The American Spectator

J David| 11.10.08 @ 7:26AM

Some "religious conservatives", worldly, carnal, can be compromised. They have a price, and can be bought, but a large number of them are responsible beyond the this life, to an Almighty. No human being has power over the eternal soul of others, not even faux Messiah Obama, and a certain segment will never accede to the immorality of secular humanism, and never vote for those who do. Those will be the among the first that the new Marxist government will go after, with things like the "Fairness Doctrine", which will extend over ALL types of media communication, and ENDA legislation, which will be crafted to extend over what is said in the pulpit, and all who are hired in religious organizations of any kind, profit and non-profit.

Those blithering fools, pragmatic, soulless tools of commie-lb Dems who reside in the RINO Party that think they will EVER have a winning party that excludes social conservatives should find a new career, now, as they will end up with no GOP in which to masquerade as *public servants*.

Brett| 11.10.08 @ 7:39AM

The reason the Republicans lost, is not the values but that the so called Republicans that we elected strayed from the values.

Captain America| 11.10.08 @ 7:51AM

A bit of circumspection is to be expected after losing an election. It wasn't that long ago that the Democrats were trying to find the "value voters."

The individuals identified in this piece are shop worn and, quite frankly, voices looking for an (any) audience. They have been opposed to social conservationism throughout their careers. In a previous era they were Rockefeller republicans. Today, they are simply posers of "I told you so."

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.10.08 @ 7:56AM

The reason Republicans lost is due to the fact that they spent like drunken sailors and could not see the difference between a viable and non-viable fetus.

Rick Ellingtyon| 11.10.08 @ 8:48AM

I agree man those aren't Republicans they are Demofags in Rupublican suits. Screw any rino that tries to win an election without us so called weirdo PROUD TO BE A JESUS SAVED CHRISTIAN!!!!!! they'll never win another!

Sandy Lyden| 11.10.08 @ 9:02AM

When Obama the Messiah, started his run, what was his Big thing? He could capture some the religious right! He was a guy of traditional values,pandering to the red state mentality and then..........tuh duh......... his values mentor the right Reverend Racist, ah, Wright!

frost| 11.10.08 @ 9:10AM

Mr. Hauschild's first part is correct, but he leaves out the very Worst President Ever, probably tied with Jimmy Carter for futility, ineptness, lack of leadership, and sheer dumbness. Compound that with a California congressman calling for a ban on the Morning After Pill, another few who fostered the ban on Internet Wagering, and the pandering idiots from both sides of the aisle with their "earmarks" -- and the zealots who seem to place the "Choice" issue, gay crap, and stem-cells ahead of the aforementioned spending, leaky borders, miserable corruption in DC, and a new electorate that demands "Something-for-Nothing," and, yeah, the priorities are very updescrewed. Those who presume to tell the rest of us (Libertarian types, mostly) how we should think have become tedious, genuine pains-in-the-butt -- they chase away lots of folk with the sanctimonious rhetoric and lack-of-couth. Look for people to blame all you like, but there were multiple reasons for this debacle, not the least of which/whom was Dubya and the total absence of leadership - - just think if he had just utilized his clout in curbing the idiotic spending by dippy GOP legislators. He had years to do so, and not even a peep. Nah, the voters saw a whole lot more than the extreme right's Pabulum Puke demands - - the Republicans imploded.

Michael Koledi| 11.10.08 @ 9:42AM

The many "Rockefeller" republicans in congress sold us out and helped put this country in tough shape. Catholics "in-name-only" split the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania giving the state to Obama. There are just too many things in this country that are screwed up. If we don't stand together when Obama tries to make things worse we will reach the point of "no-return". Look @ all the new republicans that moved to Colorado and never registered to vote. Apathy will be the death-blow to this country long before the "left" can stick a fork in us!

M. Tobias| 11.10.08 @ 9:57AM

An interesting piece. But the finger of blame should not be pointing anywhere near traditional Conservatives.

In the first place, Conservatives didn't have a dog in the hunt this year. In fact, they never have a true Conservative in the race for President. Why? Because the Republican party will not run one. So, who gets the nomination this year? The one man in the Republican party who is the most singularly despised and mistrusted by conservatives, John [I never met a Democrat that I didn't like] McCain. The reasons for this reside largely with two factors. One, early Republican primaries and caucuses allow open voting or cross-over voting. Meaning that people other than party members get to choose the party's nominee. And second, the moderate country club wing of the Republican Party is still in control and they do everything possible to marginalize the Conservative voter.

They were emboldened by the last two Presidential elections. By packaging a moderate candidate as a conservative, they managed to win two elections. Both were squeakers against very left- liberal candidates. They had lost the previous two elections against a liberal moderate candidate by running moderates. Yet, they failed to get the message. When faced with a clear idealogical choice, a majority pf people will vote for the candidate who espouses conservative values. Without a clear cut idealogical choice, it becomes a popularity contest. And the Republican Party rarely runs people who are popular [Ronald Reagan being the exception].

So back to this years election. You have a Democrat candidate, whose prior record suggests that he just slightly to the right of Josef Stalin and would feel more at home living in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, who then runs as a tax cutting moderate. His opponent is a liberal populist who has voted repeatedly against tax cuts and for amnesty for illegal aliens, campaign finance restrictions, global warming cap and trade legislation and supports unrestricted abortion. His first pick for VP is not even a Republican, but an independent who was ousted from the Democrat Party because his views were not liberal enough. Besides that he is old, has a whiny nasally voice and generates all of the enthusiasm of a dead mackerel. When you look at it, there was never very many reasons for Conservative Republicans to even vote this year. So the young, good looking candidate with the stentorian voice [suitably augmented by reverberation effects] who is going to cut taxes and give everyone everything they want [without ever explaining how] and who just happens to be a minority wins the election. And the leadership of the Republican Party are stunned. Unfortunately, they will continue to be stunned, because they are too heavily invested in their moderate philosophy and their desire to remain in control of the Republican Party at any cost. Good luck in future Presidential elections.

Tim| 11.10.08 @ 9:59AM

David Frum is and has been out to lunch period.
He is a political hack no more, no less.

Take the golden sate of California.

Obama won the state by a 61-37 percent margin fueled in part by a record African American voter turn out.

Yet, Prop 8, amending the state's constitution to reflect that Marriage is a union between a Man and a women passed by a 52-48 percent margin fueled in part by those same African American voters.
Any rational political observer would take this fact as proof that there is still a hunger for traditional social values and they are far from dead in the American landscape.

But then again, we can all play along with the Frum crowd and convince each other that the majority of Americans want to throw out traditiuonal social values and have done so in this election.

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 10:03AM

Social conservatives are a problem for the Republican party because they stand for belief over reason in politics and eschew intellect and education. That was Bush's big problem in governing -- he believed rather than reasoned. Bush was not a good student, Cheney was not a good student, McCain was 5th from the bottom of his class, and Palin did not know how to structure a proper English sentence. Republicans lost the support from the educated segment including Colin Powell, Weld, Brooks, Will, etc. Voters knew it would take a smart person to address the complex economic situation, and the Republicans didn't offer a competent candidate. Furthermore, the litmus test social conservatives provide in primaries, rules out excellent choices like Powell and Ridge. Social conservatives are intolerant and immune to reason.

It is a mistake to talk about the marriage and gay initiatives and align that with a social conservative platform. If you take a look at exit polls, Democrats are every bit as "religious" as Republicans. Even the Beltway Boys indicated it was only a matter of time before the younger, more tolerant voter of this election becomes a majority and makes gay marriage a reality.

As an adjunct, social conservatives are interventionist in nature, i.e., they want the government to codify their values into law. Republicans have had a long history of being fiscally conservative and non-interventionist (another Bush problem).

Social conservatives are the reason there is not a single Republican congressman in the northeast and why the Democrats control virtually all of the U.S. except the deep south.

Republicans used to have a consistent, more libertarian, philosophy, i.e., keep government small and out of our private lives. Social conservatives want more government in our lives.

To believe that you can convince the growing Hispanic, black, and youth segments to become Republican basis social conservatives just doesn't make any sense since the party does not address any of their larger issues on providing healthcare for the 40 million uninsured, provide support for social security, developing a more lenient immigration policy, etc. It is folly to believe otherwise.

Tim| 11.10.08 @ 10:26AM

Bush may have been a social conservative, which is why he won re-election in 2004 but he was left of center when it came to spending and big goverment.
California's Prop 8 is very appropriate to this discussion for the reason I pointed out.

Consider if you will thatm millions of African Americans in both Florida and California voted for Obama yet voted to keep marriage traditional in both of those states and wasn't even close in Florida.
Let me go further and suggest that if and when the Republican party fields highly qualified and charasmatic socially conservative Hispanics, African Americans, women, other minorities, or white candidates, you will find a landslide coalition eclipsing Reagan's 1984.

That is what the Left fears most. Hence the reason why their only hope is to try and demonize social conservatives.

If they couldn't do it this year, when all the stars were right, bad economy, a supportive press, and a less then eciting republican nominee then my guess is that they have missed their chance and the fact remains that the country still remains a socially conservative one by a substancial majority.

Keep in mind that given all of this the left still needed Acorn to secure the states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 10:41AM

So the weak-kneed RINOs, who have no core principles and who foisted McCain upon the Republican electorate are now in full CYA-mode, trying to cover their pathetic rear-ends in the 2008 debacle??

Forgive me if I'm not surprised.

Like I said in a similar column last week, these fools don't understand the situation they face. Let a "Social Conservative" spell it out for you one more time:

Without us, you're nothing.

If you think you can alienate us, or push us to the back of the bus, you're dead wrong. Unlike the zombies who pull the lever for Democrats year in and year out (and apparently, unlike yourselves), we have principles and core convictions that go DEEPER than Party loyalty. We vote Republican because the G.O.P. is the Party that most closely approximates our principles.

If you abandon those principles, your Party is dead. And if the RINOs who still habitate the G.O.P. plan on continuing the agenda that gave us McCain in '08, then take our advice, and become Democrats now, because you'll feel much more comfortable there.

2008 was a watershed election for Social Conservatives. Obama will be our Pearl Harbor, and his policies will, to paraphrase Admiral Yakamoto, awaken the "sleeping giant" that Ronald Reagan so assiduously created.

2010 and 2012 will be fun.

RINOs beware: Get on board now, or prep your resumes.

Vera| 11.10.08 @ 10:43AM

"To believe that you can convince the growing Hispanic, black, and youth segments to become Republican basis social conservatives just doesn't make any sense since the party does not address any of their larger issues " You mean become more like Democrats? How can one be consistently libertarian yet embrace government-run healthcare, shore up the boondoggle called social security, and allow millions of undocumented immigrants to freely use government services? That's the problem right there: it's not the social conservatives; the problem is the Republican party wants to be the Democratic party. Bush, McCain, and Congressional Republicans have conceded these issues to the Democrats, rather than embrace the values of their party. I think the loss of the election has more to do with the "emergency" $7 billion corporate welfare plan. If you prefer to dump the social conservative platform, I am more than happy to become an independent.

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 10:55AM

Vera, why do you believe only Democrat solutions can be formed for healthcare, immigration, and social security? We must develop Republican solutions to these issues that resonate within those communities. The problem with social conservatives is that they are a litmus test in the primaries and are thus intolerant to politically conservative candidates who happen to be pro-choice. They tend to like uneducated (not elite) candidates rather than the best and the brightest. They are currently the gatekeepers of the Republican party and until we broaden our appeal, we will continue to shrink. The numbers don't lie -- in 2004 both declared Republicans and Democrats represented 37% of the electorate. In 2008 Democrats were 39% and Republicans were 28%. This loss was primarily due to Republicans being turned off by social conservatives and turning into independents and Democrats.

These numbers don't lie and more emphasis must be placed on reason rather than belief. I believe that we can make the Republican ethic of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense resonate -- but we won't have the chance if social conservatives remain the gatekeepers.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 10:59AM

Before I even finish reading this article, I just have to mention that if McCain had put Lieberman on the ticket, not only would he have have failed to carry a single, additional state, but he would have gone on to lose Georgia, Missouri, Montana, and quite possibly Alaska and the Dakotas. There's a lot of things I don't like about Sarah Palin (basically, that she's a neocon impersonating a conservative, and fooling all too many of us with that fake, "aw shucks" persona she wears like a costume), but the fact she was perceived as a true conservative is just about the one good aspect of the McCain '08 campaign. I believe that perception is in error, but it never-the-less worked its magic, and may well have been the only thing that kept Barack Obama under 400 Electoral Votes. McCain/Lieberman would have been the most worthless Republican ticket since the Landon/Knox '36 debacle.

Dennis | 11.10.08 @ 10:59AM

All through the campaign, we conservatives were exhorted to put our misgivings about McCain aside and vote for him, because the alternative was too unspeakable to contemplate. This was the great rationale for having us ignore the temptation to consider third party candidagtes, even though they were actually conservative. Well, now the unspeakable has happened, our votes notwithstanding.
So, why not now start actively working toward a viable third party candidate for 2012. What's the worst thing that could happen? A republican denied the White House? One can only hope, given the depths to which the formerly respectable party has degenerated.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 11:08AM

"In his post-election column for the National Post, David Frum counseled Republicans to embrace "a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues," a move that will "involve painful change" on such issues as abortion."

I just don't understand people like David Frum (actually, I think I understand them very well, and it would be inappropriate for me to put into print what I think about a person like that). If the Republican Party isn't going to stand for social conservatism anymore, what the Hell is the point of the whole GOP farce? We've long since abandoned a sensible, post-Cold War foreign policy ("isolationism"), and any conceivable association with fiscal restraint, and now we're supposed to abandon the one thing that makes the Republican Party distinct from the Democrats? If Republicans are going to be free-spending, international crusading, moral libertines, why do we even need to elect them at all? Does Mr. Frum simply have a fetish for the letter "R" being next to the names of members of Congress? That's the only thing I can think of, unless maybe Mr. Frum doesn't have any real problem with the Democrats, and wants the Republicans to remain strong for the simple reason that it might prevent an authentically conservative opposition party from rising up and replacing the Republicans? Hmmm, you think?

Josh F| 11.10.08 @ 11:32AM

Republicans nominated a candidate who was fundamentally uncomfortable communicating so-called values issues. E.g., referring to women's health in derisive air quotes during a presidential debate is not something that will win the hearts and minds of socially conservative or liberal women. Moreover, it's time for conservatives of all stripes to get out off the Sarah Palin bandwagon. It is a vehicle that is careening towards either a telephone poll or a tree. Poll after poll shows she damaged the GOP ticket. She has the potential to imperil the electoral chances of all Republicans. Maintain safe distance.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 11:35AM

"Social conservatives are a problem for the Republican party because they stand for belief over reason in politics and eschew intellect and education. That was Bush's big problem in governing -- he believed rather than reasoned."

This is a somewhat fair criticism, but the response ought not to be for the Republican Party to abandon social conservatism, but rather for the Republican Party to refuse to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012, and to instead select a social conservative with brains. Such people have existed, you know. Patrick Buchanan, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan (before he got shot, and the loss of blood flow to his brain made him prematurely senile; think primarily about the 1976 and '80 campaigns), and Barry Goldwater (before his young wife started writing his press releases for him). We need men like that. Men who can embrace both liberty and socially conservative values, and who can make intellectually coherent arguments on their behalf. People like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are basically proud of their own ignorance, and naturally turn off conservatives-who-read-books-other-than-the-Bible. Yet there's no reason to assume that articulate conservatives can't win the support of the very same people who inexplicably admire empty-headed shills like Bush and Palin. They have in the past. Bush's 2004 win was small beer compared to Reagan's two victories. The Republican Party doesn't want to give serious-minded conservatives (as opposed to merely conservatives-as-lifestyle types like Bush and Palin) another shot at the nomination. I say we organize, and don't give them a choice in the matter!

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 11:41AM

"Catholics "in-name-only" split the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania giving the state to Obama."

I a Catholic Republican, and as pro-Life as they come, but if the GOP wants to get serious about reclaiming a majority of the Catholic vote, they would be well-advised not to simply regard all Catholics as potential single-issue voters on the abortion question. Catholics don't all obsess about abortion; if they did, Obama wouldn't have carried Pennsylvania. But that doesn't make them Catholics-in-name-only. It simply means there are other issues, in addition to abortion. Catholics aren't the silly little caricatures the mass media portrays us as being, although I have no doubt the people running John McCain's campaign think we are.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 11:45AM

"Social conservatives are the reason there is not a single Republican congressman in the northeast"

So, when exactly did New York state stop being part of the northeastern United States?

Thomas| 11.10.08 @ 11:48AM

Mr. Frum is, at best, a Go Along-Get Along Republican. At worse, the is a Democrat fellow traveler.

The religious Right doesn't attempt to force its religious beliefs upon anyone in this country. When was the last time you heard of a Baptist Republican politician voting for, let alone sponsoring, legislation to outlaw smoking, drinking or dancing? Yet liberal controlled cities have outlawed smoking outdoors and in private homes. As for polarizing on social issues, it is the left that is the source of polarization. The right continues to embrace the core principles that made this country great; self reliance, personal responsibility, honesty, hard work, compassion, thrift, service and honor.

We don't need any more liberals in this country. But, we could sure use more Conservatives.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.10.08 @ 11:52AM

"Keep in mind that given all of this the left still needed Acorn to secure the states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio."

Man, I am so sick to death of hearing Republicans whine about ACORN. Its nothing but an organized group of liberal activists. Y'all whine about them like its somehow unfair that the bad ol' liberals are actually trying to win the elections now, instead of just rolling over with Mondale and McGovern, like they used to do. We don't need to moan about ACORN. Conservatives need their own ACORN!

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 12:04PM

To: Josh F.

Re: Sarah Palin

"Poll after poll shows she damaged the GOP ticket."

Is this a joke???

What polls??? NBC?? MSNBC??? CNN??? ABC ???

Well, Duh!!!!

Anyone who thinks Palin damaged the GOP ticket doesn't really understand her unique contribution to McCain's feckless campaign, or the lib-media's agenda.

So "maintain safe distance" from Palin if you want to keep seeing feckless, RINO, media-loving candidates like McCain...

...If you're tired of that, then stop listening to and watching and caring about what the Lib-media says or thinks. Remember, they DON'T have our interests at heart.

Palin was the only genuine conservative on either ticket. She's the ONLY reason I voted for MCain. She rallied the Conservative base, and gave them a reason to vote. Otherwise, as another pst-er aptly described it, this election would have been more of a route than it was.

Charles Krauthammer expressed amazement that the McCain/Palin ticket was even able to obtain 46% of the vote in this economic and political environment. Without Palin on the ticket, McCain would NOT have even crossed the 40% threshold.

The Lib-media IMMEDIATELY recognized Palin for the tjreat she represented to Obama, and like the lap-dogs they are, they immediately set out to destroy her. Apparently, they were so effective that even some conservative-inclined voters have begun to believe them.

And the Lib-media hasn't finished with Palin, either. Again, they see how the Conservative-base coalesced around her, and they rightly recognize her as a threat to the 2012 election - so the trashing of Sarah Palin continues.

Here's a helpful hint when dealing with Libs in the media:

Rule # 1: A Republican Candidate's effectiveness as a Republican is directly proportional to the effort they make to destroy him/her in the eyes of the public.

Rule # 2: If the media likes a Republican, it is because he/she is a sell-out, a RINO, or a "maverick" (meaning they'll stab their party in the back if it's politically expedient...Sound familiar?)

Gazinya| 11.10.08 @ 12:20PM

Socially Conservative and Politically Liberal = Jesus is Lord but Satan is handing out the candy and we have a powerful sweet tooth.

Kenna| 11.10.08 @ 1:29PM

Well John McCain can THANK SARAH PALIN for getting this FL Democrat's(soon 2 be Independent) vote. SHE is the ONLY reason that I voted for him.

Don't forget that not all conservatives are republicans. Had I known now that the GOP doesn't value my vote or my conservative ideals then I would have glady given it to a third party candidate.

Mark Cure | 11.10.08 @ 2:19PM

I know plenty of people that are socially conservative but not religious so I think if the religious right’s values are tossed overboard the GOP will lose more people than they think. As some one mentioned above…what is so bad about the religious right’s beliefs? They don’t want to force anything down anyone’s throats. Has the liberal kool-aid made it even over here where people are thinking that Christians want to force people to convert at gunpoint? Do we really need to go down the route where kids at school aren’t supposed to say “Christmas tree” anymore? That sort of ridiculous thing is what the Religious right is fighting. So the abortion issue is important…apparently it is to the liberal crowd too! We hear pro-choice shoved down our throats all the time! So not condoning murder is “legislating morality”? Are socially conservative beliefs something new in America? Haven’t socially conservative beliefs been the norm throughout our history? Conservative…doesn’t that mean to conserve something?

Tom Anderson| 11.10.08 @ 2:38PM

When Reagan was elected president in 1980, he put together a coalition of (for want of better terms) Christian fundamentalists, economic libertarians, and national-security conservatives. A future Republican electoral success cannot pretend the economic libertarian leg of this coalition does not exist.

The current president, because of the Iraq War, because of his tax policies, and because he successfully energized social conservatives by invoking their fear and contempt for homosexuals, managed an electoral success in 2004, a success that unravelled in 2006 with the Democratic victory in the House and Senate, largely over Bush's grotesque incompetence in executing the War, although Bush's extravagant and irresponsible spending policies and the political corruption of so many Republican politicans played a role.

Libertarians in this coalition had no candidate in the 2008 election. As a libertarian myself I still pulled the lever for McCain, but that was simply a vote against Obama. Why? It was virtually impossible to make a positive intellectual case for McCain. McCain knows nothing of economics it seems and he apparently feels embarrassed by social conservatives. Frankly, I am impressed that he received as many votes as he did.

McCain and the Republicans actually lost the tax issue to the Democrats in 2008, having ceded it to Obama's now famous "95% tax cut" rhetoric.

As a libertarian I come to the issues that energize social conservatives from a different point of view than they.

I seek limited government and quite frankly I could care less what anybody does in the bedroom or what they do with their bodies. Individual human beings, in my thinking, "own" their own bodies and lives and should have their natural rights recognized and respected by the law.

Unfortunately, on such issues as a woman's right to choose, the right of individuals to form a marriage contract, and the right to consume whatever they wish in the nature of foods, medicines, drugs, etc., are subjects about which social conservatives and libertarians will disagree profoundly.

As a libertarian I ask myself how could I possibly ally myself with people who believe they have moral right to deprive me of my right to life, that is, my right to live my life the way I want to, so long as I respect the equal rights of others?

Let's be clear. The only reason to do so is because the collectivists on the Left are even worse in their disrespect for individual rights than are the social conservatives on the Right.

Social conservatives, if they value their economic freedom and want to have a chance at future electoral victory, might consider showing a little more respect for the economic libertarians that made up the original Reagan coalition.

On the other hand, it is possible libertarians may be able to forge some sort of coalition with voters who have voted Democratic in recent elections but who have no stomach for socialism.

Until and unless social conservatives realize that the libertarian leg is as disgusted with religion-based governmental intervention into a person's most personal and private life, as they are with the libertarian commitment to individualism, the Republican Party will not be able to reclaim Reagan's authority and Reagan's active belief that the only justifiable purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.

blotto| 11.10.08 @ 4:02PM

Tom you have it about right, and I am a Reagan conservative. Here's the way I see it:
1. McCain was destined to fail because of his penchant for poking us conservatives in the eye; joining with Demoncrats on issues; the MSM blatant bias toward Obamama; Bush's prosecution of the war on terror and Iraq; the failure of the GOP to have the stones to call the Left on the financial meltdown and McCain's lame campaign and the blue-blooded Rockefeller GOP. He sucked big time.
2. Looking to the future both conservatives and libertarians can join together along many common issues-small government, privacy, economics, judicial appointments, taxation, etc. Tom do not dismiss social conservatives too quickly; they do not want to see America become Rome in its final days which can be characterized as a lack of moral structure. I don't care what you do in bed but when you give legitimacy to once was wrong actions you open the door for abberent behavior to become more pronounced in society...And when you tacitly condone the killing of babies then you have already lost your moral compass... Margaret Hoover on O'Reilly said we need to "evolve" in her defense of gay marriage and in past intimates support for abortion; what's next in our evolution? You cannot possibly admit that legalizing drugs which the Left wants is good for society as a libertarian concept???
3. Cite for me any conservatives "religion-based governmental intervention" policy? If you cannot get your head around the death of an innocent life and you consider that religion based then we are at crossroads. If you cannot respect an innocent life, how can you respect mine? Your's is the logic of Margaret Sanger and her bloodlust for abortion. Is Trig next??
4. The Left in infinitely more intrusive on privacy than the conservatives. They DO want to control-everything. They want a society like that in "Demolition Man" with Snipes and Rocky. Absolutely no rights and no religion. Remember with no religion there are no morals or values beyond what the STATE says there are. Recall that our laws are based on religious concepts. If you and other libertarians are so desparate for no religion go to N Korea or Cuba...
5. Be wary of Lefties on our websites encouraging in-fighting.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 4:08PM

To: Tom Anderson

Re: Social Conservatives and Libertarians

Dear Tom,

I can honestly say that I identify myself as a "Christian Conservative". However, I support much, but not all of the Libertarian platform.

I am very much a "Live and let live" individual. I, too, don't really care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. I could even be persuaded by some (but not all) of the "drug legalization" argument. (I also agree that McCain is an economic illiterate, but that's for another day...)

However, the main difference (as I see it) between Libertarians and Social Conservatives is that while I value and vote for lower taxes, deregulation, limited government, etc, those issues ARE NOT core principles by which I choose to guide my life.

Unfortunately (I guess, from your Libertarian perspective), the Pro-Life position is a core principle by which I do guide my life. And that position is NON-NEGOTIABLE. I won't like it, but I can survive higher-taxes, and $4.00/gallon gas.

But my conscience won't allow me to ever vote for any candidate who supports the supposed "right" to an abortion. Abortion, in my view, is murder. It is infanticide. It is the ultimate selfish-act. 40 million + children have been killed by this procedure in the USA alone since 1973.

Again, that position is NON-NEGOTIABLE. If the Republican Party decides it favors the Libertarian position, and pushes the pro-life movement to the fringes, that's OK...I'll just go and vote somewhere else.

And if you feel the same about your Libertarian views, you should act in kind.

But personally, I think that the "compromise" a Libertarian must make to support the Pro-Life platform and build a winning coalition against Liberalism and Socialism is an easy choice.

jason stewart| 11.10.08 @ 4:17PM

There are three issues where Republicans should have a decided advantage over RATS.

1. National Defense --> not a place that the MSM or it's candidates want to wallow. Winning the war brought this off the table.

2. Taxes--> Only Republicans ever keep taxes down. RATS have a new terminology for welfare, they call it tax cuts. McCain should have reminded everyone that Clintoon offered middle class tax cuts (in both elections) only to immediately pull it off the table... and only Regan and GWB cut taxes...

3. Social Policies --> RATS believe in teachers but not students, unions but not work, death for the unborn but not convicted killers, and "new" families but not old, free speech except for their enemies, voting for illegals but not for soldiers, and religion as long as it doesn't affect morality.

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 4:35PM

Doctor "Right",

Religious beliefs have no place in a political platform.
"Non-negotiable" means "intolerant". You want to intrude on our lives in more than abortion -- i.e., stem cell research, planned parenthood, school curriculum, homosexuality, etc. If Libertarians should compromise, which of these are you willing to compromise on?

Yes, intolerance is the problem and you have been successful in making the Republican party smaller and less successful. You are the reason the Republican party consists almost totally of older white people -- a declining segment of the population.

Please feel free to start a "Christian Conservative" party of your own where intolerance can be one of your founding principles.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 5:10PM

To: Bob

Re: The meaning of "Non-Negotiable".

Dear Bob,

For the sake of clarity, let me explain something to you. "Intolerance" is NOT a dirty word.

So "YES!!", when it comes to the issue of abortion, I am proudly, emphatically, positively, 1000% INTOLERANT.

Abortion is MURDER. It is NEVER the right choice. In most cases, it is nothing but the result of 100% pure selfishness. Not the right time to have a baby?? Too bad...Maybe you should have kept your pants on. Contrary to popular mythology, ABSTINENCE is the only 100% reliable birth-control method.

But, since I'm not Draconian enough to impose morality laws on the populace about who sleeps with who, and when, I ask only that they, like other citizens, live with the consequences of their actions.

To wit: When you have sex, unless you're sterile or past menopause, you MIGHT actually get pregnant. If that's something you don't want to happen, then DON'T have sex. If you do, and you get pregnant, instead of taking the coward's way out and murdering your baby, grow-up and deal with it.

Is that too "intolerant" for you, Bob?? Too bad. 'Cuz in my view, you're a tad "intolerant" of religion, aren't you??

Here's some more non-negotiable "intolerance" for you, Bob...

I don't really care what two guys want to do in the privacy of their bedrooms...But I also don't want those two guys getting "married". Why? Simple. Because two guys can NEVER be "married". Marriage is between a man, and a woman. Has been since the beginning of time, in all religions (except the Unitarian Universalists and American Episcopalians, but since most of them are fools, who cares?), and in all civilizations. That's how GOD (yes, GOD...Sorry if that offends your sensibilities...Well, not really...) wanted it. And let's not deny that there is MOST definitely an agenda behind the movement for gay marriage that extends well beyond "marriage". That objective is to further degrade the foundations of our culture and civilization so that it can be reformed in any manner that the "enlightened" choose. Sorry, but we bitter, backwards, gun-lovin' fol;k who cling to our Bibles ain't havin' none of it...

Now...As to you most idiotic point...Religion MOST DEFINITELY has a place in politics. Political Partys are nothing more than the coalescing of people with like-minded views who vote on those issues. I think you may have misunderstood the 1st Ammendment. You're probably one of those people who actually think the phrase "separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. Here's a clue: It's NOT. The first ammendment says the state shall not interfere in Religion...NOT the other way around. Try re-reading it a few times, then you'll get the meaning.

Bob, as I've said at least 3 times now, if I ever need to find a new Party, I will...And there's lots and lots of folks who feel the same way.

But for now, we're staying put...And that REALLY bums you out, doesn't it, Bob? Knowing that, at present, we Social Conservatives hold the future of the Republican Party in our hands! We have the power, the money, the organizational structure, and the will...And there's a purge, coming, Bob...A purge of all you RINOs...All you so-called "moderates" who gave us guys like McCain...

So let me re-state it, one more time, with feeling:

We OWN the Republican Party.

Without us, you're NOTHING.

Turn your backs on us at your own peril.

How's that for "intolerance", Bob??

SoylentGreen| 11.10.08 @ 5:19PM

I say screw social conservatism. Government has no business in our social beliefs. Let's have a socially agnostic and fiscally subservient party, period. Now, that will get the votes of 60% of the American people.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 5:56PM

Dr Right

Once again, your grasp of history is inadequate, although better than some around here.

However, taboos against homosexuality are not at all universal. As you probably know, ancient Greek men lived together very much as married couples now do, and homosexual relationships were considered by many to be superior in kind to heterosexual.

In Christian Europe throughout the medieval and early-modern period, men -- particularly aristocratic men -- engaged in what was sometimes called "sworn brotherhood, which was consecrated at church door by priests. This relationship involved men living together and often even being buried together with common headstones like married couples. Some men who engaged in these relationships were married to women, others were not, and we don't know how many were actually involved with one another sexually.

My point is just that these two small examples suggest your "Adam and Eve" model of the universe is not adequate.

I don't approve of the idea of gay marriage either, frankly, but I do strongly approve of civil unions and I don't see either way how it affects your marriage to your wife.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 6:00PM

Dr Right --

As for religions role in politics, any American deserves to be informed which religion is going to be held above the others in your view.

Is it the Christian religion, which was shared by neither Jefferson nor many other of the founding fathers. Jefferson's contempt for Christianity rivals that of Marx's.

And how far will religion's claim over us be allowed to extend? Must I teach my children that God created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago, or am I permitted to teach them what science has found?

Which parts of the Bible will be considered binding on our law? Who will be interpreting all this? Who is the prophet who will guide us from the wilderness?

Bob| 11.10.08 @ 7:02PM

Dr Right -- you are the true RINO because you don't embrace the traditional tenets of the Republican party. It is your bigoted and intolerant view that puts subpar candidates on the Republican ticket.

Would you accept a Muslim or Hindu as President? Would you accept a Jew as President? Would you accept a gay as President? Most social conservatives wouldn't even accept a devout Mormon as President.

If you cannot accept ALL of these people then you are indeed a RINO and don't belong in our party.

Cedarbend| 11.10.08 @ 8:00PM

Yes, I think those of us who are "complete" conservatives remember a time when our beliefs and values were those of mainstream Americans. Those were the days of good public education, less unwed parenthood, disrespect for authority and the law....in short, society was, for the most part, in agreement on what worked. Not anymore and the results are there for all to see. If "Bob" and his friends want to see the last of us social conservatives and wants us to leave the party then OK...fine by me. Will do. But you go ahead without us, Bob and see how far you get. You don't have a problem with the conservative side of the Republican party or even the Christians. You have a problem with God. You'll have to solve that one yourself, though. As for me and my household, we are leaving the party and going to the Constitution Party. We have been Republican delegates for many years, but we're done. The only thing that will bring me back is Palin/Jindahl (or vice versa) 2012.

J. Davis| 11.11.08 @ 12:02AM

This is a very smart article, and illustrates the folly of making grand pronouncements the day after an election.

frankg| 11.11.08 @ 12:08AM

bob,
Your comment on 11/10, why don't you just say we become democrats? I'm not thrilled by Health care run by the government after what its done to Social Security, Medicare, and lately the banking system (including my 401k). No accountability. No confidence.
How about this to resonate with Blacks, Hispanics, etc.- big government will sap your personal initiative, independence, and industry and leave you a servant to the bureaucratic machine. And blacks have a LOT of experience with that. That's something democrats have demonstrated time and again. I see no reason to imitate them. Who else will the moderate republicans nominate to run a non-campaign in the future? McCain was like Dole in 96(?) in so many ways. At best, a vote to keep the other guy out, but nothing compelling.

Tripp| 11.11.08 @ 12:31AM

I'm afraid Mr. Antle is wrong- it's time the conservative movement got out of people's bedrooms and the republicans out of people's pocketbooks- Republicans aren't going to win over minority voters through being anti- gay rights and staunchly opposed to abortion. I wish that were true- African Americans elected the most pro choice candidate just because he promised to keep subsidizing the poor and because he was, well, an African American. Republicans had better get their act together and quit spending so much, quit bumbling around miniscule tax cuts, and quit railing about the "sanctity of marriage". There's a sizeable portion of suburbanites that are tired with the compassionate "conservatism" of Pres. Bush like myself, and I don't want a repeat of the past few cycles- IE socially conservative economically moderate winning Republicans like Bush winning because of anti-Democrat sentiment. In the LONG term mind you, Republicans had better return to a staunchly limited government agenda- it's politically viable, if the past few years polls indicate anything, and it's proper policy period.

Tom Anderson| 11.11.08 @ 2:08AM

Response to blotto and Dr. Right:

I see that all three of us share some common views regarding the protection of individual rights and liberties in the economic sphere.

Since the issue of a woman's right to choose divides us, as it divides a great number of Americans, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to suggest my way out of the current conundrum of "right to life" politics.

As a libertarian, or classical liberal, my main interest lay in expanding a person's liberty, so my bias will always be in favor of individual choice over state compulsion.

I think that, generally speaking, women should not have abortions; however, the true and only protection an unborn child has lay in the natural affection of a mother for her child. But even if I disagree with her moral choice, I recognize that it is her choice and not mine to make since it is her body, her personhood, and even though the metaphysical case is made, to legally intervene in her decision is clearly an abridgment of her freedom.

The Christian may argue that the unborn child has a soul and should be considered a legal person; however, that argument is based on religious dogma. The Chinese government also violates the rights of Chinese women by forcing them to have abortions.

In either case, the one person whose life will be most affected--the pregnant woman--is the one person who is permitted to have no moral claim to a free choice in the matter. Her body then becomes, for moral purposes, the empty vessel through which the state executes government policy: Christians would have the state save the child, the Chinese government would abort it.

It may be true that aborting a child is murder; but Christians should consider that once the power of choice is taken from the woman and given to the state, for whatever reason and for whatever end, her rights have been summarily abrogated. Who or what will prevent a future US government from mandating abortion for couples who have too many children? Or children of the wrong sex? Or children with perceived defects or abnormalities?

Once the power to choose is ceded to the government, we, the people, are not likely to ever get it back. The power to do good is also the power to do evil. From whatever perspective you wish to view the matter, we shall have transformed occasional and limited evils for evil commissioned on a vast social scale.

While I staunchly defend a woman's rights in the matter of bearing children, I must also admit that Roe v. Wade was a dreadful legal decision for technical reasons I won't develop here.

Were it to be overturned, the decision whether to defend a woman's rights would devolve back to the states and, frankly, that's probably the best that can be hoped for.

Women who wish to live in a society where their choices were respected and protected would have to move to those states were those rights are recogized.

Other states, where Christians have succeeded in getting control of the machinery of government, would have carte blanche to enforce their religiously based views regarding women's rights. Such a result would certainly enrage most partisans, but at least national elections could be based on more important political issues, such as national defense, protecting our capitalistic economy, and agreeing to disagree on divisive social issues.

I concede my argument, such as it is, probably won't win many converts, but at least I try to make my position a little more clear. Christians would do well to concede that it is possible to oppose abortion personally yet support the legal right of women to make the choice.

This is what individualism means and if Christians cannot embrace the moral implications, then they should also concede that giving this power to the state enables the state to do precisely what it wants it to do. That is not a position with which I could never be comfortable, but I could live with it if people had the ability to move to another state where their rights were protected.

Mark Cure| 11.11.08 @ 2:46AM

Tom Anderson-
I understand your stance and I think most Soc cons do. In our view the unborn child is just like a five year old child. Do you see our dilemma? Could you vote for a candidate who believes it is okay to kill a five year old if they decide the kid is not convenient for whatever reason? I'm not trying to argue morality here just trying to illustrate the dilemma Soc cons face.

ruth| 11.11.08 @ 3:25AM

Doctor Right, I love you. Will you run for office?

Paul| 11.11.08 @ 5:45AM

Dr. Right: While you are "staying put" in the Republican party which you now "own," most of the rest of us (i.e., those who do not have the luxury of knowing what the Chrisitan God wants for everything) are reluctantly becoming Democrats as a result. If you doubt this, then look at the election results. Or wait four years and watch the utter disaster that will be Palin 2012.

aware| 11.11.08 @ 6:43AM

"luxury of knowing what the Chrisitan God wants for everything)"...Paul, the reason you are confused is that you continue to trust yourself and other human "experts". In this way "right" just becomes a matter of numbers at the polls, up one day down the next. You're not going to like this but real truth does not depend on your ability to believe in it. It is even you're not. The fact is that McCain was the very man you "moderates" advocate and see what that got you. The real fight is about the size and power of government and McCain, like Bush, thinks government is good as long as "we" run it. Now you will see what that attitude gets us now that the real believers in government are back in charge. Big government is the enemy of freedom and everything else is secondary. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to get back to the Constitutionally mandated central government except through blood. Do you see 3 generations of government dependents taking it lying down when told their gravy train is over? Soon they and we may have no choice when it is discovered we're broke from all these bailouts.

Paul| 11.11.08 @ 8:07AM

Aware - You are making my point. Your criticism of me is that I trust myself and human experts. Thank you. That's what is called rational thought. Unfortunately, rational thought is now viewed with great suspicion by most Republicans.

jack| 11.11.08 @ 8:13AM

First let me state I am a Catholic, I think abortion is dead wrong,but its the law of the land,so deal with it. Second, I believe much of prosperity this country has experienced is due the strong religious faith practiced in this country. I do not believe any religion has the right to use the federal government to spread their message or beliefs. You have the right to believe or not to believe.

Because of a few shrill voices on the religious right, some very cheesy attired con artists on tV all with very tacky hairdos the entire religious right and all Christians have been painted as whackjobs.
We need to take a lesson from Obama on this. On of the keys to his win was his ability to keep most of the shrill voices on his side,and there are many,very quiet during the final months of the campaign.
Republicans deserved to lose this election. We have a president who just like his daddy was big government guy,who thought the government was good and his job was to spend money and do deals with the Dems. We need a Newt G type of leader NOW! No more Ws, Doles, McCains, or Fords. Republicans in name only. Bush spent so much money on social programs he left room for Dems and they had to move far left. Bush sucked up all the air of the big spending Dems. It also didnt help that the Rep congress became the same corrupt snakes the Dems had been for the past 50 years. They sold us all out.
Yes , they tried many times to stop the Dems from looting Fannie and Freddie but in the end their fear of being called racists by Barney and his gang and the howling media made them appear complicit in this greatest of all US scandals. Now we have Obama seeking advice from Raines and Johnson. He chooses Emanuel,a guy who sat on the BOD of Freddie while Dems were looting it for political and personal wealth. This will be the most corrupt admin ever and Reps must be ready with an alternative. No more moderates or lying pols like McCain. We need leaders who believe in fiscal responsibilty above all else. At this point I could care less if the Pres is an atheist,a moslem, or Christian as long as he believes in gutting the government and ending the progressive tax system,the basis for almost all congressional corruption.

boomer| 11.11.08 @ 9:27AM

Tom Paine didn't set up straw men to knock down.
If you deal in facts more people may be swayed.

The law of the land included slavery. Need we go on with more nonsense like yours.

Will Antonin| 11.11.08 @ 9:49AM

Conservative social values -- values that appeal to many but especially to the "religious right" -- did NOT cause this year's election losses for the Republicans.

Republicans lost because they left behind two key *conservative* positions. They opted instead for an elective, interventionist war and they chose, likewise, big government and unrestrained spending.

These are the two reasons Republicans lost.

The two areas where they left conservative principles behind are precisely the two areas where Obama was able to gain traction: national security and the economy.

As for conservative social values, it is a winning strand of our argument. The very vehemence with which the other side is trying to convince us it's the cause of our defeat suggests it's partly what they're scared of.

Indeed, Bush got elected in large measure because of his focus on these issues in his runs against both Kerry and Gore.

Issues such as defending life, the traditional definition of marriage, and the like are winning issues. More importantly, they are the right causes to be defending.

Doctor Right| 11.11.08 @ 9:55AM

To: Tom Paine

Re: Historical innacuracy...Might wanna' double-check your l'il lib fact-book

Both of the following are complete falsehoods; nice try...

"In Christian Europe throughout the medieval and early-modern period, men -- particularly aristocratic men -- engaged in what was sometimes called "sworn brotherhood, which was consecrated at church door by priests. This relationship involved men living together and often even being buried together with common headstones like married couples. Some men who engaged in these relationships were married to women, others were not, and we don't know how many were actually involved with one another sexually."

The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages NEVER consecrated gay unions, or whatever you want to call it. This is utter drivel that emerged a few years ago during the beginnings of the gay "marriage" debate. That doesn't mean there weren't gays in the middle ages, but to believe that these relationships received official sanction is poppycock...

"Is it the Christian religion, which was shared by neither Jefferson nor many other of the founding fathers. Jefferson's contempt for Christianity rivals that of Marx's."

Cite the source that claims that Jefferson was openly hostile to Christianity. I guess that's why he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." Jefferson may not have been a Quaker, but he was NOT anti-Christian.

I so enjoy correcting you flawed education...

John Franklin| 11.11.08 @ 10:00AM

I'm a life long Dem who often ticket splits. I feel that it's time for the Republicans to get out of our bedrooms. Morality cannot and should not be legislated. Politics should be more about bedrock issues-more libertarian if anything.

Doctor Right| 11.11.08 @ 10:12AM

To: Ruth

Re: Running for Office

Dear Ruth,

Thanks for the kind words! Unfortunately, I don't think that's in the cards for the good Doctor. Here's why:

1. I was a late convert to both Conservatism and Christian belief. Let's just say I didn't live a principled life as a youth, and leave it at that.

2. I'm an "in-your-face" Conservative; I'm not a "Go along to get along" kind of guy. Many people, even other Conservatives, don't respond to that method...That's why it's hard to get principled, unapologetic Conservatives elected, as opposed to the milk-toast types we usually end up with.

3. No money!!!! In today's political world, you need loads of cash...

Thanks again!

Bob| 11.11.08 @ 10:43AM

Doctor Right -- so you want some Jefferson quotes on Christianity?

Here goes:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

You need to get an education....

Britcom| 11.11.08 @ 12:00PM

It happens every time. GOP elections are run with rich northern country cluber's money, but the same elections or won with middle-class and poor southern Christian votes. The country clubers can muscle the Pro-life, Pro-gun, Pro-family, Pro-prayer planks out of the GOP, but they can do it without southern Christian votes next cycle. We will leave the party. I dare them to try it and see how fast the GOP becomes a third-party. In fact, if Palin hadn't been on the ticket with McCain, it would have been a rout, an embarrassment. The only way this ticket would have won would have been if Palin had been on the top of the ticket.

The rich country clubers are hypocrites anyway, they could have supported one of three GOP candidates that wanted to abolish the income tax, but noooooo they wanted the Romulan liar, the Rino mayor, the Hollywood toad, or the War zero instead. Great going guys!... don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of Washington.

Look at the electoral map linked above. The undeniable fact is that the southern Christians ARE the only loyal GOP voters. Without voters, the GOP is just a social club.

History shows us that if the GOP had run a governor instead of a senator against another senator, the governor would have won. The GOP had two governors to pick from for president and they blew it.

jack| 11.11.08 @ 12:11PM

The religious right is largely responsible for the choice of McCain as President and that is abig reason we lost. McCain could not beat Bush,how the heck was he going to beat Obama?
Reps only chance was with Romney or Rudy,two great candidates,both able to articulate simple thoughts(unlike bush and mccain)both very smart. Romney won in the most immoral liberal state in USA. Rudy turned NYC from a big sewer into a great place. But both lost because the religious right had a problem with both of them. This is why you cant make you presidential choice based on one thing(abortion) or you will lose everytime. Everytime. Because of religious right we are stuck with OBama. We could have had Rudy or Romney,two positive people who believe in free markets,capitalism and individual freedom. That is all lost for a few years. We are gonna enter the most oppressive 4 years in US history. Thanks guys.

Bob| 11.11.08 @ 12:27PM

Britcom -- the exit polls indicate that PALIN HURT THE TICKET -- and did not help it. With Republicans only representing 28% of the electorate, you need moderates and independents to get elected. I know you don't like science and math, but that's what the numbers say. You and other social conservatives turn these people off by being so intolerant and anti-intellectual.

And please get off this riff that YOU did not select McCain. It was a primary vote that put him over the top. Don't look at me, I supported Romney. Perhaps Palin can learn about foreign policy, geography, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, energy alternatives, big city problems, and most importantly, how to speak English properly in the next couple of years. On second thought, if she has not learned much of that by now, the chances are slim to none.

You and other social conservatives are being used -- and you know it. No Republican in their right minds will ever convince independents and moderates to vote for them with a strict social conservative platform. You are a divisive group, and your intolerance will drive the party down further. The party must become more libertarian if we ever want to regain a majority position. Remember that while Reagan (your hero) had social conservative beliefs, he did not believe they should be part of governing. He governed as a Libertarian -- which is why he was elected governor in California in the first place.

Tom Anderson| 11.11.08 @ 12:38PM

Bob,

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to commend the words of Thomas Jefferson to our attention.

To Mark Cure:

The fact is, Mark, that there is a fundamental difference between a five year old child and an fetus: one has come to term and has been born and can be, without contradiction, recognized as a person under law.

Any measure that would invade a woman's body is, by its very nature, condemned to failure, if for no other reason than the woman has to live with her body and is far more sensitive to what's going in her body than any court or any band of legislative thugs.

I would point out that it is inconsistent to argue in favor of a government of limited and delegated powers and then propose to empower government to do what you claim the woman has no right to do in the first place, that is, choose whether to give birth or have an abortion.

I have not proposed to change anybody's mind about the assumed personhood of a fetus, but surely you can see if the government has the power to force an unborn to term it also has the power to compel an abortion?

Think about it and then really ask yourself whether you truly believe that people have inalienable rights and that there are things no government should be able to do to people.

Tim| 11.11.08 @ 12:54PM

Well as a Social Conservative myself, I don't think anyone is using me.

This is a good discussion but there is an important point that is being glossed over.

Reagan has been quoted a lot lately and rightly so.

Reagan's three prong 80's coalition was really very simple.

Unite Social Religious Conservatives with independent/Libertarian minded free traders low taxe and goverment off of our back folks together with hard working, freedom loving gun owning apple pie traditional American types regardless of race or creed.

We can spin it all we want but that was the Reagan coalition in a nutshell.

Obviousely, there is more to it but frankly we don't need to make this more complicated than it is.

Here is how I see this going forward.

There are the far left Commy/ Socialist loving/ Nazi loones and then there are the rest of us.

If we don't get our act together the anti American emboldened fringe will take the rest of our freedoms away and sooner than we think.

A civilian security force? Excuse me?
Answerable only to Obama? Sounds like big brother to me or simply put selling out your neighbor like the old SS.

Or better put. Gastapo--2008 style.

blotto| 11.11.08 @ 1:00PM

Bob-you make me think of the character Matt Damon confronts in "Good Will Hunting" being able to recite passages, but is incapable of independent thought. You argue safely from you sanctimonious position knowing the laws protect you. Where do the laws proscribing my breaking your leg and stealing your wife come from? They come from our Judeo-Christian background. Religion is one of the foundations of a nation. Who said TJ was the authority on all things in our Constitution? Were you this afraid of a theocracy when JFK was president? It does not matter the religion of the president we have (had) a system of checks and balances that would prevent a theocracy. But the leader should have a moral foundation, which means he/she is religious.
Jack-you can't have it both ways: the RR elected McCain and then on election day the RR stayed at home according to statistics. The media selected McCain because he WAS the only person Obamama could beat. Mitt and Rudy would have cleaned his clock-hell Palin alone could have beaten him. Why all this animus toward the RR? So they defend babies? Is that wrong to defend the indefensible? Have you fellow Reps evolved so far to the left that you think this is okay? I don't want the gov't in the bedroom. And privacy is important. I hate that my party has been divided-thanks to listening to the MSM-into social and fiscal conservatives. If you are a conservative you are both.
To my new friend and ally Tom: You make a very compelling arguement. I think if abortion was not federally funded and some proscriptions against it like a parent being notified, or a court order giving a parent the right to consent for an underage girl then I think all of us could come to an agreement. I don't want the government in our lives any more than you. And your arguement about the woman's choice is akin to all of us having the right to make choices is keen. I don't think libertarians and conserivatives are that far apart now that I am actually talking to one.
Be wary my conservative and libertarian friends of libs on this site inciting division in and among us. We must pull together to defeat them.

Doctor Right| 11.11.08 @ 1:17PM

To: Bob

Re: Thomas Jefferson

Bob...

I think you need to read Jefferson's quotes MUCH more carefully next time before cutting-n-pasting from a website that you obviously googled. Jefferson was indeed a "haughty, itellectual" type, maybe a tad vain, and in love with his own wit...But he was not an atheist, and, despite his innate intellignece, he was obviously not a critical, Biblical scholar.

Not ONE of these quotes proclaims Jefferson an unbelieving atheist who is against religion, although some of them point out (rightly so) that organized religion can be burdensome, even hypocritical. For example, in several, he "calls-out" people who live sinful lives, but profess to be Godly. What's surprising about that? I'm a devout Christian, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Several of the quotes AFFIRM Jefferson's faith in a higher power. This one reaffirms the power of Christ Jesus:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

D'OH!!! What he's saying here is that the day may come when the Gospels are considered fables. However, this logic would be faulty, or "artificial scaffolding". Who do you think Jefferson is referring to as the "most venerated reformer of human errors."???

Also, next time you "cut-n-paste", you might wanna' be a tad careful...I guess you missed this one:

"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can NEVER BE."

- Thomas Jefferson

Then there's the one where he calls atheism "heresy":

"At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

- Thomas Jefferson

OOPS!!!!!!!!!!

Your sphincter is probably tightening a tad now.

You've been called out. Bob, for the uncritical charlatan that you are.

I'll stake my education up against your any day (Oops! Now I sound like Joe Biden...)

But keep trying! It certainly IS amusing...

Mark Cure| 11.11.08 @ 1:38PM

Tom Anderson-
I was not trying to convince you that they are the same, just as you said you were not trying to convince anyone of your view. I wanted to simply illustrate our dilemma, not win a pointless web debate. To Soc cons they ARE the same, I was just trying to let you see our point of view. If we understand each other maybe we could work together. The fact you didn't answer my question....answers my question.

Bob| 11.11.08 @ 2:09PM

Doctor Right -- you most assuredly don't want to compare your education with mine. The Jefferson cut-and-paste was not meant to say Jefferson was not a deist (at most times), but was to say he despised religious dogma. And by the way, laws concerting adultery predate Jewish law. If you covet your neighbor's wife, why do you need a commandment to prevent you from doing so? In ancient times, the husband had the right to stop you because it created societal disorder.

By the way, I'm glad you mentioned "Good Will Hunting". My undergraduate major was theoretical mathematics. It's really too bad you have to depend on rote adherence to biblical law rather than intellectual thought. You prove my point about why a Christian belief system has no place in a political platform.

I do have an irrational fear that Christian fundamentalism will creep into our politics and bring the intolerance that Muslim fundamentalism has brought to Iran and the Taliban. They believe they are right, and you believe you are right. They believe that theirs is the only true religion and so do you. That's scary. I am a pluralist and accept all religions as equal. I practice that belief as a Jew who married a Catholic. It did not make any difference as to which religion my children practiced -- but I did give them strong religious training as it enables them to study morality and question differences.

In this last election, the issue of gay marriage continued to be a factor. Interestingly enough, did you know that marriage between races was deemed to be morally wrong by most religions in the mid-20th century. Was religion right then? Is it right now? In the same vein, women are not seen to be the equals of men still in most religions. Is that right? If religious law is a constant and is "God's will", why would that change?

I'm a lot like Jefferson -- and I consider myself in good company.

Nommin| 11.11.08 @ 2:41PM

If you want a moral leader, go to church.
We elect politicians to run the country. (There's a distinction there in the Constitution, for the purpose of dispelling fanaticism (wise move too)). But since when have politicians been a reliable class of moral leaders? Jefferson fooled around a bit in his time.
Just as a thought exercise: If a Satanist wrote an economic policy, how would you be able to tell it apart from that of anyone else?

Doctor Right| 11.11.08 @ 2:42PM

To: Bob

Re: Swing!...And a miss!

Dear "Bob",

Once again, nice try. But you'll have to do better if you wanna' play "CYA" games around these parts, know whut ah'm say'n, dawg???

Let's revisit...I asked for examples that proved Jefferson was openly hostile to Christianity. You tried...and failed. In fact, I astutely pointed out where you fialed, and how.

To wit: You didn't do your homework. You didn't even bother to critically examine the quotes you supplied, which prove CATEGORICALLY that Jefferson was a believer in God, was NOT an atheist, and was most definitely NOT hostile to Christ, whom his own words prove he admired.

But, you try to evade the simple reality of how I called you out, and proved you dead wrong. Now you're trying to say that your (admitted) cut-n-paster proved he was "hostile to religious dogma".

Bob, Bob, Bob...That's a meaningless statement. A devout Christian can also be hostile to religious dogma. Take myself, for example...I'm hostile to Islamic dogma (well, "hostile" may be too harsh a word...I have no desire to harm any Muslim, nor make them believe anything they don't want to believe...Provided, of course, that they stop flying airplanes into buildings). IN any event, I don't accept Islamic dogma as true, 'cuz it ain't. Nor do I accept Hindu dogma, or Buddhist dogma, or Hebrew dogma (post-Old Testament). But that DOES NOT mean I don't believe in God.

Now, regarding your statement that "If you covet your neighbor's wife, why do you need a commandment to prevent you from doing so?", let me ask you a simple question. First, assume, for the sake of argument, that there IS no God; now, here's the question:

Is it wrong for me to steal your wife from you?

I'm interested to hear your answer. Here's another question (again, assume there's NO God):

Is it wrong for me to rob you, and beat you into a coma because I need some money?

You answer, please!

I'm sorry that you have an irrational fear of "Christian Fundamentalism", and that you make the ridiculous comparison to Islamic Fundamentalism. As a Christian, I want everyone to believe in Christ...Yes, that's true...But I'd never force anyone to do so. That would be absolutely Un-Christian. I also think Christianity is correct, and all other religions (excepting pre-Christian Judaism) are wrong. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way it is. Additionally, Muslims and Jews also believe in an exclusive religion, so don't be too offended.

You claim to be a "pluralist" who "accepts all religions as equal". That's swell. Did you also know that that is an intellectually incoherent position? All religions CANNOT be equal, since their "dogma" (oops! There's that word again...) is incompatible with that assertion. It is illogical to think that an all-knowing, all-seeing God would tell one group of people "the exclusive truth", and then tell another group a wholly different "exclusive truth". What you really mean to say is that you hold all religions to be equally worthless (so therefore, you're a "pluralist").

Now, you say that Christian belief has no place in a political platform. Are you willing to turn the mirror on yourself? Does Judaism have a place in a political platform?? Does a Jew not have the right to vote based on his or her religious convictions? I would say that they most certainly do. The funny thing is, you would, too, but then you wouldn't even see the contradictory nature of your assertion. That's because it's not really religion that you want out of politics...It's the Christian religion that you can't tolerate, and those are the people you want out of politics. Hmmmmm...Didn't Jefferson have some choice words for hypocrites??

OK...Almost done...But you've said so many ridiculous things that, for your sake, I need to address them all.

Now...You make a faulty analogy between gay marriage and interacial marriage. Yes, there did, in fact, used to be laws on the books against "miscegenation" in many states. I hate to tell you, but if Christian principles had been followed, those laws would NEVER have existed. Christ exhorted all men to love one another as brothers; he had no problem with interacial marriage - it's simply not something he discussed. A good Christian speaks where the scripture speaks, and stays silent where the scripture is silent. Therefore, since Christ NEVER spoke out against inter-racial marriage, no believeing Christian should, either. However, gay marriage is another "ball of wax"...Sorry, but you don't really know much about Christianity, do you??

The same goes for the treatment of women. The Bible is clear that men and women are different, but NOWHERE does scripture say that men should treat women as less than equals. In fact, it exhorts men to love their wives as they love themselves. But again...You don't really know much about Christianity. You say your wife is a Catholic? Try reading one of her Bibles...

FInally, I didn't mention "Good Will Hunting"...You've confused me with someone else.

Still think you're a lot like Jefferson??? J.J. Jefferson, maybe...But not Thomas....

Big T| 11.11.08 @ 3:09PM

Most conservatives I know arent intrested in "compromise" or "reaching across the Isle". Most people I know want an articulate, highly principled, moral, partisan, conservative, warrior, who stands on firm truthfull policys based in reality.
Out west we are tired of east coast Moderates deciding who our Republican nominee will be. Many of us refuse to choose "the lesser of two evils" anymore.

RedBloodedAmericanGirl| 11.11.08 @ 3:11PM

What Frum and almost all of the commenters here seem to overlook is that this discussion is precisely why no one ought to trust our political leadership at all. Look, a candidate should not be made up by taking a little of this and a little of that, based on some stupid poll or calculated by some social trend. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, leadership is not finding out where everyone is going, and then running out in front of them. All of this wisdom about social conservatives, neocons, RINOs, young voters, gays, etc., will be thrown out the window if we ever see any candidate who actually shows some charisma and confidence. Ronald Reagan's appeal was that he said what he believed, even when it was patriotically corny. People voted for him because of who he was, and he shaped the views of many Americans by his strong vision. And that is something I have not seen in a good long while: a candidate who actually is his (or her) own person, who has the ability to shape our perceptions of what America is and what it ought to be.
I am frankly sick and tired of candidates who don't actually believe in anything except their own self-advancement. Barack Obama is an empty suit filled with pie-in-the-sky promises to people who haven't the sense to see that the government at all levels is utterly incompetent at providing some of the most basic services--whether that is crime-prevention, secure borders, or a decent education. So forget trying to psychoanalyze the American voter. Until we see leadership, we will continue to settle for a bunch of spineless suits whose deepest convictions depend on who they are talking to, and whose vote they are pandering for.

olaf| 11.11.08 @ 6:06PM

Doctor Right: would you kindly point us to the parts of the bible wherein Christ proscribed gay marriage? Somehow I missed those. Thanks.

Also, there's this thing called the "social contract." You should look it up before someone finally convinces you that there is no God and you go on a killing spree.

George| 11.11.08 @ 7:28PM

GOP has a lot in common with the minorities than with whites. However, GOP's southern strategy of pandering to white skin worshipping pagans in the south cost it dearly!

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 12:34AM

Dr. Right, men like you should be in office, it's true, but unfortunately it's the toadies who seek our vote. They aren't strong enough to fight on our behalf and debacles like 2008 result. The democrats understand politics; that's why they nominated a Chicago thug as their standard-bearer. It seems that every election that's close goes their way. I don't know how we can survive if we stand by and allow this corruption to continue.

Doctor Right| 11.12.08 @ 12:49PM

To: Olaf

Re: The Bible and gay marriage

Dear Olaf,

The Bible, both OLd Testament and New Testament, is quite clear on the issue of homosexuality - it' a sin. Do yourself a favor and look it up.

By the way, "social contract" or not, only a fool (or a liberal) looks out at the incredible complexity of the universe and thinks that it's all a random occurrence. That's a logically incoherent and scientifically IMPOSSIBLE event.

There IS a God. One day, you'll find that out. I only pray, for your sake, that it isn't too late when you do.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.12.08 @ 7:49PM

Dear Lord you people are windy! Get out of peoples bedrooms, leave abortion to pregnant women and doctors, and express your religious views at your Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque. If we take care of the money everything else will take care of itself.

ruth| 11.13.08 @ 8:03PM

MLH: You are such a man of conviction: For the almighty dollar. Thanks but no thanks for your pearls of wisdom.

X11| 11.13.08 @ 10:38PM

The A Number One problem with the Republican party is spelled: N.E.O.C.O.N. These were the folks who 'jacked the party, installed their cat's paw, George W. Bush, and that's when the GOP became all too much like the Dems: big spending that made LBJ look like a miser in comparison, the starting of ill-advised wars (and let's not forget that GWB *nearly* screwed the pooch on Iraq) the interventionist foreign policy, the egalitarian nonsense like "No Child Left Behind", etc. One wonders why lefties attacked Bush so relentlessly, and called him a "right winger". From where I stand, what was there for a liberal to not like?

These folks are mainly why McCain lost. The neo-"cons", having ruined everything they touched, and *needed* to lose this election to make us forget all about GWB. They needed Mac gone since he did promise to clean out that rat's nest of RINOs. It's why supposed "conservatives" like Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan savaged Gov. Palin in terms little different from the DU and Kos Kids. It's why they still seek to destroy her even though the election is over.

Doctor Right | 11.10.08 @ 4:10PM:

" So let me re-state it, one more time, with feeling:

We OWN the Republican Party.

Without us, you're NOTHING."

Now you know why I say that I never met a Fundievangelical that wasn't stupid, ignorant, and/or just plain crazy. Hey, Doc Right, how's that Human Life Amendment doing? Oh that's right: abortion's still legal *twenty eight* years after self-righteous Ronnie, and four years of GOP dominance of the White House, Senate, and House of Reps. under the "evangelical" George W. Bush.

This brings us to yet another problem. The GOP needs to stop playing people like Doc Right like a cheap whore house piano. Either take their issues off the table, or do something to enact them. What good does it do to build a base around issues that you will never take a stand on? If you fear rejection because of these issues, then there is no harm in jettisoning them. If there is a potential there, then you risk losing that base when they finally figure out that they've been had. Make no mistake about this: even the dumbest Fundie will one day wake up.

The main message needs to be reduced taxation and spending, cutting back the Federal bureaucracy and getting gov't down to manageable size, and getting the gov't out of our lives, and, yes, that includes the bedroom as well as the boardroom. That means recognizing that the Cold War is over, and that there is no reason to be stationing troops in over 100 countries. It means dismantling NATO, since NATO's raisen d'etre no longer exists. It means concentrating on our own defense, including getting control of our porous borders.

That's good for starters.

Robin| 11.14.08 @ 3:03PM

The best analysis of the election and the christian right I have read is by Laurence M. Vance. He lays it all out there in plain sight.

Ms. Know| 11.15.08 @ 8:03PM

It's good to know that some people still have conservative views, and have not all left to join the liberal illuminati, who through religion under the bus.

Ms. Know| 11.15.08 @ 8:03PM

It's good to know that some people still have conservative views, and have not all left to join the liberal illuminati, who through religion under the bus.

Patricia A. Helvenston| 11.16.08 @ 8:36PM

Dear Bob and other like-minded libertarians on this site. So you want to let homosexuals live and let live. Obviously, you don't know anything about what they do to one another and the enormous number of diseases they spawn, die from and inject into not only the homosexual community but the heterosexual community because a large number of the infected are either IV drug abusers or bisexuals. Here are some sobering facts for you to consider: Most homosexuals have in excess of over 100 partners per life time. Their rate of promiscuity is legendary and they don't want "marriage" because they can't remain faithful to anyone, they want the economic benefits that "marriage" has been designed to promote, mostly for the benefit of the future generations. If you think the only thing homosexual males do to one another is kiss and sodomy (as my 94-year-old fathers puts it, who would want to stick their penis into a sewer), then you have a lot to learn. As a naive young clinical psychologist at the beginning of my career I was very open to treating homosexuals, and as I was sympathetic to them, I was perceived that way and a considerable number of homosexuals sought my professional services. What they told me about their practices distrubed me from the perspective of not endorsing self-destructive behavior, the perspective of public health, and the perspective of concern for their innocent victims. Not knowing much about how prevalent their practices were in the homosexual community, I concluded that somehow my patients constituted an extremely pathological segment of the homosexual community. Thus, after about 5 years I found myself unable to work with them because I was terribly concerned with and disgusted with their practices so I could no longer accept homosexual clients. Years later I learned that the practices described to me were characteristic of the entire male homosexual community. If you doubt this, just go into the many sites sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control and type in the term "rimming" to see what hideous gastrointestinal diseases are rampant in the homosexual community. I doubt that many heterosexuals would feel that urinating on your partner, defecating on your partner, whipping and beating your partner, all the while shouting hideous loud vicious verbal diatribes is "normal." Also, would any "normal" heterosexual think that inserting baby mice, rats or gerbils up their anus, thereby experiencing orgasm through the animals scratching death throes is normal? How many heteros could stomach this practice? Why would these behaviors be celebrated then, by homosexuals and ignorant heterosexuals? They are clearly pathological, and certainly beyond the narrow scope of "sexual practices". Do your libertarian tendencies lead you to believe that violent schizophrenics should not be treated, even though they are vicious murderers? To live and let live? Do you know that homosexual males have an average lifespan of 42 years? Why do you think that is? Because they are disease ridden and they pass these diseases into the general population before they die of them, and believe me, or look it up, AIDS is only one of the diseases they carry, transmit and die from. Who do you think pays for the billions of dollars spent on treating these diseases? I will tell you, any American citizen who pays Federal Income Taxes. Why do you think that this information is not freely available in a country which "suppposedly" has free speech. Because neither the Marxist Socialist Media, nor conservative media will print it. I bet that my post here is either censored and never published, or is retracted.

steve| 11.17.08 @ 12:31AM

what a lot of you don't seem to realize, is that if Obama were white or didn't have a foriegn sounding name the current republican party might not have won a single state.

STEVE| 12.11.08 @ 6:04PM

The election was lost largely thanks to Bush. The fact is Bush has done a lot of damage to the base. If it hadn't been for Sarah Palin, not even the social-cons would have turned out. The idea that getting rid of the social-cons will leave the Republican party better off is like a paraplegic getting the rest of his arms amputated so he can walk again.

Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 4:56AM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes