Another Reason McCain Won't Get The Nod

[FromTexas]

FT...I agree with your characterization of the influence of the fanatic left on the Democratic primaries; but this thread is about the GOP primaries and John McCain, not the Democratic Party and its demons. Both parties have radical bases that only seek to polarize and demonize rather than provide rational thought and reasonable public policy. The only way that either party can overcome those demons is to have so many far-left or far-right candidates run that the relative middle of each party overcomes.

Ah, it doesn't matter anymore since I showed you can't keep barking around about the Christian Right.

 

[rraley]

Ah, it doesn't matter anymore since I showed you can't keep barking around about the Christian Right.

Yes I can. I would appreciate it if the Republicans on this board understood that BOTH parties have radical factions within them and it would ulitmately be better for our political system if these factions were removed. I have seen that my party has a sizable base of people who offer radical views; you should do the same for yours and stop pretending that it doesn't.

 

[vraiblonde]

I would appreciate it if the Republicans on this board understood that BOTH parties have radical factions within them and it would ulitmately be better for our political system if these factions were removed.

Okay, I'll bite: what is so "radical" about the so-called "religious right"? Name names, because I can't think of any public figure of note that I would consider a "radical religious right-winger".

Also, please compare their rhetoric and power to the Moveon.org people. So, like, no fair comparing Jerry Falwell to George Soros (small influence and no money vs. large influence and big money). Also no fair comparing Pat Robertson (who?) to Michael Moore.

 

[FromTexas]

Yes I can. I would appreciate it if the Republicans on this board understood that BOTH parties have radical factions within them and it would ulitmately be better for our political system if these factions were removed. I have seen that my party has a sizable base of people who offer radical views; you should do the same for yours and stop pretending that it doesn't.

It would be better if those factions were removed? Even though I disagree with quite a few of what I consider nutcases, I would never say any faction needs to be removed. Also, you can't compare the Christian Right to fanatic leftists. The Christian Right is made up, for the most part, of people closer to moderate. Your fanatic leftists are just that -- fanatically to the left. You cant compare the things a few smaller pubic figures have said to the embrace the left has given to off kilter folks like Michael Moore. In fact, if you remember, most of the more prominent evangelical Christians figureheads were not even invited to the GOP convention. Some showed up on their own accord, but they were not specifically asked to attend by the GOP leadership.

Yet, the DNC caters to Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, and other highly visible nutcases with open embrace.

Remember when Falwell made his 9/11 comments and Robertson sat there and concurred with him? The GOP savaged them both! Once again, Falwell and Robertson have nothing to do with the way the GOP votes. Yet, the DNC allows Moveon.org to pressure who will run their organization! Come on now.. the comparison isn't even close.

So, fine, we both have fringe elements.. the difference is how much control our true fringe elements have on our decisions. The whole Christian Coalition is not a fringe element!

Also, throw abortion up all you want.. your own party had 40-45% of its women who actually support limitations on abortions! Wow! I guess its just the fringe looneys on the right, though.

 

[Bruzilla]

A veto would have been futile because of an easy, easy override, which is complicated by the fact that it was an election year. Democratic politicians did not want to be tied to the gay lobby, so they had to vote in order to maintain their reelection prospects.

rr... do you realize how telling a paragraph that is? You make two points that I think would make any Democrat ashamed to call themselves a Democrat or a Clinton supporter. First, where was Clinton's backbone and perseverance with the DOMA? Sure he would have had his veto overturned, but so what? If he was against it he should have vetoed it, and if the veto was overturned so be it, but his point would have been made, that being that the DOMA was bad for America. Instead he went with the flow, showed no political courage, no leadership, and betrayed a lot of people who handed him the White House. And this is your best example of a Democrat political stalwart?

Then you go on to say how other Democrats also turned their backs on the Gays when it suited them. How does it make you feel when your party warmly embraces a group, cultivates and accepts their assistance and support, and then turns their backs on them whenever it becomes politically expedient? And you wonder why so many people never want to see Democrats handling national defense, especially when so many Dems are wanting to cut and run when things aren't going just ducky. Maybe it's the examples set by your leadership by showing no loyalty, no courage, and no consistency that causes you'all to lose more and more of your asses each election and not the efforts of the Religious Right.

Nobody in this country takes more hits throughout the media than the members of the religious right, the pro life crowd, pro-gun, and other conservatives, yet the Republicans haven't turned their backs on any group en masse and for the sake of saving their political hides, and that's called courage and integrity. That is why Republicans win.