It's not so much a religious litmus test as it is a morality and backbone litmus test. For me, its as important of an issue as slavery was 150 years ago. If a candidate told me he would never own slaves, but he doesn't think he has the right to tell others that they can't own slaves, he would not have received my vote. I would rather vote for those who adamantly disagree with me than those spineless wonders who feel that their opinion might infringe on another's rights.

I agree and love how you worded it.

 

I can easily come to my position without pulling on my Christian faith.

Disagree with the not participating in elections as the abortion issue has only been my driving issue since the mid-90's and I have voted in every election since I turned 18.

 

You're the exception rather than the rule. For the most part, historically, religious conservatives have stayed out of the election process.

 

Again while you say the religious right has hi-jacked the GOP, I see them representing the values and issues of those who are voting GOP and responsible for putting them in office.

 

Just as the claim is made that the Democrats have been "hi-jacked" by special interests groups that do not represent the values/issues of those who are voting for the GOP.

 

I disagree in that I think candidates are simply pandering to a new bloc within their party. I think there are a great many GOP candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to piety.

 

And the Democratic Party has been hi-jacked by the pro-abortion crowd, and to a lesser degree anti-gun types.

You're the exception rather than the rule. For the most part, historically, religious conservatives have stayed out of the election process.

 

 

 

I disagree in that I think candidates are simply pandering to a new bloc within their party. I think there are a great many GOP candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to piety.

 

And the Democratic Party has been hi-jacked by the pro-abortion crowd, and to a lesser degree anti-gun types.

Don't forget the alternative lifestyle crowd that used to be referred to as homosexuals and the promotion of same-sex marriages.

 

No one will ever convince me that those protection of marriage amendments throughout the nation (and in Ohio) didn't give GW the 2004 election. I believe he won EVERY state that had an amendment on the ballot.

 

On the first part, probably that separation of church/state issue.

 

Let me also say from 1983 to 1992, I would not have been labeled a conservative Christian. Remember I was a Dukkakis supporter in 1988 and voted for Perot in 1992. Also went for Mondale in 1984.

 

Began attending church seriously in 1991, baptized in 1992 with some real studying of the Bible and began to look at issues through a Biblical view. The Clinton veto of the partial birth abortion bill was the last straw for me and pushed me to that single-issue view I now have.

 

Seriously, I think you are seeing that changed and they will not stay out of the political issues as they see America changing from a nation founded in Christian beliefs to a nation that we are to stay in the corner like a little child to be seen and not heard but rather dressed up and paraded out when the adults need us to.

Don't forget the alternative lifestyle crowd that used to be referred to as homosexuals and the promotion of same-sex marriages.

 

Forgot that one. :thumb:

 

No one will ever convince me that those protection of marriage amendments throughout the nation (and in Ohio) didn't give GW the 2004 election. I believe he won EVERY state that had an amendment on the ballot.

 

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that it was pandering.

 

On the first part, probably that separation of church/state issue.

 

Let me also say from 1983 to 1992, I would not have been labeled a conservative Christian. Remember I was a Dukkakis supporter in 1988 and voted for Perot in 1992. Also went for Mondale in 1984.

 

Seriously, I think you are seeing that changed and they will not stay out of the political issues as they see America changing from a nation founded in Christian beliefs to a nation that we are to stay in the corner like a little child to be seen and not heard but rather dressed up and paraded out when the adults need us to.

 

Don't be so defensive. I'm just looking at it from an analytical standpoint. Historically, the religious right has stayed out of the electoral process. That began to change with Reagan, and completely transformed the GOP by the time GWB ran in 2000. From things I've read over the past couple years, a great many of those on the religious right have grown disillusioned with the fact that RvW is still in place, and will sit out the next election in protest. And I've got news for them, it's not going away. Not if the GOP campaign machinery has its way. It's too critical a wedge issue.

Forgot that one. :thumb:

 

 

 

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that it was pandering.

 

 

 

Don't be so defensive. I'm just looking at it from an analytical standpoint. Historically, the religious right has stayed out of the electoral process. That began to change with Reagan, and completely transformed the GOP by the time GWB ran in 2000. From things I've read over the past couple years, a great many of those on the religious right have grown disillusioned with the fact that RvW is still in place, and will sit out the next election in protest. And I've got news for them, it's not going away. Not if the GOP campaign machinery has its way. It's too critical a wedge issue.

When is it pandering and when it is representing the voter's mindset that represents the voter's who put you into office?

 

Not being defensive at all and enjoying the conversation. I thought the smiley face would indicate that I was kidding on the separaton issue.

 

I think you even allude to my point in your last post. That the religious voters are now voting on issues and transformed their mindset.

 

I think the overturn of RvW is a long process like overcoming slavery did not just start with Lincoln and his Presidency.

 

I do think what you point out as GOP not wanting to overturn RvW is a dangerous slippery slope. It will get to the point that seeing no results will result in loss of support of the GOP. They have to have some movement in the issue, like the appointment of SC judges who helped lead to the support of the partial abortion ban.

When is it pandering and when it is representing the voter's mindset that represents the voter's who put you into office?

 

I would think it would be more important to vote for a candidate who actually represented that mindset rather than one who just pays lip service to that mindset. IMO, most GOP candidates are doing just that -- paying lip service.

 

Not being defensive at all and enjoying the conversation. I thought the smiley face would indicate that I was kidding on the separaton issue.

 

:thumb:

 

I think you even allude to my point in your last post. That the religious voters are now voting on issues and transformed their mindset.

 

I think the overturn of RvW is a long process like overcoming slavery did not just start with Lincoln and his Presidency.

 

I do think what you point out as GOP not wanting to overturn RvW is a dangerous slippery slope. It will get to the point that seeing no results will result in loss of support of the GOP. They have to have some movement in the issue, like the appointment of SC judges who helped lead to the support of the partial abortion ban.

 

I pretty much agree with this. I'm just less optimistic that the religious right will continue to be a reliable bloc for the GOP.

I would think it would be more important to vote for a candidate who actually represented that mindset rather than one who just pays lip service to that mindset. IMO, most GOP candidates are doing just that -- paying lip service.

 

 

 

:thumb:

 

 

 

I pretty much agree with this. I'm just less optimistic that the religious right will continue to be a reliable bloc for the GOP.

I think they will because I see more and more issues on the horizon of this country that they will be concerned about.

 

I give for example this hate speech movement that would prevent ministers/pastors to speak from the pulpit on homosexual and other sexually behavior that the Bible says is against God's wishes.

 

Another is...I don't think the same-sex marriage debate is over.

"Increasingly...partisanship and free spending of the Bush presidency—and the takeover of the party by single-issue voters, especially pro-lifers—is driving...pragmatic, fiscally conservative voters out of the GOP."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18507722/site/newsweek/

 

Amen to that. The Republican party needs to return to its real roots--fiscal conservatism, small government, and sensible, pragmatic foreign policy.

 

It seems to me that with Clinton's 8 years and now Bush's 8 years, these guys are increasingly blurring the lines between their parties. For election purposes, they play it up to divide the people and win the race, but their actual performance in office seems to speak otherwise. But, I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the sharpest guy when it comes to political things.

It's not so much a religious litmus test as it is a morality and backbone litmus test. For me, its as important of an issue as slavery was 150 years ago. If a candidate told me he would never own slaves, but he doesn't think he has the right to tell others that they can't own slaves, he would not have received my vote. I would rather vote for those who adamantly disagree with me than those spineless wonders who feel that their opinion might infringe on another's rights.

Amen!:thumb:

It seems to me that with Clinton's 8 years and now Bush's 8 years, these guys are increasingly blurring the lines between their parties. For election purposes, they play it up to divide the people and win the race, but their actual performance in office seems to speak otherwise. But, I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the sharpest guy when it comes to political things.

 

I think your assessment here is contradictory to your last sentence. You're pretty much dead on.

Funny how me voting my values is a bad thing to this author. Guess I should just pocket my faith and my values when I step into the voting booth.

 

I think the author's point (and my view) is that single issue voters tend to turn a blind eye toward every other policy issue besides theirs. Consequently, if a candidate can strike the sweet spot of enough single issue voters to get elected, that candidate can absolutely run amok on nearly every other issue (or fail to deal with the real problems that are squarely within the domain of the federal government).

 

We've got major, MAJOR budget problems looming in the next few decades. Yet, somehow national politics get bogged down on such peripheral topics as stem cell research, gay marriage, and whether or not a feeding tube to a brain-dead person remains connected or not. I wonder what the single issue voters will think in 15 years when their federal taxes have to be doubled to keep the government from defaulting on its interest payments.

I think the author's point (and my view) is that single issue voters tend to turn a blind eye toward every other policy issue besides theirs. Consequently, if a candidate can strike the sweet spot of enough single issue voters to get elected, that candidate can absolutely run amok on nearly every other issue (or fail to deal with the real problems that are squarely within the domain of the federal government).

 

We've got major, MAJOR budget problems looming in the next few decades. Yet, somehow national politics get bogged down on such peripheral topics as stem cell research, gay marriage, and whether or not a feeding tube to a brain-dead person remains connected or not. I wonder what the single issue voters will think in 15 years when their federal taxes have to be doubled to keep the government from defaulting on its interest payments.

 

That's been my contention for some time: There are far more important things going on that should take priority than the ones the pols seem to drone on about when it comes to domestic policy. :thumb: