On Nov 28, 2004, at 6:56 PM, JDG wrote:
Nevertheless, it is particularly annoying that after moral conservatives
are an integral part of the winning coalition in the most recent election
that the first thing religious conservative leaders are asked is what they
plan to do for the *losing* side in the last election.
It's a valid question. The winning "side" was merely a nominal majority. The religious conservatives in that bloc are a minority within even that winning "side". They're certainly not in any position to dictate terms.
And yet, somehow
when the Democrats win, we don't see Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, or
the head of ACT-UP asked on how they plan to reach out to religious
conservatives, do we?
No, we just see eight years of concerted, single-minded bullying of an incontrovertibly, fair-fight elected president by "independent" counsels and by the "liberal" media.
And then, even after getting asked a dumb question, and then giving a dumb
answer, we predictibly see the dread-invoking post of "so it begins" and
talk about "payback." Somehow, I don't think we'd be seeing the same
posts on Brin-L and articles in the MSM about "payback" to Big Labor and
animal rights activists following a Democrat win.
If the words of these people offend you so much, why not highlight your differences from them? Rather than attempting to defend the incendiary words of a few ultra-right wackos, why not show how you're different form them?
Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like "so
it begins" is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to
participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't
ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their
Agenda.
They can participate, but again, they are in the *minority* even in the Republican bloc. They are not empowered in any way whatsoever to begin making demands of 260+ million of their fellow citizens. (Assuming US pop 280 million, 12 - 18 million religious conservatives.)
Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place!
You mean the same judges who handed Bush the victory in 2000?
And it has never been the nation's policy to leave politics to a minority.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
