Where are the Christian Democrats?

With all the discussions on this board about how the religious right is forcing their agenda upon America, I was wondering, where is the religious left? Why are they so silent?Christian democrats constitute a large portion of swing voters in this country and just because many of them voted for Bush doesn’t mean they are republicans. Surely republicans don’t hold the monopoly on religious views in our culture.My curiosity was piqued when I came upon this photo of a recent ad campaign by democrats who seem to be doing something about the faith and values message and are taking their case to the streets. Around the world, Christian Democrats seem to be a fairly large movement with established political parties in several countries. They are far from silent and have an active political voice.But in this country, democratic leaders who take issue with conservative religious views generally do not contest them on religious grounds, but rather contest the very fact that religion was invoked at all.As such, religion has become the bailiwick of the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party is often viewed as the party of secularism. That may be exactly what many on the left truly desire. Ok, but that philosophy won’t win many elections in the US.In light of the disastrous showing by the democrats in November, democrats need to do something and get themselves organized before the mid-term elections. Are ad campaigns such as this going to help or are these tactics going to be perceived as being me too.What would you suggest?

Some would characterize the election as a disaster solely because Bush won. But I was referring to the other elections which resulted in expanded majorities picked up by the GOP in both the Senate and the House as well as the ouster of Daschle. The only place the dems didn’t lose ground was in the governorships where they broke even. I don’t believe the majority of people were protecting the party. Moral issues were much more important than protecting the party. Besides, Bush is hardly a lame duck with expanded majorities in both houses of congress.Frankly, I believe Bill Clinton summed it up best: In his speech to the Urban Land Institute, Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to counter how Republicans portrayed them to rural and small-town voters.

quote:

---

If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault. Democrats need a clear national message and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil.

​

The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy. The Republicans did a better job of turning out those who were already registered who hadn't voted as well as bringing out their base. Source

---

I didn't want this thread to rehash the election results. I wanted to move beyond that and discuss democratic strategies for countering the religious right. Maybe, but the Dems still need to figure out to appeal to rural and small town voters. They will have the coastal vote. But 2004 proved that's not enough. Yeah, I agree. That type of advertising seems fake. Ads like that won’t get republicans to move and at the same time they risk losing some of their base. hehe.....Republicans can only hope they do that.

I can't either. Oh yeah, ....Kerry, wasn't he the guy who had all those problems with the veterans?

That may be true to a certain extent and fringe groups always tend to be more vocal than the majority. But the point of the OP is that Christian Democrats can't afford to remain silent on faith and family issues if they expect to chip away at Republican control.This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 06-01-2005 09:08 PM

If the Democrats can figure that out, they may have a chance in the next election.

You need a history referesher. We are not at all like the Roman empire. The fall of Rome occured gradually and had a complex mix of causes. Castro was no hero. He was and is a self serving communist dictator that ruined a thriving Cuban society. As far as Islamist terrorists, they ARE to blame for their inexcusable acts of barbarism. Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions.Finally, I have no idea what the My Lai massacre photo has to do with Christian Democrats. You are way way off topic here.

We’ve trained many people in many countries during the course of our history. We’ve also intervened in numerous situations around the world at one time or other but that doesn’t say anything about current relations with those countries.You’ve raised this issue before in other threads and it just doesn’t stand. You’ve posted a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam with the implication that Rumsfeld is a hypocrite. I then asked if Roosevelt was a hypocrite because of the photo with FDR and Stalin at a cordial get together. None of that means anything. We can appear as friends to many countries, then later through the course of world events we become enemies, then friends again and so on.The same is true for other countries. The British were our mortal enemies at one time. We killed them and they killed us. So what. That’s history and is as relevant as your poorly constructed arguments.The other point is that these relations are between nations and leaders of nations. The US leaders you mentioned did not condone the actions of demented terrorist who strap bombs on their backs and who are just as happy to kill their own people as they are to kill westerners whom they view as infidels.These poor terrorist as you call them, were not trained by US taxpayers to blow up schools killing innocent children then scurry away like vermin. They even kill their own people over false rumors about a religious book.Death, mayhem and destruction is their creed. It is their sole purpose for existence and they will not be deterred regardless of how we or anyone else try to reason with them. Your well meaning but naive sympathy for these poor terrorists is ridiculous and insulting.

Why do you ask?

And I used the word correctly. That’s because Castro IS a communist. Yea, right. Saved his homeland? That’s an absurd joke. You have no idea what you are talking about. Cuba is no utopia. You should open your eyes.Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to severely restrict the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly.The conditions in Cuba's prisons are barbaric and inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform.It’s no wonder that Cubans have the highest suicide rate in Latin America. Suicide is an act of desperation and according to the report entitled Suicide in Cuba and Miami, Cubans are dreadfully miserable compared to Cubans living in Miami.But go ahead and keep apologizing for Castro. You and Carter had something in common.

What is your point?

I know many things about Cuba before Castro

I'll say it again, Islamist terrorists ARE to blame for their inexcusable acts of barbarism. Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions. If that truth disturbs you then I've made my point.