luckydevil Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/6/110046.shtml Christian Right Talks of Bolting GOP in 2004 Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Leaders of the Christian right are thinking of bolting the Republican Party in 2004. Such a move would deal a severe blow to President Bush’s re-election effort. Though Christian voters played a pivotal role in electing Bush in his razor-thin victory over Al Gore, NewsMax has learned that major figures in the evangelical movement, including James Dobson, are talking about withholding support from the Republican Party. Conservative religious activists cite the latest insult: the Republican Party’s failure to rally behind Sen. Rick Santorum, whose comments about the upcoming Supreme Court case on consensual homosexual acts triggered a national firestorm. With the left mounting a major battle to redefine marriage, pro-family leaders are worried that the White House and Beltway Republicans care little about this issue and other social issues. "If Republican leaders cannot mount a vigorous defense of marriage, then pro-family voters perhaps should begin to reconsider their loyalty to the party," warned Ken Connors, president of Family Research Council and a close affiliate of Dobson’s Focus on the Family. Along with other leaders of the politically powerful pro-family movement, Connors was appalled at the "muted defense" of Santorum, R-Pa., who has been under attack by the gay rights lobby and its liberal allies in the media and the Democrat party. That failure, Connors said ominously, raises the question whether the GOP is the best vehicle for resisting the Democrats' radical political agenda. Connors recently wrote a scathing memo attacking the Republican leadership to pro-family leaders. "Beyond a few tepid statements of personal support for Santorum, no prominent national GOP leader seems willing or able to mount a spirited, principled defense of marriage and family. “The question naturally arises: have Republicans been so intimidated by the smear tactics of the homosexual lobby and its Democratic attack dogs that they are cowering in silence," he wrote. Dobson: 'Where Are the Republicans?' Dobson echoed these sentiments during a joint broadcast with Connors on his Focus on the Family radio broadcast. "Where are the Republicans on this?" he fumed. "I’ve heard very, very little coming from Mark Racicot, the Republican national chairman, or from the White House or from anybody else." Dobson chastised the Republicans for getting too cozy with the gay lobby. He complained that Racicot met secretly with the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign but failed to disagree with it on the major issues. Connors said that Racicot didn’t utter one word in defense of marriage and failed to make the case that the Republican platform makes – that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman – he simply went with the message of so-called tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance and inclusion aren’t the issues here – the issue is whether or not we’re going to radically redefine marriage, according to Connors. Connors has written that HRC, "which desperately wants to marginalize pro-family Republicans, is exploiting the meeting to suggest the GOP is open to its political agenda. Surely someone as savvy as Mark Racicot, a former governor who was seriously considered as President Bush's running mate, was aware of the propaganda value in his meeting with HRC." The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition was also angered by Racicot's meeting with HRC. He warned that "this has caused concern among conservatives that Republican leaders are going to sell out on the issue of homosexuality." Dobson worries that the Santorum controversy indicates the Republican Party’s weak commitment to social issues. He said: "And now that one of the most articulate defenders of family values in the Congress is under attack, Republicans are hiding under a bush somewhere. The lack of courage is amazing." Ready to Stay Home in '04 How much does the GOP's increasing timidity on family issues threaten the party's future? Mike Farris, chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association and one of the leading pro-family activists on Capitol Hill, told NewsMax.com: "Nobody who cares about these issues is going to go the Democrat party … this is a question of enthusiasm versus inactivity. Enthusiasm is going to wane if there’s not solid support for the fundamental principles that this nation was founded on." It is only "smart politics to always remember to take care of your base. You don’t ever want to alienate your base,” said Farris, an ordained minister and father of 10 who is is president and professor of government at Patrick Henry College. Farris, who has close ties to the White House, blamed the problem on GOP stupidity. “We’ve been doing a lot of things smart as Republicans, but ignoring Rick Santorum when he needs public reaffirmation is just stupid politics and it will hurt,” he said. Schlafly Upset Famed and influential activist Phyllis Schlafly, who single-handedly took down the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, told NewsMax.com she was disturbed by the Republicans' failure to rally around Santorum. She called the administration’s defense of the Pennsylvania Republican "pretty limp" and "most cowardly.” "There’s no reason for Santorum to apologize or back off. What he said was almost word for word what Justice Byron White said in his Supreme Court opinion in the previous gay rights case a number of years ago,” Schlafly said. “I think the party and the administration’s statements are pretty generally recognized as weak-kneed and that they’re not backing up the constituency that elected George Bush. I think they’ll pay a price for that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 :snore: :snore: Man, I hate those self-righteous clowns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Yawn. Every election around this time they make that threat. It's their way of getting their issues back to the forefront. They wont stay home or bolt. They know the alternative is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 So who are they going to vote for as an alternative? Clowns.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Personally, I hope they don't bolt. Why is simple. As a Dem, I think our most likely voters tend more to the left on social issues. ON fiscal issues, I'm not real sure a Dem could win. Take Clinton. He campaigned as a social liberal and fiscal conservative (by Dem standards and by current Repub standards). If the religous Right left the Republican party, I suspect the Republican party might take a few steps to the left (though not Bush). If they can't get the religous vote, they have to go after what's left. While I guess that would be good, I think it would rob the Dems of their most campaignable issues. Ironically, if the religous right leaves, I could totally see the next ten years being another time period where the Dems and Reps switch sides on the whole conservative vs liberal front. Heck, just look at the current issue of defecit spending and track the Dems and Republicans sides over the past 10 years. I guess that wouldn't bother me too much. It's not like it's never happened before. Still, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on the Religous right leaving just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama So who are they going to vote for as an alternative? Clowns.:doh: No, they said they aren't going to vote for the Re-Pubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 gbear... I think I agree where your'e going. I am more of a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. Clinton was clearly that and while he did things I would never do (cheat on wife), I didn't have a problem with the job he did as pres. The social stuff scares me sometimes. It's not that I do anything illegal or anything, cause I don't, but I just don't like people telling me what I should do or think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 And as an alternative, they are gong to vote for who. Oh yeah, the party of M.A.M.B.L.A., gay rights, homo marriage/unions, domestic partner union benefits, etc, etc, etc. They'll fall in line after a little saber rattling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge And as an alternative, they are gong to vote for who. Oh yeah, the party of M.A.M.B.L.A., gay rights, homo marriage/unions, domestic partner union benefits, etc, etc, etc. They'll fall in line after a little saber rattling. The Log Cabin Republicans? I am confused, who are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Liberals. Of which the Log Cabin flamers are a part, despite their contentions. The full meaning of MAMBLA escapes me right now, but the last part is" Man/Boy Love Association" which promotes relations between young boys and men. Talk about people that need to be removed from the gene pool....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 You mean the "National American Marlon Brando Look Alikes"! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Sarge- it's "NAMBLA": North American Man-Boy Love Association. May they all burn in hell. :evil" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Its a joke that the ACLU defends them. I loved the southpark episode, one of the few shows with a libertarian message. Yes they vote republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge Liberals. Of which the Log Cabin flamers are a part, despite their contentions. The full meaning of MAMBLA escapes me right now, but the last part is" Man/Boy Love Association" which promotes relations between young boys and men. Talk about people that need to be removed from the gene pool....... Oh sure Air Sarge. Don't play naive with us!! We all know your a charter member of NAMBLA and drive a black van with dark tinted windows. :silly: Here's the web site.. http://www.nambla1.de/ Here's a shocker...they oppose the death penalty esp for children. Wow! Who would have thought??!! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Log Cabin Repubs are gay repubs. Hey looks like my previous question of morality in regards to voting has come up. The Christian Right isn't talking about going to another party- they have nowhere to go. They can sit out the 2004 election if they feel their issues aren't being paid attention to. They could care less of the conquences; if they feel their issues aren't being promoted by the Republicans-then they will sit out the 2004 election. Then in 2006, they will try to either elect repubs with their views or form a third party. No republican can win with that Christian Right base in many states. If they sit out, that would top congress and the presidency to the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Thanks Redman. I really didn't feel like looking it up. Friggin sicko's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.