Howard Dean's Convenient Religion

During the final days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein attempted to solidify his ties with the rest of the Muslim world by invoking Allah as his spiritual ally. This transparent pandering should have been an insult to those at whom it was aimed, considering that only a decade prior, he had sought to militarily dominate the entire region. However, somewhat to his credit (or more accurately, to the disgrace of those other leaders), much support of the Iraqi tyrant, and condemnation of the United States, was voiced by middle-eastern heads of state.

Similarly, Libya’s resident terrorist/dictator, Moammar Khadafy, now seeks to recreate his pubic persona by proclaiming (though intelligence reports show otherwise) his desire to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction and promote peace throughout the region.

So why should anyone be surprised that a similar charade is being undertaken by another desperate would-be world leader. Suddenly, after steadfastly espousing a liberal party-line philosophy worthy of the worst elements of America's counterculture, Democrat presidential aspirant Howard Dean is professing his faith and respect for Jesus Christ. But Dean is no progressive Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Rather, he is an icon of God-hating liberals who love abortion and same-sex ''marriage,'' and who firmly believe society would be better off if guided by the religion of secularism that has undergirded every great tyranny of the twentieth century.

For sheer absurdity, Dean’s transparent attempt to pander to southern Christians rivals the efforts of Michael Dukakis to ingratiate himself to patriotic Americans by riding around in an M-1 tank. Despite his profuse platitudes Dean, a Congregationalist (when he does attend church at all), hardly qualifies to be keynote speaker at the next Southern Baptist general convention. Christians in the South (as well as throughout America) have come a long way since the days when Jimmy Carter could appeal to them on the basis that he was a devout Christian and Baptist, only to embrace every liberal, anti-Christian cause (along with virtually every atheistic dictator in the world), once in office.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5474

I do not support any of the candidates.

"..."Trying to Understand Liberal Hate-Speech"

Posted by the ChronWatch Founder, Jim Sparkman
Tuesday, December 30, 2003


Liberal hate-speech just seems to get more prevalent and more bitter. Jeff Jacoby, writing in the Boston Globe, comments on the phenomenon.

IN DECEMBER 1994, I wrote the first of what would become a yearly series of columns on the subject of liberal hate speech. That was the year Republicans swept the midterm elections to win control of Congress, and ideological passions were running high. I had noticed that when a prominent Republican or conservative said something offensive about liberals, it typically set off a storm of media condemnation, while an anti-conservative smear voiced by a liberal or a Democrat rarely drew any protest. There was no end of sour commentary, for example, when Newt Gingrich recommended that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as ''the enemy of normal Americans.'' It was an outrageous remark, and Gingrich deserved the drubbing he received.

But when Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid--"If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism''--there wasn't even a ripple of disapproval. Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. ''I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease,'' she snarled on PBS.

What was true in 1994 remains largely true today. MSNBC fired right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July, and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to ''get AIDS and die, you pig.'' The liberal Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, ''I hope he's not long for this world.'' When the startled host asked if she were ''putting a hit out on this guy,'' Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire ''in his job.''..."

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5446&catcode=11

Oh yeah, a completely unbiased review of Dean. NOT.

a Democrat, even one who is running for office. I'm sick of the anti-god smear that the republicans keep using. I don't mind when any candidate talks about their religion. Silly thing to attack someone over, wins little, turns off many. I only get scared when they make their religion their policy. When they make God their personal advisor, then I get really scared, like when a Bush in the White House.

For a conservative to criticise any one's expressing of their religious beliefs is a new level in hypocracy. Oh, and I'm not a christian either, but they don't bother me, fundamentalists of any flavor do.

<snip>
Rather, he is an icon of God-hating liberals who love abortion and same-sex ''marriage,'' and who firmly believe society would be better off if guided by the religion of secularism that has undergirded every great tyranny of the twentieth century.
</snip>

I can't believe how hateful some of these fundies are...

Obviously, right wing people who see Dean as "liberal" are not going to praise him whatever he does. If he had said that he didn't think his religion was relevant to his public life, they'd call him a God-hater.

Because evangelical christian fundamentalists tend to vote in large numbers, Dean's recent outreach to that segment is actually very shrewd, and dovetails nicely with his surprise flank attack suggesting that bush does not support sharon's policies ENOUGH.

Still, there are emails going around suggesting that he disagrees with bush and AIPAC on the question of US policy on Israel, and Chronwatch or somebody will probably call him a God-hater at some point anyway.

What a nasty piece of vile putrid shit. And this is coming from a so-called religious man? So much for love thy neighbor. Sheesh.


Um. Thanks for posting.

Thou shalt not kill commandment yet? I always get amused by those who want to display it in public buildings, since reading the Bible correctly can't help but make one a liberal.

on thier religion. This is the kind of behavior the rigt wing religious fundamentalists indulge in. They love to make judgements about other people's religious beliefs and level of dedication. Yuck

:puke:

As the rules require, my post is accompanied by a statement of my position on the candidates.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

It says nothing about your opinion of the candidates it says you have to state your opinion of the piece.

:boring:

If you'd rather not choose a favorite one.

a candidate be accompanied by a statement regarding which candidate the poster supports.

If I do not support any of the candidates, how could I support them all? :)

on voting against them in the general election.

Is that true? Or would you support any of the Democratic candidates in the general election?

Do you have an emoticon of someone strapped to a chair under a bright light you could use?

That was pretty low.

source that we should not link to.

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=21970

Posting from Whatreallyhappened.com, Chronwatch.com or Debka.com is specifically not allowed.

But those are the rules for the I/P room. I wouldn't know if they apply to the GD 2004 primary room.

Because rules and censorship is popular, and this site is a private business neither bound by the first amendment nor accountable to me or to you, they can forbid or mandate any text they choose, including but not limited to links to any and all websites.

However, they cannot prevent Chronwatch from publishing an article that displeases you, nor can they prevent people from reading it, so forbidding this or any other article about a candidate is of limited utility.

I thought this was a personal matter.

Why would you insinuate such?

And, it is personal.

That's why people shouldn't be scutinizing his religion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I thought this was being locked.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

Thanks
DU Moderator