Over the past two weeks it seems the GOP has taken its "religious mandate" to heart by essentially adopting Ms.Schiavo's case as a crusade for the gain of their own political ends, which is ok imo because as a loose Republican I believe that we need to co-opt the religious right to get the real agenda through. But the extreme measures taken by Mr.Delay has made me and other neo-conservatives on the edge because what he has done is anti-thetical to the basis of the Republican party, interferring on state rights, degrading the respect of state courts, and by increasing federal powers on an individual case is not something that real republicans should be proud of. As a result the GOP has now put itself on a path to electoral problems in 2006, since the religious right would feel that the GOP has failed them to save this poor but ultimately useless woman, whose wish was to be killed if she was in this state. Thus the GOP may start to lose the sympathy of millions of these nuts, although they won't vote Democrat that's for sure, they won't vote GOP either and thus the Democrats will have the edge in some key ridings. My other beef is which these right to life people, I am for right to die we have enough people as it is draining the system of money, and of our attention. Firstly the greatest irony is that they want this woman to live because they believe in the "culture of life" but they support the death penelty in stark contradiction to the biblical tradition of "turn the other cheek." Especially considering that some of the people on death row are innocent. Also they support the neo-liberal GOP I have no problems in saying that our economic agenda does indeed preclude some people from healthcare, if they are for a culture of "life" wouldn't they have supported a universal healthcare system? I mean let's be real here, Jesus was a socialist. The religious right in American is schizophrenic and must be tammed, but damn it we need them to get what we want.
Firstly, the religious right appreciates what Bush Co. is trying to do, so they will continue to side with them, even if they fail, perhaps especially if they fail. It helps that they look like they are fighting "judicial activists", as they call that branch of the government. Secondly, I could have told you that the Neo-cons were hypocrites. They are capable of almost anything in persuit of political power, and their agenda is not public. If they are willing to tread on their own traditional republican values, imagine what they are doing with foriegn policy.
Firstly, the religious right appreciates what Bush Co. is trying to do, so they will continue to side with them, even if they fail, perhaps especially if they fail. It helps that they look like they are fighting "judicial activists", as they call that branch of the government. You should watch the news more often, they are calling the GOP a bunch of pussies essentially by not taking those extra-judicial steps needed to save this woman. The Xtian fundamentalists want it all, they expect to get their way on this because they feel (correctly) that it was their votes that got the President in power, and I feel especially sorry for Jeb Bush. Secondly, I could have told you that the Neo-cons were hypocrites. They are capable of almost anything in persuit of political power, and their agenda is not public. If they are willing to tread on their own traditional republican values, imagine what they are doing with foriegn policy. I am sorry but where did I suggest that we are hypocrites? Secondly I am angry as a neo-conservative that the GOP has abandoned the GOP tradition of state rights, so tread on what?
You suggested they were hypocrites, since Republican and Neo-con are for the most part inseparable in this administration, and they are subverting what they always said they believe in. Basically, you seem to be saying it's problematic to use the religious right as pawns to get elected, since they might expect something in return.
Even 60% of Christian evangelicals support Schiavo's right to de. 80% of the American people support her rirght to die. This GOP involvement in Schiavo's case is a tactical move to, 1# keep the Christian right energized, 2# knock the second aniversary of the Iraq invasion off that weekends news cycle, Knock Tom DeLay's scandals out of the news cycle, 4# provide political cover for fierce fights over appointing highly partisan judges. Your not a hypocrite internationalist. I think the higher profile NeoConsersvative long to be staightforward and honest about their beliefs even though they should work from stealth because they can never win majority support for beliefs. The can win majority support for their policies only by selling them as something other than what they are. The NeoConservatives biggest political blunder was being to honest and proudly putting PNAC up on the web were we could all read it. Even just lying a lot would not make a person a hypocrite. When Bush talks about his love of democracy and freedom over and over even though he toppled a democracy in Haiti that is hypocrisy. I always thought that toppling a unfriendly democracy was consistent with Neoconservatism and therefore not hypocrisy. Many Neoconservatives have talked about how democracy in the Middle East would help the Neo-Conservative cause (their wrong) but I don't think that would make NeoConservatives hypocrites if they don't always support democracy. Thank you Internationalist for just knowing what Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal mean. I am an anti-NeoConservative but I am being driven nuts by lefties who use the word neo-conservative as an adjective for extreme Republican even if that Republican is Christian right and not Neo-Conservative. Liberal Air America's news reader just read a line saying, "some Neo-Conservative pharmacists won't dispense birth controll pills". Cringe. I believe that people over the age of five should not use words that they don't understand the meaning of. Internationalists, Good points on the inconsistency of the Christian Right for wanting to keeping Schiavo "alive" at the taxpayer expense while failing to support more efficient use of tax dollars to save lives. I don't think the Christian Right are hypocrites, they are just hysterical, too trusting of their rabble rousers, and not deep or independent thinkers. The GOP leaders who know what they are doing can only be called hypocrites if you also call the used car salesman who lies about the car he is selling a hypocrite. He is not a hypocrite, he is a liar. The liar is only a Hypocrite if he goes around preaching the virtues of honesty while seeming to believe that he is honest and yet still lies. Baghdad Bob knew that we knew he was lying. Baghdad Bob was a liar not a hypocrite. The lies that the left and right and middle politicians and pundits tell are so clearly lies that only the people who want to be fooled are fooled. To anybody who does not want to be fooled the liars don't really appear to believe their own lies and therefore I think the GOP and Democrats are just liars and not hypocrites. Jesus was a socialist, but Moses and Paul were not socialists. The hard core Christian Right listen to some of the words of Moses and Paul but they ignore the words of Jesus and just use Jesus as an idol. The Christian Rght extremists are not Chistians, they are hysterical, complexity fearing, idolatrists.
Source: SeattlePI.com Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/216616_firstperson21.html Title: "What happened to real Republicans?" Date: March 21, 2005 Mr. Heberlein is actually frustrated with a number of things, social security being the primary target. Nonetheless, some of what he says does apply to the Schiavo case: should end-of-life issues be a state or federal consideration? Although not mentioned, I think, because of overlapping periods, the Schiavo case matches well with his consideration of medical marijuana. Driver's licenses, spending ... yes, this is a frustrated Republican. The sad thing is that this is probably a natural cycle the politicians are going through. It's not so much that the Democrats are becoming Republicans and vice-versa on this count, but that we've crossed a line. One of the big disappointments of the Clinton era for Democrats was his assault on the First Amendment; and yes, there was Al and Tipper Gore, but the anti-censorship voices ended up in the liberal column because it was the GOP's partners in crime, the Christian evangelicals, pushing music censorship twenty years ago. The GOP is acknowledging this part of itself and, drunk with delusions of power, have set about pushing what they think is right. Yes, these issues tread on the traditional GOP depiction of itself, but there really is nothing new about this level of intrusion from conservatives. I would guess that Social Security was the straw that broke that back, but the GOP has, for twenty-five years at least, been this intrusive party that defers to the states for institutions yet dares to extend its influence to meddle with individuals. It's all about appeal these days. The GOP is about to experience what the Democrats went through because of Clinton, and while exploitation is fully expected, it would be nice to see the Dems restore some dignity to the discourse (since the GOP won't) and treat these political positions honestly. ____________________ Notes: Heberlein, L. A. "What happened to real Republicans?" SeattlePI.com. March 21, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/216616_firstperson21.html
