It's Become Clear the Left Is Controlling the Dems

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
not so clear though, who's controlling the Republicans. An arguement made that it's not the 'religious right':

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/02/sullivans_rewrite.html

February 18, 2007
Sullivan's Rewrite
Posted by TOM BEVAN | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author | Sphere It!

Andrew Sullivan has been slinging the word "Christianist" about with sanctimonious ease for some time now. He never misses a chance to point out a news story and filter it through the "Christianist" lens. He's written a book on the subject. Heck, Sullivan has turned slamming "Christianists" into a veritable cottage industry.

So what does Sullivan do when a "Christianist" is booed out of a room by 800 Republicans for attacking a Republican presidential candidate for not possessing sufficient belief in Jesus Christ? He attacks the candidate, Mitt Romney, as a religious bigot.

The coup de grace to Sullivan's "Christianist" meme, of course, would be the nomination of Rudy Giuliani for President. Last week Sullivan confronted the growing body of evidence suggesting Rudy is acceptable, if not preferable, to Republican voters at this point by saying:

My view is that the managers and spokesmen of the base may be misreading the real mood of the evangelical rank and file. They're more pragmatic than their leaders.​

This would seem to fly in the face of Sullivan's contention that the Republican party is controlled by "Christianists," whom he defines as those believing "religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike."

...
 
I disagree with your opening premise. The far left does not control my party in my state, I am quite certain of that.
 
I disagree with your opening premise. The far left does not control my party in my state, I am quite certain of that.

The far left is controlling Congress, at least so far.
 
when you consider the "far left" as anyone to the left of yourself, I suppose, from that perspective, you are right.

Oh no, I'm speaking now of the 'moderates' like Hillary, not even mentioning Murtha and Co. Hillary & Edwards have been villified, even Obama has gotten some for not 'cutting the funding' from the left. Moveon has too much power, the DNC knows it, but not sure what to do about it.
 
Oh no, I'm speaking now of the 'moderates' like Hillary, not even mentioning Murtha and Co. Hillary & Edwards have been villified, even Obama has gotten some for not 'cutting the funding' from the left. Moveon has too much power, the DNC knows it, but not sure what to do about it.


if the far left was running congress, the house would have chosen Murtha as their leader instead of Hoyer.
 
if the far left was running congress, the house would have chosen Murtha as their leader instead of Hoyer.

See my earlier post, Novak and I believe San Diego paper links.
 
Translation: Do not confuse MM with facts - his head will explode

no...translation... the conversation was about moderates versus far left liberals being in control of congress..... I pointed out that the democrats chose hoyer over murtha....

and you came back with ....

Pelosi wanted Motor Mouth Murtha, but her own Dems voted against her wishes

which proves MY point..... do try to keep up.

I know it's tough when you really don't understand the topic at hand and then have to go find some cut and paste shit to make a point you yourself don't understand....
 
The difference is small, Republicans advocate aggression, the dems don't care about that, they just don't want to overpay for it. They are the two halves of the business/war party.

If anyone actually on the 'left' (pro-human rights, environment, equality) came to power, America would have a seizure.
 
I disagree with your opening premise. The far left does not control my party in my state, I am quite certain of that.
Hahaha! Governor: John Baldacci. Presidents: Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. There also seems to be a pretty strong Green Party movement as well. And in so far as the Democratic party is the Socialist Party for the US, it think its fair to argue, that even in Maine, the Dems are steered by leftists.

As far as the repulicans are concerned, if the memos from members of state legislatures can indicate who they listen to, and take seriously, I'd like to submit this little bit that the republican chairman of Texas' Appropriations Committee, and a member of Georgia's Bank and Banking Committee share together:
Warren Chisum and Ben Bridges said:
The links:

PART I - GEORGIA HB 179 MODEL--Which just turns out to the the model format for the legislation one would present to criminalize teaching evolution in taxpayer supported schools, based on the "evidence" (LOL!) supplied in Parts II and III.

PART II - ATTACHMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR HB 179 Alternative title: "Evidence That ZOG Is Brainwashing Our Children"

The tale telling bit arriving in Section 5 where these delusional wing-nuts firmly place the cart before the horse with this "hard sell" of what is "now known":
It is now known that the Kabbala, the most holy book the Religion of the Pharisees, is the source of all the concepts which make up today’s Big Bang "Origins Scenario", and it is that Scenario which provides the billions of years required by the “theory of evolution” which the Courts have heretofore viewed as “secular evolution science”.

These members of the mujahedeen against science, conclude with this little bit of bait and switch:
The perfect resolution of the seemingly interminable debate over evolutionism in the USA is now within the grasp of the Courts, high and low. That resolution is reduced to only one option when the Constitution is observed. That option is this: Educate only with the known facts of science. If hypotheses and theories contradict known facts, the facts prevail and are to be taught as true science. Let those facts form each student’s conclusions about the Origin of the universe, the earth, and mankind, thus guaranteeing the lawful use of the public treasury.
The bait being "stick to the constitution, leaving religion out of the science classrooms, where "known facts" are at issue"; and the switch being the implied suggestion that "known facts" might be in some manner relevent to the notions of creationism or Intelligent Design, placing them on some equal footing for consideration in a science curriculum.

PART III - ADDENDUM WITH EXTRA RELATED EVIDENCE Alternate Title: Extra Tinfoil For your Hat!
Fortunately--say the Pharisees promoting evolutionism--the “creation science” menace to “evolution science” has been thwarted in every attempted challenge in the Courts of the USA. Complete victory for “secular science” over “creation science” is now assured in the very short range future, they say, and it won’t be long before the real adversary, i.e., “Bible-based Christianity”, is defeated too. Indeed, the Pharisaic Cabal today has reason to think: “Just a little more and we can shout with Nietzsche: ‘God is dead; we have killed him with our science.’”
LOLSOME!!!!!

I'm not asserting that all republicans embrace all the fatuous notions that The Fair Education Foundation, Inc. embrace, like:
The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
or
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
I will assert this much though--These republicans are playing to a divine-right-nouveau paradigm that is comforting to those who enjoy an authoritarian power structure that has supreme destructive power concentrated at it's apex. It appeals to those who like to daddy, and be daddied.

A significant number of Republicans, and Conservatives, pander to this voiciferous fundamentalist constituency whose value sets, embedded in superstitions, are threatened by an objective and imperical description of reality. Such pandering leads them to being controlled financially and politically to these same voiciferous fundamentalists whose values are validated more by irrational emotionality and ancient fables written by an uncivilized society ruled by violence, rather than objective reality and thoughtful reasoning. It seems to me that these fundementalists are clearly pressing a "Christian Nation" aggenda, in direct contradiction to our country's founding documents, and the intentions of those who authored them; they are wrestling for control of right wing politics with the corporatists.

EDIT:
Warren Chisum said:
 
having worked for John Baldacci way back when he was a state senator, I can tell you he is just about as moderate to conservative a democrat as there is in the party. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.... and the fact that my state is a blue state does not mean that it is controlled by the liberal wing of my party.
 
So the fact that they chose one leftist over an even further leftest, Hoyer now is a moderate.


steny hoyer has always been a moderate....

look...when you are further to the right than attilla the hun, everybody looks liberal
 
steny hoyer has always been a moderate....

look...when you are further to the right than attilla the hun, everybody looks liberal

and when your 'woodstock chic' is your current fashion, everyone right of George Soros, along with a (D) behind their name, looks 'moderate'.
 
and when your 'woodstock chic' is your current fashion, everyone right of George Soros, along with a (D) behind their name, looks 'moderate'.

it really is all a matter of perspective, I will grant you that. In all fairness, I am a pretty moderate democrat myself ...the only issue I get really worked up over is Iraq. I have seen enough great laws made when smart people from both sides come to the middle to get too wrapped up in any leftist cause celebre.
 

Forum List

Back
Top