I think it is time that the Democratic Party took a very hard look at God. (A “come to Jesus meeting?”) The Republicans were very effective in using God to their advantage. Democrats have continuously tried to remain objective, by not pandering to people’s religious fears. By simply sticking to the issues, Democrats continue to lose elections. A good book to review may be: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank. This book shows how people are willing to vote against their economic interest when it is made to appear as a choice against their own morals. Democrats somehow need to capture the hearts and minds of Americans with a counter religious movement, which ties various social concerns with religious dogma. This is going to be difficult since it will also require Democrats to make a thorough examination of their own soul, and I am not sure they are willing to make that type of commitment.

Same experience with a woman doing some interior work on my car. Her entire family is drug addicted, sucking the life out of social programs. Numerous out of wedlock babies. Uses every social service imaginable, including social security. She voted Bush because of “values.”

The Left and religion have not always been at odds. Dorothy Day & the Catholic Worker were one of the few stations in the wildreness for the "Old Left" during the '50s. In the 30s-50s, an important liberal commentator was Reinhold Neiebuhr who was an evangelical Protestant minister & theologian. His career can be seen as an extension of the "social gospel" that united evalngelical strains of protestantism with liberal social thought. One cavaet in all of this---until JFK's presidency, even liberal evangelism had an undercurrent of anti-Catholic thought (that was, if anything more anti-Catholic people than theology) and a certain degree of anti-semitism. Grasping that evalngelicalism and social progress do not necessarily diverge (see for example the Sojourners group or people like Jimmy Carter), there's also a certain amount of bigotry that goes along with it. Even liberal Protestants in the South and the Plains are still pretty bigoted about Catholics and Jews.

Edwards would be a wrong choice for 2008. Positive campaigning does NOT work. Negative campaigning ALWAYS work. Think about it.

Gov Warner of VA is my choice. Richardson really disappointed me by losing NM.

i was reading about the lady in northeast ohio and her husband who got ladi off cause his job was shipped to Mexico. In ohio that has been going on scince Clinton was in office. My dad worked at general motors and was laid off because of shipping jobs to mexico, this isn't a Bush problem. I was laidoff last year from Office Depot because they were trying to find ways to save money, that wasn't the fault of Bush. I work now at an Insurance company as a agent. Jobs are out there that are good paying you just have to look. I'm glad Bush got re-elected and I am excited about the next 4 years and after that bring on brother JEB.

Jay is typical Bush supporter. Bush is never at fault nor or his policies. I'm glad that Bush supporters think that a declining standard of living is a good thing.

I'm glad Bush got re-elected and I am excited about the next 4 years

So tell me, what are the 5 things the idiot son of George Bush plans to accomplish this next term?

Great post, thank you. I think the left is starting to embark on a serious reappraisal of the kinds of candidates it needs to win national office. It's a shame the reckoning had to come this way, but eventually we will be stronger for it.

But, like it or not, the avenue of future victories may run down the aisle of American fundamentalist churches.

I would fight this to the bitter end. I would sooner become quixotic and join the Green Party or escapist and run off to another country than to see the Democratic Party cater to the Cult.

Let's not cave-in to fundamentalism. Contrary to conventional wisdom and the very real influence that it had on this election, Americans as a whole are becoming less, not more, religious, even while American politics become more religious.

We need to fight harder and smarter, not cut off our nose to spite our face to win over the faith-based vote.

Continuing to build upon the nascent liberal think tank, media, and funding infrastructure to rival that of the rightwing is a crucial step.

I have a feeling that in 4 years a decisive swath of the populace will no longer be able to ignore the reality that 21st century GOP radicalism has wrought.

Time out. Christianity, real Christianity isn't a threat. Or at least, the Christiniaty articulated in the Gospels isn't. Look at the sermon on the mount, look at turning the other cheek, giving to ceaser what belongs to ceaser.

While pandering the way the GOP does is wrong, I can't see why it wouldn't do to appeal to real Biblical values like charity, mercy, and peace would be a bad thing. Look at the early church, they lived in a communitarian type of lifestyle, with memebers uniting together and selling property and giving the money to the church for distribution.

I would say Evan Bayh, the senator from Indiana should be the next nominee. He just got re-elected running as a Democrat from one of the most conservative states in the Union. And he is very comfortable talking about God.

Bragan, I don't think it's a matter of "caving into" religious fundamentalism; it's simply a matter of honestly understanding what informs people's political choices.

Conservatives like to laugh that we liberals all think our taxes are too low. True, we on the left often vote for positions that, in a strictly economic, short-term sense, are against our personal best interests because we believe the benefit is to the greater good. larre is making the point that the same is true on the other side: evangelicals vote in ways that appear to liberals to be counter-productive, but only if you insist on seeing the issue from your own point of view. To a significant portion of American voters, economic self-interest is ultimately second to what they perceive as a moral "greater good."

Now, you can say that such anti-intellectualism has no place in politics — and I'd agree — but the fact is it's there, and if Democrats really want to get serious about winning elections, they need to understand that, accept it, and start thinking about the kinds of people we need to be grooming for the next election cycle. Does that mean aping the hard Right? Not at all—it simply means casting the classic ideals of liberalism in rhetoric and policies that appeal to the moral, compassionate side of America's religious voters. To do otherwise, ultimately, is to engage in the kind of nihilistic puritanism that has doomed Ralph Nader to permanent irrelevance. Nader and his supporters would rather be right—and lose—then do the hard calculation needed to assume power and begin to steer the American ship of state back on course.

From the time he uttered the "Axis of Evil" words, it was clear that the Force behind the GOP and its hand, the Bush Administration, were declaring war on non-white non- Christians. Go to Alabama, to a Baptist church where the preacher is telling the all-white congregation to vote for Bush because of Christian values, then go down the street and around the corner to find the black Baptist church. All Baptists to be sure, separate but equal? We have a religious war going on, both here in the US and in the world, and it's being run by white supremists.

Excellent post.

Y'know, if you are going to beat your enemy you have to understand them.

Why the HELL did the left have to push the gay marriage issue NOW? [Not Monday morning QBing ... I've been saying that all along.]

And, on the abortion topic, let me say this. As a dedicated lefty there is no quicker way to get the freeper treatment from a left-leaning comment board that to take any position that is not 100% pro-choice. The intolerance for pro-lifers is phenomenal. This intolerance, in turn, feeds the image of the left as "evil". Remember, there are approximately 1.3 Million abortions in the US annually (a number that is growing under Bush after falling under Clinton, btw). Rightly or wrongly, pro-lifers see this as the killing of 1.3 million babies.

Too often lefties dismiss pro-lifers as really being anti-sex or anti-women. While some are, most aren't. Now, let me reemphasize: THEY REALLY DO SEE THIS AS KILLING 1.3 MILLION BABIES ANNUALLY. Got that? They use the word "Holocaust" and mean it. Imagine how you would feel if some political party was advocating a policy that really did kill 1.3 million babies annually. You'd be horrified. You'd not believe anything they said. You'd support anyone who opposes them.

FORGET the stats that say the majority are pro-choice. Most people are wishy-washy. Pro-lifers are at least 20% of the population and are extremely motivated voters. Until the Democrats can find a solution to the abortion question they won't be able to reach out to the religious people on the right.

Holland and Sweden have the lowest abortion, STD, and unplanned pregnancy rates in the world, yet have legal abortions. The Dems could take a stand to minimize the total number of legal and illegal abortions, and push for a Holland-like program that does that. But the current stance is killing the Dems.

Oh yeah, and drop gun control from the list of crime control options. Say that the Democratic party now supports ALL civil liberties, including the 2nd amendment.

Then make a push for policies that support small businesses, not just big ones.

There are plenty of opportunities to recast the democrats in a way that will appeal to the religious right. But we have to drop some of the baggage that we've picked up along the way.

A number of my friends commented before the election, that if Bush won, they swore they were moving to another country. It is a tempting strategy. The differences between the right and the left, and the strength of the fundamental movement are almost mind boggling. How can people be so different?

To me, leaving the country is not a good solution, but merely an active exit strategy that ignores the problem. The grass is always greener concept would come into play here.

So what is the problem? I have not read Lasch's book, but what I think the problem is, is the dynamic between trust and distrust. Similar to the views of the left and the right, trust and distrust are seen as mutually exclusive, with trust obviously being better than distrust.

I had a similar relative experience, when my mother-in-law told me that we should always trust our president no matter what. Faith in God requires 100% trust--and this concept spills over into everyday life.

However, human nature, and therefore the nature of consumerism, corporatism, capitalism, and the political machine -- is not 100% percent altruistic. Nor will it ever be. It is time to fully acknowledge and embrace this, and adopt a 'paradigm' of trust AND distrust.

Trust and distrust need to exist together, like yin and yang, to help us understand the events around us.

We need to assume that people will do non-altruistic things in the name of self-interest. Because that is what humans do. Rather than wasting our time passing around the blame, we need to re-build consumerism, corporatism, capitalism, and the political machine around this fact.

The role of 100% trust has no place in our society when human nature is involved--not even with your spouse, or child. But, the born-again mentality puts 100% trust in God. And they feel justified because, hey, we are talking about GOD here.

How can you reason with God? I think the challenge is to help people understand that a certain level of distrust is healthy, and necessary to achieve social justice.

I'll start with my mother-in-law, if you start with your relatives in Ohio.

great post larre
You can't counter religious arguments. Religion is at odds with the "Reality Based Comunity" I have this quote in the header of by blog:

Unfortunately, some wars are won by the side that is the most
fanatical in the religious sense. The victorious leaders harness the holy energy of collective insanity.
COGITOR KWYNA
[From the Machine Crusade by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson].

Please delete or pardon my previous post. My brain is still frying in anger and disbelief. I know you aren't advocating caving-in to the religious right.

In a sense I'm guilty of the same mistake I ascribe to Bush's fundamentalist supporters--I'm putting my desire that the fundies not wield so much influence over the biting reality of this election.

I haven't read Lasch's book--but I think the problem lies in the dynamic between trust and distrust. Faith in God requires 100% trust, and this idea spills over into everyday life. 'In God We Trust.'

I had a similar relative experience when my mother-in-law told me that we should always trust our president 100%. This crystallized the issue for me right there.

It is human nature to act within one's own self-interest. It is not human nature to act 100% altrustically--even if you are the leader of the free world. Human nature is the basis of consumersim, corporatism, capitalism, and the political machine. We need to adopt a 'paradigm' of both trust AND distrust, and rebuild capitalism and our political system around this concept.

It is healthy to have a certain amount of distrust-especially for your president, but even for your spouse or child. But the Christian right has no room for distrust, and neither do business leaders, political leaders, or even doctors for that matter. They all want us to 'trust' them.

We need to help people understand that a certain level of distrust is necessary to achieve social justice! I'll start with my mother-in-law, if you start with your relatives in Ohio.

Sorry for the double post--I got an error message and didn't think it worked...

One more typo:

In the last paragraph you say Edwards-Obama 2008, then a sentence later Edwards-Kerry. I understand the slip, but I thought you'd like to know.

[Edwards and Obama] know how to appeal to the common "communitarian" values which, as Lasch postulates, lie at the true heart of Christian Revivalist appeals

Communitarian values do not lie at the heart of Christian Revivalist appeals. The true appeal is the temptation of transcendence--the notion that if one surrenders to Christ, one will achieve Life Everlasting (unlike all the sinful folks). It is very difficult for me to find anything communitarian in such an attitude.

Excellent post. You encapsulate and articulate my thoughts better than I could have. I have a love-hate relationship with religion. I am a non-religious Jew whose family borders on pathological hatred of religion. Yet, from an intellectual standpoint, I've come to appreciate what religion has done for progressive thought in American history. As a Ph.D. student in US History I'm often struck by the way that evangelical and secular groups forged common ground to pursue common goals, but almost always relying on the discourse of Christianity to advance the cause. When I saw the "moral values" line come up as number one on the exit poll my first reaction was rage. I wanted to strangle every Fundamentalist Christian I could. I thought to myself that the Islamic Fundamentalists and the Christian Fundamendalists just enjoined in the great clash they always dreamed. But I've calmed down a bit since then.

What we have to realize is that not every devout evangelical Christian is a conservative. They take conservative positions on certain social questions like abortion or gay marriage, but they are deeply troubled by Iraq and the divide between rich and poor. It's incumbent on us as a party to find somebody who can reach these constituencies with a language that resonates. I'm not sure if it means we need a pro-life - as much as I find abortion abhorrent I recognize that too many people in the Democratic Party view choice on abortion as a fundamental position. But we need somebody who's willing to openly acknowledge the great moral travesty that abortion and who is willing to offer realistic ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country - without actually banning it. But on gay marriage we were vulnerable not because Kerry's position was anathema but because he seemed to offer no real moral position from which to argue. Many evangelicals might have looked at him more favorably if they believed that Kerry was a man of conviction, who believed BEYOND the capacity of his reasoning ability that some things are sancrosanct. Even mundane things. Sadly, the one thing he did believe in consistently - opposition to the death penalty - he never brought up in the campaign. Ironically, it's his position on the death penalty, and moral certitude behind it that would have served him well with evangelical Christians.

and push for a Holland-like program that does that.

I really want to see you start sex education in this country in kindergarten, as Holland does.

We can run Adolf Hitler as long as he says he is born again.

Watching the pretzledent bumble through his acceptance speech, asking for unity. I will never support this boob. I will never support his policies. I will never support his administration. Evil in the guise of unity. Disgusting.

Thank you for reminding this new reader in Europe that not all Americans have gone batty. Waking up to find Bush still in the White House was a confirmation for reality-based-Europe that you are all ignorant antisocial freaks. Fortunately, a minority appears to be able to think for themselves, that is good to know.

Overhere, it seems John McCain would be able to get al lot of support, as would Rudy Giuliani (until he's revealed as too right).
I would personally love a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008, but think McCain isn't going to be easily defeated - should he run.

Thank you for reminding this new reader in Europe that not all Americans have gone batty. Waking up to find Bush still in the White House was a confirmation for reality-based-Europe that you are all ignorant antisocial freaks. Fortunately, a minority appears to be able to think for themselves, that is good to know.

Overhere, it seems John McCain would be able to get al lot of support, as would Rudy Giuliani (until he's revealed as too right).
I would personally love a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008, but think McCain isn't going to be easily defeated - should he run.

I don't think Larre ever says what Lasch's book was. All the quotes he uses are available at his link, which is from the first issue of Tikkun magazine. There Lasch reduces to a brief statement the arguments of the book he was then working on, in a dogmatic form hard to take, even if part of you recognises their truth, on a day like this.
The book, however, is a profound critique of liberalism, with many interesting historical characters and arguments. The book is "The True and Only Heaven," published in 1991.
I was thinking, inevitably, about Lasch and the book this morning, particularly the remarkable discovery of Emerson's central importance to self-understanding. I will re-read Emerson's essays "Fate" and "Compensation" as soon as I can.

Elsewhere, a U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded in a roadside bombing 12 miles south of the capital.

And so it goes. Next a draft, because the Marines dying in Fallujah during the next week will demand it. Then Iran, Cuba....and N. Korea will sell some nukes to Osama's boys. Fun, fun, fun.

for reality-based-Europe that you are all ignorant antisocial freaks

Or that we are mostly backwards religious knuckle-draggers here.

so larre, what do Democratic secular humanist atheists supossed to do? Believe in their god?
It ain't gonna happen...

I regret to say, my parents voted for Bush.

They are in their late 70s, worry about health care, prescription drugs, etc.

As hard as I tried to sell them on Kerry, they wanted Bush so "homesexuals can't get married."

I don't think Obama should be on any national ticket in the near future.

I would prefer an all-southern or at least an all-red state ticket.

Edwards, however, needs to be the nominee, just as he should have been this election.

I also don't think in the end religion has a lot to do with this "revival." Face it, what we have are fascists are have gained power with many voters using the carrot of religion.

In the end, these fascists will turn against the born agains who aren't gazillionaires.

Just when I thought W might make it through his acceptance speech with a modicum of civility...he thanked Karl Rove, insert dramatic pause here The Architect. Architect of "The Big Lie... My plan is to finish greaving for my country in the next day or so, and then forget about politics for the next four years...

I rembember reading about a comment a young girl in Colorado said when asked why she was voting Republican. She replied "Because the Democrats believe in Satan's agenda" and so it occcurred to me that some of our churches, especially in the South, are brain-washing their parishioners in this fashion. It's no longer a political debate on the issues, but rather God versus Satan, the ultimate spiritual contest. How do we fight that? Churches in the South use powerful peer pychology and until the Democrats can bring the argument back into the political realm, we will always lose in the South. I'm convinced it is why we lost the popular vote overall. Just look at the swing to Bush from the previous election in states like Arkansas, Virginia, and others in terms of popular vote. The Democrats must invest heavily to change this image there because we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy.

Well, pop the popcorn. The GOP has stated that it will start the culture war in 2005 immediately after the inauguration.

I just heard the rights trial balloon floated that "the middle is concerned about the internet."

Hold on folks, blogs may have to go away.

I just want to say that I have been following your blog for the past week as part of a class assignment and it has been a source of inspiration to me. I am deeply distressed over the outcome of this election, and I can't tell you how much it means to me to be able to connect in some way with folks who are trying to make sense of it. By participating in this dialogue you are continuing to fight the good fight. I only hope whatever groundswell has resulted from campaign efforts over the last two years will continue to build momentum. I live in Georgia and it is a depressing place to be a liberal. I was active in the Kerry campaign here, which was liberating for me. Now that it is over, I am struggling with the loss and wondering what to do next. I'm sure in a few days I'll be fired up about 2006...but for now I feel nothing but sorrow. Thank you for your insights. It will help me work through the pain.

Gwyn,

I find it helps to imagine Bush dressed as an organ grinders monkey, dancing to a tune played by business interests.

Bush got 51% of the vote. This election was lost on the margins and the next one can be won on the margins. But the Democrats must nominate a moderate (preferably a governor) who can appeal to rural America.

Unfortunately, Bush is likely to make just as much of his second term as his first. He just won't be around to catch the blame.

god......no pun intended.....but that was one of the most well written and cogent pieces i have read here in blog land.i tip my hat to the author.jjj

if there's a culture war, i say bring it on. i know i'm still pissed about the results, but i for one will never back down to evil, and these folks are pure evil. who else would use false piety, and hide behind a smile (smirk?) while stabbing you in the back. they step on the backs of every single one of us while climbing their way to the top and they don't give a shit.

in some ways, i hope there is a god, and she kicks the living shit out of these assholes once they find their way up there. there isn't a level of hell deep enough for these murderers.

ok, taking off the anger hat now.... whew.. needed to vent.

[i] Communitarian values do not lie at the heart of Christian Revivalist appeals. The true appeal is the temptation of transcendence--the notion that if one surrenders to Christ, one will achieve Life Everlasting (unlike all the sinful folks). It is very difficult for me to find anything communitarian in such an attitude. [/i]

True in a theological sense and even more in a social sense. To evangelicals the fundamental relationship is between the individual and God. All social relationships are channeled via that relationship between individual and God. Think of it like hub and spoke where the hub is God and the spokes only connect via God. Any social relationship devoid of the connection to God is considered illegitimate. To non-evangelicals there are connections directly between people, sometimes with God in our hearts or elsewhere, sometimes without God at all, but the connections of community don't rely fundamentally on an individual confession of belief in God. This is why evangelical Christianity is so widespread in America. It is fundamentally an individualist theology, and its social proscriptions stem not from any sense of social impropriety per se but from a belief that certain behaviors (gay marriage) transgress the relationship between individuals and God.

What does this mean? That appeals to progressive causes must use the language of individual grace and faith. Communitarian language alone reeks of crass populism and is easily rejected. But with individualism at the core of all strata of American society - religious or secular - appeals to evangelicals must follow along the same lines of belief in personal accountability and responsibility (sin), opportunity (confession of faith) and justice (following Christ's path). There are thus evangelical metaphors for every part of progressive politics. We just need to use them, and find somebody who can do so convincingly.

Sen Kerry gave a strong effort. As I said a few weeks ago, it's all about the base.

I recommend that you review your base and figure out how to be inclusive. You think you are but you talk AT the common man but you don't talk TO the comman man.

Remember that most Americans want to feel they are individuals while being free to decide which group they like.

Now here's something to ponder. 2008 will have a republician evangelical black VP canidate. Imagine how that will effect the democratic base. He/she will be able to talk the talk and walk the walk in the churches and areas that white republican can't seem to get yet. This VP canidate will go after the black middle class voter and it will mean another defeat for dems.

Sorry, I understand your desire to reach out to the far right religious community but we cannot pander away our values.

1. The right to abortion is fundamental to equal rights for women.

If you don't think that pregnancy is a weapon, look to the Sudan, Indonesia and Bosnia for examples of planned systemic rapes. Victims are traumatized and later cast aside by their relatives for loss of virginity and/or birth of a mixed child.

2. The religious right is neither. With all due respect to your relatives, there are no exceptions to this argument. I have relatives who are professed, real Christians and none of them are anti-science, anti-woman or anti-poor. Like me, they'll take Kerry's faith based works argument any day of the week.

You want the religious community? You go after moderates from all faiths, including secular humanism.

3. We stand to lose more by making this appeal to the extremes than we would gain. Kerry almost pulled this election off despite all of Bush's advantages. He did it by putting together a coalition of progressives, independents and libertarians that came within a few percentage points of winning.

You make a leap for those right-wing folks (who will never come around anyway), you will lose the rest of us.

4. Progressives in this country have always fought the unpopular fights from racial equality to 8 hours days. Most took generations to achieve.

We cannot throw away that hard work and effort becauase we want a compromised presidency increasingly out of touch with the World.

thank you all for being the voice of reason out there. as a jew, I am frankly puzzled by all this God vs. Satan talk. I mean, isn't the presidency a job? shouldn't that elected person have some idea how to run a country? I would elect a scientologist if they could perform their JOB. isn't that the point?

I think what I get from the right wing and non partisan sites I've examined today is what people really want is a dictatorship. They want "immorality" (oh the horror of gay marriage. I quake) stamped out by the great leader. And good news! Bush wants the same thing!

I'm a teacher, and more and more my students forming their own opinions. They resist thoughtful ideas-which is hard...hard work. No Child Left Behind (infernal bullshit, any teacher would tell you) gives us testing INSTEAD of education. Perfect for the right. Why teach your child to question when you can simply parrot the answers?

The worst part is not the election of Bush. The worst part is the idea that Americans want to legislate their beliefs. And even more terrifying: how can we stop them?

People relax for one minute. Ok last time I checked Kerry got almost half the votes, so what that says to me is, even in the so called red states we have people who think like us. In South Carolina Kerry got 41% of the vote so not everyone in the south or midwest is voting "their morals".

What the democratic party need to understand is that their is an audience for its message even in the south. You do not need to change it, you need to explain it and provide it as a viable option. The thing we forget is that in our libral high minded cities we are presented everyday with various points of view, unfortunately the people in these so call red states except for the few like the 41% in SC are not and are fed a daily dose of partisan trash talk without an opposing view. So when its time for elections and some slick looking Massachusetts libral come to town telling them that what they believe may not be correct they will naturaly push back.

The democratic party does not need to change its message. I don't think that we need to go running looking for a new slogan. The "moral values" we hold are just as valid and has benefit this country greatly over its history. Just because a generation of Americans have decided to sink their heads into the ground becuase they fear change and anything that is different from thier views is no reason for us to back down.

We did not back down with McCarthyism and we sure hell are not going to backdown to homophobic gender suppressing idealogy. We need to keep fighting for every office we can no matter what. Reality will set in at one point or another with these people. One big example will be Iraq these people are convince that the Bushies can take care of this and bring democracy to a 1000 years old tribal society that is as idealogical if not more so than they are. When the american body count keeps adding up even after this so called election in January and more countries like Poland and others start to exit with no end in sight for the violence they can say they "voted their morals".

Oh dear, what a grim wake-up call to the dems today. On "Talk of the Nation" , Bill Lakoff who has hyped awareness of "framing" set straight a Christian fundamentalist caller who claimed that W had the divine right of kings and that there was nothing in our constitution about separation of church and state by telling her to read the constitution and commenting that her brand of Christianity was NOT the majority -- he stated that there were more "liberal" Christians in the country than fundies. A followup caller was "chilled" by the fundies comments and noted how "morality" covered a host of issues and Bush's war in Iraq was morally offensive to her.

I think the dems have failed to develop a way to speak about moral issues (the environment, economic fairness, providing for the basic needs of all in a civilized society, partnering with the world on mutual issues -- not just when it suits the interests of the corporate elite here) -- that resonates and acknowledges Christian values in the larger sense. The primary Christian message is one of love and empathy for one's fellow beings (essentially, also the basis of secular humanism) -- Jesus was essentially a social radical. We can effectively challenge what the right seems to think is their "monopoly" on values but we need to stop belittling those people in the red country and appeal to a broader moral compass.

Oh, and demographics are in our favor. Young folks are more liberal and the "moral values" meme as the most decisive issue for the electorate is skewed in the press -- less than 1 in 5 people listed this as their predominant concern -- it was just the largest number of the other options on the list.

This election was lost on strategy. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Democratic Party as a whole. As of now, most states in this country are solidly red or solidly blue. Kerry ran a horrible campaign until the last month, but by then, he was trying to make up too much ground. He should have put Carville in charge of his campaign when he got the nomination and made his convention about what he'd do about Iraq and the economy instead of the Vietnam crap. Then, he should have been much more forceful against the Swift Boat liars. If he'd done that, he would probably be the president-elect today. With all of the ineptitude in his campaign, he was still just 2% from winning Ohio and the presidency. In order to make up that 2%, we must nominate a charasmatic candidate such as Edwards and run a very effective campaign and put on a good convention. With those improvements, I think we could have made up the difference in Florida and Ohio. Now is not the time to give up. We must make sure we trounce the GOP in the 2006 congressional elections and get a strong nominee for 2008. After 4 more years of Bush, people will be ready for change, and we will provide it.

Eh, you people condemn the far right people, but you're just as bad...

"if there's a culture war, i say bring it on. i know i'm still pissed about the results, but i for one will never back down to evil, and these folks are pure evil."

'Pure evil', huh? Riiight. Gee, I wonder why you guys don't get along with the mainstream. Oh, because they're all 'brainwashed' and 'stupid'. I can't imagine why this rhetoric doesn't have millions of Evangelicals running to the Democratic party...

Oh, and 'Neo-American Revivalist' would mean a new American who believed in revivalism. I think you mean 'American Neo-Revivalists' or 'American Neo-Revivalism'.

Communitarian values do not lie at the heart of Christian Revivalist appeals. The true appeal is the temptation of transcendence--the notion that if one surrenders to Christ, one will achieve Life Everlasting (unlike all the sinful folks). It is very difficult for me to find anything communitarian in such an attitude.

It's very selfish isn't it?

I can't help thinking that all these born-agains populating the red middle of this country don't have any larger concern beyond their own self, family and at most small community. There appears to be no connection to society as a whole. Every soul for itself! Isn't that what the anti-abortion, anti-gay rights position comes down to? It's not about the breakdown of society. It's about not jeopardizing one's own chance at salvation by not actively voicing opposition to something deamed "sinful". I'm a Roman Catholic and never until this election have I felt the overt endorsement of such an attitude from my church. The Sunday before election day there were pamphlets entitled "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" on the pews during mass. The content in a nutshell - there are five "non-negotiable" issues in this election, abortion, euthanasia, cloning, stem-cell research and gay-marriage and a serious Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who holds opinion contrary to the church's teaching on these subjects. That was it. Nothing about charity or communitarian values. Black and white. It was all about not endnagering your eternal soul by voting for a proponent of these issues. I was aghast. This is not the church that I was raised in. This is not the God that I believe in. Judge not lest you be judged yourself. If your neighbor ask for your coat give him your robe as well.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth (I John 3:17-18).

Very few people want to have an abortion. Many feel they have no other option. These people need compassion not vilification. The answer to abortion is not criminalization it's mercy.

Oh well, keep doing what your doing. It won't hurt my feelings when you lose congressional and senate seats in 2006.

Oh by the way quess who's going to appoint judical seats for the next 4 years. Judical appointments have a further reach that can really effect the future, think about it.

Folks, ya gotta look at a long term plan and bend a little. Take this time to rant, rave and stay true to your views but once you finish figure out what you need to do. We republicans were the minority party for 40 years. You are only 10 years into what may be a long spiral for the democratic party.

Parties can work together but learn from our mistakes so you can return stronger.

Thanks, phidipides, for the organ grinder reference. However, I have too much respect for animals to compare them to Bush. I agree with PC about the audience in the South, and I would add that one reason "liberal" strikes such terror in the hearts of Southerners is because it is associated with a deep-seated distrust of intellectuals. This distrust appears to stem from an ongoing resistance to corporatism, federalism, and industrialization, all of which have been viewed here since at least the War Against the States as an assault on the purer values of agrarianism. I think Kerry did as well as anyone could have under the circumstances, and he did have appeal to many Southern voters. Unfortunately, not many of them were able to connect with him personally because the Southeast was virtually invisible during the campaigns (with the exception of Florida). We were marginalized and abandoned because Bush's dominance was assumed to be a foregone conclusion. Not even Edwards spent much time in the South. I'm not a political strategist, and it may have not made a difference in the electoral college, but it might have resulted in a tighter popular vote.

George Lakoff (Don't Think of An Elephant, Moral Politics) makes the point that in politics, the vast majority of people on all sides do not in fact respond to facts! They respond only to metaphorical frames (aking to contexts) through which they model their views of the world. The GOP understands this very well. Until we do the real tough sledding of recasting progressive values of opportunity, responsibility, and community into messages that will pierce or break these metaphorical frames -- we will continue to lose.

Lakoff's work is engaging, and a must read for everyone. Start with Don't Think of an Elephant, $10, 100 pages, four hours front to back.

Oh yes, Muckcat, you are so right. I'm a jew, but I always thought that mercy was at the bottom of christian ideals. No one wants to abort a child. It's a dreadful decision, and it isn't a happy outcome. Can't we try just a bit of empathy? No one chooses to be gay. It chooses them. Why not extend the mercy of equal rights?

I taught in college a few years ago, and I was always shocked when my female students would begin a sentence with: "I'm not a feminist, but..." Ladies, how do you think you came to BE at a college? Many fought for you. Has everyone forgotten?

But yes, you are right - the margins were very very close. I think the non-fundamentalists are begging to be heard in this country. If the democratic message is that it's important for the greater good to maintain peace, feed our hungry, provide schools and the best education to our children: can't we accept $100 more a year in taxes? That message works for me, and I say we don't flip flop! :)

Lefties will never learn. "Values," or morals as they actually are known, are real issues. As long as lefties support homosexuals, abortion and the suppression of religion, it is dead meat to the American electorate. Since Lefties, or social justice advocates - if you prefer, will never understand this, you will be in the wilderness a long, long time.

The left simply does not get it. One of the "values" is responsibility and accountability. It is not the government's responsibility to give you a job, or keep your job from going to Mexico or India. It is each individual's responsibility. The left believes that the government should take care of its citizens. Wrong, wrong, wrong! We have to take care of ourselves. That's why responsible people do not blame Bush if their job is lost.

The quote below from the related article will 'set you free', IF you are able to comprehend it. If not, then all is lost for the democratic party. JFK must be rolling over in his grave that the party has come to this:

"Unable to explain the persistence of . . . an ethic of personal accountability"

Atomicweeder, I don't understand you. If jobs go overseas, how is this not the responsibility of the government? And if accountability and responsibility is so important to these values, how do you explain the lies about WMD? Shouldn't Mr. Bush be responsible?

More importantly: why shouldn't we take care of each other? Isn't this what Jesus wanted? I thought it was. And how have liberals "suppressed" religion? I thought we were for freedom of speech and freedom to worship. News to me!

And in terms of "immorality" like abortion, didn't someone once write: "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone." It would seem that as far as we have strayed from the left, the right has strayed from their OWN christian values far worse.

Sorry, I tried to read the whole original piece, but just couldn't. You just don't get it, do you? Like most of the people in your party, you impress me as a highly educated moron. Read your own work and see if you can't avoid the dripping condescention it piles high on those you disagree with. As Ronald Reagan said, "It's not that my liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so many things that aren't true." The Christians didn't beat Kerry, the left and it's condescending, hate-filled, negative, unrelenting, unfair, media-biased attack on the President and our country did. You folks are too busy blaming your own country for the problems that have befallen it, and you don't know the difference between a political disagreement and baseless attack. For evidence, see your own claims about "lies" associated with the Iraq war, look up the definition of the word "lie" and then try to name a single one told by President Bush in the lead-up to the war. On second, thought, forget it. Please continue your gas-bag navel gazing so that pinheaded intellectuals of your ilk will be out in the political wilderness for generations to come, thank God.

As usual, an excellent story about the new revivalism. However, I disagree with your term "cult" to describe the extreme religionists in the Republican Party. "Religious zombies" is a much better term. I have some relatives that fit into the category. They wave their arms,chant, and beg at their church, working themselves into a self induced hypnotic trance, which they believe something "ties" them to a "higher power". The attribute their self-hypnosis to some beliefs, and as a result, give up any rational thinking whatsoever. My religionist relatives in Arkansas are as poor as dirt, and do this all the time. Interestingly enough, even though they were on public assistance (Medical Assistance) with the delivery of their last baby, they despise the "welfare cheats" in the country. Talk about logic tight compartments in the brain!

One of the "values" is responsibility and accountability.

That's two "values".

Obviously at least one child was left behind.

For the jobs going overseas there are many jobs in the USA that are here because of foreign companies.

Taking care of each other doesn't mean we can't be taught to take care of ourselves. That's why there is a limit to welfare.

As far as abortion there is a middle ground but most dems won't accept it.

Geez, it ain't that tough to get along if you want to.

As far as abortion there is a middle ground but most dems won't accept it.

Tell that to Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn.

Okay, if I do tell them will you consider the middle ground?

Okay, if I do tell them will you consider the middle ground?

Democrats can not win if they reject Christian values. When they were winning big years ago, they embraced those values - - especially in regards to civil rights. Remember that MLK was a Christian first. Do not denigrate "evangelicals." Most evangelicals could stand to be reminded of a lot of core Christian beliefs that are consistent with the democratic party platform. Read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and you will probably have a better grasp on Christianity than many evangelicals. As for gays, remind evangelicals that Jesus taught that it is wrong to judge. However, don't try to tell them that being an active homosexual is not a sin because they will not believe you over scripture. They can live with other people sinning because they believe that we all sin - - as long as they are reminded not to judge. As for abortion, . . . that's a tough one. They will believe they are not to judge those who have abortions but they believe that they have a duty to the unborn that attaches immediately upon conception. I think they realize that the clock will not be turned back on this issue but they do not want it expanded. And stop making it practically the only issue upon which judicial candidates are evaluated. If the democrats keep being identified as the party that opposes Christianity, they will continue to lose. Americans are generally well fed and sheltered and will increasingly vote on morals. You simply can't be seen as attacking 80%+- of the population and win. That is irrational behavior.

Okay, if I do tell them will you consider the middle ground?

Stop teasing.

Dear bushsucks,

Your post made sense. Let's get real, and don't get overally analytical about why we lost. We didn't lose by much.
I still believe that within this country, there is a strong group of independents who, yes, will be eventually realize that the religious zombies who voted for Bush should not be attaining power. Remember when one of their heroes, Pat Robertson tried to run for President? How many votes did he get in the primary.
The rational and reasonable, independents, in this country will arise in the next election. Watch.

I also agree with P C to a great extent. However, as I am sure many Democrats are already doing, we need to do some deep introspection as to why we lost, and why we are losing. One of the major polls identified that “moral values” was a major factor for the way most people voted. That would seem to indicate that we are on the wrong side of what most people consider “moral values.” I believe part of the problem is that, Democrats try not to be offensive by not mixing God into their equations, while Republicans eagerly identify themselves as messengers of God.

Democrats seriously need to understand where they stand in their relationship with the Almighty. I refuse to believe that we cannot do this, simply because we are trying to keep atheist and agnostics happy. Even they have a concept of morality, and how the current administration practically endorses racism, capitalistic cronyism, destruction of the middle-class through lower wages, destruction of our environment, etc.

Ultimately we will need to find not only our message, but our messenger as well. When we rise up again, it will have to be with forceful impact of a religious crusade. We will need some one who can open the eyes of the public at large to what Republicans are doing to the poor, to the environment, to the economy, to our military, to our world, and to our moral values. It must be identified as sinful. All must recognize that it is time to redeem America from the direction that Republicans are taking this country.

The "christian" (name of tribe) Bush voter knows that you can't be gay and Christian, or even deserve to live without fearing being beaten by punks, you can't be pro-choice to any degree and not go to hell. There is NO WAY to convince these people. A gay couple who are monogamous, serve or support the poor, and support their denomination (if there is one that accepts them) are far worse than the heterosexual pastor, politician, or executive who philanders, doesn't support his kids, cheats his employees and stockholders, doesn't tithe but does buy a new speedboat, and doesn't give a dime to those less fortunate than himself.

Look at the venom being spilled in nearly every Protestant denomination - purging people who dare claim that women, or even worse, gays, are indeed capable of ministry.

There's no point in liberal Christians addressing the "religious/moral" concerns of the majority of right wing fundamentalist/evangelicals (RWFE) (and some Catholics), because those concerns are not primarily religious, they are boundary issues. Tribal issues. Who can be a scapegoat, in other words. Who is less than human. The RWFE simply say - well, those liberal Christians aren't true Christians.

One thing comes through clearly in this thread - most of you are talking about TACTICS and APPEARANCES to make the platform cover more votes. This is one of the flaws of strategy that led to yesterday's loss. Kerry appeared to profess policies and values, but the majority didn't buy it because Kerry didn't come across as genuine and open to many. Bush, on the other hand, seemed to have opened his kimono early on...people believed the policies he espoused were consistent with his personal value set. So the answer to a Democratic victory is not to ingenuously profess a value set to win votes, but instead to find a candidate with a core value set that can be embraced by the majority of voters. This may mean abandoning more extreme positions. Democreats can either take extreme positions or have a chance to get elected. People want the steak, not the sizzle.

"Speaking truth" to and about the religious right is not condescending - any more than telling a drunk they must sober up is insulting. It's called intervention and it works.

What disgusts me more than the religious rights are folks like Bush and (presumably)"Gay Republican". They project their actions - refusing to deal with facts and engaging in person bashing - on their opponents. They hide his behavior by using the truly devout as a shield. After all upper class Republicans will never lose their child to a draft or a botched abortion - that's what money does for you.

[Oh and dearheart, as one queer to another I certainly hope that you're single and have no children because Bushco plans to stomp all over your family. Or rather he just did stomp. But you were probably too busy assimiliating to notice.]

Finally to Vince - those of us on the left do adhere to Christian principles. We feed the hungry, clothe the poor and work for peace. We don't need lectures on abortion from you or from institutions like the Holy Roman Church that didn't even recognize abortion as a sin until it found it politically expedient.

Lakhoff is right, we must quit allowing the right to set the rhetoric.

blaming your own country for the problems that have befallen it,

sure, all those iraqi civilians just got in the way of our bombs. damn towel-heads oughta know better than to look like a bunch of mohammed attas. and they're the ones responsible for our troops not having armored humvees, too! if only they'd greeted us with candy and flowers (as per the plan), 140,000 troops would have been enough and we wouldn't have needed to guard the ammo dumps. damn camel jockeys, always screwing us up.

worst part, try talking about our 3,000 dead on 9/11 to an arab. More likely than not, they'll say "3,000? That's nothing. How many of them were kids?" (I lost a friend that day, FWIW.)

This article and series of comments by all of you leaves me dumbstruck! But I think I can recover enough to record a few words.

God is just a role. I don't care if you are an atheist, with this definition, believe me, you too have a god. It's probably yourself. The role of God is to use his power to change a life for the better. That requires that the God be first able to know— for certain — what would be better. You think you have power to change not only your own lives for the better but those of others as well. You all would make miserable gods.

You people think you know what would be "better." You think you know what would be better for me. You think you know what would be better for whole countries, even though you don't know the people you are deciding for. You make me laugh. I think you are ignorant. Foolish. Opressive. Frightening. Anyone who spends even a few seconds in serious logical thought can see that, in fact, neither you nor I knows what would be "better" for any situation in this universe. We all just guess....so, how is your ability to guess the future, guess at outcomes for everything from global warming to social justice, whatever you think that means, better than a person who believes that an all powerful entity that created our universe sees us all, calculates the best for us whether we trust he's there or not? You are as arrogant, misguided, and intellectually poor as the people who have faith that you insult.

i continue to laugh out loud. You have zero answers which is exactly the same number of answers of those you persecute and discriminate against. You should all go look in the mirror and see the hopelessness of your plight, and join me in laughing at your ridiculousness. You are all the more miserable because you fail to see your own plight.

I think it's sad that you would denegrate a family member like you just did. And what is wrong with working a minimum wage job or being "plain"? Are you better than them becuase you're highly paid and flavorful? Do you count more somehow?

To Cath, I should have said that democrats can not win if they are perceived to reject Christian values. I'm not trying to lecture. But I believe that perception has solidified due, in part, to abortion being the driving issue on all judicial appointments. The republicans would love for this perception to remain.

This article and series of comments by all of you leaves me dumbstruck! But I think I can recover enough to record a few words.

God is just a role. I don't care if you are an atheist, with this definition, believe me, you too have a god. It's probably yourself. The role of God is to use his power to change a life for the better. That requires that the God be first able to know— for certain — what would be better. You think you have power to change not only your own lives for the better but those of others as well. You all would make miserable gods.

You people think you know what would be "better." You think you know what would be better for me. You think you know what would be better for whole countries, even though you don't know the people you are deciding for. You make me laugh. I think you are ignorant. Foolish. Opressive. Frightening. Anyone who spends even a few seconds in serious logical thought can see that, in fact, neither you nor I knows what would be "better" for any situation in this universe. We all just guess....so, how is your ability to guess the future, guess at outcomes for everything from global warming to social justice, whatever you think that means, better than a person who believes that an all powerful entity that created our universe sees us all, calculates the best for us whether we trust he's there or not? You are as arrogant, misguided, and intellectually poor as the people who have faith that you insult.

i continue to laugh out loud. You have zero answers which is exactly the same number of answers of those you persecute and discriminate against. You should all go look in the mirror and see the hopelessness of your plight, and join me in laughing at your ridiculousness. You are all the more miserable because you fail to see your own plight.

I just spoke with my Dad, and he said that watching Kerry's speach today, he could see why he lost. He was boring.
Its true that some of the Republican base is Christian conservatives, and that re-framing our issues could help us get some votes there, I think there is some merit to that idea, but I think alot of people who are not particularly religous voted for Bush because he was more "likeable" more of a regular guy. That was part of Reagan's appeal too.
In 1992 Clinton was more likeable that Bush the first, in 1996 he was more likeable than Dole. That I think is an important key to winning elections.

Nice piece.

(Would rethink the Edwards recommendation -- K/E ran no better in NC than G/L did.)

Nice piece.

(Would rethink your Edwards recommendation. K/E ran no better in NC than G/L did.)

The poet in me rejoices. I have been reborn through this defeat.

We cannot build electoral success on anger. You're dead on, LC. Dead on. And I am overjoyed that this election has brought in you a new understanding of what can make us strong.

Tears fall from my eyes. We are stronger, you and I. We have the courage to despair and yet to love.

Liz,

So you know that not attempting to know what is better for people is better for people.

Congratulations!

I believe that you are right about why we lost, and I think that the reason more of the media doesn't address this issue is because they are afraid to take on religion. I have been saying for months, if not years, that Bush brings religion into politics far too much, but the mainstream media never has seemed to report on it until now. The only person I saw comment on it was Bill Maher.
But if the democratic party panders to the religious right to win the next election, it will have lost me as a voter. I will vote libertarian before I will vote for religion in politics.
I am a cultural Jew and the values of the conservative Christian movement do not represent me or my vision of this country. Religion should be a personal issue, not a political one. It sickens me that the Republican party uses religion and fake morality as tools to garner votes.
It is dead wrong that 11 out of 11 states voted to ban gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a political issue. It is a religious issue. It should not be allowed to come to a vote any more than people should vote on whether black and white people can intermarry.
Honestly, I am disgusted with this country. People called John Kerry a flip flopper and said that he wasn't up front about his beliefs. But if he had come out and said--hey--I am personally pro-choice and I don't think gay marriage is wrong, he never would have gotten the votes that he did. So he had to fudge his beliefs for the bigots and fanatics and the rest of the US had to try to see through the smokescreen to what he really meant.
The problem is not the democratic party. The problem is the large part of America that votes on faith and not reason. Why do we want to surrender to that? Haven't we comprised our beliefs enough? Maybe there's a certain value in sticking by our beliefs, even if it means losing. Would we try to sway Nazis because they were influential?

SEX and Control:Hate to tell the one who said abortion was about murder and not about women-- you're full of it. It is about sex and punishment. Men want sex and their religion makes them feel too much guilt to admit it so they project their shame by punishing women. Women must be punished for having sex. They must bear the child and be hog tied for life economically etc by their 'burden'. And the real aim is to abolish all birth control as it is "murder" too. Women have too much control over their lives. While we are at it lets get rid of social security so women have to take care of all disabled and elderly. Can't have gays having sex and control over their lives either. this is basic sexual politics folks.

Cath,
"After all upper class Republicans will never lose their child to a draft or a botched abortion - that's what money does for you"
A botched abortion? does the kid live?
How many people have died giving birth, should C sections be manditory. How about this Kerry, always a. complained about bush, B. Kept saying he had a plan, yet never gave details to back it up.
After saying, he was for, against, for again, the war, he then stated he would have "probably" gone and sent the troops in too. But done everything else differently. and won
That may make sense to the ultra-educated, but most us common folk have stepped in things that smelled like that.

Terrific analysis. One thing is clear, both parties offered up their agendas for debate and the American public picked Bush's values agenda. I believe by offering a reality based agenda without engaging the Bushie's values agenda the Democrats hurt their chances quite seriously. My god, these people voted against their own economic interests to vote "values". Because the Dems failed to challenge the "values" consistently espoused by the right the conservatives now own the terms "family", "right to life", "marriage", "tax relief","war on terror", etc. Bush's victory speech was a classic indication of this. In it he said nothing, and he said everything. He would just mention these words and the crowd would go ape-shit. It is because the Repubs have been using these words in a consistent way since the Reagan years, year after year, framing them in a particular way so they become buzzwords until finally Bush just has to mention them to get a positive reaction. (George Lakoff's works on framing and value systems are quite instructive here.)
So, like it or not, these are going to be the terms of the debate in our society for at least four more years. They won, they have control and that's a reality we need to face. I propose that we face it squarely, challenge the terms themselves. For example, "right to life" -- why does that mean just unborn fetuses? Why doesn't it apply to the nearly fifty thousand innocent men, women and children killed in Iraq by our military might? How does this reflect Christian values exactly? I swear if we had gone into churches and challenged these people's understanding of Christianity I think we would have gotten further. When I was a young civil rights worker in red cracker Georgia in '65 we directly confronted a community of "good white Christians" with the realities of racism and discrimination. We challenged their personal relationship with Jesus and let it be known that if their values were just stated, but not acted upon consistently in the world, they were simply bogus. We must do the same with the current conservative majority. We must get back in the debate about morals and values even it is around the buzzwords mouthed daily by George Bush. He does not own these values, nor morality, nor patriotism. It's going to be a challenge. We must take it on.

"I cordially spoke with a number of my well educated, professional Ohio friends -- all of whom said that of course they were voting for Kerry. Then I decided to call a shirt-tail relative well down a distant branch of my family tree blah, blah, blah" Larre

Here at work us professionals in the Medical Industry with our Phd's were curious where Kerry was getting his support from being none of us who are well educated are definately voting for Bush.
I decided to give an old friend of mine a call who was committed a couple years ago. Eventually i got around to asking him who he would be voting for. He excitingly replied "Kerry, They're coming to pick us up in a bus and told us to vote Kerry. If we do that we get a free pass to the zoo and free peanuts. Oh boy, I can't wait!!."

Larre..I think my BS story is better then yours. I used crazy people...Whaddaya think?
Chevy

I am a non-religious Jew whose family borders on pathological hatred of religion. Yet, from an intellectual standpoint, I've come to appreciate what religion has done for progressive thought in American history. As a Ph.D. student in US History
Elroc

You Elroc, find another line of study. You stink at this one. Jew is NOT a race, it's a religion.
There is no such thing as a Jewish race as there is no Christian race. It is impossible to claim yourself to be a "non-religious Jew" and you DEMS think us republicans are stupid...LOLOLOL.
Chevy

I am a non-religious Jew, As a Ph.D. student in US History" Elroc

non-religious Jew?? OK I'M A non-religious Christian. (Jew - Any person whose religion is Judaism. )Elroc, save yourself man, find another line of study. You stink at this one. It is impossible to take the position your a non-religious Jew. LOLOLOL and these DEMS think us redneck beer slugging, women plowing republicans are dumb!!
Chevy

This is one strange board, said my 1st post didn't go thru, server error. So i reposted it and now there's two of them.

i continue to laugh out loud. You have zero answers which is exactly the same number of answers of those you persecute and discriminate against. You should all go look in the mirror and see the hopelessness of your plight, and join me in laughing at your ridiculousness. You are all the more miserable because you fail to see your own plight".

Great Post Liz, I read it all.
Chevy