Oh boy: Tony Perkins calls on social cons to stop donating to the RNC

posted at 7:56 pm on March 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

In theory, this isn’t a problem — the money that would have gone to the RNC will go to the NRSC or NRCC or individual candidates — but let’s be realistic. Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

Turns out that “Voyeur” reimbursement is the most expensive bar tab evah:

This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support.

Earlier this month the RNC made a big deal about hiring “renowned Supreme Court lawyer” Ted Olson to represent the RNC in a campaign finance case that is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California. The outcome of Olson’s challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I’ve hinted at this before, but now I am saying it–don’t give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom!

Follow the link and check out the graphic. This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer, but Perkins clearly was looking for an excuse to flex some muscle. He’s unhappy that social con money is being funneled by the RNC to people who aren’t, shall we say, robustly socially conservative themselves, so he’s going to try to nudge the GOP to the right on social issues by limiting his base’s dollars to only like-minded Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, but two can play at that game — and should. If you’re of a more libertarian bent, why not skip the GOP groups and give directly to like-minded candidates yourself? And if it turns out that some socially conservative candidate is in trouble in the fall and needs a cash influx, and the RNC simply doesn’t have the money — too bad, so sad. We could potentially lose winnable seats this way, but obviously Perkins isn’t worried about that. Why should you?

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for major party committees, at least as far as the base is concerned. They’re a useful tool for people who don’t have the time or inclination to research individual candidates, but for grassroots conservatives, that’s not a problem. The Internet is a wonderful thing; avail yourself of it!

Update: More Perkins heart-ache: Pete Sessions once held a fundraiser at a burlesque club or something.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

How To Miss A Slam Dunk —-by Tony Perkins.

alternate title:

Damn, I’m Stupid

Don’t slam the door on your own fingers, dumbass.

hillbillyjim on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Just because someone claims to be fiscally conservative and is liberal on social issues is NOT a conservative.

Who’s side are you on?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

I second that. This is a moderate or liberal who is afraid to call themself liberal. They are fiscally conservative with their own money but want the government to forcibly take everyone elses money to pay for social programs and guilt.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Who’s side are you on?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Liberty’s

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

I, for one, say it all the time.

Of course, it is usually in response to those who say “Screw the libertarians”, so…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Private industry won’t allocate scarce resources to their most efficient needs the way the federal government will.

So much for the conservative argument.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Exactly. Much harm has come to the party under the guise of morals and religion. I just doesn’t mix well in politics.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

The Republican party left the conservatives (like Reagan) long ago. Has nothing to do with morals and religion, if anything the country can use more of them. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states while not being a “McCain” because Reagan was a true Conservative.

Politics is a religion to some. Those followers put their political religion ahead of the nation.

Social and Religious Conservatives Love their Nation.

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:39 PM

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. The Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws. I know we don’t agree on the particulars when it comes to ethics and morals but that it is because too many people do not want to abide by or be constrained a set of standards, like the libertarians. We can, should and must expect everyone to share the same framework otherwise there is nothing but anarchy.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Not quite true. We need to share the same legal framework, but we don’t need (nor should we be required) to share the same morality. For example, christians and Jews believe homosexuality and premarital sex are sins. Yet, they are not illegal in the law. Also, not all chrisitan demonintions have the same ethical framework- compare the ethics of catholicism and unitarianism. Laws are derived (for better or for worse) through different frameworks. There is great debate over relativism and absolutism.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Not sure about that. I think if people start donating to individual candidates, you’ll see a handful of grassroots darlings — Rubio, DeMint, etc — shoot way up in terms of fundraising, but other lesser-known pols will starve. The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

This is the crux of the problem….RIGHT HERE.
The tea party movement is very good about using the internet, their local parties to highlight worthy candidates.
If I CHOOSE to suppport a candidate, I still have a right to do so, by donating to THAT candidate.
BUT, as we saw with NY-23 and Scuzzafava and now, with FL Governor Crist, we want to make sure that our hard earned money goes to the candidate WE want, NOT whom the establishment wants!

HornetSting on March 31, 2010 at 8:40 PM

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I don’t support creating special rights due to a small percentage of our human population demanding them based upon sexual proclivities deemed abnormal (out of the range of normal as to human behaviors) to many of us.

It does come down to government, more than you are avoiding looking at. Inspired by religious values, yes, but it’s not a case of “some people” “forcing” their religion on others, it’s really a case of common sense use or abuse of government. Creating special rights for some (especially as to what’s being demanded) is generally an ABNORMALITY of use of government, to my way of thinking.

Everyone has the right to marry. Already.

Lourdes on March 31, 2010 at 8:40 PM

I second that. This is a moderate or liberal who is afraid to call themself liberal. They are fiscally conservative with their own money but want the government to forcibly take everyone elses money to pay for social programs and guilt.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

LOL!

So now because I err on the side of liberty no matter my personal feelings I want a social welfare state? I think its ludicrous to even defend my beliefs. However I wrote this elsewhere in defense of my beliefs so I might as well reuse it here:

I do however think government needs to be limited in its reach. Namely we need a defense against foreign enemies, a diplomatic wing to negotiate with foreign allies and enemies alike, a judiciary so we can adjudicate our disputes, and a treasury so we can maintain our money and collect taxes to fund the other functions. Other than that the federal government should pretty much stay away save establishing quarantines for disease outbreak, caring for orphaned children (to an extent), and providing aid and direction in the wake of disasters, natural or otherwise. Anything else just interferes with our liberty and prevents us from truly being free.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Don’t mess with the Jesus.

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Or…?

SouthernGent on March 31, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Just because someone claims to be fiscally conservative and is liberal on social issues is NOT a conservative.

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

REALLY?

So let’s see…. I want low taxes, I want less regulation, I vehemently oppose ObamaCare, I want the border sealed, I am an NRA member. But I think a woman should have the right to an abortion and I couldn’t care less what two men do together in their bedroom.

Guess that makes me and Keith Olbermann indistinguishable huh?

Give me a freaking break dude.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

the GOP is becoming the Libertarian Party sans dope-smoking.
It is better for so-cons to donate to so-con candidates or PACs.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

So true, so true.

Another thing – to anyone, not specifically you – is that for all the rants Libertarians make about what they “believe” and how government should model itself upon those beliefs, why are they generally the most intolerant about the “beliefs” of us “SoCons”?

Just asking.

Lourdes on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Armageddon

OMG are you kidding me – just when you woke up your sleeping majority?

Me thinks this is left moving in for the kill from a weak position.

Most people I know are bypassing the RNC anyway, DIRECT TO CANDIDATE OF CHOICE, not party.

Armageddon…is in November….

Don’t let them McCain you again.

seesalrun on March 31, 2010 at 8:44 PM

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:35 PM

The only reason we think it is wrong to kill is because we believe in God and He has told us that it is wrong to kill. The athiest, communists, Muslims and other religions that do not believe in the same God as the one Judeo-Christian religions believe in, believe it is ok or even commanded that they kill.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Ok, I’m socially pretty danged liberal – and although I consider myself ‘independent’ because I’ve never formally registered with a party affiliation, but have voted ‘R’ in every general election in my adult life – so am I ‘shooting myself in the foot’ as some put it for wanting an ineffective bozo who’s allowed the national ‘leadership’ group of the party that I’ll probably end up defaulting my vote to on fiscal responsibility grounds to get to the point they’re pulling galactically boneheaded stunts like using donated funds to pay for antics at a place that’s guran-damned-tee’d to alienate at least half of the organizational base of the party, in spite of the fact that I, personally, find the whole Voyuer concept to be. . .interesting, at least?

I don’t think so – because it isn’t about the strip club, it’s about the appearance of being Dem-lites, apparently spending like drunken sailors with 6 months of sea paychecks in their pockets their first night back in port, all the while trying to ‘sell’ the message that they’re going to step up and play the fiscal grown-ups on TV. The sheer hypocrisy is absolutely staggering!

And the guidance and vibe of an organization comes from the leader at the helm – and as THIS is apparently where Mr. Steele has ‘led’ the organization, then the organization needs a new leader.

One that doesn’t just talk the talk, but walks the walk – instead of ‘flying the fly’ back from a Hawaiian boondoggle while his underlings are getting a bit freaky with the boys from the fat wallet club.

Pardon me for turning the steaming turd back around at the ‘my party right or wrong’ nerfwaffles, but hey, you guys insist on dressing in the cheerleader outfits and shaking the pom-poms while the team gets ready to have it AZZ handed to it because the coaching skills SUCK, which is apparent to those that have been paying attention to the pre-season wins due to LOCAL talent. . .don’t EVEN try blaming the rest of us for insisting that it’s past time for Steinbrenner to let Martin or Pinella explore their options elsewhere, so that somebody EFFECTIVE can take over, and do WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Which is to PUT TOGETHER AN EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION TO WIN THIS FALL.

Keep your eyes on the prize, kids.

Wind Rider on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Oh boy: Tony Perkins calls on social cons to stop donating to the RNC

Which was the entire point of this …

Get over it. Ken Blackwell lost. Michael Steele won. We are too close to Nov to be jackin’ around with this internal struggle for control of the Party by the social con fraction.

Texas Gal on March 31, 2010 at 8:47 PM

:-D

Keep following the socons/bolsheviks down that road of absolutism in government…see where it takes you.

ernesto on March 31, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Shit, people, this isn’t that hard. Now is the time for all of us on the right to coalesce around the core issues that we can all agree upon. Let’s get November behind us with a big-assed win, and then we can start sorting out the details.

If we don’t, we all lose. Period.

Think about the consequences if the current trajectory isn’t altered before you pontificate about your personal pet issue(s). There is a time for infighting for this or for that. Now is not that time.

hillbillyjim on March 31, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Sporty, remember America is not a theocracy. Repeat several times until it sinks in.

I’m a catholic and somewhat religious, but I do not want a government based on religion- I, like our forefathers, want that kept separate in order to avoid tyranny and oppression.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:49 PM

More Perkins heart-ache: Pete Sessions once held a fundraiser at a burlesque club or something.

Ok, Mr. I’m Righteous Because At Least I Don’t Say Anyone’s Private Moral Standards Are Wrong (Except Those Child-raping Catholics), please tell me why you are calling for those hostile to Perkin’s position to break from him and cause the vaunted RNC to suffer in the process.

I thought your position was one of pragmatism.

Or maybe you have an axe to grind the same as Perkins. Hmmm….

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:50 PM

I’ve hinted at this before, but now I am saying it–don’t give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values.

I’m already there, Tony, but it has nothing to do with social conservatism. I don’t trust the RNC as far as – well, anything.

disa on March 31, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Don’t let them McCain you again.

seesalrun on March 31, 2010 at 8:44 PM

This!

HornetSting on March 31, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Oh, now you’ve done it… he’ll go and call your uncle a redneck or claim you like going to biker bars!

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:33 PM

The blatant hypocrisy of the socons on this thread acting like ‘arrogant liberals’ is comment enough.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Keep following the socons/bolsheviks down that road of absolutism in government…see where it takes you.

ernesto on March 31, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Like the socialists/communists?

HornetSting on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Are you serious? How about prohibition back in the day? How about pornography? How about drugs? How about anything that might not be suitable for “the children”?

The social cons would be in your house telling you what to do JUST like the liberals are in there telling you what to do. Its just that the social cons would be regulating your social actions while liberals want to regulate your financial actions.

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

I don’t consider myself a social conservative, but for any of you that do consider yourself so-cons, I’m sorry for the commenters that just can’t help but put down your good intentions.

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Keep following the socons/bolsheviks down that road of absolutism in government…see where it takes you.

ernesto on March 31, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Hear, hear!!

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 8:53 PM

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

You said what I was unable to!! Awesome articulation.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:53 PM

The blatant hypocrisy of the socons on this thread acting like ‘arrogant liberals’ is comment enough.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Oh. OK.

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Oh, I didn’t realize that you are a lunatic. I wouldn’t have responded to you like you are deserving of recognition as a human being of average intelligence if I would have read this post of yours.

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Lourdes on March 31, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Its not a “special right.” Its exclusion from a universal right. In a legal sense there is no distinction between race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, disability, etc. They are all protected classes. We do not forbid, for example, allowing an African American and Asian from civic marriage which is in essence just a contract. They could be into all sorts of freaky deaky sex but it wouldn’t effect their marital status one but. Since gender is, in a legal sense, indistinguishable from these other classes how do we have any other choice but to allow for gay marriage? By disallowing the government is deeming it an “abnormality” where the government should remain neutral. What if we made laws disallowing Scientologists from participating in certain functions of civic life because we deemed them to be “abnormal?” I don’t think you’d argue its right there.

Now this is all contingent of course on the government even being in the marriage business. If I had my way we’d wipe “marriage” from the government all together. But if we are to have marriage we must allow for any two people to marry no matter how “abnormal” their proclivities are.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Give me a freaking break dude.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

They never will.

Unless you ‘see the light’ and agree to be Just Like Them, you’re little better than a flaming liberal. If people were computers, they would have a 1980′s B&W video card in a world of 32-bit color and HDTV.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:55 PM

REALLY?

Yeah Really!

So let’s see…. I want low taxes, I want less regulation, I vehemently oppose ObamaCare, I want the border sealed, I am an NRA member. But I think a woman should have the right to an abortion and I couldn’t care less what two men do together in their bedroom.

Guess that makes me and Keith Olbermann indistinguishable huh?

Give me a freaking break dude.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Well I could care less what to homo’s do in their bedroom but since they have become militant in their beliefs and wish to force upon the rest of society to forcefully accept their behavior as normal I have a problem with. They just couldn’t leave it in the bed room and now have to show boat it to everyone. So, I draw the line and they are getting too close for comfort.

As far as abortion, if a woman really had a right to choose then how come she can’t submit her body to drugs? Abortion isn’t between two consenting people, one chooses the other to die. Lucky for you your mother chose life but not fair to those who their mothers choose convenience over life.

Conservative isn’t up for redefining. It has certain characteristics and if any of those conservative characteristics are not upheld then the person isn’t a conservative. Maybe libertarian?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Give me a freaking break dude.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

They never will.

Unless you ’see the light’ and agree to be Just Like Them, you’re little better than a flaming liberal. If people were computers, they would have a 1980’s B&W video card in a world of 32-bit color and HDTV.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:55 PM

How ironic…

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Well by all means, let’s just wait for the purest conservatives to put their name on the ballot even if it means we wait two or three election cycles because that’s the goal?

And in the meantime, let’ let Obama have four more years to screw around with our security and the economy because that pales in comparison to a pure conservative candidate.

Good plan. /dripping with sarcasm.

sherry on March 31, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Two grand? You don’t have to be naive skygod believer to be outraged on spending two grand at a bondage club. Actually the fact that the SoCons are outraged over this, at least in this instance, show how even an idiot can comprehend the problem.

The first principle is that the RNC should only be spending money on business, not pleasure. Even people that believe that folks who were a stone’s throw away from loincloths could do all kinds of magical stuff because some “witnesses” told them so, can comprehend this.

It would be great to see the RNC destroyed. You want states rights, kill the national organization. If we think centralization of legislation, nationalization of laws and industries is a bad thing because we want diverse states, why would we want are political party centralized? That’s how you get sh!tty Senators.

LevStrauss on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

What I do have a problem with however is the religious wanting their faith expressed through government. I want my politicians to oppose abortion because its wrong to kill, not because God or their pastor or whoever decreed it so. There must be a logically coherent argument for any form of public policy as said policy affects citizens of all creeds. This is why I cannot oppose gay marriage because even though I may be weirded out personally by homosexual behavior there is no logically coherent argument against disallowing gays from marrying in the civic sense. Our consciences must be aligned with reason; not some gut feeling that we ascribe to any number of metaphysical entities.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I suspect residual Catholic guilt is clouding your views not that I can convice you otherwise, I’ll give it a go.

I don’t care what “faith” a politician has be it Roman Catholic, Druid, Mormon, or Wiccan but whatever faith they claim they need to be consistent with the tenets of that faith. It’s an integrity issue. How can you be a pro-murder Catholic? Their faith is secondary to their positions on the issues but a red flag is raised when a politician consistently votes for stuff that their declared faith condemns. If they are truly faithful, they would not be morally able to keep on voting the way they did. Paul Wellstone was a nasty avowed commmunist but he was consistent in that so I respect him far more than “pro-life” advocates like Bart Stupak that made abortion an issue until he got paid off (killing of babies be damned so long as he gets millions for his district).

As to same-sex marriage, it isn’t the first order events that matter but the way that such decisions fundamentally change society. If it were just about civil unions and protections under the law for these relationships, it would be one thing (all of which is perfectly possible now). It is about normalizing same-sex relationships with all that comes with it. For example, one of our hosts at HA is an advocate of repealing DADT and letting homosexuals serve openly in the military. He has never served and as a aging diabetic never will. He doesn’t understand that to lift DADT is more than letting a gay soldier serve his/her/questioning/whatever country. The next attack is on forcing the DOD to provide full benefits to same-sex realationships blessed by the civil authorities in a handful of states. It destroys the whole DOMA from within by using the DOD as a conduit.

You say “our consciences must be aligned with reason.” I say our consciences must be aligned with our values (which includes faith). If a politician truly believes in the values of the tenets of Judeo-Christian faith- there is no way that much of what we see in society would even be an issue.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Sporty, remember America is not a theocracy. Repeat several times until it sinks in.

I’m a catholic and somewhat religious, but I do not want a government based on religion- I, like our forefathers, want that kept separate in order to avoid tyranny and oppression.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:49 PM

There is no such thing as religious indifference. There is only religious tolerance, and tolerance is predicated on some set of religious standards by which variance from it can be tolerated.

For what set of rigidly imposed standards are you advocating (for if there are to be standards they must be imposed by law)? Secular humanism? Catholicism? Protestant?

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Is the right to abortion to be publicly funded? Does that right include forcing doctors, who object, to perform abortions?

You are correct about gays, in only they would keep in the bedroom – who cares and who would know. However, they want to shove it in our faces and try to tell our children that it is ok to be gay/lesbian/bisexual and they trying to teach them at younger and younger ages.

I think you CAN be socially liberal as long as you don’t promote those views for government enforcement.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

The athiest, communists, Muslims and other religions that do not believe in the same God as the one Judeo-Christian religions believe in, believe it is ok or even commanded that they kill.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Prime example of why Christians get crap tossed their way.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

How ironic…

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Facts can be that way.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

I think social cons would be very powerful if they would do things like this, denying funds to politicians who disagree with them. Its when they try and push their ideas on social issues onto other people that they absolutely lose me. I don’t care if YOU choose not to get an abortion, or if YOU choose not to take drugs, or if YOU decide to live a clean life away from drugs and alcohol, but keep YOUR values to yourself and your family. I don’t want a social con telling me that abortions should be illegal, just like I don’t like liberals telling me that I should be paying for other people to have an abortion.

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Two grand? You don’t have to be naive skygod believer to be outraged on spending two grand at a bondage club.

LevStrauss on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

You’re outraged over a few stories and some chatter about the matter. Who’s worse?

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

The only reason we think it is wrong to kill is because we believe in God and He has told us that it is wrong to kill. The athiest, communists, Muslims and other religions that do not believe in the same God as the one Judeo-Christian religions believe in, believe it is ok or even commanded that they kill.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

I’m not even sure you’re intending to be serious any more, but I’ll play dumb for now.

It is 100% absurd to think murder has been deemed wrong only as a result of Christianity. People have arrived at the conclusion that murder is wrong from an innumerable number of other avenues. And the reason it is wrong in the civic sense is because murder is the ultimate affront to another’s liberty, which seems like it should be exceedingly obvious but I guess it isn’t.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Prime example of why Christians get crap tossed their way.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Prime example of why they should expect it before they say a word.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Like the socialists/communists?

HornetSting on March 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM

If only! That road apparently leads right to the White House.

Lehosh on March 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Your comparing apples to oranges. Comparing homosexual behavior to a person’s skin color is ludicrous. For one, a person is NOT born gay, I know because I use to be a homosexual but have left that life style. Second, your comparing behavior to skin color which isn’t logical at all. the Homosexuals have created a political class out of their issue by trying to piggy back on the civil rights movement. So, they are trying to manipulate people into believing this is the civil rights all over again.

As far as government getting in the marriage business they should. Why? Because if they don’t the un-elected courts will decide for us. So the we need to set the record straight once for all.

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Prime example of why Christians get crap tossed their way.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Which part of that statement is not true? Or are you just trying to be obtuse?

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:03 PM

For what set of rigidly imposed standards are you advocating (for if there are to be standards they must be imposed by law)? Secular humanism? Catholicism? Protestant?

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Huh? I’m not advocating at all for “a set of rigidly imposed standards”- the person to whom I was responding was. Our laws are not based on one set of standards. If they were a great many acts we enjoy would be illegal. In fact, we have un-done some old laws based on christianity: blue laws, adultery, sodomy (in some states) etc. Why? because they violate individual liberty. You don’t have to practice those acts, but you cannot bar another citizen from doing so. Unless tyranny sounds good to you.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

I am wondering who he thinks “commands” atheists to murder people. He probably has a comic book vision of the universe where zombie Charles Darwin commands his atheist army of evolved monkey men to murder Christians in an effort to cleanse the human race in a new world holocaust.

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Well by all means, let’s just wait for the purest conservatives to put their name on the ballot even if it means we wait two or three election cycles because that’s the goal?

And in the meantime, let’ let Obama have four more years to screw around with our security and the economy because that pales in comparison to a pure conservative candidate.

Good plan. /dripping with sarcasm.

sherry on March 31, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Or the RNC could keep it in its pants and this never has to come up. But I guess that’s too much to ask for.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

UGH – now is not the time to be doing this crap. We have bigger fish to fry like Socialism, the Marxist in the White House, etc.

If we snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory this year – my head will explode.

gophergirl on March 31, 2010 at 9:05 PM

He probably has a comic book vision of the universe where zombie Charles Darwin commands his atheist army of evolved monkey men to murder Christians in an effort to cleanse the human race in a new world holocaust.

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

LOL! Had I the art skills, I would draw that comic.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Liberty’s

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Can you prove it?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 9:06 PM

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

I have no problem with religious politicians. But their decisions have to come from a place that applies to all their constituents. If a Catholic congressman opposes abortion because of his faith AND because its the ultimate affront to the liberty of the unborn child the I have no problem with that. Its when they say they’re public decisions are informed by their private religious convictions that I have a problem with it.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Can you prove it?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Can you prove otherwise?

And if you do try, remember that ‘not enshrining my religious beliefs in secular law’ isn’t proof.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:08 PM

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM

So marriage automatically equals having sex now? Why is the government in the business of letting us know who is boning who?

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:09 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM
——————————

canopfor, you were not cheating. You have a great memory, and you are a fast thinker!!! Thanks for staying on your toes.

mobydutch on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

mobydutch: Thanks MD:)

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:03 PM

The part where you state that members of other religions are told by their Religion that killing is okay or a duty. When you call everyone who doesn’t believe as you, evil, expect to get fair treatment.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:10 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM
—————————
Sorry, bro, but the Internets already in the mail.

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Christien:)

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Huh? I’m not advocating at all for “a set of rigidly imposed standards”- the person to whom I was responding was.

Yes you are. At the very least, you’re imposing the rigid set of standards that anyone should be able to worship as they wish. There are only a few religions in this world that are coherent with such a standard.

Our laws are not based on one set of standards.

That’s a single standard. You just undid your argument.

If they were a great many acts we enjoy would be illegal.

Really, there are no acts which are illegal under current law? How does that work?

In fact, we have un-done some old laws based on christianity: blue laws, adultery, sodomy (in some states) etc.

And that is good… why?

Why? because they violate individual liberty.

Ah…. that’s why. So much for your premise of a lack of religious standards.

You don’t have to practice those acts, but you cannot bar another citizen from doing so.

Otherwise you’ll call the national guard to bar me from doing so.

Unless tyranny sounds good to you.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Sounds good to you, why not?

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Its when they say they’re public decisions are informed by their private religious convictions that I have a problem with it.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

The only thing there is that even if a politician has NO religious beliefs, he/she still has to try and fairly represent the will of the people. That may mean supporting – or NOT supporting – certain laws/legal decisions that conflict with what the individual’s religious values.

But either one should make it very clear to one’s constituents that your religious values may override those of your constituent’s wishes, or don’t run for office in the first place.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:12 PM

thphilli on March 31, 2010 at 9:04 PM

I apologize for leaving the word atheist in that remark. The rest of comment is valid as Muslims are commanded by Allah to go and subjugate or kill all non-believers. The communists and Nazis, most of whom were and are atheists, believe it is ok to kill. Otherwise, well over 60 million people would not have died in the last century.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:13 PM

The solution to the problem is simple.

Fire Michael Steele.

uknowmorethanme on March 31, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Can you prove otherwise?

And if you do try, remember that ‘not enshrining my religious beliefs in secular law’ isn’t proof.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:08 PM

I think I wasn’t responding to you. But since you trampled the pearls like good swine here you go.

You can have all the laws you want but if you have no morals then what good are laws when we break them for sport. Hell, why have laws to begin with?

The Soviet union had laws but that didn’t keep some of their generals from secretly selling MIGs to the US through the black market…and they are a secular society.

Where do you get your BS from?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:12 PM

I don’t follow you at all!! Please read all of my posts from the beginning, then respond.

In addition, many of your statements don’t make any sense at all. For example:

At the very least, you’re imposing the rigid set of standards that anyone should be able to worship as they wish

Again, huh? Our Constitution ensures us all the right to worship as we wish, and how in the hell is that rigid? I think you need to read the Constitution, and I also think we need to compare definitions of “rigid.”

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:16 PM

You say “our consciences must be aligned with reason.” I say our consciences must be aligned with our values (which includes faith). If a politician truly believes in the values of the tenets of Judeo-Christian faith- there is no way that much of what we see in society would even be an issue.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Though not every matter of conscience needs to be enacted as legislation. Reasonable people of different faiths will have different values. Nations that can accommodate those differences while prioritizing national security, GDP growth, and public safety will outperform nations that have more narrow definitions of liberty.

dedalus on March 31, 2010 at 9:16 PM

The athiest, communists, Muslims and other religions that do not believe in the same God as the one Judeo-Christian religions believe in, believe it is ok or even commanded that they kill.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:45 PM

1. The Muslim God is the same as the Jewish God is the same as the Christian God. Learn it.

2. I say this as a Christian: Just because a faith does not advocate killing people in the name of God does not give said faith the right to push their social agenda through the power of law. Period.

uknowmorethanme on March 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Its when they say they’re public decisions are informed by their private religious convictions that I have a problem with it.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Is that not a private religious conviction you are expressing?

All law is by necessity informed by private religious conviction. The mean of a series of numbers cannot fall outside the bounds of those numbers.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:20 PM

You can have all the laws you want but if you have no morals then what good are laws when we break them for sport.

Try rewriting that with some logic and sentence structure.

Hell, why have laws to begin with?

Because anarchy (having no laws) really, really stinks. I really hope you’re just playing dumb on this one.

The Soviet union had laws but that didn’t keep some of their generals from secretly selling MIGs to the US through the black market…and they are a secular society.

Greed is a universal trait; news at 11.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Sporty, please read the Old Testament with regard to killing. Jews are still commanded to stone a woman to death for adultery. That, from what I understand, is killing. So, you cannot say that Muslims are the only ones commanded to kill. That’s ludicrous. Also, the muslim God, is the God of Jews and Abraham. You need some education in world religions my friend.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM

1. The Muslim God is the same as the Jewish God is the same as the Christian God. Learn it.

No, it is not. The two are vastly different. Allah is capricious, unbound by any definable nature and as untrustworthy as any Grecian deity. Learn it.

2. I say this as a Christian: Just because a faith does not advocate killing people in the name of God does not give said faith the right to push their social agenda through the power of law. Period.

Spoken like a true despot. Thanks.

uknowmorethanme on March 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Greed is a universal trait; news at 11.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:20 PM

So is religious conviction.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I’ll take care of my family, Tony, you can take care of yours. And I’ll treat you exactly the same as I do the Witnesses. With disdain and a polite “go away”. Until you don’t. Then I become less polite.

commander0 on March 31, 2010 at 9:24 PM

These comments are Exhibit A in explaining how someone as deeply flawed as Barack Obama came to be President.

SlimyBill on March 31, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Kudos to Tony Perkins! I haven’t given a red cent to the RNC, NRSC, or the NRCC since Olympia Snow and Susan Collins voted for the Porkulous – and since Ayatollah Cornyn reached his crooked hand down into an election in Florida that should have been rightfully decided by Republican voters in that state.

There’s a cancer in the RNC – and it needs to be cut off from food, water, and all means of sustenance. WE WILL “repeal and replace” the old GOP – from the inside out.

HondaV65 on March 31, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Are these the same social cons that let Al Gore’s coordinated leak of Bush’s DUI make them stay home and lose a percentage point of the vote? I think they need to look at the big picture. They would not suddenly care about this expense if it was just a generic entertainment item.

Speedwagon82 on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Great. Here we are on the eve of achieving a great flushing of leftist cancer from the body politic, and we’re back to arguing about the Bible and strict Judeo-Christian morality because some people went to strip bars.

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Just because a faith does not advocate killing people in the name of God does not give said faith the right to push their social agenda through the power of law. Period.

uknowmorethanme on March 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Where did laws come from? When did they start? Where do the oldest laws come from?

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Jews are still commanded to stone a woman to death for adultery.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I can’t remember, is that before or after Moses received the Ten Commandments.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

So is religious conviction.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Wrong; some people subscribe to no religion and still have values.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Greed is a universal trait; news at 11.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Robert Hanssen is a case in point. Christian, went to mass religiously, good family man, his wife taught religion, kids went to a Private Catholic school. Sold secrets to godless Atheists.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Great. Here we are on the eve of achieving a great flushing of leftist cancer from the body politic, and we’re back to arguing about the Bible and strict Judeo-Christian morality because some people went to strip bars.

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Un. Real.

SlimyBill on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 9:20 PM

All human beings can relate to reason as we are all agents of reason. All human beings cannot relate to Christianity because we are not all Christian. Get it?

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Sporty1

946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Let’s see now. . . it’s in the Old Testatament (the Torah actually) and therefore was given by God to Moses.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM

You know who this helps?

Y-not on March 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM

You know who this helps?

Y-not on March 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM

The Democrats.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 9:30 PM

If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values.

You don’t need to join the FRC to do that. That’s what the Tea Party is all about now anyway, isn’t it? It really bothers me that somehow people believe that if the RNC isn’t making as much money as the DNC then we’re doomed. Not if that money is being funneled directly to the Candidates. It happened in NY and it happened in MA. If we had start in NY earlier we would have pulled off what happened in MA. What happened in NY made a lot of believers that we could do this out there.

Sultry Beauty on March 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

You know who this helps?

Y-not on March 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Wherever I encounter Liberals, they try to tell me Conservatives are stupid.

Wherever I encounter Conservatives, they try to prove the Liberals right.

SlimyBill on March 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

WE WILL “repeal and replace” the old GOP – from the inside out.

While you’re on this crusade, the Democrats are running train on the country’s economy and your children’s inheritance. Nonstop.

Forest. Trees.

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Great. Here we are on the eve of achieving a great flushing of leftist cancer from the body politic, and we’re back to arguing about the Bible and strict Judeo-Christian morality because some people went to strip bars.

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Un. Real.

SlimyBill on March 31, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Or maybe…

Un. Precedented.

;)

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

All due respect, if we don’t make an earthshaking victory happen THIS November, there will likely be things enacted in the interim between then and the next national vote that will be next to impossible to reverse (as if this bogus Health Care Reformatorium isn’t enough).

If you are so single-minded as not to see the big picture, then your personal peeve is lost as well. Gimme a break.

N O V E M B E R.

Let’s do November the right way, and go from there.

hillbillyjim on March 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Let’s see now. . . it’s in the Old Testatament (the Torah actually) and therefore was given by God to Moses.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Still not clear. Were the Jews commanded to stone a woman to death for adultery before or after Moses received the Ten Commandments from God?

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Who cares? Social issues need to go on the backburner. We’re in a terrible economic state right now as a result of Leftist ideas.

RobbBond on March 31, 2010 at 9:34 PM

These comments are Exhibit A in explaining how someone as deeply flawed as Barack Obama came to be President.

SlimyBill on March 31, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Truer words never spoken. I choose not to believe that Obama and his minions have that much power to have instigated this schism in the republican party, but I’m fairly certain they are enjoying it. And if this b.s continues, let’s just settle in for 4 more years of Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

sherry on March 31, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Who cares? Social issues need to go on the backburner. We’re in a terrible economic state right now as a result of Leftist ideas.

RINO!!!11!

YOU WILL BE PURGED OR SOMETHING@!!!!

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:36 PM

LOL … Tony Perkins and the FRC aren’t beholden to the RNC or anyone else. Nothing Perkins says will have any resonance outside anyone who holds him and his organization in high regard.

If he has a problem with the way they spend money – he has a right to say it. If it helps Democrats? Too bad – maybe the RNC should have run a tighter ship and this wouldn’t have happened.

People seem to think that fiscal conservatives OWN the GOP and the socons are beholden to the fiscons.

Sorry – but it doesn’t work that way – pound the table all you want – or try to find a solution for your woes which will mean – yep, working with us for a change.

If the RNC wants his support – they can straighten up and fly right. If they don’t – they can keep flushing contributions into the toilet.

It really is that simple.

HondaV65 on March 31, 2010 at 9:37 PM

1. The Muslim God is the same as the Jewish God is the same as the Christian God. Learn it.

uknowmorethanme on March 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Not true.
The Jewish and Christian God are the same, but there’s nothing to suggest that Allah is this “God” also.
Islam is totally different than Christianity and Judaism.
Read and research your Bible and your Koran.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Still not clear. Were the Jews commanded to stone a woman to death for adultery before or after Moses received the Ten Commandments from God?

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:33 PM

What on earth does it matter? All of the laws were given to Moses, the 10 Commandments that you refer to are just 10 of the 613. Please read the first 5 books of the old testatment.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4