Carlson: 'Republican elites have contempt for evangelicals'


Yeah, like fiscal restraints for starters! :laughing:

Lets add a terrible record of securing the countries border in the face of a massive illegal invasion. And an only recent interest in eforcement of on-the-book illegal immigration laws.


It’s not “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” at all. The problem is that the funds going to faith based orgs providing social services are funds that are NOT going to non-profit orgs that are doing the same work but OBEYING THE LAWS.



The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” remark I made was directed at this idea that if the Republicans act in the interests of their constituency, they take heat for letting the “Christian Right” run the country. But then we see here that if they don’t then they just get accused of backstabbing the people who put them in office – so they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.


Well, no one is forcing the Republicans to pander to the christian right while campaigning. If they don’t want to implement policies pushed by the christian right, then they should stop campaigning in support of those issues. That would eliminate the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” problem, eh? Maybe GOPers can now come out of the closet (figuratively and literally). :smiley:

Tucker Carlson’s assertion is backed up by David Kuo, who served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

[quote]He [Kuo] says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.[/quote]

A far more troubling claim . . .

Let’s leave religion where it belongs, in the church and out of government. :America: :braveheart:


Perhaps…but show me a party that doesn’t pander to some demographic…


And that’s an argument for what? What–beyond power–is the logic?
Flaws in the argument not withstanding, Rawls got it right with the difference principle: variations from equal distribution should favour the worst off. There are many good and sufficient reasons supporting that logic.
What’s the logic–beyond power games–to pandering to this constituency?


I’m arguing that all they have been accused of is being a political party. Of course they’re scumbags, they’re politicians! But what precisely are they doing that anyone else who comes to power doesn’t do? Rawls may have wonderful thing to say on the matter, but pray tell how are these Rawlsian ideas to be implemented?


I think Kuo’s charge that GOPers used taxpayer funds through his office to mobilize religious voters in close races goes much deeper than you are letting on, unless you feel a political party by definition engages in illegal conduct (as I am sure that such use of taxpayer funds cannot be legal). If true, this behavior goes far beyond mere pandering to misuse of public finds and outright corruption.


To the extent that people in the party illegally mismanaged funds those people should be prosecuted. My comments were directed at the assertion that Republicans had no intention of acting on behalf of the “religious right.” My contention is that while perhaps the religious right may want to reconsider their vote, there is nothing systematically wrong with that.



Taxes, are they morally wrong?