Note to Mitt, Fred and John: 2004 is So Over!

In 2004, George W. Bush won the presidency by assembling a coalition of White Evangelicals (78% of whom cast their vote for him), non-Latino Catholics and Mormons, among others. These so-called “values voters” were the “It” constituency of 2004. The punditry fawned over them. Their views became something of a congressional fashion. They were spotted at hipster bars in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, and so on.

But the idea that the road to the White House must go through Evangelical America is, I believe, about to go out of style. For starters, Evangelicals are becoming increasingly ideologically diverse. Issues other than abortion and Gay marriage are on their agenda. National security is a major concern. They are paying attention to global climate change. The AIDS crisis is on their minds. Nor have they forgotten that their gospels tell them to care for the poor.

The Democrats, for their part, have smartened up considerably. When it comes to religious voters they are no longer Goofus to Karl Rove’s Gallant ("Gallant establishes a grassroots network of Conservative Christian volunteers numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Goofus has his candidate deliver his first real Faith and Values speech a week and a half before the election."). For the first time in recent memory each of their three front-runners in the primaries can do convincing God Talk (need I mention the names of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale in order to demonstrate the eclipse-like infrequency of this phenomenon?).

It is, therefore, virtually assured that the Democrats will field a candidate who is willing and able to communicate with the religious groups mentioned above. True, she or he will not outright win the White Evangelical vote. But that’s not the goal. The goal is not to lose eight out of every ten votes cast by a constituency that comprises a quarter of the electorate. That’s the damn goal. And if the Democrats continue shucking their godless image while advocating centrist policies, they may well neutralize the Republican’s considerable advantage among Americans who attend church frequently.

Which leads me to ask: why are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain all trying so hard to appeal to the same voting block, and a fractured one at that? As the Giuliani campaign grinningly looks on (and implores Newt Gingrich to reconsider his decision to not enter the race), each has abandoned the center of 2008 in hopes of capturing the Evangelical base of 2004.

Each is doing everything in their power to lower his NARAL ratings to sub-zero levels. Each is tackling the “tough” issue of Gay marriage. If they keep it up, each will be standing well to the right of Pat Buchanan by the time Thanksgiving rolls around. And each can be sure that not one Swing Democrat in the United States will cast a vote for them if they somehow win their Party’s nomination.

By Jacques Berlinerblau |  October 2, 2007; 8:46 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: John McCain's New Religious Voice | Next: McCain's Move: Deplorable But Effective

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Vote Ron Paul Vote Rooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn PPPPPPPPPPPPPPaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul

Posted by: Vote Ron Paul | October 4, 2007 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The main problem with Biblical influence on our government is that, judging by these posts, most people are quite ignorant of both the Bible and our government, and this ignorance makes its way into our national discussion.
To highlight this point, my grandfather - a working class WWI vet, part of the general masses - graduated from public high school well-versed in philosophy, biblical studies, history, etc. He received a solid classical education in public high school that students don't get now from ivy-league colleges.
At this point, I don't even feel it worthwhile to argue any of this anymore, since the nation seems to have been dumbed-down to inevitable sheepdom. As bad as the US is, Canada and Europe are even worse. The West is lost. It was nice while it lasted.

Posted by: David Minnich | October 4, 2007 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Typical, liberal drivel. Do you really believe that Hillary, Obama or Edwards would receive one more evangelical vote than Kerry? What you don't get is that it's not about Hillary's image or pretense when it comes to us evangelicals. We see through a phony and a liar and it cuts across all socio-economic and educational levels. We have common sense and are not deceived and manipulated by democrat "happy talk." After the '08 election, you will be once again left scratching your heads wondering how you could have been so wrong. Then, maybe you'll remember these words.

Posted by: f.e. pearce | October 4, 2007 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am not sure Evangelicals are so splintered on social issues, as much as frustrated with the lack of fiscal discipline. The Bible addresses money management, so perhaps it is an issue. We do have diverse views on issues, as the article says and contrary to popular belief, but we definitely want to see some fiscal discipline. The Values vote is not out of style. Values voters are just waiting for a candidate that will not spend away.

Posted by: Jeff | October 4, 2007 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

While I agree with much of the general thrust of this article, I have to disagree with some of the detailed analysis. The Democrats have NOT learned to do convincing "God talk". I'm not sure I can acurately be called an evangelical, but I am a white Christian, and trust me, the democrats don't fool us. When they try to do "God talk", we know they don't mean it. (Goofus goes to a southern black church and puts on a African American accent...Hmph).

Where Christians are divided in this country is over the role of the federal government in all this values stuff. Some believe that the president must be committed to the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage. These are important values, and our founding fathers probably believed in them, but I doubt that they ever envisioned them as issues that concerned the federal government.

The candidate who offends the values oriented heavy hitters is Giuliani. He's hardly a poster boy for the sanctity of marriage, and he's been what in my circles would be called a pro-abort for a good long time. On the other hand, even we Christians have to look at what is the proper role in the presidency in the values wars. What can the president legitimately do? Well, one thing he could do is replace the 87 year old John Paul Stevens with a Supreme Court Justice who recognizes Roe v. Wade for the horrible and unconstitutional decision it is. That would put the issue of "values" back into the communities, which is where it belongs. Giuliani has said he would appoint justices like Roberts and Alito. If I decide I can trust him (and this is a big "if"), that may be good enough for me.

Posted by: kerner | October 4, 2007 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The far Christian right is no better than the far Islamic right: religious terrorists with huge political agendas, a studied ignorance of the U.S. Constitution in the case of christian extremists, and a dangerous belief that their adult Santa Claus has anything to do with real life."

This must be some of that all-important "tolerance" I've been hearing so much about lately.

Nice.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Berlinerblau has really drunk the Sojourner's coolaid. The notion that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards can shift the evangelical vote simply by talking about God is laughable. Every time they open their mouth and talk God it becomes more and more evident that the God that they talk about is very, very different than the one that regular churchgoers worship. Jim Walls and Sojourners make a lot of noise but go into their Churches. Compared to Evangelicals, they're empty, elderly and broke.

Evangelicals are values voters, not propaganda or government program voters. The typical evangelical voter has thought more about faith, belief and his role in the world than John Edwards has thought about anything in his life (except maybe his 'do'). It'll take more than insincere testimonies to turn us. Democrats must demonstrate that they actually believe in God, which would require them to change their positions on moral issues and alienate their anti-God core.

And Ralph Nader knows where that leads.

Posted by: bill reeves | October 4, 2007 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The reason that the "Religious Right" has become so marginalized is because they can no longer defend their inconsitencies. Only the uniformed can buy into their arguments. For instance...you cannot be pro-life and pro-war...you cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty...you cannot be pro-life and pro-gun...you cannot be pro-life and anti-stem cells...you cannot be pro-life and anti-children's health care...you cannot preach anti-gay and be a closet gay pastor...you cannot be pro-life and anti-sex education. This movement has been nothing more than an undercover ploy to push the Republican political agenda...not a religious agenda.

Posted by: Al, KS | October 4, 2007 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The confussion comes when when you use the word "religious". The Dems will never get that part of the popular which came out of the revival of the early 1970's. Dems still see "religion" the faithfull see Godlyness. And Dems are by nature evil.

Posted by: Average Joe | October 4, 2007 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Jacques:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice effort, though.

Best,

Vincent

Posted by: Vincent | October 4, 2007 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It seems that more than a few of the politicians that have based their careers on "family values" have been a tat hypocritical. On the other hand if folks vote for those like themselves----hmmmm. I wonder how many have swiped their hands under the bathroom stall and had a bible in their coat pocket? "Before taking the moat out of your brothers eye---cast the log out of your own" Oh well, just another one of those sayings---

Posted by: Ken McGee | October 4, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I'll pray for you"

Well, we'll think for you.

Posted by: EP Thorn | October 4, 2007 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Does the concept of "...separation of church and state..." mean anything to us anymore? The freedoms afforded in this country are taken for granted. Rather then live and let live, the evangelicals push their beliefs like a cancer on the rest of us. Most christians don't agree with them and their ways and I can assure you most jews, muslims, buddhists, atheists (add your belief system here) can't stand the noise. Keep your bible and your fear mongering in your church, or put it aside and dare to step into someone elses church if you're brave. But don't mistake religious freedom for a carte blanche ticket to bully the rest of us...

Posted by: dontgetit | October 4, 2007 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To today's Republicans, Lincoln is just another RINO.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | October 4, 2007 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sir, your analysis is merely wishful thinking. Sure values voters care about national security and other issues. We always have. But if you think we will vote based on those issues while disregarding our core beliefs (Pro life, anti gay marriage) you are mistaken. Further, Dems who support abortion and gay marriage will never get the Christian evangelical vote no matter how much they spout selective verses from the Bible. Christian conservatives still have enough power to deny the presidency to a GOP candidate by staying home or help him to victory by coming out in record numbers. Look at the close numbers in many states in 2004. We haven't changed our principles. Nor have liberal Democrats changed their own. Whoever is feeding you this nonsense deserves an "F", professor.

Posted by: Susan Boyer | October 4, 2007 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The core of the Republican party are the wealthy owners of industry -- but how in the world can they get enough votes to do things like ignore glabal warming, wage unnecessary wars, reduce tax rates in the wealthy brackets and eliminate estate taxes on amounts higher then 10 milllion dollars? So, their strategy is to out for what they call "values" -- anti-gay, antiabortion, prayer in schools, that is about it -- and sell themselves to the Christian fundamentalists as God's party. Trouble is, my being gay doesn't hurt the person down the street, and prayer in public schools is an impostion, sorry, but it is impolite, since I don't want my kid praying and I am a taxpayer too. As to abortion, people obviously have different views on that, but the key here is that is here to stay, and it is not going to be repealed, no way; it is a false hope held out to all these fundamentalists, who are all brain-controlled by their churches to vote in this way. To all the responsible fundamentalist pastors out there: do the country and your congregations and Jesus a favor by liberating your congregations politically by telling them that they do not need to be sold out to a party that out to dupe them into a coalition, ultimately so they can pass laws that benefit the smaller wealthy segment of citizens. You "enlighten" them on so many other matters, you can enlighten them on this one too.

Posted by: frank burns | October 4, 2007 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jacques,

The "religious right" has marginalized itself. Let us count the ways, shall we?

-Terry Schiavo

Meddling in this very private family matter was seen as detestable to most Americans.

-Abortion

Case in point: South Dakota. You lost this battle, though you threw your resources at this with abandon. Reality to RR: the majority of Americans still want abortion to remain legal. Try to remember that.

-Creation Science

Need I remind you of the blistering defeat that the Intlligent Design crowd received at the hands of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones.

And while we are at it, let's review the state of affairs in Kansas, whom became the laughingstock of the country when they school board endorsed the idea of teaching creationism in 2005. They have since replaced the crackpot board members, as did the Dover school board, and returned to a science based curricula.

-Gay Marriage

Massachusetts hasn't suffered plagues, fallen into the earth, or been swept into the ocean, despite the fact that gay people can legally marry. Yes, there are a number of backward states, like Virginia, that have codified discrimination. But these will turn around, someday.
The point is, gay marriage not destructive to marriage or families.

Posted by: Chimpeach | October 4, 2007 7:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why do we even care about these right wing extremist anyway? I do not believe they are true christians but cloke their bigotry and hatred in a shield of Jesus. If they were true christians they would make it a priority to do something for the poor in this country and stop persecuting Gay people. They constitute between 25 and 30 percent of the US population, it is no coincidence that this same number corresponds with the number of Americans that still support President Bush and think he is a wonderful president. I believe there is no logic with this block of voters, but illogical rantings of crazed minds.

Posted by: Thomas Long | October 4, 2007 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Excellent piece- but remember what Nixon said: Run right for the primaries, move back to the center for the general. He was talking about political philosophy, but it's a logic which can be transferred to a candidate's display of their depth of "faith" as well. Once a candidate gets the Republican mantle, the religious koooks will more likely vote for that person than not, and they won't see much of a choice. The only exception was with Carter, who was a religious kook himself. Everyone ultimately votes for the person they wish they were themselves, and in this country we have a national psychosis regarding the place of God and faith in our lives.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | October 4, 2007 6:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Marvin:

Are you really blaming gay marriage for unwed mothers and the sad state of marriage in the US?

Really?

Funny how we've had unwed mothers for as long as we've had motherhood, and funny how straight people have managed to savage and destroy marriage all by themselves. Yet you blame it on 'the gays'.

Maybe allowing gays to marry would bring a touch of dignity and decency back to marriage. Lord knows you straight super rightwingers haven't done much for the institution, have you?

Oh, and as for 'Biblical' marriage - I don't see you supporting polygamy and the forced marrying of underage girls - both explicitly approved of in the Bible. Plus, there's always my favorite Bible marriage - how Jacob married sisters. Nothing like a little incestuous polygamy as 'traditional Biblical marriage', is there?

Posted by: Hillman | October 3, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

'Amen', fellow Canuck, though the religio-whack-jobs are increasingly getting their way here as well. Look who is in federal office here and also worships Bushco....

Still, you are right. In America, 'surreal' has become 'normal', and that is not good for any of us.

Posted by: Gord Metcalfe | October 3, 2007 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

very, very glad to be Canadian.

Posted by: Sstef | October 3, 2007 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gay Marriage distorts marriage. Marriage is the fundamental human institution. You are short sighted.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 8:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Posted by: Vote Ron Paul | October 3, 2007 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Posted by: Vote Ron Paul | October 3, 2007 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Posted by: Vote Ron Paul | October 3, 2007 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Posted by: Vote Ron Paul | October 3, 2007 6:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel,

I went to Patrick Burwell's website. That guy is for real. No parody about him!!! He really believes that drivel he wrote up there.

Wow, the nutjobs of this world never cease to amaze me!!!

Posted by: Gaby | October 3, 2007 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

2004 is so over that the democratic candidates have been running since 2006. Then they have all the primaries moved up to force a squeeze candidate on the public. It's too bad all democracts are interested in is winning power in order to line their pockets w/free taxpayer cash by making irresponsible campaign promises such as "free" health care for everyone; no pain/fighting but "free" oil from Venezuela (Solar power); leave terrorists alone and they'll leave you alone (tell that to our citizens living in the ghetto: you don't need police protection/dead in 911), but use the miliary to point guns at Elian Gonzalez (deport immigrant children); pander to the education union while the captive ghetto children suffer (my kid goes to georgetown day); it's okay to murder babies as you take them out of the womb but inhumane to kill criminals by injection...& it's "free enterprise" to sell tickets to the Lincoln bedroom...

Posted by: Anne Pagano | October 3, 2007 9:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Fear is a powerful emotion.

Fear of loss of some imagined previous golden age of Christianity.

Fear that sacred scripture is not on your side since the Bible does not prohibit abortion, and puts rules against homosexuality on a par with rules about not mixing cotton and linen threads in garments, or meat and milk at dinner.

Fear of ambiguity surrounding who is right and who is wrong on any given topic in a very complex world where there are many shades of gray.

Fear that the Iraq was was immoral, unjust, and unnecessary, and that God will punish those who started it and supported it.

Fear that the most religious president in recent history has advocated some very immoral positions, and his unpopularity will taint the Christian right for many years to come.

There is much reason for insecurity among conservative Christians. No wonder they feel threatened and grasp at any ruler who they feel will make their world more moral and orderly. Mr. Burwell sums up their position very well. He should be commended for his clarity.

Posted by: Morris | October 3, 2007 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Are you kidding? These people think the only people whose vote and all counts in this country is the White Evangelical. Why else would they dismiss the minority groups that have invited them to their debates?

I can promise the Republicans of this Administration this: I have been in the past a swing voter on the Democratic side, and I will not, REPEAT, NOT go there again until the clean the garbage pail out. They offer no one in this election that shows they have the guts to do what needs to be done. On the other hand, the Democrats offer me change 100 times over! Guess with whom I'm sticking? HMM.

And one more thing: if the Republicans think I'm going to blame the Democrats in the House, they have another thing coming. They define the word "obstructionist" and it only proves that we have to vote the REST of them out this upcoming next election. Change doesn't seem to come easily to a party who has mostly been kept from the House and Senate for forty years.....now we know why.

Posted by: Suzanne | October 3, 2007 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The problem with mixing religion and politics is that it immediately corrupts religion while providing sanctimonious camouflage to political thieves and perverts. It is to be expected that the GOP would be destroyed, but the surprising thing is the speed with which this has destroyed the GOP.

Posted by: BurfordHolly | October 3, 2007 8:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The country's electorate realizes it now that faith should be a private matter and not played out trying to dictate the Bible to reality. The backlash will be very strong in 2008 against Republicans. Faith is out and reality in our country is in. We are a sinking ship with no rudder. HELP.

Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | October 3, 2007 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The country's electorate realizes it now that faith should be a private matter and not played out trying to dictate the Bible to reality. The backlash will be very strong in 2008 against Republicans. Faith is out and reality in our country is in. We are a sinking ship with no rudder. HELP.

Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | October 3, 2007 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Patrick Burwell will be perfectly content as long as he can exercise his God-given right as a patriotic American to roast a few black folks on Saturday night! And shoot a couple of Indians. Yessir, they still make 'em like they used to!

Posted by: Tom | October 3, 2007 1:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Not one mention of the war/invasion of Iraq here.

Some "speak" of religion here so eloquently....

Now if you could only practice it and vote for someone who would practice it also.

Let's bring back some respectibility, honesty,
human values, not corporation values and clean this government up.

Dear God, how could half of this country be sold the bill of goods it was sold, in Your Name??

Posted by: Marinemomof3 | October 3, 2007 12:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Wait, hold on, stop right there - The GOP signed a living will and "Do not resuscitate" order to allow it to die with a shred of dignity. No extraordinary advice, please. GOP RIP 17??-2008.

Posted by: jhbyer | October 2, 2007 11:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

T Boyer makes excellent points about what happens when the evangelicals are put in charge of ruining government (that's not a typo...I meant ruining).

Too bad the media won't take up the story. Not as long as Edwards needs a haircut and Hillary has a cackle.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 2, 2007 11:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The other difference between 2004 and now, which no one has mentioned, is that conservative evangelicals have had their shot at running the country, and the results were not pretty.

Right-wing Christians got control of the White House and both houses of Congress and, curiously enough, the result was an unprecedented level of corruption and scandal in Congress and an executive branch that has bungled almost everything it has touched.

Evangelicals may not be ready to give up politics but they are deeply disappointed by what Christian Conservative leaders like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and George Bush actually produced. At least a few of them will weigh competence, experience and true character a little more highly and not allow themselves to be herded by the Karl Roves and Dr. Dobsons into voting for more ideologically pure but otherwise flawed human beings.

Posted by: T Boyer | October 2, 2007 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John McCain says he'd prefer a Christian President. So would I, Senator, but not of the First Baptist gay-hating crusader ilk of Dobson, Robertson, Haggard and Craig. What would it be like if a President adopted the true words of Christ? Inclusion, love, tolerance of anything other than the neocon agenda is not a part of these candidates religions or agendas. They have hijacked the name of Jesus for their own pride, power, greed and religious beliefs. May God help us that none of these religious bigots get elected like what happened in 2004.

Posted by: Roy | October 2, 2007 10:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John McCain says he'd prefer a Christian President. So would I, Senator, but not of the First Baptist gay-hating crusader ilk of Dobson, Robertson, Haggard and Craig. What would it be like if a President adopted the true words of Christ? Inclusion, love, tolerance of anything other than the neocon agenda is not a part of these candidates religions or agendas. They have hijacked the name of Jesus for their own pride, power, greed and religious beliefs. May God help us that none of these religious bigots get elected like what happened in 2004.

Posted by: Roy | October 2, 2007 10:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John McCain says he'd prefer a Christian President. So would I, Senator, but not of the First Baptist gay-hating crusader ilk of Dobson, Robertson, Haggard and Craig. What would it be like if a President adopted the true words of Christ? Inclusion, love, tolerance of anything other than the neocon agenda is not a part of these candidates religions or agendas. They have hijacked the name of Jesus for their own pride, power, greed and religious beliefs. May God help us that none of these religious bigots get elected like what happened in 2004.

Posted by: Roy | October 2, 2007 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Do "convincing God Talk"?

Just what might that be?

Why not "convincing Buddha talk"?

Or "convincing Vishnu talk"?

All irrelevant!

The USA is a nation of immigrants who have come here because they want the only kind of "talk" that walks - true economic talk! . . . the "talk" that transcends any sort of deity-talk.

And so, an authentic American politician is one who talks the talk and walks the walk of economic naturalism - the naturalism of the Federal Reserve & the world's central banks - the neo-enlightenment pantheon!

And it is that practical naturalism that is increasingly nullifying theist & a-theist "talk" alike and conditioning us for the only faith that makes cognitive sense - a self-critical metaphysical naturalism.

Posted by: Civic Humanist | October 2, 2007 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Berlinerblau is wrong to think these groups are going to either switch to the atheistic/former College Communist Democrats or sit it out. They'll even vote for Herr Rudy in preference to whomever the Democrats nominate. They're united particularly against Ms. Inevitable.

Posted by: Prior Bohdan Balzic | October 2, 2007 9:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The republican candidates are assuming that most people will forget their positions of the primary fight, as Romney's raft of conservative supporters somehow forgot that he shifted his stance on so many issues in the last year.

Posted by: Xerxes | October 2, 2007 9:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Derek wrote:
"I know a lot of gay Christians who whisper, sing, praise, and call upon the name of Jesus every day."

Perhaps your friends should introduce you to the Bible. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I am a sinner just as your friends are. I know I am a sinner do you?

But as for bigotry:
Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."

Unfortunately our nation is a case in point.

Thanks for your input Derek.
I will pray for you.

Posted by: Marvin | October 2, 2007 8:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Marvin wrote:
"But do not let someone sincerely whisper the name of Jesus. He should be crucified as a bigot."

I know a lot of gay Christians who whisper, sing, praise, and call upon the name of Jesus every day. But being gay beats being Christian for someone like Marvin; such things are to him even mutually exclusive.

Now THAT'S a bigot.

Posted by: Derek | October 2, 2007 7:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Unfortunately, many of you suffer from the same limited freedom of speech idea as the mainstream media. The loudest and most obnoxious screamer wins.
But do not let someone sincerely whisper the name of Jesus. He should be crucified as a bigot. Oh, I forgot, someone already has done that.

Those that cheered when prayer was taken out of school are the loudest criers that something is terribly wrong when children bring guns to school and murder. They are the same ones that take the godly principal of marriage to be whatever they define it as and then feel sympathetic when we fill out nation with single unwed parents. You fill our nation with scourge and then want to do something about it. Advocate the gay and lesbian right, and then cry over AIDS. I'm ok, you're ok. But our nation is full of teachers having sex with our students. We have an entire industry promoting child abuse and pornography that grows daily. Read your own liberal news media, it’s not getting better. Better yet read the Bible and you will discover why it’s getting worse.

You tell Mr Burwell that he should leave the country because he voices a different opinion from yours. Mr Burwell's opinion is valid, it just does not agree with yours. If he said to give everyone in our country a welfare check and a box of condoms, you would love him and vote for him for president.

John 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Posted by: Marvin | October 2, 2007 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FOR DEMOCRATS TO KEEP MOST OF THE LEFT AND CENTER THAN IT IS FOR THEM TO WIN ANY OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT."

You don't have to shout, but, Bingo! Further, we don't WANT any of the religious right. Nutcase fascists trying to control people with superstition, now *there's* a group that should be kicked out of the country.

The far Christian right is no better than the far Islamic right: religious terrorists with huge political agendas, a studied ignorance of the U.S. Constitution in the case of christian extremists, and a dangerous belief that their adult Santa Claus has anything to do with real life.

You're out of here, blowhards. Your time has come and gone. People are sick of control freak hatred posing as religious belief.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Augusto -

Thanks for setting that straight.

I admit I didn't read any of PB's ranks. I was afraid my head would explode.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 2, 2007 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you will notice, Patrick Burwell, who start off the reader comments with demented rant, is linked to a website. Although the website looks pretty freaky, I am not sure it is a paraody.

If Mr. Burwell believes in "America, love it or leave it," then why doesn't he just leave it? We don't really need or want him here, and he hates us, Americans, and America, so why doesn't he just leave?

Posted by: Daniel | October 2, 2007 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark, just to set the record straight

"The phrase you is: "America: Love it or leave it!" NOT "America: Hate it and Break it!" belongs to the first poster Patrick Burwell....it doesn't belong to me.

Let's avoid any further confusion.

Posted by: augusto | October 2, 2007 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As Karl Rove would have pointed out, having 100% of 25% of the electorate won't win elections. All opinion polls on all issues since 2006 show the general public completely alienated from the fanatical Bush voting block. Every poll question shows Bush policies garnering only 25% approval at best, so the block that Rove cultivated so carefully has been carved down to its minimal core and is no longer significant enough to bother with. IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FOR DEMOCRATS TO KEEP MOST OF THE LEFT AND CENTER THAN IT IS FOR THEM TO WIN ANY OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

And the idea that any of the evangelical fanatics care about the environment or gay rights or any other truly Christian values is rubbish. Political evangelicalism has always been about rural conservatives attempting to seize power over the larger urban society by using religion as a tool of control over the rural electorate. There is no sincere devotion to Christian values among these people, religion is a show to mask the underlying value of hating the liberal values of the large society which makes them feel inferior. We are not fooled, by them or by you and your delusional attachment to them...

Posted by: Rich | October 2, 2007 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Augusto writes:

"The phrase you is: "America: Love it or leave it!" NOT "America: Hate it and Break it!"

The basis for the "love it or leave it" phrase is actually the "my country, right or wrong" phrase. Yet how infrequent are the times that the love-it-or-leave-it rubes bother reading the "my country" quote in its entirety. Let's remedy that situation right now:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." - Sen. Carl Schurz, Feb 29, 1872

You'll excuse those of us who are determined to "set right" what is wrong in this country.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 2, 2007 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LartFromAbove: it's different now. In McGovern's time we had not seen the religious right, they were distant and seemed harmless.

The big mistake Republicans have made under Bush is forgetting that what they have to sell is unpalatable. Reagan knew better than to try to seel right-wing economic ideology to the middle class so he talked about fictitious "welfare queens"; Bush the Lesser forgot that and extolled the virtues of free markets and expected us to embrace poverty in the name of economic efficiency.

And along the way we also got to see the religious right, close up and personal, not the fake Moral Majority talking points but James Dobson and Gary Bauer and the Kansas School Board.

And guess what: we were repelled; not because "the media" made the RRR look bad, but because the RRR is repellant.

Posted by: Chris Fox | October 2, 2007 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"As the Giuliani campaign grinningly looks on..."

Well, not so fast! As of today's news, Giuliani seems to be strapping on the religion himself. Of course, I believe that simply running as a Republican at all in '08 is a sign of having a screw or two loose, given the state of affairs for that side of the isle...

Posted by: Mobedda | October 2, 2007 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am begining to wonder whether the Republicans are running for nomination for president or Troglodyte of the Year?

This, combined with religious wackos who get on TV (ABC 10/1/07) and say things like "It's all about power." scare the ebbeegeebees off me. I will do just about ANYTHING to get Democrats elected next year, even if they wear horns and carry a pitchfork.

Bin Laden may blow up a building, James Dobson wants to blow up the Constitution.

Posted by: Ethan Q | October 2, 2007 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear d Edward -

Point taken that my statement that the Rs have "always" been the party of the haves was a bit broad.

Invoking Lincoln's name at this point actually compounds the R's shame more than my broadside, don't you think?

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 2, 2007 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So why did you clue them in. We now need both Democrats and Independents to make policy for the United States. The Republicans have taken us down the slippery road to bankruptcy. Every area of our society except for the rich are suffering. The Democrats and Independents are the only ones to give us the help we need. These so called Evangelical Christians remind me of the Sanhedrin of the time of Jesus. They just want for themselves and don't really care about anyone else. Billions for the war and not enough for our children. As Colbert said, (to paraphrase) "the Republicans are doing our children a favor in not giving them health care. This way they won't expect it when they become adults." What a sad commentary on our country.

Posted by: Richard | October 2, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It will be good to see the republicans eating their own excretions in the coming election.
The old saying about running to your wings in the primaries and returning to the center during the general ... it isn't going to work for the republicans.
Pandering to the evangelicals is a well-practiced art. The spectrum of this group includes "normal" people, but it also includes those such as the patrick burwell character above. It seems the republicans are pandering to him, to the farthest far-right, in an attempt to win the entire spectrum of evangelicals in the primaries.

You can't go too far to the right in the primaries. Wrong!

I can tell you as a one-time republican voter that I will never vote for a party that panders to the most intelorant group of self-satisfied bigots since the kkk. For the first time in my life, I may vote for the democrat, whichever democrat it will be, simply to ensure the loss of the republicans from any possible position of power.

What the republicans have done since the busheviks took office has been nothing less than the greatest evil ever comitted by a political party on the people of the united states.

Posted by: k | October 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yet another article telling us how the Democrats are going to waltz blissfully past the Republicans without having to work up a sweat. I've been reading stuff like this since the McGovern campaign in 1972.

Sure, the religious right has been a potent political force for a quarter-century, but this year they're going to magically dry up and blow away? Suddenly the Republicans are going to forget how to fight dirty?

The truth is that the religious right has always been a strident minority. It's the religious center that candidates need to figure out. The religious right has plenty of slogans that play well with the centrist audience. The Democrats need to find a way to campaign on all fronts. The reason the Republicans won in 2004 is that they were able to convince people that gay marriage was worse for the country than war.

More people voted for John Kerry than had ever voted for any president in history, but the Republicans pulled out millions of new voters on the religious issue. The Democrats ignore this effect at their peril. 2008 isn't over yet.

Posted by: Lart from Above | October 2, 2007 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark:

Well, I cannot agree with you that the Republican Party has "always" been the party of the 'haves', since I seem to remember this chapter in my high school history book about a guy named Lincoln who freed the slaves...but since then, yeah, they've been happy to represent only the 'haves' and seem content to continue!

As to Patrick Burwell:

I do hope you are - as another poster suggested - a parody. I find it rather upsetting to think that someone as loathsome as you are presenting yourself to be is actually real.

Posted by: D. Edward Farrar | October 2, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Some Republicans seem more interested in the Evangelical base of 2004 than the center of 2008."

Of course they are. They don't understand history, even their own.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Does anyone really believe that Republic politicians truly believe the religious crap they wear so easily on their sleeves? C'mon, we're all smarter than that!

The R's alignment with the religious right started in earnest with Reagan - our first and only divorced president (who was stupffing Nancy while he was still married to Jane) whose family values included alienation from his children and throwing familes off welfare, and a Xian who never attended church but supposedly saw god everywhere. This "godly" man won a landslide victory over a president who made it a point to teach Sunday School every week.

No, the sorry truth is that the Republic Party has always been the party of the haves, taking advantage of and keeping down the rabble to the best of their abilities. They welcomed with open arms the bigots who fled the Democratic Party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill, and they abandoned the non-religious conservatism of Barry Goldwater and have won on their Southern Strategy for years.

The religious in this country are simply the latest dupes of a Party that will say anything to get elected, as long as they are allowed to embrace intolerance along the way. As the power of the Xian Right diminishes in this country, it will be the REPUBLICS, not the Democrats, who will openly embrace freethinking and the ideas of the enlightenment and run on them as a platform. They'll toss away the religious like yesterday's news, equating the religious in America with the religious nuts in the Middle East and by adopting a more-European attitude to politics and morality.

And they'll make a cogent case of it, because they will find a way to stress self-centered-ness in their messaging. True, they won't have the easy cover of religion that has been afforded them over the past 25 years, but as they were never really about religion to begin with, they be able to turn on a dime when the time comes.

My prediction: they'll call it "The New Goldwaterism."

Meanwhile, the Dems will be stuck with the "party of the religious" label for a while, having come late to the religious party and having embraced religion only as a blatant and pandering political strategy. Hell, the pandering fueling their embrace of on-the-sleeve religion-ism is already showing, and this is only the FIRST election in which they've tried it. Imagine how bad it will be in 2112 when the Rs are well down the road to "secularism ain't so bad after all" while the Dems are stuck with a platform built of bronze (bronze-aged thought, that is).

Remember, you heard it here first.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 2, 2007 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Patrick Burwell's post is parody.

Posted by: Anon | October 2, 2007 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Patrick Burwell: you, sir, are a contemptible bigot and I want you to know that your discomfort and outrage at the tolerance of homosexuals and others you despise is the source of endless comfort to many of us.

And, I must add, endless mirth. Please, suffer loudly. That "picket fence" thing ain't coming back and you will spend the rest of your life in a world alien to you.

Posted by: Chris Fox | October 2, 2007 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You must be younger than I, Mr. Berlinblau .. I'm 53 and have been watching politics most of my life. The Republicans are doing what they have always done: being seduced by their own myths.

The Bush Bubble is nothing new. Republicans always surround themselves with the like-minded, they only hear the opinions of the extremely wealthy and the extremely religious and the extremely hate-crazed, and they come to believe that outside a few liberals in NYC and San Francisco, everyone secretly thinks just like they do.

Republicans believe that if we were freed of the strictures of political correctness we would all be entrepreneural free-market bigots, ready to bomb a national capital to avenge a slight, perfectly OK with all sorts of bigotry, hating everything and everyone they hate.

They're wrong.

After Dole lost to Clinton in '96 the postmortem concluded that Republicans had let down the American people by NOT BEING CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

This last run shorticircuited itself in record time because as always they went too far, way too far, and now Republican is another word for "mud."

The evangelical argument is just a special case.

Posted by: Chris Fox | October 2, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Patrick Burwell

I am a Christian. I was going to say, "I am a Christian, too" but that would be incorrect, since what you described is not Christian.

What you described is ruthless political agenda for authoriatian control of the government. The religion you described is actually a dysfunctional psychological state, and while I am sorry for your suffering, I hope that people who read what you have written do not get the mistaken impression that yours is a typical Christian point of view.

Posted by: Daniel | October 2, 2007 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The last paragraph tells the real story behind Jacq's worried article:
"If they keep it up, each will be standing well to the right of Pat Buchanan by the time Thanksgiving rolls around. And each can be sure that not one Swing Democrat in the United States will cast a vote for them if they somehow win their Party’s nomination."

It would appear Berlinerblau could use a Zoloft© prescription...
For crying out loud Jacques, haven't you caught on yet? We do not need even ONE Democrat vote for our candidate to win, IF we can DECIDE on one and IF every Evangelical votes. Those are big "IF"'s, unfortunately, due to the domestic nature of our base; we tend to trust.
This IS a nation whose majority DOES desire morality and the genteel atmosphere of bygone days. We want our picket fences and apple pie cooling on the window sill. We do, and still will, send missionaries out to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every man, woman and child on the earth. There is nothing we would like more than to kick every deviant out of this country that wants to drag her into the cesspool in which they live. We DO NOT think "Hate Crime" laws need to be established, or that existing laws need to be redefined to include deviance as a federalized legal right. Yes, we DO think calling evil good and good evil will bring the Wrath of a Holy and Righteous God down on our heads as a nation and a people. For we DO know that this nation must exalt Yahweh, bringing glory to his name. But, conversely, we also know that the nation that denies God will be rejected by Him.
No we do NOT want marriage redefined as anything but the Scriptural definition of between a natural born man and a natural born woman. No we do NOT want to be forced by our government to hire actively amoral individuals. Yes we DO actively work to overthrow Roe-V-Wade at our earliest opportunity and YES we DO believe ILLEGAL aliens SHOULD BE DEPORTED.
And anyone that thinks the moral majority of this nation are push overs are likely to make the same mistake as the Dictator of Japan did in WW2. The tiger sleeps but when you wake him up, like in 2004, you get surprised by his strength and his resolve.
Any candidate that does not GET that will not GET my vote. I am a Christian. I am Pro-life, Pro-self defense, Pro-Family, and for a smaller, more efficient federal government that leaves the states to be self governing wherever possible.
We do believe we should defend the weak and rescue the oppressed.

The phrase you is: "America: Love it or leave it!" NOT "America: Hate it and Break it!"

Posted by: Patrick Burwell | October 2, 2007 12:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.