone shares a similar moral framework despite high stances of overlap (Most of us agree that senseless killing, murder, or stealing is wrong, for example, religious or atheist). If you're naturally attracted to men, it's gonna be pretty damn tough for you to come to the conclusion that having sex with another man you have committed yourself to for life (who is also just as committed to you) is sinful. Backing up a bit here...

I don't believe sodomy is one of God's greatest gifts. Perhaps it can be considered a misuse of God's gift.
Gays can try to be straight if they really wanted to. I don't know how successful they would be. At any rate, they can certainly refrain from homosexual acts.
I believe that homosexuality is part nature and part nuture. But to me that debate isn't too important. There are those who are born with disorders. There are those who are born more violent than others. I don't think we should somehow act like violence is OK when commited by those who have naturally more violent tendencies. God allows disorders and disease and hardship.

I guess this is the part that I am still working on. I can't say I completely disagree with you because I don't. But I think one of the biggest problems people have with this argument is that it assumes the base notion that homosexuality is a disorder or something that God allowed into the world in the form of a disease or hardship. Frankly as far as I stand, the jury is still out on this.

Sociology classes will teach that the vast majority of us fall in between a spectrum with 100% gay on one end and 100% straight on the other, with mechanisms of socialization drawing most (or many) of us to conform towards the "straight" end over time. I have trouble accepting this, because I can't imagine being anything but 100% straight, and I don't remember ever conforming or trying hard to be attracted to women because it came just so naturally for me. However, a lot of gays will argue the exact same thing from their experiences and point of view, and since I'm not really in their shoes, I'm always very hesitant to strike down their perspective(s) as either moot or invalid.

[Yeahman]

Where does "love" end and "lust" begin?
I don't think we can even arrive at a common definition of "love", much less compare and constrast it with other feelings.

Would heterosexual romantic love be as we know it without the reproductive urge? And since we often participate in sex without the intent to reproduce (not right away, at least), maybe that's nature's way of telling us that sex isn't all about reproduction, that it has its own intrinsic value.
Huh? We would like to do lots of things without the negative consequences. That doesn't say much about nature.

In my book, sexual attraction — "lust" — is, in and of itself, a good thing. As someone I know once said, "Sexual desire is the life force." May the force be with you.

Sexual attraction becomes a bad thing only if you assert that attraction upon someone who is unwilling or you make a jerk out of yourself by displaying it. That goes for both gay and straight behavior.
Lust goes beyond sexual attraction. I would say that there's something seriously wrong if a husband and wife had no sexual attraction. Lust is understood, by Christians, to be a desire detached from love.

And this is the great anti-gay legalsim: Homosexuality is behavior. In this way, anti-gay activists can maintain that being homosexual is not what one is, but what one does. By treating homosexuality as an activity (like smoking), rather than as being (like race), this makes it easier to discriminate against gay people.
I was saying exactly the opposite. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is mearly an attraction and there is nothing sinful about it. But ACTS like homosexual sex or any sex outside of marriage, is what's sinful.

What if heterosexuality were held to the same standard? "You can be attracted to her, boy, but don't ever, ever have sex with her, even if she's a consenting adult!" Heterosexuality would lose its meaning. It's true that people can form romantic attachments without sexual activity, but these are very much the exception. And although romantic love can endure after a couple has grown old together and stopped having sex, sex is part of what's strengthened their relationship in the past.
Romantic love without sex is rare? Even heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful.

Another good comparison is hunger with eating. "It's not the appetite that's sinful, but the consumption of the food." You know what happens to people who are hungry and don't eat, don't you? They die of starvation.
I never heard of anyone dying from lack of sex.

Of course I'm in agreement with you on this. We're both Christian after all. Nevertheless I'd like to note though that while the Bible Belt may be pissed off that the general public is growing more and more open towards accepting what they view as sinful practices via the enactment of policy, there are many who believe that homosexual practices are not sinful, either because they are not Christian, not religious, not fundamentalist, whatever. Is it ok or not ok to sin? Well, first of all, we have to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees on what is sin and what isn't. Not everyone follows the same religious text, and not everyone shares a similar moral framework despite high stances of overlap (Most of us agree that senseless killing, murder, or stealing is wrong, for example, religious or atheist). If you're naturally attracted to men, it's gonna be pretty damn tough for you to come to the conclusion that having sex with another man you have committed yourself to for life (who is also just as committed to you) is sinful. Backing up a bit here...
As a social libertarian I have much less of a problem with this than some other Christians. I opposed the anti-sodomy laws. Let people sin if they choose to so long as it doesn't harm others. I think most Christians would agree with this. But at the same time they can still be pissed that society is becoming more accepting of sin. Sure we don't have to punish sodomy, but I still don't want it to be taught as acceptable in schools and in the media.

I also think that it's hard for heterosexuals to think that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful. Yet millions believe it.

I guess this is the part that I am still working on. I can't say I completely disagree with you because I don't. But I think one of the biggest problems people have with this argument is that it assumes the base notion that homosexuality is a disorder or something that God allowed into the world in the form of a disease or hardship. Frankly as far as I stand, the jury is still out on this.

Sociology classes will teach that the vast majority of us fall in between a spectrum with 100% gay on one end and 100% straight on the other, with mechanisms of socialization drawing most (or many) of us to conform towards the "straight" end over time. I have trouble accepting this, because I can't imagine being anything but 100% straight, and I don't remember ever conforming or trying hard to be attracted to women because it came just so naturally for me. However, a lot of gays will argue the exact same thing from their experiences and point of view, and since I'm not really in their shoes, I'm always very hesitant to strike down their perspective(s) as either moot or invalid.
I think that it would be really difficult to argue against a general natural human tendency towards heteroseuxality with homoseuxality as the exception.

[Shuriken]

I don't think we can even arrive at a common definition of "love", much less compare and constrast it with other feelings.

With all due respect, this answer seems to avoid the question. Since you make such a sharp distinction between "love" and "lust," one should have a clear understanding of these concepts.

***

This discussion is going off on a tangent. However, it's not completely unrelated to the stated subject of the thread because the feelings and opinions stated by ye110man are among those exploited by Rove for political advantage.

What this mini-discussion highlights is that "sin" is a religious concept, a concept that not all religions share. Therefore, it is inappropriate for our secular government to legislate on a particular issue solely because something is a "sin"; it should be problematic in other respects as well. Otherwise, what would stop Congress from criminalizing the eating of pork because it is a "sin" in the Muslim faith? That's not to say that ye110man's issues are problematic only in a religious sense (to him, at least), but their problems ought to be understood in terms other than religious ones.

For example, I don't think that it is inherently wrong for a romantic couple to see other people — as long as it is clearly understood by the couple and their partners that theirs is an open relationship. Now, this does not describe the vast majority of romantic relationships, which are understood to be monogamous. Indeed, if a couple were in a monogamous relationship, one cheating on the other would be wrong because it would be inconsiderate of the other's feelings. This sense of wrongness, however, is different from "sin."

[hooligan]

So it's okay for a man to love a woman, and it's okay for a man to love another man, but it's only okay to engage in sexual relations if the loved one is one of the opposite sex?

PFFT, the bible never said anything about fellatio or cunnilingus.

With all due respect, this answer seems to avoid the question. Since you make such a sharp distinction between "love" and "lust," one should have a clear understanding of these concepts.

***

This discussion is going off on a tangent. However, it's not completely unrelated to the stated subject of the thread because the feelings and opinions stated by ye110man are among those exploited by Rove for political advantage.

What this mini-discussion highlights is that "sin" is a religious concept, a concept that not all religions share. Therefore, it is inappropriate for our secular government to legislate on a particular issue solely because something is a "sin"; it should be problematic in other respects as well. Otherwise, what would stop Congress from criminalizing the eating of pork because it is a "sin" in the Muslim faith? That's not to say that ye110man's issues are problematic only in a religious sense (to him, at least), but their problems ought to be understood in terms other than religious ones.

For example, I don't think that it is inherently wrong for a romantic couple to see other people — as long as it is clearly understood by the couple and their partners that theirs is an open relationship. Now, this does not describe the vast majority of romantic relationships, which are understood to be monogamous. Indeed, if a couple were in a monogamous relationship, one cheating on the other would be wrong because it would be inconsiderate of the other's feelings. This sense of wrongness, however, is different from "sin."

ye110's a born-again. he speaks and writes from a very conservative christian point of view, i think everyone here knows that, everyone but him.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

ye110's a born-again. he speaks and writes from a very conservative christian point of view, i think everyone here knows that, everyone but him.

Born-again does not equal fundamentalist nor conservative. I'm a born-again, and I'm one of those Christians that believes that someone isn't really a Christian until they are born again. Some of my views are conservative, some are not so conservative.

[YuheiCarreau]

PFFT, the bible never said anything about fellatio or cunnilingus.

Actually, I believe those acts, along with anal sex, are defined as "sodomy" in the bible.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Actually, I believe those acts, along with anal sex, are defined as "sodomy" in the bible.

Depends on who you ask. Some theologists and theology professors teach the word "sodomy" directly translated in the context of original scripture as "rape" or forced unconsensual sexual activity. Not sure how you arrive at that, it's just what I've heard.

[Yeahman]

This discussion is going off on a tangent. However, it's not completely unrelated to the stated subject of the thread because the feelings and opinions stated by ye110man are among those exploited by Rove for political advantage.
And those that the Dems have thus far failed to understand resulting in the embarrassment of 2004.

What this mini-discussion highlights is that "sin" is a religious concept, a concept that not all religions share. Therefore, it is inappropriate for our secular government to legislate on a particular issue solely because something is a "sin"; it should be problematic in other respects as well. Otherwise, what would stop Congress from criminalizing the eating of pork because it is a "sin" in the Muslim faith? That's not to say that ye110man's issues are problematic only in a religious sense (to him, at least), but their problems ought to be understood in terms other than religious ones.
I explicitly stated that I think the state should allow people to sin so long as they don't harm others.
You have a religious belief that humans obtain rights at birth. I do not share that religious belief and so I don't think the murder of fetuses should be allowed.

ye110's a born-again. he speaks and writes from a very conservative christian point of view, i think everyone here knows that, everyone but him.
I'm a born-again? Never even heard that term used for Catholics and have never used it myself, but if you say so...

I speak and write from a Christian point of view. Obviously. And I'm pretty conservative in my religious views. But that doesn't mean I'm politically conservative. I opposed the anti-sodomy laws. I'm for the legalization of prostitution and laxer drug laws. For reducing the drinking age to 18. As the political compass test showed, I'm a social libertarian and an economic moderate.

[kimpossible]

I've often wondered what The Rev would be like stoned.

[Yeahman]

Who's the Rev? Me? I just get lazy when I'm stoned.

[kimpossible]

Most often I picture you behind a podium, banging on it for effect every once in a while to emphasize your point, preaching thunderously. Then I added myself in a front row pew with a long stick, some twine and a joint that would allow me to kinda tease it at you like I do with the cats and their catnip toys on a stick.

During your thunderous preaching, your nostrils flare a bit and you begin to pause every now and then to test the air for a new scent, one that distracts you from your sermon. Eventually, you toke up and we see The Rev slide over into High Catholic Pie mode and the thunder slows to a light snooze where you jerk awake for a moment mumbling Democrats!... and cultural Catholics... interspersed with giggles.

[Yeahman]

hahahahaha
I'm a terrible public speaker and I'm not a very emotional person.
I think everyone here would be really surprised if they got to know me in person. If we stayed away from religion or abortion talk, I could easily be mistaken for a liberal.
Picture a tattooed guy with spiked hair in a wifebeater with a cigarette in one hand and a Coors Light in the other and multiple piercings listening to ODB. That's me. I kid you not.

[hooligan]

I just want to add that I'm sorry for all the born-again Christians that I offended by labeling ye110man one.

re: kim, LOL, don't you think it kind of defeats the purpose if you're undercover and you say you're a mod?

[kimpossible]

Picture a tattooed guy with spiked hair in a wifebeater with a cigarette in one hand and a Coors Light in the other and multiple piercings listening to ODB. That's me. I kid you not.

sexxay. but only if you live in a trailer with some junked out appliances rusting in the front 'yard'

[Yeahman]

OK I don't look like trailer trash either. I wear Hugo Boss, DKNY...
And I don't chill out in the yard. I go to the bars, lounges, and clubs just like any other New Yorker.

[kimpossible]

jeez, i was joking!

[Yeahman]

I know.

[Shuriken]

You have a religious belief that humans obtain rights at birth.

I think a fetus becomes a baby the moment that the woman carrying it decides to deliver it. What made the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child doubly tragic was that she, evidently, was looking forward to his arrival. But it was dismaying to see this tragedy manipulated by Republican lawmakers to pass "Laci Peterson's Law," which made it a federal crime to kill a fetus, whether viable or not, when attacking a pregnant woman. This law wasn't so much about protecting pregnant women, as its advocates claimed, as it was about granting the fetus personhood under law, thus undermining a plank in Roe vs. Wade.

I am in favor of limiting late-term abortions, something supported by Roe. I am also theoretically in favor of parental notification of minors having abortions — though I am at a loss when it comes to the case of those girls who would rather risk an unsafe abortion than notify their parents.

So, no, I wouldn't say I believe that humans obtain rights only when they're born.

[Shuriken]

WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE UP AGAINST IN TODAY'S G.O.P.

by Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


Many Democrats still don't grasp what they're up against in today's Republican Party.

Naive souls, they prefer to see national politics as a giant PTA meeting, and to comfort themselves with civics text bromides about the virtues of compromise and bipartisanship. Even in the face of the Clinton impeachment and the naked power play that decided the 2000 presidential election, they have trouble comprehending the sheer ruthlessness of the GOP political juggernaut.

This is nothing new. Even during FDR's presidency, Will Rogers joked that he belonged to no organized political party: He was a Democrat. Today, however, the party simply must learn to effectively counter the well-organized army of think-tank, opinion page and cable TV propagandists who parrot the GOP party line, no matter how illogical or preposterous.

In effect, organizations like FOX News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing talk radio are simply adjuncts of the Republican Party. To this add scores of Washington pundits often employed by tycoon-financed "think tanks" such as the American Heritage Institute, Cato Foundation, etc. For all the braying about "liberal media bias," which may be the most successful GOP "spin point," Democrats simply have no equivalent propaganda machine.

Unlike Democrats, typically all over the place, Republican-oriented pundits agree almost all the time--and not just substantively, but tactically, too. Faxes and e-mails go out from the Republican National Committee, and GOP sophists jump into line like the Rockettes.

According to David Brock, the onetime Republican "hit man" whose book, The Republican Noise Machine, explains exactly how the system works, the White House's "explicit goal is to get us to the point where there are blue [state] facts and red [state] facts."

Judging by my e-mail, it's working. Hardly a day passes that I don't hear from perfectly decent, intelligent citizens who believe that there's proof Saddam's WMD were smuggled into Syria or that documents implicating him in 9/11 have been found. This was Orwell's great fear: that the very concept of objectivity would disappear from political discourse. "Collective solipsism," he called it; the ability to convince people that 2 + 2 = 5.

A few recent examples:

—George W. Bush nominates a black woman as secretary of state, and pundits who have spent their careers decrying "political correctness" argue as one that Democrats opposing her must be hypocritical bigots.

—He nominates for attorney general a guy who rationalized torture, and that man's ethnicity, too, becomes his only necessary credential. Only after Alberto Gonzales is confirmed by the Senate do some GOP pundits rediscover their consciences.

—A former male escort infiltrates the White House press corps via the buddy system, and the very pundits who just months ago warned that Democrats would enshrine the "homosexual agenda" go silent. Or they pretend not to understand the difference between a gay reporter and a gay prostitute. No fatwa issues from radical clerics like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson; James Dobson keeps railing about the imagined sexual proclivities of a cartoon sponge.

What do such examples tell us? First, that neither the Bush White House nor most GOP pundits actually give a flying filigree about "political correctness," " family values, "" moral clarity" or any of it. What counts is winning. What counts is power.

One more example: Last week, I wrote that Howard Dean, recently elected chair of the Democratic National Committee, appears capable of giving his party a wake-up call because he's scrappy, smart and fearless. Hence, the GOP party line on Dean is that he's a snobbish elitist and an advocate of cultural decadence. Also crazy, because, as we all know, anybody who sees through Bush must be consumed by anger and hatred.

A GOP columnist for my hometown Arkansas Democrat-Gazette took offense. On cue, he described Dean supporters as "shrill," "radical-left" "wacko," etc.

"[W]hen Dean bemoans the success of Republican appeals on ' God, guns and gays, '" the fellow chided, "he forgets that most Americans still believe in God, don't want gay marriage and do want to keep their guns."

Now anybody dumb enough to think Dean (or any American politician) has declared himself anti-God quit reading long ago. But it's a fact that Dean was the only Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 to get an A rating from the National Rifle Association. He jokes that Vermont has only two gun laws: You can't take a gun to school, and you can't carry a loaded gun in a car because it's unfair to deer.

As Vermont governor, Dean opposed gay marriage. "Marriage is between a man and a woman," he said. "... Most Americans aren't going to support gay marriage, but most Americans will support equal rights."

Know what? I'd wager that my antagonist, a college professor, knew all that. (I'd also entertain a side bet that this particular left-wing elitist owns more firearms than he does.) But in the fashion of Republican pundits everywhere, he played his audience for suckers.

***

Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

[Faithless]

That's what I'm talkin' about!

You've got to give the Republican political machine it's props in this respect: They have caused the Dems to back-down from their ideals in order for the Dems to stay in office.

The Dems need to get back on the offensive. Watching the political play between Republicans and Democrats is a little like watching a pro Hockey game. You got the Repubs doing all sorts of rough-housing, like bashing people against the walls, and you have the Dems taking it -- not getting knocked-out -- but then not returning the favor with a figurative back of the shirt grab and repetitive blows to the body:
* Homophobe! Whack, whack, whack!
* War mongers! Whack, whack, whack!