Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, October 05, 2007
Matt Towery :: Townhall.com Columnist
New Survey: "Religious Conservatives" A Shrinking Influence Among Voters
by Matt Towery
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A new survey of the five states that will hold caucuses or primaries prior to February's "Tsunami Tuesday" indicates the so-called "religious right" is a shrinking force among Republicans who say they will vote in their states' presidential primaries.

The poll offered significant indications that the new makeup of Republican voters is no longer that of a party dominated by social- or religious-based voters.

Last year, incumbent Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, who was viewed by most as a moderate conservative, drubbed former Alabama Justice Roy Moore, who championed the cause of keeping the 10 Commandments at an Alabama courthouse.

In Georgia, former Christian Coalition national director Ralph Reed was solidly defeated in a bid for his state's nomination for lieutenant governor. In fact, Georgia's true Christian Coalition actually disbanded and regrouped under a different name.

Throughout the so-called Bible Belt, GOP voters were showing a strong inkling that while they may be intensely religious, they aren't as interested in mixing politics and personal religious beliefs as some pundits might think.

Here is the rundown of the new polls. Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion survey of each of the states had at least 700-plus respondents. In most states, the number was well over 1,000, meaning the margin of error for each of the polls was a very tight plus-or-minus 3 percentage points. Each poll interviewed likely Republican voters and was weighted for age, race and gender.

Our survey asked likely Republican presidential primary voters in these critical early states if, in their political philosophy, they are primarily:

A conservative based on religious-based or related considerations

A conservative in general

A moderate conservative

A moderate

In every state, the vast majority of voters described themselves as being somewhere between "general conservative" to "moderate." In fact, in both New Hampshire and Michigan, nearly half of those who responded said they were either "moderate conservative" or "conservative."

Here are the percentages, by state, of those Republicans who said their own political philosophy was "primarily religious-based conservative": Florida, 28 percent; South Carolina, 38 percent; Michigan, 27 percent; New Hampshire, 17 percent; Iowa, 35 percent.

There is a clear pattern here. Almost all of these percentages for each state were either below or equal to President Bush's national approval rating. That's not to suggest there is a direct correlation. Rather, it places into perspective just how much less significant this particular sector of the GOP is now than it was in past election cycles.

After all, if President Bush's approval rating -- mid-30s percent range -- is considered a disaster, then numbers this low for a group of voters who once dominated the GOP's agenda must be viewed as equally disappointing.

Ironically, these numbers come in the exact same week that The Wall Street Journal carried a front-page story describing the loss of corporate and business support for Republicans.

So if business is bailing and the so-called religious right dwindling in influence, who really is the potential driving force for a GOP candidate for president? The answer is, those who are a little more moderate on social issues, but adamant when it comes to matters that impact their pocketbooks and personal circumstances.

What most Republican candidates don't realize is that the housing market, real tax reform, job security and other matters that impact peoples' day-to-day lives are far more significant to these voters than many of the issues GOP candidates, in pandering to an increasingly dwindling party base, have focused on.

Who is helped by this shift in the makeup of the GOP electorate? The answer is, every candidate. Republicans vying for their party's nomination are now free to spend their time addressing our nation's monetary and trade issues; how to help those caught in the "credit crunch"; ways to deal with illegal immigration in a manner that has real teeth; and ways to create stability in and ultimate departure from Iraq.

Does this mean the GOP has suddenly shifted from a party of saints to one of sinners? No. What it does mean is that most Republicans probably feel like those stuck on the Titanic: their faith and prayers in their minds, but right now they are looking for a lifeboat.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Matt Towery's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
The Deciders

The corporate owners of The Unified Establishment Party* are already shifting funding from Rudy to Hillary. They don't care which one wins. They win either way. The RNC and the DNC are two divisions under the same ownership. The cheap labor express will be kept running, regardless of the will of the people.

That is, unless we nominate and elect someone who actually WILL secure the border and enforce the laws. It's up to us to save the GOP from itself and bring it back to its principles. The "handlers" have to be shown the door by voting your conscience in the primaries. Stop listening to the spin and hype, decide for yourself who best represents your values. If a cross-dressing, former mayor of a sanctuary city who marches in gay pride parades reflects your values, vote for Rudy. If that does not reflect your values, figure out who does and vote accordingly. We can nominate someone other than the MSM's choice. It's our country, we are the deciders.

*(h/t Pasadena Phil)

Perhaps
1. Perhaps there never were as many self identified religious/social conservatives (SIRSCs) in the GOP as once claimed. Perhaps their "power" was just made up by the media, like that of other supposedly powerful groups (i.e. soccer moms, angry white males etc.).

2. Perhaps there are just as many SIRSCs as there ever were, but they are cagily letting opponents underestimate them (again).

3. Perhaps SIRSCs are tired of being portrayed as unsophisticated rubes and are not answering pollsters' questions.

4. Perhaps the percentage of SIRSCs among likely GOP voters is down not because fewer likely GOP voters identify themselves as SIRSCs, but rather because fewer SIRSCs identify themselves as likely GOP voters.

It has long been my observation the it is far more likely for a SIRSC to also be an economic conservatve than vice versa. The contempt that RINOs show to SIRSCs is deplorable and will eventually be the end of the party. Give the DEMS credit, one thing they know how to do is hold a coalition together. The GOP should be united, but the elitists show so much contempt for SIRSCs that they will eventually leave.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Towery drew the wrong conclusion
This column is like saying you hit the switch because the light came on.

Surveying self-professed Republicans misses a large part of the picture: conservatives who no longer consider themselves Republicans.

Is it merely a coincidence that as the GOP shifts away from conservatism, it is also losing the whopping margins by which it used to win elections, and is actually now LOSING them?

Hell no.

This guy has totally reversed the cause and the effect.

the shot.
I think the country is tired of the Evangelical presidents, I'll not vote for one again. They talk like Culted drones.
My life will be just fine no matter who's in office.
I've a had a business for over 20 years, and no president or party has had any effect on it, or me.
I believe in the lord! Is that good enough lord, now pass me that big wad of sweaty cash the drones keep sending me to stand up in front of a large group, push on their heads, and say "Devil come out them!"
"What? I can't hear the hidden speaker in my ear is not working, I don't know who to heal,(swindle)." They make me sick.
Yea, your one of the Lords ministers, not!
I keep looking in my bible to see where it says "I was called in my heart."
Never seen that in the bible, but if not we can make it up can't we.

Do ALL of ANY group
ALWAYS vote the SAME WAY?

NO!!!!!

Do I tell my business over the phone??

NO!!!!

Convultuted
Matt is a good pollster and I appreciate his work. However, I am not sure I agree with his conclusions.

"Primarily religious-based conservative": Florida, 28 percent; South Carolina, 38 percent; Michigan, 27 percent; New Hampshire, 17 percent; Iowa, 35 percent: these are very large percentages. Since there is no bench mark or previous study to compare with in 2000 or so. How can you conclude that the Party is losing social conservatives or that they are becoming less conservative?

Bush's approval ratings are irrelevant as indicators of "primarily religious-based conservatives". All kinds of conservatives support Bush. Mostly it is the military conservatives who are supporting him.

All studies I have seen say that social conservatives are the largest block of Rep voters.

Matt why don't you run some cluster routines on the data and see what you get. Cluster analysis is an art form so can make the data state what you want. However, I am sure social conservatives are still the largest group of Reps and it's heart and soul.

Everyone loves a Know it all..
Even those genius pollsters have been known to get it all wrong.

Who cares what they think?

Anyway, things happen..

BrianR
I have to agree. Towery is part of the Republican Party elite and one of the ones who STILL hasn't got the message. There NEVER has been a wide group of people that the MSM refers to as the "religious right". Even at the height of this mania you could have gone to a Baptist Church in Tupelo, Mississippi and asked people as the came out after services, "are you part of the religious right" and you would have got NO answers from 9 out of 10 people. He forgets that Ralph Reed was involved in a corruption case.

What CONSERVATIVES want is people who vote CONSERVATIVE. Attention Matt if you follow up on these columns, this is what we want, in the order of MY preferences:
Someone who:
1. Will follow the Constitution as it is written and appoint judges in a like manner. (Note, this will encompass a lot of the below items also).
2. Supports the 2nd Amendment
3. Believes and advocates America first when dealing with foreign nations. One who would support leaving the UN.
4. Continue the war on terrorists, as opposed to making it a law enforcement issue. Generally supports the military.
5. Enforce the borders.
6. Is against big government socialism in ALL of it’s aspects. Believes in the 10th Amendment.
7. Is honest and forthright with the people. He can have moral lapses but evidence of dishonesty and corruption are big downers.

Since there aren't that many of us
Then you won't mind if we either stay home or take our votes elsewhere, right Matt?

Actually, it's too late. I left the party a few years ago, and my parents have finally followed suit.

Tell me, what is it about those social conservatives that have been stopping you from enacting those tough, conservative monetary and trade policies all this time?

Who's kidding who, Matt?

President Hillary you want? President Hillary you got.


Earnest Will
Great to see your post. You are the first poster i note who claims to be a member of the so-called religious right who has left the GOP. Would you tell me more? How did you vote in 06, or not at all? What are your plans for 08? What would it take to get you back in the voting booth voting conservative?

Categorical Error
If that's the survey:

"A conservative based on religious-based or related considerations
"A conservative in general
"A moderate conservative
"A moderate"

then it exhibits a serious categorical error. The first asks a question of type, the last 3 degree.

The following would be categorically sound: Are you primarily (might be all 3 but)...

* A conservative based on religious-based or related considerations (social conservative)
* A conservative based on limited government or related considerations (fiscal conservative)
* A conservative based on security or related considerations (neoconservative)

And then indicate degree as strong, moderate, weak.

That's where you see party fault lines, the fusion of those principles.

Remember the Silent Majority
The Republican Party won't know until the votes are in who they will vote for. I'm guessing it won't be Guiliani.

What is A Religious Conservative?
Is this a two-word phrase or two separate adjectives? I get confused. Is Dobson one of those or is he a Religious Socialist? I would like for writers to use this phrase as well. It would better define the candidate or person. Oh well. Towery writes:"...the loss of corporate and business support for Republicans..." Why should those groups not switch from the Republicans since some of those candidates are talking about shutting down our borders. That is anti-NAFTA and violates the principles of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderbergs. Did you know that the Governor of Kansas gave a speech at the last meeting of the Bilderbergers? Someone has got the Amero highway from Mexico to Canada via Kansas going faster. It obviously is not going fast enough to get the Chinese goods through the Mexican west ports to Canada and South America.

Mr. Towery
I was searching for your motivation in writing this "PIECE".I finally realized, that it was a "VEILED" attempt to discount the opinions of the religious right.But,then I said,NAH...Are we becoming a little anxious about our "FUTURE"?You don't wear "DESPERATION" WELL!

Breaking the silence
Finally, someone on the Right has the courage to break the silence and speak the truth: The Religious Right is simply not that popular, even in the "Bible Belt." Many in the GOP -- like myself -- are tired of people like James Dobson and Gary Bauer presuming to speak for us. They don't. They are a minority group.

My two cents
I think Matt has misread or mispolled. Most Christians consider themselves "Conservatives" not Republicans; and, as conservatives we are pretty depressed about how congress & White House spent like crazy and has marginalized and frittered away other conservative principles.

What? No mention of Craig?
What is this? Day 2 after Republican Senator Larry (the friendliest guy you'll ever meet in a toilet stall) Craig vows to stay on in the Senate and not one mention of it on Town Hall. Where's the outrage? Imagine if he were a Democrat.

two cheers for economic conservatism
"who really is the potential driving force for a GOP candidate for president? The answer is, those who are a little more moderate on social issues, but adamant when it comes to matters that impact their pocketbooks and personal circumstances."

That describes me to a T.

I am a type of voter that has become nearly extinct in the GOP since the 1990's: I'm socially moderate but I am an economic conservative and I am quite hawkish on battling radical Islam.

In fact, I'm still for free trade among nations, even though surveys are showing that social conservatives are quite partial to protectionism these days.

We economic conservatives were the driving factor behind the Reagan landslide of 1980--the economy was the biggest issue that year (with foreign policy a close second). Not abortion. I hope the GOP can get back to its winning roots.

Vic
I totally agree with all the points you made..that's exactly how I feel.

Garageman-I believe in God and Jesus Christ but am not an active church goer. Your post
"Many in the GOP -- like myself -- are tired of people like James Dobson and Gary Bauer presuming to speak for us. They don't. They are a minority group."
Ditto for me also.

for singLOUD
singLOUD writes: "Perhaps there never were as many self identified religious/social conservatives (SIRSCs) in the GOP as once claimed. Perhaps their "power" was just made up by the media"

FALSE.

The Christian evangelicals were politically powerful BEYOND their raw numbers. Because a) voter turnout for a cause they cared about, like abortion, was disproportionately high on Election Day; and b) Christian evangelicals did active campaigning, like ringing doorbells and telephone soliciting, for a cause they cared about.

In short, Christian evangelicals had the same leverage beyond their raw numbers for the GOP that the labor unions had for the Democratic Party.

We saw this in 2004. Karl Rove made voter turnout among Christian evangelicals the centerpiece of his strategy to win Ohio for Bush. The 100,000 vote margin Bush won over Kerry in Ohio was due to Christian evangelicals coming out to vote to stop pro-choice Kerry.

for Earnest Will
Earnest Will writes: "Tell me, what is it about those social conservatives that have been stopping you from enacting those tough, conservative monetary and trade policies all this time?"

What you social conservatives have done is drive away economic conservatives from the GOP base. The GOP base is now dominated by social conservatives.

And the party responds to the demands of its base first.

If you social conservatives were as adamant about balancing the Federal budget as you are about banning abortion, the GOP would have done more to balance the Federal budget.

But let's face it, that was not one of your top priorities. Your goal was to overturn Roe v. Wade and let somebody else worry about Federal spending.

And that's what you got--a President, Bush, who gave you the conservative Supreme Court justices you insisted on, along with massive Federal spending and deficits too.

Waite and See
Watch Hillary kill Rudy because the non-influential voters go for a third party.

We will not be treated as blacks are by Democrats and still vote for their plantation masters. We will walk away.

This will be God's way of punishing America for her atrocities and her promotion of evil.

Duplicitous conclusion from a socially
liberal Republican. If the election is lost to the Democrat Party, thank the LGBT line and staff of the RNC and RSCC for remaining narcissistically hostile toward its base of social conservatives, secular or otherwise. With the current leaderhip of the DNC and RNC, we either rapidly accelerate or move progressively toward toward socialism. Neither choice is acceptable, nor is acquiescing to these antisocial individuals. Bring on a third party with a legitimate social conservative or draft Peter Pace. At least his integrity as codified by the code of military conduct is more important than the codes of ethical conduct for neurotic legal and medical professionals attempting to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias via gay marriage.

Nine more days.............
to determine whether Arnold is determined to have a more "moderate" GOP by signing or vetoing legislation legalizing gay marriage in California.

Inferring change where none exists
Towery assumes -- ASSUMES -- that the decline in the number of voters who identify themselves as "religious-motivated conservatives" means that the religious right is waning, and that the base is becoming less conservative.

He's clearly engaged in wishful thinking.

What's happening is that more and more religious men and women are correctly identifying themselves primarily by where their opinions put them, rather than by the fact that their opinions are influenced by their religion. This is as it should be, in a system that encourages voters to let their consciences guide them regarding policy, but encourages government to remain neutral regarding their beliefs. Christians are engaged in politics just as much as they were in the 1980s, but as citizens, not distinctly as "Christians."

I'm a religious man, and gladly acknowledge that my understanding of the universe, God, and my place in the universe with respect to God, drive my politics. If polled, though, I will describe myself as "conservative in general," not "conservative primarily religious-based". I'm a conservative; those are MY politics, not my religion's. Twenty years ago, I would have answered that question differently; but people evolve, and movements evolve.

Conservatives still want abortion decisions returned to the states (as part of an overall, consistent support for limited federalism). Conservatives still want schools free from government thought policing, and advocate vouchers unrestricted by philosophical and political caveats (as part of an overall, consistent support for free-market education controlled by parents). Conservatives still support full-throated religious liberty. Conservatives still believe in limited government and a strong national defense. Conservatives still want accountable leaders of good moral character.

Religious conservatives included. We're no different.

Party Support
Twenty-seven years ago, I had a brief fling in political activity. I attended the neighborhood caucus which, among other items of business, elected the voting district's representative to the state Republican convention. I am confident that I was elected because I was the only person present who was not of the majority religion in the state. I also supported the Republican party financially that year and for a few years afterwards.

Since, my wife and I have come to regard ourselves more as independents than as Republicans, and have voted for the candidates whom we have felt hold more closely to that which is "true, pure, lovely, and of good report." (In 1980 I voted for the Democrat candidate for state governor). In the last general election, we would have voted against our incumbent senator had not health problems prevented our going to the polls, since he, for many years, has cosied up to one of the least moral senators in the East, and bad communications have corrupted his good manners.

We deplore the financial irresponsibilty which, we feel, caused the defeat of many of the Republicans last year. We deplore the moral irresponsibility which is evident in the actions of all too many, both Republican and Democrat, in Congress. What can we do? Vote for the one who, as we see him/her, best holds to what is good.

Riley vs Moore
Your analysis is a bit simplistic. Riley ran to the right of Moore on several issues. He also was much better financed than Moore. It wasn't just about the Ten Commandments.

Yep
I agree with most. As a conservative, I describe my situation vis-a-vis the GOP the same way Reagan described his regarding the Democrats. I didn't leave the party, the party left me.


Vic, Earnest Will, almost every poster here, you all have it pegged. SteveL, you'd be the exception, but by your own words you're a "social moderate", and as such have no clue about what animates social conservatives.

We're not willing to sacrifice principles we hold as more important than mere political gain simply to win an election. After all, if the only way we can win is by becoming what we are against, what's the point at all?

It's easy to discount us as a small and irrelevant faction, but do so at your own peril. In an era when presidential election outcomes are determined by a few hundred votes in a couple of states, losing the conservatives -- be they gun owners, Christians, whatever -- is a sure-fire recipe for defeat.


If I was a Republican...
1. Hell would be a winter wonderland.

2. I must have a serious case of amnesia after a untimely accident on the Metro.

3. I would be happy with this. If you want to court all voters, you must downplay the religious dogma of Robertson, Dobson, and Hagee. I would love to leave behind the "church pew mentality" behind and embrace reason over revival and business over baptism.

Savage
I voted for a Republican for senate. The only other alternative was a Libertarian. For representative, a conservative doesn't stand a chance in my district. The welfare slaves like their nice warm chains. So, I voted for myself.

In 2008 I will vote for a man rather than a party. That probably means it will be a Republican by default. I'm fairly well aligned with Tancredo and Hunter.

You don't have to get me BACK in the booth voting conservative. You just have to run a candidate that will BE conservative.

Here's what I believe in. Smaller government. Property rights. A respect for life (this is more complicated than abortion for me). Lower taxes. Educational freedom. Someone who understands that liberty and security act upon each other in adverse proportion. With that being said, someone who will have the judgment, force of will and political skill to walk the tightrope of national security. Someone who understands that immigration is a tool for success and that qualified, patriotic and motivated people should be carefully and thoughtfully welcomed into the country, only after the border security has been addressed (if you have a hole in your ship, the first thing you do is plug the hole before you start repairing the machinery). Someone willing to sacrifice a reelection to do the hard thing in prosecuting a war (I think Bush had part of the equation).

These are not in any particular order.

Juke
Towery,

Your piece is junk because it is based on a poll that is junk. The first question is one "of type, the last 3 degree." See lonestarblues post (Oct 5 6:36am).

Are the minds behind the IsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion survey that weak, or were you all pushing your poll takers to fulfill an agenda?


SteveL
"What you social conservatives have done is drive away economic conservatives from the GOP base."

Prove it. Show the details (numbers) and the causation. What do you want, a candidate that supports lower taxes AND abortion?

"If you social conservatives were as adamant about balancing the Federal budget as you are about banning abortion, the GOP would have done more to balance the Federal budget."

Prove it. What am I adamant about? Give me quotes. Tell me what I support.

"But let's face it, that was not one of your top priorities. Your goal was to overturn Roe v. Wade and let somebody else worry about Federal spending."

Prove it. Show me where I advocated overturning RvW at the expense of the budget.

"And that's what you got--a President, Bush, who gave you the conservative Supreme Court justices you insisted on, along with massive Federal spending and deficits too."

And your candidate who was going to shrink government and give you pro-abortion judges was who? Which supreme court justices did you want in their stead?

You've got an enemy all stereotyped in your head because you didn't get your way.

Quit crying and get some facts.

Atlas Shrugged was good, but it's not my bible.

Ellison is correct, so is SteveR
Religious values are and should return to being a factor of private life and the candidate who will win in '08 is one who will have a serious vision and realistic ideas for saving the economy, the army, the school system, the infrastructure, the legislative corruption, and will lead the way to a system that can provide health care for everyone. We may not end up with, but could certainly use, a president who is able to be a president for all Americans, and not an ideologist who has written out a blank check to any particular religious group and spends thir entire term of office paying it off. We don't need any more Hallmark-card, dewy-eyed sentimentalists, who look into people's eyes and hearts - we need a practical, realistic, pragmatic president who is capable of seeing a big picture and not pieces of it.

and,
There are more commonalities betwen liberals and conservatives than those who get off on division will ever admit - the succesful president will know how to identify those commonalities and unravel the sloganeering, rancorous, ideological "debates" from both sides.

Earnest Will writes:
A respect for life (this is more complicated than abortion for me)
========================
Could you elaborate on that comment for me?

My wife says she won't vote for Rudi because of his Pro Choice (and Gay Marriage) position. She will NEVER vote for Clinton, so it look like she won't vote.

Me, I can't vote as I lack citizenship.

When Bush...
...attacked the religious right in 2006,I noticed he lost his majority in the House and the Senate. Coincidence? Maybe.

Then again,maybe not!

Skiddles
A respect for life is more of a character issue. Some people see man as an animal. No better. In fact, worse. Ever heard the term "blob of tissue?" Notice the type of "life" they are intent on preserving? If you're a convicted cop killer, only then will you arouse their respect for "life."

Did you notice how intent certain elements were on making sure Schaivo ended up dead? Why? How important was that for them? I can understand trying to preserve a life and making a cause out of it. These people fought hard to END one. They were heavily invested in making sure a non-suffering life ended up dead.

There is an element of society that continually devalues human life. That says humans are nothing more than more evolved animals.

This is a loooooong and difficult topic and I really don't want to discuss that here. I've seen how all 700 billion threads about this topic have gone in the past. There is nothing more to be said. But, I wanted to grant you the respect of an answer to your question.

RA
It's this sort of self righteous manical lunacy that leads me to the conclusion that you are all self destructive fatalists.

I not only left the party because of people like you, I left the godforsaken church.

Your freedoms will be first.


Ernest
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your position. For my wife and I respect for life is probably the biggest factor in determining who we would choose to vote for.


Ernest Will
Thank you for your post, very well said.
Because of todays choices, sooner or later all of our heads will be on the chopping block, before birth and after.
Unless you're a cop killer of course.

Another rant from SteveL
that TH is overrun with the "Religious Right" and that we have ruined the Party. We all know that SteveL is rooting for RINO Rudy and that he and Rudy both are about as conservative as Hillary.

Look in my post above SteveL. How many items do you see there for turning over the government to religion?

Basicallt SteveL you have become the same thing as the insane Paulette fanatics. We know you like Rudy. We want you to vote for Rudy. Don't bug us any more.

Republicans can't have it both ways.
Some Republicans claim that religious conservatives are no longer relevant in today's elections. If such is the case, then don't blame us when Republicans lose next year.

The simple fact is, Rudy Guiliani is going to be a hard sell to religious conservatives. Mitt Romney doesn't fare much better. His Mormon beliefs are not the main concern; the main concern is his past record on abortion. He will have to do some tall talking to convince us he has really changed.

Republicans, you can't spit in our faces and then expect us to support you. It just doesn't work that way. Guiliani may indeed be the nominee. If you think he can win without the support of religious conservatives, more power to you. Just don't blame us when he loses.

Not just RELIGIOUS conservatives, Ken
ANY conservatives. Don't put that limit on it. My conservatism has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with Constitutional rights and the preservation of our country's basic tenets of liberty, small government, individual responsibility, etc.

Religion doesn't enter into it AT ALL.

Skiddles
"Respect for Life" is a slogan that many people throw around when they are trying to push a political point or emotional issue.

If you have a total "respect for life" do you advocate capital punishment? War? Letting someone with a prolonged terminal illness suffer? If your wife becomes pregnant and it is discovered that a term pregnancy will take her life, who's life are you going to respect more?
If you have to sacrifice one life to save five lives, are you going to do it? What if the one life is that of a good man and the other five are greedy, selfish, or not very nice people?

My advice to consider carefully what you really mean when people start using the emotional buzzword "respect for life" and get past the slogan and into some true thinking.

Hey Skiddles
See what I mean? Didn't take long, did it?

Watch out for binary thinking and people trying to force you into false dichotomies. Those who tout their own ability for "nuanced" thinking are often the ones who try to manufacture a very strict context, but intentionally leave out well known factors that aren't complementary to their point.

For instance, when comparing abortion to the death penalty, the fact that the baby hasn't brutally raped and murdered half a dozen people somehow gets left out of the myopic dichotomy so disingenuously laid at your feet.

Touj
You're right. Conservatives would be better off advocating on behalf of the innocent rather than life.

As for social conservatives, we seem to be getting kicked to the curb by the party leadership. No serious attempts to outlaw abortion, no attempts to remedy the massive divorce, adultery, and irresponsible parenting that exists, no dedication to securing our borders, no action against China for its misdeeds, continously handicapping our armed forces, and identity-politicking with Hispanics rather than standing on principle, not to mention reckless spending.

I'm a Rudy-Giuliani-nomination away from joining the Constitution party.

Skiddles
Earnest Will isn't making any sense. The word "binary" means "two" (bi-cycle, bi-annual, bi-polar, get it?) Binary logic is the basis of computer technology - it means there are only two options to every question...in this case, every difficult human decision is "yes-no" "good-evil" or "right-left". It's essentially a logic of opposites. And it never, never, has to allow for any other but a single scenario: every criminal who gets executed has "raped and murdered half a dozen people" etc. The word dichotomy also means two, or an option between two choices that aren't necessarily opposites, but are limited to two answers.

So, as you can see, the binary approach to human life is actually Ernest's, my particular approach to such questions, especially when they involve the turns and unexpected twists of human life, is that they are often complicated and not so simple, and that a simplistic, childish answer may be easy and self-satisfying in the short run, but may not help you when life itself is not so binary.

Stoic
something that seldom seems to be address on this subject is the issue of Roe vs. Wade being overturned to become a states' rights issue. This is what I've heard alot of conservatives call for - what do you think?

I'm personally pro-choice - I have reasons for it that come out of personal experience, family history, and my own world view, but I really do understand why people oppose it. I also realize that there are people who oppose it as a personal choice but think it should remain a choice for others and some who oppose it as a choice for anybody.


Wrong Touj.
You are mis-stating what Earnest Will said.

To wit:

YOUR statement: "If you have a total "respect for life" do you advocate capital punishment? War?"

Looks like a "binary" answer required on this one to me. EW was pointing out that it is much more nuanced than that. Capital punishment for rapists and 1st degree murderers, sure. Capital punishment for thieves and corrupt politicians like Hillary, probably not. War? If it is just, yes, if it is not (c.f. Bill Clinton's phony war in Kosovo), then no. It is a matter of grayscales, not black and white. Context is required.

Stoic Patriot is correct, it is a matter of defending INNOCENCE. We religious conservatives typically favor capital punishment because it demonstrably saves innocent lives. Ditto for a just war. Chamberlin advocated peace and ended up being largely responsible for the deaths of millions. In fact, one would have a hard time judging who was more culpable for those deaths, the evil German dictator or the man who was so arrogant that he thought he could reason with said dictator.

By the way, without the support of social conservatives, the GOP loses. Period.



Dishonesty abounds
The insinuation is that those who advocate for life are incapable of making distinctions between guilt or innocence, or other such ramifications, and that if they don't also advocate for the life of those who have committed such heinous acts as to be subject to the death penalty then they are guilty of hypocrisy.

They try to force you into an either/or box. "Either you're for life or you're not, right?" is the implied accusation of hypocrisy. Binary thinking.

So any question comparing abortion with the death penalty is rooted in binary thinking and tries to force the advocate of life into the same simplistic and disingenuous "trap" that the questioner is actually guilty of.

The question isn't profound. It's simplistic, obvious and dishonest.

The funny part is, that they manufacture the binary box, and they try to force you into it for advocating for the life of the child. All the while proclaiming themselves nuanced thinkers and you a mere fool for guess what? That's right, "binary thinking."

I don't fall for the false binary box, yet I'm the binary thinker.

Can you say, "I told you so?"

For an example, just read touj's post. It illustrates my point perfectly.

Beetlebrox
It seems to me that my answer was the nuanced one; I made the point that the term "respect for life" is essentially meaningless unless it is applied in context. War, crime, crisis all can provide contexts in which the term "right to life" is empty and not so simple. This is hardly a binary point of view, it is one that says "there is no simple answer".

The same is true for "innocence" - there is legal "innocence" and there is religious "innocence" and there is more complicated "innocence" - if you commit a horrendous act for a greater good, are you "innocent" or "guilty"? Some people think that Bush is "innocent" of crime by ordaining torture, others think he is "guilty" of not showing "respect for life"? Do you really think that everyone who has been tortured by the US has been guilty of some crime? Or do you think some of them may have been "innocent"?

There is only innocence in terms of law, whether civil law, family law, etc., or in terms of moral law, which no one ever seems to be able to agree on.

The only question, BTW that has any relevance to abortion is whether or not you consider life to begin at the moment of conception or at the point it is an autonomous, viable being outside of the uterus. That is a religious decision.

What this is ultimately about is legislating morality. The fact is, it doesn't work.

Ernest
Your logic is so twisted that it doesn't make sense. What I said was that taking life is right/wrong under different circumstances. You said, "A respect for life is more of a character issue" which was really silly.

You then went on to make alot of broad generalizations about "certain segments of the society", "Notice the type of "life" they are intent on preserving? If you're a convicted cop killer, only then will you arouse their respect for "life."

These sweeping indictments that say, basically, "everyone who doesn't see things my way think this" which are pointless and a waste of time. THAT's binary! "There's my point of view and then there's the evil point of view".

Sometimes you wonder
if the obtuseness is intentional because some people refuse to admit they're wrong, or if they're really that incapable of understanding something so basic.

Scenario:

Bob: I'm pro-life.

Betty: Then you're against the death penalty right?

Bob: No, I'm for it.

Betty: Then you're a hypocrite. You're not for life. You support killing another human being.

No deeper context. No concept of guilt, punishment, protecting society. Just basic "you're either for life or against it" binary thinking. The answer is to reject the premise.

I've seen it a hundred times on the boards, and it invariably begins with questions like "do you advocate capital punishment?" This is the setup question for the box that pro-choice people like to put you in. It's a form of a straw man.

If you don't like the term pro-life, argue the euphemism point, which brings me to my second argument.

To be cont...

Eernest Will
Thank you for your reply. With your other posts, you have clarified yourself. We agree on most, perhaps virtualy all issues. We may or may not agree on best solutions, but i would think we're pretty close. I'd post more but about3/4 of the time BrianR or GunnyG or Anne beats me to what i was going to say.

Euphemisms
Pro-life and pro-choice are obvious euphemisms. But, through widespread use, they make communication easier. By now, everyone knows who we're talking about.

Some conservatives have taken to this flawed form of logic themselves when they mean to attack the euphemism. They argue "Liberals are only pro-choice when it comes to abortion. They sure don't support my right to choose how to spend my own money, or what school I can send my kids to, or how to distribute my estate," etc. It's the same argument I alluded to in my previous post, but from the other side of the aisle.

I really really really didn't want to turn this thread into another abortion thread, so when Skiddles queried me, I hesitated to even answer it.

To me, respect for life includes issues like abortion, cloning, stem cells, euthanasia, capital punishment (I believe it saves lives), Darwinism, eugenics, etc. If I had used pro-life, all that would have been lost.

As you can see my use of the term was intended to cover a wide range of ideas and opinions, enough to cover a multitude of threads for days. The opposite of "binary thinking."

But, my personal opinion is, you saw the words "respect for life" and your liberal knee started jerking. Then you tried to impugn the whole thing with that crap about "slogans," when all it really was, was a way to get an idea across without going into a 400 post thread on abortion again.

Oh, and as for "certain elements of society," I was actually trying to be fair by not using "Democrat" or "liberal" or even "pro-choicer" for which I would certainly have been attacked for the infamous "stereotyping."

Get over it.

Conservatives, please...
...I'm begging you...

If Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, VOTE FOR HIM.

I'll make the case for him as a conservative another time; he's actually more of a conservative than some of the folks running as conservatives in this race. But the big picture is more important --

If Hillary Clinton becomes President there WILL NOT BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY for conservatives to act like conservatives. That woman will literally end the Republic. Portions of our sovereignty will be handed to the UN. Laws abridging freedom of speech will be passed, and will not be struck down by the Supreme Court, because she'll appoint judges even more radical than Ginsburg to the Court. Religious liberty will vanish, and certain aspects of religious life will even be against the law (remember Waco?)

I understand your interest in "sending a message". Send it during the primaries. This is not the time to send messages during the national election. If you won't vote for Rudy (or Mitt, or Fred, or whoever the nominee is that doesn't meet your expectations), vote against Hillary. Please.

The Republic is on its last legs.

Some not capable of nuance...
(re Earnest Will) The question "are you against capital punishment" presupposes a position on abortion that opposes it solely and completely because "it's life." That is ONE legitimate position from which to oppose abortion. It's not the only one, not by a long shot. Most Protestants who oppose abortion, for example, oppose it for somewhat different reasons (either "it's INNOCENT life," or "it's not biblically supportable") which do not conflict with capital punishment in any way at all.

Those who claim capital punishment contradicts all pro-life positions do not want a reasonable discussion, and therefore pretend there is no possibility of any opposition to abortion from any other position.

One cannot rationally oppose a position without understanding it, and most leftists I know will not lift a finger to try to understand their opponents' positions; they're too busy looking for clever-sounding bites with which to pummel their opponents. The unwillingness to even hear what the opposition thinks is the first and clearest indication that rational discourse is impossible.

By the way, Earnest, I know you understand this, and I'm not lecturing you. I'm agreeing, and adding my $.02.

Another leftist needing an education
"funkyOLDRepublicans" represents the Anti-Religious Bigots of the world when he writes: "Second, Keep religion out of your politics, no matter which side you swing. Just like our founders told you to do."

How many ways is this wrong?

A) The Constitution defines what GOVERNMENT can and cannot do. It says nothing -- not a single word -- about what private citizens can and cannot do. So your little jibe, "just like our founders told you to do," simply demonstrates just how completely ignorant of Constitutional principles you really are. PLEASE get an education before you open your mouth again.

B) If you'd read even a slim handful of the writings of our founders, you'd know that they all, to the man, felt that privately-held religious convictions were the bedrock of the republic, and not only COULD influence political opinions, but MUST influence them.

C) Regardless of what those fine men who wrote the Constitution believed (who, contrary to the revisionist PAP you've read, were all religious men themselves, with the possible exception of Thomas Paine), the means by which I form my political opinions is NONE OF YOUR MOTHER F**KING BUSINESS.

Mind your own business, church lady. I'll form my opinions ANY GOD DAMNED WAY I CHOOSE.

Inkling-revival
Speaking for myself, as to voting for the Bald Hillary....

not a chance in hell.

Inkling
First, I will vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. If that's Rudy, then so be it. But, I can't tell you how much I wish it was Duncan Hunter.

However, it galls me to reward these clowns, knowing they gambled that they could take me for granted and get away with it.

On the other issue, I understand you completely. My choice of the phrase "respects human life" was honestly meant to encompass a broad range of topics as I noted above, many of which have fascinating arguments and issues.

I have to say, the only reason I pursued it this long is because the conversation was really pulling toward forensics, which I love with a passion.

Regarding your upbraiding of funkyoldfool, I wish everyone would read at least one book a month from Liberty Fund. Then we wouldn't have these problems. It would appear as if you're familiar with many of these titles and issues already.

http://www.libertyfund.org/browse.asp

I heard a lecture by Oliver Van DeMille about forgotten concepts, which included Georgics, Liber, Freedom, Voluntary Personal Sacrifice, and Providence, as they were understood by the founders. Fascinating speech. If you ever get a chance to hear him speak, I recommend taking him up on it.

I believe it was called the Four Lost American Ideals. (in case you counted five up there and wondered, he doesn't count Freedom as lost, though he discusses it briefly)

There's Values, and then There's Values.

Leaders with values are important, but leader with values seem to have other agendas as well.

I have reached the point where I am incapable of figuring these people in Washington out.

We the people could not run our business or household this way.

Every time we turn around they are doing something for our good that absolutely has no logic.

Like many of you, I give to a charity and before you know it, 20 pieces of mail show up asking you for money.

Everyone’s cause is worthy in there mind.

The problem is that my pockets are not that deep.

Our government keeps doing things that are killing the ability of the middle class workers from prospering while supporting greater entitlements for those who are contributing nothing.

The new Republican in today’s politics wants your vote, while supporting government that will widen the gap between poor and rich.

We are headed for a society where the upper class will control the lower class.

We can’t seem to see that ideology right across the border.
The richest man in the world is in the country that now sends us its poor to do jobs that Americans won’t do because it wants to keep its poor under there thumb.

Our government not only wants to encourage this, but is willing to subsidize employer’s low wages with entitlements that we the people pay for.

These are Republicans that have favored this way of doing business.

With politicians willing to spend a hundred million dollars to get elected, how can anyone with a mind for doing what’s best for America ever get elected.

You don’t get that kind of money without strings attached.

I’m not half as disappointed in the war in Iraq as I am of the out of control spending and the border sham. And I’m still suspicious of the North American Treaty plot.

BrianR
Great point.

I am incredulous
that so many people seem willing not to vote if they can't find a candidate who believes exactly, bullet for bullet, as they do, or if their top choice candidate now isn't the one to gain the party nomination.

Washington is loaded with people who lack moral fiber on every side, and I think we all know that. Reforming the electoral and legislative processes are such tall orders -- they are certainly beyond the generations represented by those of us writing here and now.

But, to so willingly forfeit one's ability to vote astounds me. Replacing the majority of immoral and unethical, selfish and swindling lawmakers we currently have is a huge task, I admit, but refusing to vote is no way to make even the slightest progress in changing things. We are all extremely fortunate that we live in a land where we can vote. People risk their lives every year WANTING to come to America, and that is one reason why.

You all need a course in logic
and semantics.

If you are opposed to abortion, say that. If you say you are for a "culture of Life" then you need to specify what you mean by that.

If your language becomes clearer, your thinking will follow.

Touj
I don't support abortion as a matter of states rights because I see abortion as a matter of justice. You've made statements to the effect of it being a religious matter, but I am an atheist.

As for legislating morality, well, of course you can do that. We legislate against murder, theft, slavery, etceteras.

My position on abortion is to look at the scientific evidence. As determined by an electrocenphlenegram, brain waves begin in a child about 40 days into a pregnancy. As brain waves are present, it indicates the presence of a mind, an individual. We grant rights to individuals. Since human babies exhibit the potential (albeit not immediate capacity) to make their selections on the basis of ideology and principle rather than simple instinct (as evidenced by our abilities as fully-grown adults), there is no distinction which I can make between why I would support your or my right to live, and that child's. As such, I oppose abortion on the grounds that it murders an innocent child.

There are of course counterarguments (which don't really address this point, but are rather other positions). One says that passing a law will not stop abortions. This is true. Our laws against murder, theft, speeding, and even slavery with sex slaves, are disobeyed. That misses the point.

As for the structuralist argument, that also misses the point. As a social conservative, I am concerned about the moral truth of matters, not about which level of government holds sovereignty at what level. Ideally, I suppose I'd like it banned at the national level because I believe in equal justice under law, not justice differentiated by a state boundary.

Inkling
I'm with those social conservatives who are refusing to heed your word:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republicans_would_vote_for_pro_life_third_party_instead_of_giuliani

I'm on the verge of switching my registration to the Constitution party because of Giuliani. What happens in the primaries will determine whether or not I switch.

I support much more government intervention and populism than the Republican party stands for in its platform, but I was willing to compromise on that in order to advance what I believed was fundamentally more important: our social values. Now I'm being told to sell out on that. My principles are non-negotiable.

If the Republican party loses, so be it. To paraphrase Socrates, "Let justice flourish, even if all the world come to ruin." I will not support Giuliani against Hillary, period.

A Neoconservative foreign policy and RINO domestic policy has taken hold of the Republican party, with Libertarians licking their chops hoping to claim some stake. I think we and the fiscal conservatives should join forces. They've been kicked to the curb enough too.

As a conservative Christian...
This doesn't surprise me. If we were consistent to our beliefs, we would realize that "legislating morality"* doesn't address the real issue of the moral cesspool we live in. If you want to change the world, it will have to happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Hence, it's more effective to lead fruitful, nonhypocritical, gracious lives than it is to say "thou shalt not" ... however important and valuable those "thou shalt not's" happen to be.

*(I hate that phrase. It's as if secular liberals didn't try to legislate their own morality. We know they try to.)

Inkling
"Mind your own business, church lady. I'll form my opinions ANY GOD DAMNED WAY I CHOOSE."

AMEN!

addendum
Since some people make it a habit to misunderstand others, let me add a caveat. I am not saying that we can't or shouldn't vote based on our religious values. I only mean that we are more effective to the extent that we practice what we preach.

It's both/and, not either/or. I wish Christian liberals would get that. (As if they weren't voting their values anyways.)

to Earnest Will
Regarding your 10-4, 1:14pm post:

I am in complete agreement with you.

The candidate whose positions and record best fit what I want to see in our next president is Duncan Hunter.

The reason he doesn't have the big money endorsements is most likely because he will never bow to the open-borders, chamber-of-commerce types who wield inordinate power among the king makers in America.

I won't support Huckabee, R.Paul, R.G., J.McC., nor F.Thompson -- for a lot of different reasons. And I don't want to have to support Mitt Romney, but I would in the national if it comes to that.

But I don't want it to come to that.

What I'd like to see is a grass-roots effort of millions of us avg. Joes sending $ to Hunter so he can make a good showing in the primaries, enough so, that more and more avg. Joes will begin to take notice and send him the $ he needs to compete against the top-tier, RINO, juggernauts.

Hey calmdown
How's this for clear?

You're an arrogant pedant who has displayed nothing in this thread but a pretentious predilection for mental masturbation.

Oh, it's always fun to take out the trash with alliteration.


tin whisker
I'm right there with you. One thing I've been doing is trying to avoid repeating the phrase "I like Hunter, but he can't win." The more we help cement the mindset that he's incapable of winning, the more likely it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Earnie Will
The two most repellant qualities in a human being are ignorance and arrogance, when they occur at the same time.

Fortunately for you, you have such a total lack of self-awareness that you will be able to continue ad nauseum with your blow-hard observations, and pompous blather, believing all the while that you are appreciated by anybody with more than half a brain.

Hehe
Looks like I struck bone.


Ernest Will
I think your retort just validated Calmdown's self-awareness charge.

Texas straw poll
Though it was a low turn-out event, one month ago Duncan Hunter won the Texas straw poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/02/hunter-wins-texas-straw-poll/

Follow the link for details.

I say it's high time we stop acquiescing to what the party (the RINOs and their king-makers) -- from on high -- wants to foist on us as a candidate. If the actual voters don't like the top-tier candidates, we need to get busy and do all we can to promote the man we do like.

We need to coalesce around the best man from the second tier; in my opinion that man is Duncan Hunter.





Of course you would
I'm sure you're still feeling embarrassed after yesterday. Your lashing out is predictable.

Let me explain something to you using just three quotes.

From his first post:

"You all need a course in logic and semantics."

Now from his second:

"The two most repellant (sic) qualities in a human being are ignorance and arrogance, when they occur at the same time."

and finally:

"you have such a total lack of self-awareness"

When the light bulb clicks on for you, just slink away in silence.

Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

Thanks.

Earnest Will
Nobody's perfect, but the lefties approach perfect projection as they ascribe their failings to others.

Savage
You know what I think it is?

It's this trend that comes from a relativist mindset which rejects conviction in argumentation. It makes them uncomfortable and they lash out against it.

And what's really funny about that is when you get into serious lefty enclaves, the elitist arrogance on display would take your breath away.

If you get a chance to expose yourself to the upper levels of academia sometime, you'll see exactly what I mean.

The elitism is so concentrated, that authoritarian expressions (bordering on the tyrannical) start popping up with increasing frequency as they get more and more comfortable with their own perceived intellectual and moral superiority.

It's kind of scary.

Earnie
I've noticed on TH that when posters can't debate a point, they resort to insults. Usually, they try to cover up their inability to argue by implying 1., that the issue isn't worth talking about 2., that the person making the point is 2a. crazy, 2b. drunk, 2c. crack-addicted, 2d. a communist 2e. stupid...in this way they can cover up their own inadequacies and pretend that they are above it. It's sort of like the man who can't perform in intimate situations (I'm sure you can relate) and tells his girlfriend that it's her fault.

Politicians are not our ...
religious leaders, nor should they be. Religion is a very personal matter. "In your face" tactics do not achieve the desired results, no matter the cause.

So-called Christian spokesmen lambasting the general public on moral issues has done nothing positive for the cause, just the opposite. People just can't see the love that is spoken of. You can't hit someone with a baseball bat then expect them to believe you have their best interest at heart.

I am a follower of Christ, a Christian, and there are moral issues that I believe strongly about. I also believe those issues should be dealt with within the church. To me "The Church" is not a building or organization but the body of believers who come together for worship, praise, giving, and fellowship.

Do I want my tax dollars to pay for the things that to me are morally wrong, No, but again that has to be dealt with on a more personal basis.


You know what?
I'm comfortable with letting people go back and judge the logical content of my posts and whether or not I can "debate a point."

Meanwhile, you can continue to occupy your imagination with my sex life.

Seriously. If you have even the tiniest shred of dignity left, you should leave before I take that from you too.

I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Farmer's Wife
I agree with you, and I think there are more people who feel the way you do than anybody realizes. I have many, many Christian friends that range all the way from life-long believers to Seminarians. They all express embarrassment at those who "lambast the general public on moral issues", and feel that the end result is that people who don't know them personally make false assumptions about them based on the shrill, publicity-seeking religious leaders who try to bring private life into public politics.

earnest
Thanks, once again, for illustrating my point.

To Farmer's Wife
** I have an old friend going back sixty years who worked most of his life as a Christian medical missionary. He is without doubt the "most Christian" person I know. In the past few years I have heard him say that since the Religious Right took over he is embarrassed to admit he is a Christian. These people are a lunatic fringe who have done much harm to legitimate church effort.

**Another point: we liberals also don't want OUR tax dollars spent for that which is against OUR conscience. Like invading a country that didn't invade us, for example. Like diverting federal funds to the churches of the President's choice, while conducting punitive audits of churches he doesn't like. That's against our conscience. And like using Air Force Two to go on a duck hunt with the judge who is about to hear your case in the Supreme Court. That bothers hell out of our conscience. And using our tax dollars to pay private security contractors who operate outside the law and like to get drunk and shoot people for fun? Makes our conscience just about throw up.

That's good Lilly
I'm glad you don't want YOUR tax dollars spent for that which is against YOUR conscience.

Because, now you know what it feels like to watch your tax dollars go to sending a child who escaped tyranny back to a cruel and vicious dictator because you couldn't admit politically that a communist dictatorship just might be a bad place.

Now you know what it feels like to see your FBI used for partisan political gain with hundreds of FBI files used for who knows what.

Now you know what it feels like to have your tax dollars spent on bombing hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes in Kosovo who "never did anything to us."

Now you know what it feels like to have your tax dollars fund warlords in Mogadishu.

Now you know what it feels like to have your tax dollars spent on federal agencies burning dozens of people to death and violating posse comitatus because the president doesn't like the second amendment.

Now you know what it feels like to have the whitehouse turned into a brothel and hotel at the taxpayers expense.

I'm glad it makes your "conscience just about throw up," Lilly. Because, frankly, I wasn't sure you people even had a conscience.

Wall street Republicans
They just don't get it. They want "free trade" which is not "free trade" to anyone but the big businesses and corporates. I voted for Bush both times and he is absolutely destroying this country with his so called free trade. When he took office the oil was $22 a barrel for oil, now it is $81 a barrel. We have never had so many illegals in this country and footing the bill for everything that they need. We need to vote for someone that is for border control and enforcing the laws on immigration!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.