On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > >> >> On Dec 18, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Roger Howard wrote: >> >>> Working and living in the general region that his church is in - >>> actually, >>> I work quite close - I've never seen that side... if there was >>> ever a >>> group of more self-indulgent, un-green, SUV-driving, wealth/might >>> makes >>> right, Christers its right here in Orange County, with Saddleback as >>> the >>> center. They give lip service to some causes not traditionally >>> associated >>> with the far right, sure, but I've never gotten the feeling it's >>> much more >>> than that. >> >> C'mon Roger. This is a Sarah Palin, I can see Russia from here, >> argument. Unless you actually attend Saddleback church or are close >> to >> people who do you can't claim intimate knowledge of the congregation. > > I didn't claim intimate knowledge of anything - I'm familiar with them > as anyone is familiar with prominent organizations and movements in > their area. Though you hardly need to live here to know what they are > about... so yes, maybe I stretched in suggesting its proprietary > knowledge that is really much more common knowledge. The point > remains.
I don't how the point remains. Your argument seems to rely a lot on your assertion that the right is monolithic and any apparent internal divisions are "lip service". I merely pointed out that you have to know someone pretty well to judge their sincerity. > > >> You must know some weak ass lefties. Arizona lefties are made of >> sterner stuff. > > Ummm... no. That's been the trend for years. When we talk about > centrism, it means moving to the right. It's never meant the right > moving to the center. Plain and simple. I simply don't know what you are talking about here. If you could give some specific examples of 'progressives' moving to the right in the name of centrism maybe I could get it. > > > Let's put it another way - reaching across the poltiical divide to the > right is admirable... but when faced with the choice of voting based > on social justice and environmental issues (even assuming some of > Warren's followers believe strongly in those issues) or voting against > a pro-choice candidate, where do you think the religious right will > go? This is where your argument only works if you think that there are two internally cohesive sides. I agree that an anti-choice anti-gay marriage candidate is going to win in Orange Co but so what? The issue is that an anti-gay, anti-choice anti-offshore drilling candidate might easily beat an anti-gay, anti-choice pro offshore drilling candidate in Orange Co. The repubs are very fragmented right now. They are in desperate need of cohesion. Playing culture war games only helps them. You attack their coalition by emphasizing areas where we can make common cause with *some* of them. The way the extremists have turned on Warren shows that they get this. > > > Pro-life, anti-gay rights, social conservatism will *always* trump > other issues for these people - even if they feel strongly about the > environment, which I have no doubt many do (Orange County has many > right-wing, pro-Life, but pro-environment types... plenty in the > Surfrider Foundation down here, for instance). So why pander to them - > unless we want Obama to compromise on those issues too? It's not pandering to ask for their help in areas where *some* of them agree with us and to just ignore them where we don't agree. It's divide and conquer. -- Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before. -Steven Wright, comedian (b. 1955) _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
