Turning the Tables

The modern GOP is a precarious alliance between moderate, sane, conservatives, corporate interests understandably focused on short term profits, and a fundamentalist mob whose social policies poll anywhere between unpopular to repugnant among the majority of Americans.

The moderates are the official face set forth in PR efforts, the corporate interests drive the money, and like in any feudal system, the cultish masses provide the votes and do the grassroots work. But there's a glaring weakness: Expose that extremist base for what it is, flip that rock over to illuminate the ugly squatting trolls hiding underneath, and it's game over folks. Here's one way to go about doing that, and in all fairness we should thank the GOP shills on Cable News and all across the blogosphere for bringing it our attention and warming up the soundbite for us so nicely.

Osama bin Laden:

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws

Osama bin Laden calling for 'morality':

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

Osama bin Laden on Bill Clinton:  

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office?

Osama bin Laden on women in the workplace:

You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.

Osama bin Laden on AIDS:

[Y]ou have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention

Osama bin Laden on gambling:

You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

And that's just from one of Osama's barking at the moon bat shit crazy religious screeds. I don't know about you folks, but that doesn't sound very liberal to me. But it sure sounds like something I might hear on the GOP/fundie talk radio ...

So, when the extremist nutcases in our country start comparing patriotic Democrats and Progressives with Osama bin Laden, welcome the opportunity to point out that the present incarnation of the GOP is controlled by the religious right, the Theocons, who bear disturbing parallels to the most wanted man in the world. And you don't have to be able to whip out a bunch of quotes, all you need to remember is a simple soundbite and they will open the door for you.

The religious right is Osama bin Laden light.

That's how easy it is to turn the tables.

•  Gambling

  I think many Republicans, cognizant of where their funds come from, may be hesitant to go after gambling. I'd be wildly amused if they did though.

  by jabbausaf on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:07:17 AM PDT

  •  Senator Geary-like Republicans...

    conflicted and want to both damn and praise gambling. Want to both make money off it and restrict it, too.

    Hypocrites...

    by rgilly on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:21:29 AM PDT

    •  Tell me about it..

      You should see our idiot governor here in RI, Don Carcieri. He tries to defend his reasoning for not even wanting a ballot initiative so that the people can vote down a casino (which we would do), because he doesn't like gambling outfits.

      Then he coddles international lottery giant G-Tech Corp. and praises the expansion of the state's two privately run gambling facilities, Lincoln Greyhound Park and Newport Grand Jai-Alai (no jai alai anymore, but look at all those pretty slot machines!)

      by Scoopster on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:25:09 AM PDT

      •  I believe the real reasons Gov. Carcieri doesn't

        want a casino in RI is...

        Firstly, The take ain't big enough!

        I heard the Governor on AM talk radio a while back and he let slip that the state gets 60% of the take from the state's two gaming facilities.

        60% !!!

        Any fool knows that there ain't NO way Harrah's (the "outsiders" that are backing the Narragansett Indians' Casino efforts) are gonna pony up a number that big.

        Secondly, with privatization, the state would lose control of gaming in the state, which it has now with the RILottery in all it's forms.

        And speaking of which...

        Ah, yes the RI Lottery, the home of obscenely paid and benefitted politically appointed plum jobs for hacks and supporters of whoever is in the Governor's seat... Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

        One final note...

        One thing I've never heard in the RI pro/anti Casino discussion is the fact that state run gaming here in RI just flat out sucks, period.

        The two gaming facilities, Lincoln and Newport clean you out within an hour of arrival.

        Mrs. Tso and I occasionally take a little "mad money" and like to go out for a night of gaming and dining. When we've gone to either of the quasi-state facilities, we're tapped out after just a little while and leave in disgust because they're just too greedy and don't pay out and let you play for a while.

        Whereas when we go to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun we can play for hours with the same amount of money, actually have fun and then go home.

        The "consultants" for the state know that if a casino was built here the two state run outfits would starve.

        And, the other Lottery offerings here in RI, such as scratch tickets and Keno are just as bad, if not worse. (Compared to Massachusetts, where I work, for example.)

        It's all about control and greed, on the state's behalf, period.

        by general tso on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:32:11 AM PDT

  •  Slots are a Party Issue here in Maryland

    Bobby Haircut Ehlich has been pushing for slots and casino gambling since he came into office.  He says he can lower taxes and substitute tax revenue with gambling revenue.  The Democratic controlled legislature and most Democrats oppose.

    Watch the people who stand in line to buy lottery tickets.  I don't see too many people in nice suits jumping out of their Lexises or other high priced cars to buy lottery tickets.  And look at what neighborhoods have the most lottery machines.  It's a regressive tax on the poor, taking advantage of the weaknesses and ignorance of the poor so that the well to do can pay less than their fair share.

    Many of Bobby Haircut's base are all for slot casinos, as long as the casino is in a poor area of Baltimore City and not in our neighborhood.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:54:28 AM PDT

    •  Democrats should stop

      trying to protect those weak and ignorant poor from themselves.  Gambling addiction is a real addiction, just like alcohol or drug addiction, but you see where attempts to prohobit those have gotten us.

      by SueDe on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:00:14 AM PDT

      •  morality

        Government has no right to restrict slot machines to protect the poor and weak--just as it has no right to prevent dangerous sexual acts--government ain't mommy/daddy.  People gamble--and have sex--they're both addictive--and if democrats lose votes to protect the poor from slots, they're as dumb as the republicans claim.

        It's none of your business what I do with my thingee or my quarter---here the libertarians are correct.  liberals and true libertarians should be agreeing more often than not.  Get them back, and we win.  Same is true for the fundies, they should be active tree-huggers--it's His planet.  Frame environmental protection as such and it's a win-win.

        That's all for me now, except I would like to ask y'all a question; do you want to have sex or to gamble today?  Is it my business?

        by melvynny on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:01:35 AM PDT

        •  Morality or public welfare?

          It's none of my business that you want to take a crap, but it is my business if you do it in the middle of the street where I have to travel through it or clean it up.

          There have been pressures to bring casino action to my county. I've seen what a sewer Atlantic City is, what a garish travesty Las Vegas is, and I'm not interested in having it here. The pro-casino people never are willing to address and fund the problems that come with big gambling.

          If you want to blow all your money playing poker with your pals, fine and dandy, have at it. I'm not trying to sell you on my preferred sin, or keep you from yours.

          One of the battle cries of pro-gambling people in Maryland is "Why should we watch our gambling money go to Delaware?" My question, which I feel is rather more pertinent, is "Why do Marylanders who take their casino money to Delaware still prefer to live in Maryland?"

          by labradog on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:25:09 AM PDT

        •  come back and spout that line

          after you've seen the destruction of gambling addiction up close and personal.  it's legal, but the damage it does is far worse than drugs in many ways.

          by Cedwyn on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:47:22 AM PDT

          •  Oh, I'm your huckleberry

            Democrats should stop trying to protect those weak and ignorant poor from themselves.

            They should also stop trying to protect the moronic, braindead, "pretender class" poor -- you know, those Democrats who pretend to be middle class when they aren't and -- in order to fit in to the mold; in order to keep up that pretend middle class appearance -- they slapped a few yellow ribbons, an American flag, and a "Kerry 04" sticker on the SUV they couldn't afford ... but bought the sonofbitch anyway. Just like the rightwingers on the other side of yard -- only difference is the "Bush 04" sticker. I've seen as many as these "Kerry 04" SUVs as I did "Bush 04" SUVs and my reactions were the same: may a large pothole open up and swallow them whole.

            It's none of my business that you want to take a crap, but it is my business if you do it in the middle of the street where I have to travel through it or clean it up.

            Oh, you poor widdle fellow leftwing American, you. So, paying the bills every April 15th and driving through the shit in the middle of the road is a privelege you share only, eh?!? How ironic. A nation over 200 years of age has decided to choose 2006 as the year to single you out -- nevermind all the millions of American people who have paid the bills and drove through the shit long before you and I started drawing oxygen. And nevermind all the millions of people who will have to inherit the bills and the forementioned shit in the middle of the road long after you and I cease to draw oxygen. The world, the country, the taxes, the burden, the pain ... everything ... revolves around poor widdle you.

            My answer to this ridiculous, selfish, haughty, arrogant attitude among Democrats is the same thing I say to the ReThugs who espouse it, too: Park it. Bag it. Save it for Sunday. Your ass isn't alone in this country and it never will be. The difference is one of choice -- you can let the  Rush Limbaughs and Neil Boortzes of the world bullshit you into believing the bills and the eye-sore of the shit is yours and only yours ... or you can do what I do: have a Coke, a smile, shut the fuck up, and go to work (that is if we have anymore work left once it's all outsourced because of our addiction for cheap shit at Wal-Mart -- an addiction that'll do more harm in the long run than drugs and gambling).

            by Sizemore on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:56:28 PM PDT

      •  As I see it

        It's not so much about forbidding gambling and protecting the poor (who, of course, can play poker at home anytime they want). Repugs, loathing the idea that their money goes to help educate people, are always looking for ways to shift that tax burden onto the poor. I don't have a big beef against gambling, but I have a problem with that financial strategy.

        Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first), but I think education should be funded with a real, stable line item on the government budget, not with profits from a game of chance.

        by OldGrandet on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:10:48 AM PDT

      •  Too many people feel otherwise.

        It's kind of funny how the Red States (the haven of Nanny Politics) on the Gulf Coast (excepting Texas, thanks to JACK AbramOFF) are gambling friendly because the Repugs have recognized the allure of the almighty dollar.

        I think gambling should be legal much like gambling in Lake Charles La. is legal. Put bullshit requirements on it (such a requiring that the casino be on the river or some such nonsense) and make it a basically expensive endeavor. While you're at it, tax it pretty heavily like tabacco. The casinos will be expensive and they'll tend toward bad odds and high limits. Half the people who go will tell their friends "Forget that, if you want to gamble, go to Vegas!" Still, the state makes money and die-hards with the money to do so can have a local outlet to blow their money.

        by Andy30tx on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:59:23 AM PDT

        •  The biggest casino

          isn't in Vegas, A.C., or on a reservation. It's Wall Street--the place where the Walker/Bush clan made their fortunes.  That's the gambling Osama was referring to. That's the real Rethug cash cow--witness the day traders in Frist's office we just heard about.

          But yeah, the Islamofascists have much, MUCH more in common with the wingnuts than with us liberals. And you'll never hear so much as a whisper about that in the "liberal" media.

          by drewfromct on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:17:17 AM PDT

          •  What bullshit

            Exactly where did bin Laden denouce the stock market as a gambling?

            Come on, fess up, you just fabricated that from whole cloth!

            by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:56:26 AM PDT

            •  No - that's exactly what the quote above

              repeated here means:

              You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

              by jsmagid on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:15:56 AM PDT

              •  Investments

                doens't mean wall street, it means anything that returns Interest.

                Muslims aren't allow to collect any interest at all, even dividends are suspect.

                So to specify "Wall Street" basd on this quote is specious!

                by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:01:03 AM PDT

                •  Um...

                  You do realize that the World Trade Center was about 1500 feet from Wall Street, right?

                  by sagra on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:02:44 AM PDT

                  •  It was

                    the ultimate in capitalist expression of America.  Why not just hit one of the stock exchanges?  Logistically hard, but they aren't targetted Wall Street per se, "just" our entire system.

                    by danheskett on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:54:18 AM PDT

            •  Where

              did Osama denounce the stock market as gambling?

              Try reading the blockquotes at the top of the page:"You are a nation that permits gambling in all its forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in investments being active and the criminals becoming rich."

              If that isn't a reference to Wall St., nothing is.

              C'mon, fess up, you need to read before posting!

              by drewfromct on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:27:57 AM PDT

              •  No No

                "Investments" doesn't equal Wall Street!

                It means anything returns interests.  Any activity that returns an interest is captured by this statement - a savings account with a 1.5% return is forbidden, investing, even a system like social security where you could potentially receive more than you put in - is forbidden by the fundamentalists.  

                It's easy to just say, "ohh, he means Wall Street", but he means the entire American system, not just capitalist instruments.  He's just as easily talking about credit cards than he is about Wall Street.

                by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:03:17 AM PDT

                •  "Investments" does'nt equal Wall St.?

                  LOL....what have you been smoking and where can I get some?

                   The terms "Wall St." and "Capitalism"--particularly American Capitalism have been synonymous far longer than you and I have walked this earth, my friend.

                  Sure, he was referring to the entire American capitalist economic system--of which Wall St. is the  center.And he also referred, very specifically, to gambling. Do you really mean to imply that no gambling goes on in the stock market?

                  And as for Wall St....need I really remind you that The prime target on 9/11 was the World Trade Center, which, like Wall St., was both the literal and symbolic heart of American Capitalism?

                  by drewfromct on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:22:58 AM PDT

                  •  No

                    It doesn't mean "Wall Street" specifically.

                    It means, in OBL's specific usage, the entire American system.

                    Sure, he was referring to the entire American capitalist economic system--of which Wall St. is the  center.And he also referred, very specifically, to gambling. Do you really mean to imply that no gambling goes on in the stock market?
                    No, but that's not the focus of what he is talking about.  Remember, anything that charges interest, or pays in some way more than what you put into it, isn't proper.  

                    And as for Wall St....need I really remind you that The prime target on 9/11 was the World Trade Center, which, like Wall St., was both the literal and symbolic heart of American Capitalism?
                    No need to remind.  

                    OBL wasn't specifically saying "Wall Street", he's referring to the entirety of American enterprise - from the Wall Street power brokers, to the main street bank, to the guy down the street making small loans, to the credit card industry, to the international system of finance centered in America.

                    It's all up for his criticism - to attach just "Wall Street" to it is to narrow the focus of his ire and thereby attempt to put an entirely different political slant on his words.

                    by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:26:39 PM PDT

                    •  Maybe

                      I shoulda skipped this but when you deny something in 3 replies that a number of us, myself included, have interpreted as obvious I think you doth protest too much. Vested interest? If the specification of "companies" doesn't clue you in...

                      by TheWriter on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:16:29 PM PDT

                      •  The think

                        about OBL is that people let thier imingation fill in the shit that's not their to fit their narrow political needs.

                        You don't think that the assholes over at FreeRepublic are sayng exactly the same things only with the tables turned - that the OBL tapes vindicate them and thier war and their policies?

                        He's not talking about Wall Street.  He's talking about the entire system.  Literally, anything that pays any more than you put into it in the Muslim world is considered a very serious wrong.  This goes way beyond Wall Street - the whole system to him is wrong.

                        This is really important.  

                        My vested interest is that a crazy man wants to end our entire system of economic structure, kill our citizens, and enslave us with a narrow worldview.  Twisting his words to score a cheap easy point against Bush or whomever isn't what this should be about.  It's what it's about for the GOP, but it should be different for "us" - Americans.

                        by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

    •  There's more to slots than tax revenue

      I agree with you, Vet, but I think the point missed by the 'morality' argument and the 'social equity' arguments below is that gambling is a crooked enterprise. Who is pushing slots in MD? Frank Stronach. Read about Frank Stronach?

      In Ontario, people scratched their heads about how Frank could pull Magna out of the dumpsters so fast. Well, he got into gambling. He got into horse racing. He now owns Pimlico and Laurel race tracks. He now is blackmailing the government of Maryland into putting in slots or he'll shut down racing at the tracks. How did Frank get out of the dumpster? Some sources say (how Faux news is that?) that Frank got dirty with "family money". I don't know if that's true, but having lived near gambling all my life, it is pretty obvious that when gambling is around, so is the mob because it legitimizes things they need to do, the least of which is laundering large amounts of money.

      So the issue in gambling is more than 'social equity'...it is social anarchy. What kind of society has to run with the 'you can get rich quick' motivator for success? How many people do you know that have their hopes wrapped up in that MegaMillions ticket that'll mean that they never have to work again? Ok, so that can be harmless diversion. Have fun. Blow the kids lunch money.

      But when an Indian casino went into play in Ontario, I knew a nurse at a nearby hospital who put pins on the map where people had committed suicide in the county. The pins formed a bull's eye around that casino.

      I worked in a casino and saw people cash in their paychecks for two drink tokes and then blow two weeks pay in an hour. Next two weeks they were up my ass asking for handouts to pay their rent.

      Nobody will ever convince me that gambling is harmless.

      Nobody will ever convince me that we have a 'right' to do this and that gambling shouldn't be seriously regulated and restricted. We all pay for the chaff that gambling causes so we all have a say in right to gamble.

      Down from my soapbox, probably 70-90% of the people in any state would vote for slots and open gambling. Ok, I'm a democrat so you can have it. Just put in place the social programs to catch the fallout and tax the hell out of the companies who run this so they can pay for these programs.

      by captainlaser on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:51:46 AM PDT

    •  Just a few numbers.

      Estimated Gambling Income
      Gross profit each machine
      $              100,000
      Number of machines
      30,000
      Total gross profits to machine owners
      $ 3,000,000,000
      PA state tax rate
      34%
      PA state tax
      $1,020,000,000

      by hannah on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:06:04 AM PDT

      •  Gets?

        Que?

        I got the the rest, but I don't know "Gets". It sounds like one of my Pennsylvania Dutch in-laws,  "Yuns"

        by IdaMena2 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:38:44 PM PDT

  •  Religious Right is Osama Light

    Sorry for butting in but it's a catchier rhyme.

    by Little Red Hen on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:43:42 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      I like the sound of that. A lot!

      by VictorNJ on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:05:39 AM PDT

    •  Better: the radical right is Osama light

      Smearing the "religious right" will, I think, alienate moderates who are both religious and Republican. We know what we mean by "religious right", but many others will not. Few of them, however, will self-identify as "radical".

      by technopolitical on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:47:37 PM PDT

      •  Not catchy

        I think the point was to come up with something catchy. Slogans that are true but immediately forgotten don't do the job.

        by De Re Rustica on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:02 AM PDT

  •  But the Christofacists are unequivocal.

    Politicians need to root out this infection. Gambling - all types of gambling - is driven by greed and subsists on greed. That makes it morally bankrupt from its very foundation. Gambling creates addicts, breeds crime and destroys families. We need courageous office holders who will begin the process of shutting down lotteries, casinos and other gambling outlets.

    James Dobson.

    by jem6x on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:37:49 AM PDT

  •  Well now we know why . . .

    
     . . . Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed hate Osama bin Laden so much.

     BenGoshi
    ___________________

    by BenGoshi on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:54:18 AM PDT

    •  OR

      maybe it's his habit of killing Americans.

      Imagine that.  There some people who aren't left-of-center who hate seeing Americans killed by terrorists.

      by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:28:00 PM PDT

•  i'm not interested in turning the tables

  but i sure as hell am interested in putting a rapid halt to our breathtakingly speedy descent into fascism... and, if alito is confirmed, we may as well just bend over and say, like oliver twist said to fagan as he stood there, pathetically, with his empty bowl of gruel: "please, sir, can i have some more...?"

  by profmarcus on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:08:28 AM PDT

  •  Dickens nit

    It was not Fagin who Oliver Twist asked for more, but Mr. Bumble.

    by Ivan on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:09:11 AM PDT

  •  Know-nothing authoritarianism

    The modern GOP is a precarious alliance between moderate, sane, conservatives, corporate interests understandably focused on short term profits, and a fundamentalist mob whose social policies poll anywhere between unpopular to repugnant among the majority of Americans.

    Listening to modern conservatives talk, you hear a huge upswell of defiantly authoritarian thinking. It's not sane conservative, but it's not all religious fundamentalist either. The mess the country is in comes from more than just the guy in the White House. Know-nothing methods of talk about political issues that are strictly intended to shut down smart and moderate and sane and majority opinion come from more than just Republican PR firms and the indignant mouth-foamers on the right-wing talk shows.

    by Garrett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:10:40 AM PDT

•  We do our part.. you can too!

  C-SPAN is doing call-in segments on blogging this morning, and there's been a lot of discussion about the WaPo story and comparisons between various blogs.

  One guy called in actually saying that RedState and FreeRepublic don't ban accounts of opposing views while DK and DU, which is total BS. I've had a Freep account banned for posting diaries on both, that didn't even have a hint of political edge.

  Anyways, give 'em a ring when they go back to Open Phones at 8:30 EST!

  Call-In Numbers
  Support Democrats:
  [phone]
  Support Republicans:
  [phone]
  Support Independents:
  [phone]
  Outside U.S.:
  [phone]
  Email:
  [e-mail]

  by Scoopster on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:16:24 AM PDT

  •  thanks, watching now

    by bumblebums on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:29:34 AM PDT

  •  I was banned from freerepublic

    After one comment, a simple statement of critisism of Bush.

    by avenueb on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:55:51 AM PDT

    •  umm

      I cannot even get an account at freep. My mailserver has been banned by ip address so no one with an account on it can register.

      I had one account for 3 days and suggested that the founding fathers were not "christians" in the modern sense. (easily provable btw) and that was the end of my account. A year later I tried to get an account and was told my mailserver was banned.

      by NCrefugee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:40:55 AM PDT

    •  congratulations...

      ...badge of honor around here.

      by DawnG on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:51:44 AM PDT

  •  Actually

    DU does ban people for opposing views. Go over there and say that you won't support H. Clinton. You'll be banned in a minute.

    by Tux on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:32:50 PM PDT

    •  Not true.

      I have posted numerous times on DU with my complete disgust with Hillary and my hopes that she is not our candidate for president. I'm still a member, still posting.

      Nice try, though.

      by mwb970 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 05:44:15 AM PDT

•  Fear not

  next November the Rethugs will get an electoral comeuppance that will straighten out this country like nothing since Watergate.In 2007,the John Conyers led House Judiciary Committee will hold serious impeachment hearings,of course they could never get two-thirds in the Senate to convict the idiot,but wouldn't a trial in the Senate be wonderful to see anyway?

  by Litvak36 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:16:41 AM PDT

  •  well, .....

    after a trial (assuming democratic leadership and conyers chairmanship) there would have to be questions and testimony.  in an environment of democrats posing questions and His Royal Highness supplying testimony, how could there NOT be a conviction?

    by djesno on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:29:21 AM PDT

    •  What a show that would be!

      Listening to Bush testifying, without a script or talking points, off the cuff, answering questions on his own - it would be painful to watch, but many of his supporters might soon be asking themselves, "Is THIS what I voted for?!"

      He can't make a coherent statement in a Q&A session with a pre-screened audience when asked how his SSA "reform" package would work.  Testimony in a senate trial would be so beyond him, he'd probably start drooling.  Makes daddy look downright articulate....

      by SueDe on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:41:27 AM PDT

      •  You wouldn't happen to know

        He can't make a coherent statement in a Q&A session with a pre-screened audience when asked how his SSA "reform" package would work.

        where I can find a video of that response you mention, would you? Someone e-mailed me the text, and it was un-f'ing-believable. I must get the video.

        Pretty please?

        by occams hatchet on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:50:57 AM PDT

        •  I also received the e-mailed

          transcript of it, but I remember seeing it on a news show (not an MSM news show) when it happend and thinking, "I've never seen a grown man squirm like that!"  May have been on 'Democracy Now.'  I don't think it was TDS, because I saw the whole presentation by the Prez, and this was just part of the Q&A.

          Also I remember when the president's dog and pony show on SS "reform" was on the road tour, several of the educational channels on Dish Netowrk featured speakers explaining how the whole thing was bs and the reason Bush couldn't explain it was because there was no way to make it sound reasonable to the public.

          But I haven't seen a video of it show up on the 'net.  Too bad, too - it would make a terrific campaign ad for the Democrats.

          You might try the archives at "Crooks & Liars" or other sites that make videos available.
          

          by SueDe on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:06:33 AM PDT

          •  Thanks, Sue -

            looked on C&L; couldn't find it. Darn! Well, I will cherish it - and share it! - if it ever shows up.

            by occams hatchet on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:15:16 PM PDT

        •  I suspect that you mean:

          this.

          With official White House transcript here.

          by jem6x on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:34:32 PM PDT

          •  jem - thanks!

            God, I hope they leave that up on the WH site, 'cuz I don't know how to save the video file.

            Friggin' hysterical - and scary, at the same time.

            by occams hatchet on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:37:21 AM PDT

  •  You're assuming the 2006 elections will be fair

    There was a very interesting and disturbing article about the ease of hacking voting machines entitled "The Harri Hursti Hack and its Importance to our Nation" posted at http://www.votetrustusa.org/...

    Today's Washington Post (Sunday, January 22, 2006) also has written an article based on the VoteTrustUSA article and study entitled "As Elections Near, Officials Challenge Balloting Security".

    Here is the link to the Washing Post article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    These articles are a MUST READ if you are interested in free and fair elections and maintaining our democracy.

    by nationatrisk on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:47:25 AM PDT

    •  25 towns in NH

      have to replace optical scanners due to a ballot redesign (wonder how that got through?).  One of the towns is mine.  Democracy for NH is doing an education program, trying to convince towns to decline the new machines and take the money the state is providing to do handcount.  We do have paper ballots, the questions arise regarding the scanners that count the ballots.  A lot of the towns in question are small enough to do handcounts although it will be time consuming.  But we could hire extra counters with the funds.

      by nhselectwoman on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:55:22 AM PDT

      •  Forget payment.

        I think there are enough people concerned about the votes that volunteers would line up for the job.

        by vlogger on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:51:11 AM PDT

        •  Yes, learn from foreigners

          Those exotic, unAmerican Canadians use volunteers to monitor voting and count the ballots. We could copy this system -- no invention needed.

          by technopolitical on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:08:31 PM PDT

      •  Paper ballots.

        Hand counted. IN PUBLIC.

        by drewfromct on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:20:10 AM PDT

    •  You're right.

      Don't bother to vote then.

      by Greenkermie in AZ on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:56:34 AM PDT

      •  Re: You're right.

        That's hardly the answer. Perhaps we need the UN to oversee our elections in 2006? Either that or have a credible election not run by corporations like Diebold, ES & S and others!

        by nationatrisk on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 04:18:15 PM PDT

  •  Clinton's impeachment

    was intended to smear.  That's all.
    

    by annefrank on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:28:51 PM PDT

•  About time

  I don't know why the Democrats have not made this comparison between OBL and the GOP religious nut-wing. The belief systems/talking points are identical in so many ways: anti-women, anti-free speech, rigid worship systems, etc.

  This strikes me as a gimme, folks. Let's do it. Now.
  

  by CocoaLove on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:20:08 AM PDT

  •  Well

    the thing is, if they hadn't brought it up I'd personally be reluctant to initiate it. But since they started this fight using this MO, I don't feel the least bit guilty about using their own weakness against them.

    by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:22:37 AM PDT

    •  Well

      Hopefully it pays off in the polls.

      There is a really serious possibility that it will simply depress voter turnout.

      At least in my view.

      by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:29:34 PM PDT

      •  depress voter turnout on which side ?

        that is the question.

        by PoliMorf on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:39:04 PM PDT

        •  Does it matter?

          As liberals don't we want everyone to vote, regardless of race, or ethnicity, or creed, or orientation or lifestyle or party?

          I think, the reality is, that a culture of corruption turns off the non-activist citizens who generally vote only in "the big elections".

          But it could just as easily swing the way to hurt Democrats as Republicans.

          by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:37:32 PM PDT

  •  Jimmy Cartet makes this

    point is his latest book.

    by Sam I Am on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:51:58 AM PDT

  •  the obivous GOP rebuttal

    Very similar to the attacks already being made. "The traitorous Democrats and OBL are on the same side. How dare they compare us "good Americans" with that evil murderer?"

    To which I say "If it walks like a duck..."

    by internik on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:25:37 AM PDT

  •  medieval Middle eastern religions are very similar

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

    if you think about it, that's not terribly surprising. They share common myths and practices rooted in secular experience. The tiny differences are blown up way out of proportion, in order to suggest that the religions are very different, to justify the murder and mayhem committed by the proponents of one, on the others.  Yes, they each have their own texts, but really they aren't very different, compared to, say, the difference between the bunch of them and, say, Buddhism.

    by seesdifferent on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:48 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      Each grew from Abraham's faith which is based on an evil Deity that would destroy cities for fun and profit. Religions from other parts of the world aren't as violent, except the Aztecs, and religious wars were at a minium.

      Also, most religions don't include laws that must be part of society.

      by Tux on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:35:29 PM PDT

•  "manners, principles,...

  honour, and purity".  Heck 'Syde.  I'm wrapping my head and heading for the hills.

  by ek hornbeck on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:21:02 AM PDT

  •  Oh Canada!

    My lovely wife, the person who was going to vote Bush until we started talking about politics and I showed her interesting info she hadn't read before, asked the other day if we couldn't move to Canada. She's the less firy, less into politics, more laid-back of the two of us.

    by Andy30tx on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:03:09 AM PDT

    •  Too late for Canada

      She left it too late to go and vote against Harper. Canada will be US-lite come Tuesday. He's done a good job of sounding like a compassionate conservative to get elected: where have we seen that before?

      by UncleDavid on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:34:16 AM PDT

•  Ameri-Qaeda! nt

  by Vyan on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:21:11 AM PDT

  •  FUCK YEAH! n/t

    by Scoopster on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:26:15 AM PDT

•  Kinda sounds like Jesus, too

  The difference is that Jesus said, "Love your enemies", "Do good to them that hurt you."  Most of us can't quite handle that level of behavior.  Osama and the Goopers don't even consider the possibility (although they are good at hiding behind it and exploiting it).  That's why the fundies spend so much time quoting Old Testament scripture, but very, very little time speaking New Testament words.  There's little for demagogues in Jesus talk.

  Hypocrites.

  by jcrit on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:25:59 AM PDT

  •  They don't quote OT scripture

    They have a couple of little tiny morsels that they pull out of context. If they actually did read or quote the OT at length they'd discover that the prophets expended most of their energy inveighing against hypocrisy, and that Jesus spent a fair amount of his time quoting Isaiah.

    If you changed a few names in Ezekiel to point his rhetoric at the current powers that be, you probably couldn't even read him aloud in public without getting arrested. Actually, I'd like to see someone try that on a national stage, just to watch the "fundies" fall all over themselves to defend their dear leader from a Biblical voice.

    by oldjohnbrown on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 04:08:05 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      I guess that's what I meant, but didn't take the time to articulate nearly as well as you do.  Very true!

      by jcrit on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:45:39 PM PDT

•  There is War raging

  between the Corporate Media and Independent Media of the blogosphere, now.  It has brewed for years, but now has fully exploded.  The WaPo story, Search Engine spying, etc...

  Remember, it is not called the "MSM" because it is not the mainstream and it is not the "Traditional" media because it has not been traditional to propagandize corporate influence onto the American public.

  They are the CORPORATE MEDIA spreading CORPORATE propaganda!

  
   
  
  
  
  
  Click to enlarge
  

  by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:29:39 AM PDT

  •  Viacom and CBS split apart

    fairly recently and now they're independently traded, Sumner Redstone now serving as chairman for the two seperated companies.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/...
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...
    http://www.cbscorporation.com/
    http://www.viacom.com/

    Yay progress.

    by Viktor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:41:46 AM PDT

    •  I like CBS, fairly independent

      ABC is owned by Disney that placates to the Religious Right on almost all issues.

      NBC is owned by General Electric (huge defense contractor)

      FOX is owned by archcon Murdoch ('nuff said)
      

      by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:47:32 AM PDT

      •  You Forgot

        CNN, which is owned by Time-Warner-AOL. And Time had Ann Coulter on their cover, saying that she doesn't lie much.

        Getting your news about politics from any of the mass media is nuts. About things like mine disasters, we still need them. But otherwise they're pure propaganda mills.

        I'd rather get my facts off the blogs. Certainly there is some bad info out here, but it's usually quickly self-correcting. In the mass media you no longer know which is actually fact and which has been planted by the CIA operative 'reporters'. I'd rather have completely erroneous information (which gets corrected pretty fast) instead of deliberate disinformation that seems plausible and is hard to refute.

        by Krusty on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:14:26 AM PDT

  •  Excellent point!

    How right you are. Corporate media is not traditional media, if we think of the valued "tradition" of the press to seek out and print truth.

    by vlogger on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:38:52 AM PDT

•  During Alito's hearing the CONSTANT AVOIDANCE

  of what he thinks of Roe vs. Wade.

  WHY was he dodging his writings and monetary support for exclusionary and judgemental groups?

  These people KNOW they are not a majority and have simply purchased a mask.

  Nice peek under the mask.

  by owlbear1 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:33:06 AM PDT

•  Posters on this blog

  have been making the "Christian Fundamentalists = Muslim Fundamentalists" point for years now.  But it's difficult to make this point without sounding like an over-the-top screamer.  Laying out the similarities point by point doesn't make an immediate impression on ordinary (read: not politically active) people, but it does get them to thinking, and you can actually watch their mental wheels turning when the fundies start ranting about gays, gambling, etc.

  What we need is a good one-liner to lay out there, and this one by DarkSyde is a good start, but it really isn't meaty enough for my taste.  As long as it makes the political "middle" think about what's happening, though, that's the point.
  

  by SueDe on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:33:58 AM PDT

  •  I

    think it's easier to get anything across now, when Iraq and Bush are both losing ground. One of the problems in the past is everyone was still in shock from 9 11 and understandably willing to cut the WH some slack, plus they hadn't yet shown themselves to be incompetent thugs at pretty much everything they touch.

    That irrational fear is now starting to fade and it's being replaced with critical failure analysis of the WH along with some really bad press hitting the GOP from all sides.

    We're not there yet, but sooner or later Rove will go back to the terrorist fear well one too many times. Timing is everything my dear ;)

    by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:44:10 AM PDT

    •  Rove's done it, with his latest salvo,

      regarding what the coming elections are going to be about (security, security, the boogymen are coming!), and you've been prsecient in pointing out what we're in for for quite a while now.

      I appreciate your attempts at coming up with a rejoinder to marginalize the religious zealots we have to deal with in this country by linking them with the zealots from the Middle East.  I'm just looking for something a little meatier, like "Fundamentalism is dangerous no matter whose holy book is being used" or something like that.

      And I love it when you call me 'dear'.

       

      by SueDe on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:12:58 AM PDT

      •  fundamentalists are dogmatists,

        and dogmatists are authoritarian. Dr. Laura, for instance, is a psychological fundamentalist: the world is black & white, people are the same everywhere, and only one moral calculus applies. She's scripturalized a couple of tough love books from the 80s, and now it's her way or the highway. If Dr. Laura were president, of course the agenda would be different, but I bet the grab for total control would be much the same.

        So. Fundamentalists are dogma enforcers, whether their holy book is eastern or western, religious or secular. This means they are anti-democratic by nature; they self-define as anti-democratic--which is why, in Osama and the GOP, we hear so many rhetorical sound-alikes. I like the idea of turning the tables, but we've been leveling this very criticism at them for an awfully long time. Nobody flinches. They flip it back on us and we try to flip it back on them, and round and round we go. I think they've been able to make it stick to us with some success because so many people in this country couldn't tell you what democracy is, much less what it isn't, and those same people are the most fearful, and tend to court authoritarian types.

        by aitchdee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:15:09 AM PDT

  •  One Liner

    Haven't fundamentalist Muslim countries shown us the danger of a government run by preachers?

    by Andy30tx on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:06:01 AM PDT

    •  The very

      real difference is that even your absolutely insanely fundamentalist Religious nut isn't going to break a sweat putting you in chains: it's a very much voluntary association.

      At most they'll get angry at you, damn you to hell, and move on to the next person.

      Whereas, in say, the Taliban controlled Afganistan, it was not a voluntary organization by an means, nor is it in, say, Iran or Saudia Arabia.

      So we can bash Bush all day long, but it's re-assuring to know at the end of the day it's a long way from proteslyzing, cajoling, and attempting to persuade people to be born again and locking up the unbelievers, executing the dissenters, and aboloshing the expression of other religious viewpoints.

      by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:32:56 PM PDT

      •  Wait!!!

        Locking up the unbelievers (Gitmo), executing the dissenters (who knows what happens once you are "disappeared") and abolishing the expression of other religious viewpoints (the takeover of all broadcast media and the "unitary executive") is ex-fucking-zactly what's going on here!!!

        by TheWriter on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 03:02:28 PM PDT

        •  Bullshit

          That's fucking bullshit, and you know it.

          What we are talking about is scale and degree.

          1.  The Press kisses ass to Bush, but for no other reason than they are lazy, greedy, slackers who don't want to break a sweat to make their bucks.  They aren't literally controlled by Bush.

          2.  First off, Gitmo is filled entirely with foreign nationals.  Like it or lump it no American has ever been held at Gitmo.

          3.  The "Unitary executive" is hardly a fascist coup.  It's not even a new concept.  It's wrong, but it's hardly the end of America.

          This is the reality based community.  Living in reality based community requires a fundemental understanding that Bush, though he is wrong, destructive, evil and malinformed, is not a Hitler, Stalin, Mao or a strongman dictator.  He's a wanna be tough guy.  
          

          by danheskett on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:41:35 PM PDT

•  I beg to differ, sir

  Osama IS NOT at all like the theocons or Republicans ... his principles are MUCH higher!

  Please do not defame terrorists with such associations again, sir ... or you will be punished with another Code Red, duct tape, and plastic sheeting!

  If you persist in such fanciful associations, we will have no choice but to engage a lobbyist in support of Patriot Act III.

  I appreciate your attention in this matter, sir.

  Sincerely,
  (terrorist name withheld on request)

  P.S.  We are thinking of diversification, as peak oil has either passed or will do so in the near future.  And, frankly, terrorism is not what it used to be ... it seems so 'gauche', now:(  What do you think of moving into, say, pharma, and insurance companies serving Medicare D?    

  by wgard on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:35:52 AM PDT

•  Theocons are theocons

  be they Christian, Islamic or Jewish.

  They all follow the same formula.

  I loved what Hackett said in Ohio about it: http://news.cincypost.com/...

  by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:39:47 AM PDT

•  Points well

  taken. But, I think that the real "faith based" community must heal thyself and start to stand up for itself. I'll head off to my Methodist Church in about an hour, where nary a word has ever been spoken about Americas floundering moral compass. Where we have allowed the systematic destruction of the middle class and watched the working Poor's fate become damn near desperate, without a word within the confines of the Church. Mission accomplished under the name of God. But, you can bet, just down the street at the Southern Baptist Church, (save your time - I am not slamming the SBC in general...just the one down the street) they are chumming the waters of hate with abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigrants. 30,000 children in this world die of hunger EVERYDAY and 312 children died of hunger during the time it took to write this. The real Churches that actually preach THE teachings of Christ are going to have to screw them on and make their voices be heard in the Churches. Christ taught fight fire with fire, and if the fight is in the Church, then damn it - that is were we need to fight back where the very soul of America is at stake.

  by Arkydem on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:44:04 AM PDT

  •  You are aware...

    W is a nominal Methodist.  No offense, the reason I'm sensitive is I used to be one.

    by ek hornbeck on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:52:06 AM PDT

    •  Methodist wre Anglican at one time

      I'm bias toward the Anglican Community

      by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:55:29 AM PDT

  •  I'm soon off

    to my local Episcopal Church.

    The Main-line Liberal Churches must start raising voices against the Conservative Megachurches that have hijacked the religion of Jesus

    
     
    
    
    
    
    Click to enlarge

    by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:53:47 AM PDT

    •  Click to shrink

      by bumblebums on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:59:00 AM PDT

      •  sorry about that

        still trying to get the hang of it...

        by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:00:52 AM PDT

        •  This throw theocons into fits...

          
           
          
          
          
          
          Click to enlarge
          

          by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:05:17 AM PDT

          •  Theocons and TV

            The latest TV show to give the religious reich fits is The Book of Daniel, whose main character is an Episcopalian priest.  

            by phinky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:59:44 AM PDT

            •  Theocons loathe Anglicans - Epscopalians

              by aaraujo on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:09:07 AM PDT

•  Flawed logic

  The problem, however, is that there simple is no mass of right wing christian fundamentalism supporting the GOP.  That is a boggey man created specifically to stir up the wingnuts on the other side.  Those of us living out here in the bible belt are well aware that as many Christians vote democrat as vote republican.  The numbers of really hardcore religious nut cases are extremely small.  So, if you're considering hinging a campaign on that kind of paranoia I'm afraid it will fail next time as badly as it did last time.

  by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:47:46 AM PDT

  •  I'm

    not hinging a campaign on anything, I'm not a campaign advisor. But to counter rethug memes, anything works better than sitting on your duff and hoping it goes away. And these cats suck when they're on the defensive. Get them scrambling like that and it's pretty amusing to witness.

    Keep in mind, we don't have to 'win over' the base. We only have to peel off a couple of percentage points from the last Bush voting electorate which as your rightfully point out, is diverse. In that endeavor, I feel that a useful strategy to explore would be seeing how best to isolate the hard core fundie mobsters from other elements in the GOP caucus. Then that coalition is in danger. They can't survive without the fundies, they could barely win a county seat on the local council without them. Yet, if they lose even a tiny fraction of the mods, they lose nationally.

    That's merely one weakness, one glimpse of ugliness to use against them. As another poster points out below, they're also weak on racism. In fact I'd wager the GOP has lost a good chunk of the minority vote already after Katrina. There's hundreds of  thousands of folks form NOLA and surrounding areas now spread acorss the nation talking to their neighbors about it.
    

    by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

    •  But

      part of the problem is the amount of unnecessary anti-religious vitriole being thrown out by people who associate themselves with the democratic party.   I think making any kind of association between bin Ladin and American religious traditions will backfire.  The more moderate members of the Christian faith will be more likely to say "Well, there they go again, those leftist bastards".  And you will end up losing more votes than you gain.

      It would be much better to try to tone down the religious rhetoric altogether.   There simply is not enough hardcore religious fanaticism in this country to sway an election one way or another, and most of it that does exist persists because of the perception of being under an extrodinary attack from government imposed secularism.  

      The best strategy would be to make people feel less threatened than more threatened.

      by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:15:23 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps a better way

        to get the point across is that our culture needs to re-marginalize these radical fringe elements to the outer sidelines where they once resided for decades before Bush took office.

        by retired on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:20:53 AM PDT

      •  Well

        frankly that's imo precisely the kind of thinking that prevents the dems from success. Fear of the religous right. Everyone who is going to be on the side of the religious right is there already. I could be wrong, but I don't see much risk of losing support by calling them out. The religouus right simply isn't as popular as they're made out to be. A lot of religious AND non religous people can't stand them. With a little help they could be even less popular.

        by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:26:01 AM PDT

        •  Thats

          already been achieved to whatever extent it can be.  By bringing bin Ladin's name into it merely makes you look more like the extremist to the average voter than the religious right does.  The average vote knows full well that the attitude towards gays, for example, in this country is nothing like that of an Islamic radical.  

          American politics is all about pandering to the center.  The truth is that the democrats have not done as good a job of keeping their wingnuts under control as the republicans have.  In fact, they widely promote them.   You will find that the average voter is a lot less threatened by Christian fundamentalism than they are by the unrestrained secularist fundamentalism of many on the left.

          The democrats need to tone down the rhetoric, not heat it up.   If they don't, a person like Bush will always look like the most  moderate, centrist candidate to the average voter.

          by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:45:43 AM PDT

          •  I

            disagree. I beta tested this on a GOP blog last night and they went into full out panicked Defcon 4 defense mode. And that's what you want, you want to put your opponent on the defensive.

            by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:53:25 AM PDT

            •  Dude,

              your 'opponent' isn't the people who hang out on blogs.  I think thats a crucial mistake.  Lets face it, only wingnuts hang out on blogs. :)  

              by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:09:20 AM PDT

          •  BS

            The main problem the Dems face is not being able to go on the attack or fighting back harder. In 2004, the GOP sent flyers to voters in red states saying liberals wanted to outlaw the bible as hate speech. What did we do to counteract that? NOTHING!! Why?? Because we wanted to rise above that. Guess what? A bunch a working class bible thumpers voted for George W. Bush because the Democrats didn't fight back. We could have fought back with direct mail that said, "Conservatives think Christians are stupid if they think liberals are going to take bibles away from them"

            Bottom line: You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Karl Rove is getting his ammo clips ready. He's already fired the first shots. We need to bring out the field artillery. They bring guns, we bring the tanks.

            Now let's go give the GOP a religious right wedgie!

            by phinky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:09:35 AM PDT

            •  Fight

               your battles however you like, but American political victories go to those who can most artfully define themselves as centrists.  If the democrats try to offset their own out of control extremism by trying to conjure up extremist right wing hordes from their imaginations, they simple are not going to win anything of significance.  And you can take that to the bank.

              
              In 2004, the GOP sent flyers to voters in red states saying liberals wanted to outlaw the bible as hate speech.

              Odd,  I didn't receive one.  In fact, I don't know anyone who did.  And the fact that you obviously believe that most of us out here are stupid enough to believe it if we were sent one, explains precisely why the democrats are having so many problems winning elections.

              by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 07:42:18 AM PDT

              •  Pay attention

                We were just called a bunch of terrorists by the same people who sympathize with terrorists. It's not liberals who are bombing the gay bars and abortion clinics. It's not the liberals who are saying women should be barefoot and pregnant. Yet, when we question Condoleeza Rice's competency to be Secretary of State based on her record of National Security advisor, we are called rascist and sexist.
                When George W. Bush allows Osama bin Ladin to be free to make threats against the United States so he can avenge his Daddy in Iraq. We get blamed for it?
                What is the number domestic terrorism priority for the FBI? ALF and ELF who have done a lot of damage, but have not killed anyone. Meanwhile, Michael Fortier is getting released from prison for good behavior. Remember him? He made a plea deal in the Oklahoma City bombing which was planned and executed by someone who was registed to vote as Republican.

                John Kerry tried to define himself as a centrist. He lost. Part of defining yourself as a centrist is define the other as an extremist. We have been defined as extremists by the extremists and people like you have been too afraid to fight back because you don't want to offend anyone. And by doing that, you let them win.

                by phinky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:21:44 AM PDT

                •  Have it your way.

                  I'm a conservative who would like to see the Bush junta voted out as much as anyone even if it means letting the dems have control again for a while.   But if you think associating people who have valid concerns about the direction the culture is going with abortion clinic bombers (who we all believe should be locked up or executed) go for it.   I think you are going to be sadly disappointed in the outcome.  
                  

                  by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

                  •  That

                    just doesn't make any sense to me. If I call the Aryan Brotherhood a bunch of nutcases and quip a few quotes from them, it doesn't make me an extremist. In fact it makes me normal. Many of the policies advocated by the most extreme of the religious right is way out of whack with what the pools show to be the consensus view of the nation. Outing that ugly step child isn't going to make us seem extreme, it will make them seem extreme and us normal. Which incidentally, they are and we are.

                    by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

                    •  It does

                      make you and extremist if you attempt to infer that the Aryan brotherhood exist at the behest of the general republican electorate.  If I say "Gee, I think that Afirmative Action is a bad ideal" and you then try to connect me with some Aryan Brotherhood lynching somewhere, which of us is most extreme?  

                      Most Americans are quite comfortable with the Christian religion. Our parents were christian out grnadparents were chritian, etc.   When you associate some anti-abortion lunatic's activities, or bin Ladin for that matter, with christianity you have just tarred and feathered people for whom we have a great deal of love, pride and affection.  Do you think thats going to make us want to vote for your side?

                      by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:24:22 AM PDT

                      •  I

                        think dragging the extreme religious right into the full light of day will produce stress on the GOP for one. Secondly, there's a whole bunch of gals out there that voted for Bush last time that foam at the mouth in anger at the thought of overturning RvW and who become unglued at the idea of birth control being restricted. I know several of them in my own extended family and I doubt they're the only ones in the country.

                        by DarkSyde on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

                        •  Good luck

                          parading that tiny crowd around as examples of evil 'right wing' extremism.  

                          As far as overturning RvW goes, I think you will find that a conservative court will largely uphold it as established law (stare decisis and all that).  The conservative judges recently showed their commitment to stare decisis in the recent Oregon case involving assisted suicide.   So, I'm pretty sure you have few legitimate concerns on that score.

                          by ssshannon1026 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

                          •  TY

                            I do