Yeah, like fiscal restraints for starters! 
Bodo[/quote]
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.
Itâs not âdamned if you do, damned if you donâtâ 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.
Bodo
The âdamned if you do, damned if you donâtâ 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 âChristian Rightâ run the country. But then we see here that if they donât then they just get accused of backstabbing the people who put them in office â so theyâre damned if they do and damned if they donât.
Well, no one is forcing the Republicans to pander to the christian right while campaigning. If they donât want to implement policies pushed by the christian right, then they should stop campaigning in support of those issues. That would eliminate the âdamned if you do, damned if you donâtâ problem, eh? Maybe GOPers can now come out of the closet (figuratively and literally). 
Tucker Carlsonâs 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 nationâs most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as âthe nuts.â
âNational Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as âridiculous,â âout of control,â and just plain âgoofy,ââ Kuo writes.[/quote]
A far more troubling claim . . .
Letâs leave religion where it belongs, in the church and out of government. :America: :braveheart:
PerhapsâŚbut show me a party that doesnât pander to some demographicâŚ
And thatâs an argument for what? Whatâbeyond powerâis 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.
Whatâs the logicâbeyond power gamesâto pandering to this constituency?
Iâm arguing that all they have been accused of is being a political party. Of course theyâre scumbags, theyâre politicians! But what precisely are they doing that anyone else who comes to power doesnât do? Rawls may have wonderful thing to say on the matter, but pray tell how are these Rawlsian ideas to be implemented?
I think Kuoâs 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 âreligious right.â My contention is that while perhaps the religious right may want to reconsider their vote, there is nothing systematically wrong with that.