Where are the Christian Democrats?

Just to let you know, there are religious left people, including on this forum. Jar might be a good example. The reason they aren't known for forcing their agenda on America is:1) They are not desperate regarding their religion and feel the need to impose it upon others through legal fiat (the difference for example between the Taliban and moderate Islam elements in Afghanistan)2) They are probably more likely to believe in secular gov't in general, and as such want to avoid combining their religion with the gov't. There is at least one religious left organization dedicated to that very thing. I don't see why you characterize it as disasterous. They did not win, and so Bush is back in office and that might be disasterous, but they did a decent job and got 49% of the vote. They even got mine and I generally dislike Democrats.Some Democrats certainly have fallen into despair and are thinking like you. Those are the ones that suck anyway.In reality the Reps pulled together in an astounding way, with people voting en masse for a lame candidate just to protect the party. The problem, which could be spotted at the convention, is that Reps created some pretty odd bedfellows to make that miracle happen and post election these fellows are waking up to that fact.The question will be who will win the battle for control of the Republican party (McCain was discussing the coming battle last Sunday on Late Edition) and if it will end up shattering the Reps in coming elections (as it did last time Reps won big).I think the best bet for Dems is to realize they have to hold on to their position as generally center and make Reps aware they are the center at this point. Okay, so I just got done ripping into Reps, now let me rip into Dems and follow the heart of your OP.I think you put your finger on a problem that certain Dems are having. The idiots who really don't have any principles behind their party affiliation are scrambling to figure out how to reinvent themselves so that they can WIN WIN WIN!Well maybe that's a little unfair. Maybe some with principles are just so shaken that they have lost their way due to desperation.In any case, ads like you cited are just pandering and my guess is that's how it'll be perceived. Indeed it even has the potential to lose people... like me for instance. How on earth can they claim to be for secular gov't if they are busy plastering billboards with messages they are like Jesus.Actually wouldn't that offend religious types as well? But maybe right now certain desperate Dems are feeling like Jesus right now. Yeah yeah messianic complexes of course, but more than that, like they were trying to help and bring peace and then God abandoned them.Perhaps they can run that in upcoming Ads. Show a picture of Bush at his inauguration and some democratic candidate on the cross and the caption... "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understand this, and actually I think your thread topic is a really interesting one where you have identified a solid mistake Dems are in the process of making.However, the reason I am bringing up last election is because the analysis of why Dems lost is key to figuring out what they should be doing in the future.I do not buy the argument that they lost by failing to appeal to religious people (which they have neglected in order to appear secular) and so must figure out a new strategy at this point which recaptures that block and yet does not go too far.I hope you'll see that that's the position I am coming from and so not simply trying to drag in an unrelated topic. Hahaha... the ouster of Daschle was fine by me. He was a disaster. The other issues are really not that important except in a temporary sense. The houses move back and forth and will continue to do so.Remember it was about ten years ago when a similar thing happened and the Reps went bananas declaring they were proven to be the party of America and going to take it back from the Dems... and then they fell apart. They fought each other until finally they got themselves together enough not to get any legislation going, but to throw mudballs at Clinton. That was it.It remains to be seen if the Reps can hold it together this time, which is the point I am driving at that has implications for Dem strategy. Believe what you will, but the facts say otherwise. In the convention itself there were no unified values on display. They carted out every type of Rep they could to get the PARTY bandwagon rolling, and emphasize the "big tent" notion.I mean there you had the candidate, who was antiabortion antigay antistemcell pronationbuilding progov't growth proenlarged deficit, and they kept carting out OTHER very popular Reps with the exact opposite position (on most or all those issues). You could even hear it in McCain's speeches, and what you are hearing now in his interviews.Despite his major criticisms on principles with the presidential candidate and many of the congressional ones, he moved back in to support his party. He wanted to keep his party alive, and then have the fight for which principles will reign WITHIN the party.Honestly, how can a person who is a Schwarzenneger or McCain Republican (on moral issues) be thought to support at all the Bush moral issues?You would be right to say that it was their big tent allowance for extreme moral differences which helped. They did not alienate completely any of their members because they put all on display hand in hand, despite the battles that would have to come afterward.Dems got a pretty solid figure despite not running a very "big tent" campaign. I think their best bet is to peel off Reps by appealing to their centrist members. They should campaign on the FACT that in most cases they are more supportive of Republican principles than Reps are.Kind of like it is time to put partisan politics aside and vote principles. If the 2004 election had been voted solely on principles, the results would have been very different. I agree which is why that election was important in a temporary way for the Dems. However you have recently been seeing the fight begin within the Rep party, with public statements by prominent Reps that it is going to continue. He has been handed it least one major defeat already by his own party.That is not to mention state level defeats he has already been handed by his own party.Depending on how this all shakes out, I could very well vote Rep in the next election. I find it interesting that you'd think Clinton's assessment was accurate. While he did have some glowing words, did you not get that he was slamming the Reps for using patent religious ignorance and bigotry?In any case, I only agree with his assessment that they ran a great campaign. It was "big tent" at its best, with the short term rewards that always gets. But it has no soul, no moral center, and so the actual moral center of the party will need to get hashed out.I can only hope Dems do not believe Clinton's words mean that they need to start pretending at faith and family by espousing one single vision of it. That's not what led to rep victory. In a diverse nation there are many different faiths and families and the Dems can play on centrist or inclusive interests of those families.You know, like some of the Reps do and I support. This is true. Though I don't care if Dems win or lose, and so if they give up the principles they held in last election they won't get my vote next time around.There is something about staying consistent to values, even if that means short term losses, which can actually aid the party. As the people do not find solutions with the people who are not stable, they may decide to give the stable party a try.I think they can appeal to rural and small town voters by dealing with economic issues, especially reigning in the growth of gov't. Bush is the worst Tax and Spend Democrat the Republicans ever ran as a candidate. He just slips his taxes by, through pushing them off on future voters that can't effect his current job. The Dems should do a better job explaining this to the small town folks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's interesting because that's not what we said when they were attacking other nations, most notably Russia. Remember, not 20 years ago these guys were heroic figures to US leaders such as Reagan, Bush, and Rummy (well he liked Saddam, I can't remember his position on the Mujahadin). Russian actions against them excused whatever actions these poor terrorists launched against them.And while not an excuse, but an explanation, we were the ones that trained them to do what they are doing now to us. It is actually the work of US taxpayer dollars, coming home to roost.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't post it, Schraf did. And it was not simply that Rumsfeld was a hypocrite. Perhaps you didn't understand the full implications of what you were looking at.The atrocities that we are now declaring as reason for why Saddam is such a monster he had to be removed, were taking place WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE at the time of the photo! We HELPED HIM COMMIT THE CRIMES!That is different than you WW2 photo of a tenuous alliance between major players stopping a greater threat than any one of them seated there.What's even better is at the time we were sucking up to Hussein, there were many decrying this partnership and were put down by the Conservatives at the time as being antiAmerican for not wanting to arm Saddam and being crybabies for mentioning the atrocities.Now the conservatives claim the people who were against the Iraq War were FOR Hussein? Give me a break man. Some of those for the war were the ones who put him in place over the opposition of people who knew what the results would be. Ironically the same people who understood what the results of this war would be and were right.So far its .000 batting average for the neocons, with pics to prove it. I'm not talking 200 years Monk, I'm talking 20 with the same players still active. How on earth you think you can compare these things is beyond me.We trained them HOW to organize and take down their enemies, while baiting and empowering their religious zealotry. We wanted the most militant Islamic radicals in power their because it suited our ends, just as in Iraq secularist thugs suited our ends.Once the Soviet menace was gone, the SAME PEOPLE turned on us because we were their enemy just the same and utilized what we taught them. Yes we did. Watch documentaries on the subject with interviews by their trainers and handlers. Heck, watch Zbigniew (sic) egging their religious zealotry on! Its on tape and film.Your ignorance is really trying my patience. They were heros back then and the media tried to spin it as GOOD back then, over the complaints of those that had an idea where that was going to lead. I'm still waiting for any of you touting this one riot in an isolated area to explain how those people who died were killed. We in the western world lose more than that at rock concerts, riots for other rumors, and sports games. We also killed more post 9/11 when assholes ran around shooting people they thought might be responsible.Come out of the monastery Monk and look at the world. There are idiots and idiotic deaths anywhere. When the rumors were released the Islamic community did not raise en masse all over the world to kill people. It was an isolated incident. Sympathy for them? Ohhhh there's a lot I'd like to say at this point. First of all I did not call them "poor terrorists" as if we are supposed to feel sad for them.I really hate AQ and the Taliban and did so not just back when they were Cheney's pals right before 9/11, but back when they were Reagan and Bush Sr's pals. They were the ones claiming these "poor freedom fighters" need help. Those opposed to our nations policies called them what they were... terrorists.Its too late to try and turn the tables and make it look like people such as me were sympathetic. I hated them before, I hated them on 9/11, and I still really hate them. I was for the invasion of Afghanistan and very delighted at the removal of the Taliban.It is YOUR PALS that armed them, that taught them, and that disempowered the moderates in favor of the extermists and then got all surprised when things went bad, and now try to play like they've always known it and everyone else was behind the times.Iraq was the same issue, except that the people who "suddenly realized" Saddam was bad, took their eye off our more important enemy: AQ.What a bunch of flip-floppers you guys are.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You left my reply to you hanging.While I do agree whatever any terrorist does makes them to blame, it is hypocrisy by the US when we have called these same people "freedom fighters" and their actions "good" when used against people we don't like, and "bad" so they are "terrorists" when turned against us.We have to take part of the blame for our actions too.We encouraged Islamic radicals in Afghanistan for our own ends and taught them the organization and tactics they are now using against us... yes or no?We encouraged Saddam Hussein and helped him commit the very atrocities, as well as whitewash them as "necessary", that you and Bush apologists claim were the reason you hate him and he needed to be wiped out... yes or no?If you say "no" then you are not dealing with the facts. They are very well established in public sources by the Republicans at the time by themselves, and so not some liberal conspiracy or mudslinging.If you say "yes", then while it does not wholly excuse the actions of terrorists, doesn't it cast a shadow over those US officials who did excuse those actions in the past? And does it not make us somewhat culpable for what we are facing?You didn't seem to get that my earlier post did not say that they had an excuse, I said it was interesting for you to make the claim they didn't since earlier Conservatives did excuse their actions.I am the one who has remained consistent (along with many other analysts and rights groups) on the people and actions that became AQ and the Saddam regime. They were inexcusable then, and they are inexcusable now.You guys say times change? How, when you are using the very examples we had then to make your case now? Flip flop, flip flop.P.S.--- There are more than Islamic terrorists out there to worry about. There are Xian and Jewish and Hindu terrorists, as well as political terrorists, not to mention enemy nations. Why you seem to focus on Islam is a bit strange.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Isn't that by necessity going to involve... In Iraq, both when we set up Saddam and now while taking him down, we claimed that the ends justify the means. No there wasn't agreement on the WMDs, and while no one liked Saddam and did want him out many many people agreed ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Check your own words above on that issue. Wrong again, it was the Conservative Republicans that did not care about Saddam's vicious murders. Remember, while people (left, right, and the middle) were outraged by those murders AT THE TIME, and predicted this was a maniac we should not be helping into power, Rummy and Reagan and Bush Sr were putting dissenters down as mamby pamby bleeding heart liberals?He did not become an enemy until he destabilized the region and posed a threat to oil stability. At that point the Conservatives said "oh look at that monster". So you see to the Conservative Reps:1) vicious murders=people who say Saddam is bad are bleeding heart wussies,2) destabilize region and oil supply= Saddam is a vicious murderer.Get the picture? We stay consist, you guys blow with the wind.And America has gotten worse with all of these events, especially the normalizing of lies and hyperbole to support partisan policy. I don't think that most critics of America would put it as equal. I think most however would find us culpable. The apologists are trying to whitewash the whole deal, and pretend as if that will straighten things out. Everything will all be better if we just realize THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.Indeed look at that paragraph you wrote, after decrying ends justify means you now champion that very notion!I would say there is a moral equivalence between Bush (and some of his neocon crew) and OBL. Indeed, I'd be interested to know where you find the difference, besides technical know how on killing, and the nature of the end religious/political goal. They have both taken the stance that you are with them or against them, and anyone including innocents must die in the offense of their position, or the world will end in catastrophe.Is there something else I'm missing about these men? Personally, I don't have such a moral system which involves "good" and "evil" as some sort of objective quality. However I do equate good with things that generally make one successful, or improve living conditions.Here's what I think is "good":Using your brain to honestly analyze the history of an area and its people, as well as trends within those areas, then constructing programs and policies which will generally improve the living conditions of people within that area as well as remove threats to our own physical safety.Now if only the dogmatic apologists of Bush would get on board.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

1) Promoting American ideals is by definition promoting an ideological agenda, note the words ideal and ideology.2) Your championing of Xianity as the basis of American gov't inherently means there will not be freedom and prosperity for all.3) If you back capitalism then you are almost by definition against prosperity for all. Capitalism only works with some people not being prosperous. We have reasons to be everywhere and doing anything. What makes a good leader is that they choose the right issues to deal with and in the right way. Afghanistan made sense, Iraq was a blunder though hopefully something can be made of the mess. First of all I am not basing it on an abstract. Where do you get he was the only option in that situation at the time?Second of all what you have just said is that the ends justify the means. Why can't you stay consistent on this?Lastly, if you hold this position then you cannot use Saddam's gassing of his own people as an example of his atrocity. It simply becomes an evil we had to choose to do, or rather he had to do and we accepted it.I really love it when a devout Xian tells me sometimes we have to choose between two evils. I always thought there was another choice, and that was to do good? At the very least do nothing. Exactly, which is why we should now be allowing gay marriage. I'm not a Democrat so I'm not even going to bother looking at your list of quotes. The point I was criticizing was that there was agreement on WMDs outside the Bush administration. There was no agreement outside the Bush administration. While certainly some Dems felt that, clearly not all did, and more importantly there are many other people outside of Reps and Dems and even the US. The fact that you do not see the contradiction here amazes me. You simply sugar coat one and slime the other. The point of the saying "ends don't justify means" is that the means themselves can be worthy of rejection, no matter that it reaches your goal.We have gone into Iraq and murdered both people who were wholly innocent, as well as anyone that opposed what we wanted. Maybe I can rephrase it in your words: if your end is to make a peaceful world of democracy then there's an implicit contradiction in invading nations unilaterally to overthrow their government, killing tens to hundreds of thousands of people in the process to impose a new government on them which itself will require killing all those that do not choose to be part of that imposed gov't. Flip flop flip flop. Are you for an absolute morality and external value system or not? I love that you feel cultures must be taken into account as long as it involves killing people you happen to hate, but not when it means living alongside people within your own nation.You think gay marriage will destroy the meaning of marriage? What have you just done to the concept of good/evil and humanity?There is always another option than to negotiate with murderers? Isn't that what God is all about? Oh ye of little faith.You tell me why it was necessary for us to train the men who became AQ the way we did, as well as empower Saddam once we saw he was bombing his own people. ????? But there has been lies. Its been proven. Do you actually believe forgeries are not lies? Do you actually believe a person confessing that he lied to get us to invade does not indicate that there were lies made?What's more I keep hearing the lie that I was for Saddam's atrocities, which ironically you have just defended, as well as for a weaker America. Yes, that is just what I said. Making lies and hyperbolic statements against those that oppose policy (or one's position) is becoming an "evil" trend. So why are you taking part in it?I'm not for selling us out to our enemies, but that is just what you accused me of. For all this talk of lack of evidence, you are the one doing the hypothesizing. The history is there for you to look up. We supported Saddam, despite his gassing of his own people which was excused at the time by our gov't. I'm just not sure how you get around the fact that excusing an action one moment, and decrying it as an atrocity the next is hypocritical and dishonest and a giant moral flipflop. The people that don't want war for a specific set of reasons which turn out to be justified are thugs?As far as culpability, it was of training religious zealots who we empowered over moderates, so that they could help us despite the fact that they hurt their own people... and now those zealots (rid of the first enemy) came after us.You just argued that we have to understand that political sands shift. Then why on earth should we train foreigners how to organize and fight nations in a way that they can then fight us once we become their enemy? Bring down America how exactly? By the way, just keep loading on the personal slander, it really makes your position look pristine. Well you could simply call it a mistaken comparison. The more important part is not the exact name of a fallacy, but showing what is wrong. That is what you failed to do.Please explain what is the moral difference between Bush and OBL. I get they have different religious and political ends, but that has nothing to do with moral action. You mean why I'm right and you're wrong? What? You say you are not a fan of Bush yet never actually hold him to account for anything. What exactly do you not like about him?If you are against him then you are by definition blind and ill witted blah blah blah... which by the way is called an ad hominem fallacy.So which is it? For or against? Or do you have a "nuanced" position where you like some of the things he does and not like other things? That's my position, though I should say the bad well outweighs the good.Personally I cannot think of a crowd more self-righteous than Bush and Co as well as OBL and Co. I already outlined my reasons. You explain the difference.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and AQ!!!! How long does it take to get this through to you Bush apologists? The real enemy has been and always will be militant moral and political fundamentalists. In this current generation it is mainly religious and antisexual moralists which are the enemy.Can you explain how I tell the difference between your religion's future for the world, and the militant fundamentalist Islamic version of the future? What will be the difference to me?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The root of ideal is idea. Yes it is, ideology from merriam webster... What on earth are you talking about? Democracy was a nonXian idea. Check into history on that. In the west it was exemplified by the Greeks and Romans, and was REJECTED by Jews and then Xians who used Monarchical models. Thats why the Roman empire collapsed into feudalism.Why don't you find me any passage in the Bible extolling the virtues of democracy or free thought. You know you can't as it has always been a King-servant model.The Enlightenment era philosophers were reacting to Xian feudal models, rejecting them to espouse a return to pagan democratic models of gov't. A nation may have wealth with or without capitalism. Free markets tend to develop wealth faster. However, capitalism is not the only system with free markets.As far as your claim that the poorest people in capitalist western nations are staggeringly prosperous compared to the rest of the world, I am not sure what you are talking about.The people in the west with the most "staggeringly prosperous" poor, are socialist nations and not capitalist ones. Sweden beats the pants off the US as far as quality of life, specifically for the poor. When I was in Denmark I lived better off with a poor person than I did with a really decent job in the US.When you compare US poor to those in the rest of the world, I can only assume you mean 3rd world nations. Only most of these are capitalist! Just because a nation is poor, or 3rd world, does not mean they aren't capitalist.I heartily defend free markets... but that is different then supporting capitalism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. My comment was not directed at what they thought they were doing and whether it was in good faith. My comment was aimed directly at their inabilities as leaders. They are incompetent. They are unable to perform their duties as they should... get it? If that was not our only option, how on earth could it be a right judgement call, or NOT a moral failure to oppose his gassing of his own people? Or even if not opposing him, why would it have been right to help him do it?Conversely, why was it a moral failure to oppose him at the time? They denounced those pointing to the acts and calling them atrocities, you know what you are calling them now. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either they were atrocities or they were doing the best we could in a bad situation. Remember, its not just that we stayed allies, we helped him do what he did.Actually, why can't Saddam appeal to that same excuse that you are appealing to? He gassed his own people, not our enemies. His not having gassed his people would not have caused the death of millions. Where have you gotten this revisionist history from?And again I feel the need to ask, if not gassing his own people would have resulted in the deaths of millions, why could he not defend his actions with that same excuse? You just said they DO change. When circumstances dictate, sometimes you must accept EVIL. Those were your own words. Why when I said I am not a Dem? If your list does nothing against my point, then why should I read it. Yes I am aware that there was a group of people that did agree that Saddam had WMDs or was moving to get them. That does not mean that everyone outside the Bush administration was agreed on it, or that a majority of people outside of the Bush administration agreed on it. The irony of this statement is staggering. They have a right to tell one sovereign nation not to invade another sovereign nation... which is the height of telling another sovereign nation what it should be allowed to do. That doesn't get you off the hook, it just sinks you deeper. Would that be opposed to your good lie? What exactly are you disputing, that we killed innocent people? Or that we are currently trying to kill anyone who is willing to reject the gov't we have put into place?I'm not saying there is no popularity for the current gov't, just that the nature of that gov't came from us and we are enforcing it with military power. Holy cow, is this for real?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Man I must be a perv, because all your responses are making me hot! Keep 'em coming.AbE: As a side note, I am not making a direct comparison between them, I am comparing their moral stances. If it was so obvious to tell the difference between them on that score I'm sure you would have done that by now, instead of getting really dirty-mouthed at me.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-04-2005 03:30 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)