The irreducible, nutbag, theocratic core = 33% of voters.

That's how bad it is. Approximately 33% of this country believe that all that matters is having the right religious beliefs, and will do anything to get the theocracy elected.

This is the irreducible core of those who will back Bush no matter what, and will never admit that Bush has made a single mistake, in order to keep Bush strong enough to impose the theocracy--or at least outlaw abortion and gays.

I come to this from the fact that Alan Keyes got 27% of the vote in the Illinois race against Barack Obama. Keyes had zero to recommend himself except his christianity--he couldn't even count on a local family or friends, since he had none in Illinois, having been paradropped from Maryland to take over the race. No experience, no base of support, no agenda--except an unapologetic desire to bring christianity to government.

He campaigned in churches, mostly. His platform was to bring religious reform to government and return it to christian values. That's it.

And he got 27% in a BLUE state against an extremely attractive opposition candidate, who actually lived here, worked here, and stood for pretty moderate positions.

Additionally, if you look at polls about those who would believe Clinton killed Vince Foster or that Clinton should be impeached, you get about a third.

Therefore:

A third of America will say anything, vote for anything, absolve anything, in order to get their agenda imposed on us.

And they are in charge today.

but I don't want them hurting the penguins and melting the ice-caps :P

Put up or shut up, wannabes!

also 33%, that means the middle 33% determines the elections. That's where elections are won.

It's all about winning the middle.

There is an important asymmetry that every wonk, campaign advisor, and strategist needs to recognize. Even if it is the case that there are as many people who are in some statistical sense the Democratic core, they are not the core in the same way. There is no faith, no True Belief, no god that holds our core together the way their core is held together.

That is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is good, because if we had what they had, we would be as bad as they are. Rationality and ideology are opposed, and to the extent that you appeal to one, you can't appeal to the other. Some of our core are here from recognition of the danger of a National Ideology, which precisely is what the GOP is now trying to bring about.

It is bad, because it requires a different and in some ways more complex political process to hold our core together while bringing in enough of the swing votes to prevail.

The very thing that gives the GOP a core, or more, an ideological corps, is the reason it is so important to oppose them and defeat them.

The Dems do not have a CULT as their base and core.

speak to them in their terms.

Jesus was a progressive.

“Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:16-24

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” Acts 3:32-35

Most people steeped in an exegetical tradition, especially one as ideologically saturated as that of the religious right, will not be much moved by co-believers with a different approach. For every proof text you spout for your interpretation, they will spout two for theirs. Watching that kind of theological debate is fun for about the first two minutes. Alas, it typically goes on for years with no edification or progress anywhere.

show that we are not a godless mass. Show we can co-exist. Give to Caesar what is Caesars. Try to end the monolopy.

This is not about the core right, which we will never get. This is about winning the middle.

What does it mean? Who defines it? Is it a fixed position?

Does anyone ever ask what the middle means?

has a core of 33%. I believe the left has a similar core. To win, we need to get those in the middle to vote our way. Get those who don't vote to vote. My point is that the "middle" contains a wide variety of beliefs. We need to find ways to reach out. The middle cannot be defined, except that it doesn't fit R or L.

Again, who and what is the middle--who defines it, who claims it, who sways them? That is what I am asking, NOT the strategy of winning the middle.

What we are not thinking about and automatically take for granted is the middle is won by echoing the Right. Why the hell is that? And why the hell would the middle look to the Democrats when all they are doing is pitching the Republicans theme song.

You have to peddle your position and you do not achieve the middle ground until you take your fundamental message and make it the message of the middle. The Right achieved their success in this area by effort, organization and corporate funding. The Democrats can NOT achieve it by trying to toot the Right's horn or steal their thunder--and at the same time reject their own identity and base since they are also corporate controlled.

exegesis is exactly what these people never indulge in! They just believe that what is there in front of them on the page is true, because, basically, god wrote it (in English, presumably). And the bits that don't fit, they ignore or distort (suppose that's exegesis by their lights). Thatcher did this v. funnily years ago with the good samaritan, telling us that the moral of the story was to get rich so as to be able to assist the samaritan. And she, vile though she is, is no funamentalist christian.
Sorry, digressing; what the fundies do is lie, au fond. No theology, just ignorance and lies. With a dollop of hate, of course. Never forget the hate!

The more honest Christians have an understanding of the Bible that is not terribly divergent from a non-believer's: it holds the writings of various religiously minded people, selected and redacted for political and ecclesiastical purposes, providing not much evidence of anything except of that very process. Since they still are Christian, they still believe -- somehow, something -- that separates them from the rest of us secular folks. They just can't explain exactly quite what or why, because having a more honest exegesis than their fundamentalist brethren, they're not left with much to work with on that front.

More honest is better than less honest as far as I'm concerned. I'll cheer the liberal Christian on for his wisdom to leave behind the fundamentalist and other dishonest ideologues. Like the liberal Jew, the liberal Christian is on the slippery slope that leads only to the valley of secularism.

:evilgrin:

so we have an opportubity to show them another view. The fundies will turn a blind eye, but we have an opportunity with the middle.

Guess we should just "become centrists" like the DLC wants and get it over with....



NAH. I'm LIBERAL and proud of it!

suggested we do some weeks ago. Showing people - especially the "values" voters in the middle that they are welcome.

So we're either going to abandon our liberal base to appease to these people? Is that what you're saying? We should become more like the Republicans to get votes?

Sorry, I'm not buying it and neither should you! For the past twelve years or so, all I've heard is "Appease! Appease! Appease! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Become more 'moderate'! Become more 'moderate'! Become more 'moderate'!"

Guess what?

IT DIDN'T WORK!!!!!! We lost the House, then the White House then the Senate!

IT. DID. NOT. WORK!!!!

When will we get over our self doubt and realize that if we go back to being DEMOCRATS, we will get votes?

My theory is that the middle follows whoever sounds the most forceful. If we motivate OUR base, then the middle will follow US, instead of them.

The people who are in the middle are in the middle because they don't have strong beliefs.

He cut taxes. He called for a smaller government "Ask not what your country can do for you.." He unilaterally challenged the Soviets over Cuba.

JFK won the middle. Reagan won the middle. Clinton won the middle.

Driving to the left will not win. The repubs took our base. Not the liberal base. The working class base. Middle America.

I'm suggesting we get back to the JFK Democratic model to get votes.

What model do you propose?

I propose that we use the honest road. Why lie to people and pretend to be Repuke lite?

If we stand - with PRIDE - in our ideals, we WILL WIN.

The past decade or so is nothing but appeasement - and we continue to lose national seats because of it.

All because "we need to move to the center".

I'm sick of it!

You would vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, reduce the size of government, and engage in unilateral military actions. But only if it is JFK. These are the ideals on which you stand? But you don't consider this moving to the center?

What are your top 3 Democratic Ideals?

I am a third generation Type II diabetic - and I gave time and money to support our Stem Cell Research Proposition, Prop 71.

And the only law suits against it are funded by the fundie lawyers from fundie "Life Defense Fund" - which I call the "Kidney Failure - Heart Disease - Amputation - Macular Degeneration DEATH FUND"

If little green men landed on Earth and offered to help these deluded people set up colonies on planets on the far side of this galaxy or beyond, I'd say we should help them on their way. I'd be more than willing to kick in a little something for their emigration fund.

I hope it's a planet with a very thick ice cap that's prone to massive coastal flooding if the local ecosystem heats up too much.

:evilgrin:

Only the Church of the Sub-Genius expects a "rapture" involving flying saucers, and the Church of the Sub-Genius is only a spoof.

so many of our leaders will pander to them while taking us for granted-with the assumption that we have no where else to go.

It has been a winning strategy so far--hasn't it?

And the Bush base is only 12% anyway.

until the voting mechanism is repaired -- paper ballots counted by humans -- elections will continue to be stolen by those using Diebold and other easily manipulated equipment. We haven't had a fair election in the last three cycles. Yes, there are many deluded ones voting for the wrong candidates, but they are not in the majority.

more voters.

that many people in IL would vote for someone that insane just to support either Bush or their own Theocratic agenda.

Its absurd, and terrifying to think that these people are in charge.

And Keyes, among all of his terrible positions and proposals, was running for Senate while saying that Senators should not be directly elected but rather appointed by the State Legislature!

The fact is that a dumbass like Keyes has his supporters. I couldn't believe it when I saw signs in my own neighborhood. Where does he get 27% of the vote? And the only answer is, the churches where he campaigned.

that turns out the faithful big time. Also isn't Keyes Catholic? I'd guess that was a factor, at least to Catholics.

He's also a good performer. If he didn't believe all that wacky right-wing b.s. he'd be a pretty appealing character.

but it sounds like pure speculation on the part of both of us... I really prefer fact based discussions...

are your numbers adjusted to take into account non-voters?


i would adjust the figures myself but i can't really delve into that right now as i am multi-tasking.

it's really only 16-ish% of people in this country who are wingnut loose cannons.

Until the normal people can be turned into voters--that old "silent majority"--a determined 16% can grab power. Remember, the Bolsheviks were the minority party!

The group you are refering to, the so-called "values voters" are could be more accurately called "The Electoral Shock Troops of the Rabid Religious Reich".

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism". Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

It is critical that people become aware of the extreme agenda these people have for the United States and ultimately for the world. The results of the 2004 Presidential Election were not a fluke or something that was drummed up over a period of months. It has been in planning for over 20 years, and what we are seeing take place now is, in the words of Katherine Yurica, "the swift advance of a planned coup".

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup:
Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Video on the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionist Theocratic Agenda
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
http://www.theocracywatch.org

The Yurica Report - News, Intelligence, Analysis
http://www.yuricareport.com

The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8816.htm

I think what we need is a Freethought movement similar to what the US had around the turn of the 20th century. Robert Ingersoll was touring the country, lecturing on secularism and exposing the claims of revealed religion to be false.

Unless something breaks the stranglehold of religious fundamentalism in the US - and in the world - I think we are going to continue the slide into Theocracy and destruction.

Would TV stations even dare run ads that exposed the claims of Christianity to be falsehoods? Could Freethinkers form an 'anti-Gideons' and leave copies of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and Robert Ingersoll's "Why I am Agnostic" in hotel rooms? Could Freethinkers produce tracts and pamphlets showing the contradictions in the Bible and exposing the rip-off of dozens of pagan beliefs and their incorporation into Christianity?

Could we have a Second Enlightenment, a Second Age of Reason? Could we re-secularize a world gone mad with religious superstition?

Robert Ingersoll's "Why I Am Agnostic"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html

Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

*****

From "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (1795)

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it. When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

on this Christo-fascist takeover were known.

What we need to counter this type of crap is a Freethought PAC - One that would run aggressive attack ads on TV. "Freethinkers for Truth", or something along those lines, to debunk religious superstition using 30 second TV attack ads. They could feature "Great Moments in American Secularism and Freethought" with "Great American Freethinkers" like Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll.

If TV stations would not run the ads, we could pull the same, "help, help, I'm being repressed!" crap that the fundies are always whining about. And of course the refusal to run the ads would draw attention to the works of Paine and Ingersoll, which are in themselves a very effective antidote to religious superstition.

The Freethought Zone
Science and Reason Over Religion and Superstition
http://freethought.freeservers.com /

Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org /

Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org /

Secular Web
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Complete Works of Robert Ingersoll - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

When asked, anyone will say that the vote according to their "values" but the curious conclusion was that the Democrats had to move further Right to appeal to "values" voters.

Couldn't some of those "values voters" still be reacting to the case made against Clinton as a sleazeball? If that is part of the Values consideration, why in tarnation would the Democrats hoist up Hillary as their best shot--when she has all the "values" baggage thanks to Bill.

Interesting thoughts on why Clinton is a at risk candidate:

"Remember, the Republicans took down John Kerry on his Vietnam War record--and for running away from his progressive positions, including his principled opposition to Vietnam. Do you really think Hillary can pull off the moderate makeover that Kerry did not?

You don't have to be a real leftist to be pilloried as one"


http://www.progressive.org/blogs05/rc051605.php

Strauss too felt it was necessary to lie to the people for their own good---but then again, so do most people without much belief that a
democracy is a good thing. If you told people the truth, why, they might stop you.

But like all anti-democratic liars, they just assume that they know best for everybody. Who decided Iraq was a great idea? Case in point.

the republicans no matter what the hell they do to them BUT I think some poll indicated that about only 15% are the religious nutcases. So, about 15% of voters are leading this nation around by the balls and our politicians cannot seem to figure out that the nutcases are really not that strong. Remember there are "the rich" in that 33% (the upper 2% kind of wealthy)who worship their greed and thus always vote republican.

years. On off years, it's much worse.
What makes them a pain in the ass is that they are a high voter turnout group.
If the young turned out to vote in the same proportion, it'd be a Democratic landslide EVERY time.

I take very little at face value--sorry.

senate race result. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got 27%. The rest is just my memory of the Clinton era polling.