"The religious right can be confident that they'd have a fundamentalist in the White House with Sarah Palin."

Don't forget "liar" and "loon."
A political trifecta.

The structure of her understanding of life is no different from a Muslim fundamentalist."

No wonder the Religious right hates Muslims. They hate the competition.

Larry

it is ok to be a fundamentalist anything and be a local official. But at the national level one's allegiance must be to support and defend the constitution, and many fundies put their beliefs above the very open to the broad range of creeds US Constitution. And if they prefer to interpret laws from their lens first then we see the cConstitution erode away.

But then -- GWB says that the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" and he (with his VP) has done more to transform the Constitution than anyone in history.

With her vice presidential nomination, Sarah Palin has become the ultimate religious-right success story. Ever since the Christian Coalition was formed using the infrastructure of Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential run, the movement has focused on building power from the ground up, turning conservative churches into little political machines. "I would rather have a thousand school board members than one president and no school board members," Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed said in 1996. Palin, who got her start in a local church-backed political struggle, is very much the product of Reed's strategy.

Just yesterday's pastors in 30 states preached to parishoners about voting for McCain in an attempt to challenge tax codes that say churches, as nonprofit agencies, can't endorse political candidates. Coincidence? I think not.

"turning conservative churches into little political machines"

So why are they still tax-exempt?

Just yesterday's pastors in 30 states preached to parishoners about voting for McCain in an attempt to challenge tax codes that say churches, as nonprofit agencies, can't endorse political candidates. Coincidence? I think not.

Is that any different than AARP endorsing policy-friendly candidates yet maintaining their tax-exempt status?

Coincidence? I think not.

Is that any different than AARP endorsing policy-friendly candidates yet maintaining their tax-exempt status?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes its different. Too bad for you, and the rest of us, that you won't see that.

"Yes its different. Too bad for you, and the rest of us, that you won't see that."

Yeah, big difference....AARP is liberal so it's OK. Don't you see that, Jeff?

AARP is liberal so it's OK.
#8 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I guess if that's the logic that lets you get to sleep at night....

Yes its different. Too bad for you, and the rest of us, that you won't see that.

How is it different, HC?

I am genuinely curious.

I guess if that's the logic that lets you get to sleep at night....

The logic is clear.

We have 2 tax-exempt groups entering the political fray via endorsements, and Yes, lobbying.

Please expound on how you perceive the difference.

"Please expound on how you perceive the difference."

Pssst,Jeff....it's called a "double standard." Our little leftist-socialist friends are veritable experts in applying them.

Jest,

I agree.

However, Hagbard is one of the more reasonable individuals on this blog. I am curious to hear his answer to my question.

Hagbard is one of the more reasonable individuals on this blog.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

Bait me with a compliment? Okay.

It's got to do with the AARP not making the case that God has a chosen candidate in mind. In that sense, church endoresements are coercive in a way that the AARP endorsements are not.

I still think McCain sucks worse than Obama. But Obama sucks too (95% suckitude v 89.5% suckitude IMO).

Neither will get my vote.

It's got to do with the AARP not making the case that God has a chosen candidate in mind. In that sense, church endoresements are coercive in a way that the AARP endorsements are not.

I disagree.

AARP has similar sway among its members that Churches enjoy. On the 1 hand churches employ 'their interpretation of scripture' on the other AARP employs 'their interpretation of the best interests of seniors'.

Hag,

I still think McCain sucks worse than Obama. But Obama sucks too (95% suckitude v 89.5% suckitude IMO).

Neither will get my vote.

I've seen plenty of conservatives make a similar proclamation - 'neither candidate will get my vote.'

However, you are the first liberal I've encountered who's expressed the same sentiment.

Interesting.

AARP has similar sway among its members that Churches enjoy.

AARP has never threatened me with eternal damnation if I didn't vote the way they wanted me to.

AARP has never threatened me with eternal damnation if I didn't vote the way they wanted me to.

AARP has never been forceful regarding their advocacies?

How about the ACLU?

PETA?

Gloabal climate change alarmists?

However, you are the first liberal I've encountered who's expressed the same sentiment.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ

Two reasons.

First, like I said earlier, the differences between the two candidates, using my calculus, are negligible. i.e. Obama is nowhere near a liberal and thumbs his nose at them more than he does conservatives.

Second, I believe that its better to vote for something than against something. Bloggers here keep saying that McCain will be worse than Obama. While I agree that is marginally true (at least Obama can reach back and wipe his own ass... I think), that's a horribly low bar to set for who deserves your vote.

Its that kind of low standard that keeps us stuck with these two corporate parties and their stranglehold on the American people.

I think its better to vote your values and lose than to make the devil's bargain and be betrayed in the end.

"AARP has never threatened me with eternal damnation if I didn't vote the way they wanted me to."

A non-profit is a non-profit REGARDLESS of who threatened whatever. Is that a difficult concept for you?

BTW, you believe that fear mongering of the AARP about the future of your body is on an equal level with the churches fear mongering about the future of your eternal soul?

I don't even know what to think about that.

"...the differences between the two candidates, using my calculus, are negligible. "

Are you using Vernon's calculator?

I don't know how anyone can make that statement, just looking at the tax code and the Supreme Court.

BTW, you believe that fear mongering of the AARP about the future of your body is on an equal level with the churches fear mongering about the future of your eternal soul?

I don't even know what to think about that.

Both groups have similar influence upon their members.

What's the difference between the threat of suffering universal damnation for one advocacy vs. suffering a life of destitution during one's golden years as a result of another advocacy?

Second, I believe that its better to vote for something than against something. Bloggers here keep saying that McCain will be worse than Obama. While I agree that is marginally true (at least Obama can reach back and wipe his own ass... I think), that's a horribly low bar to set for who deserves your vote.

Its that kind of low standard that keeps us stuck with these two corporate parties and their stranglehold on the American people.

I think its better to vote your values and lose than to make the devil's bargain and be betrayed in the end.

Cool with that. You're a 3rd party voter then, which is cool. Personally, I am very pragmatic voter. I vote for whichever viable candidate best supports my views.

Are you using Vernon's calculator?

It is now Donnerboy's calculator.

Not only was the error more egregious, Donner lamely attempts to defend it. At least Vern owned up to his error.

Are you using Vernon's calculator?

DANFORTH

Now that he's moved to Taiwan (because he couldn't find a decent job here) Vern is using an abacus.

"Now that he's moved to Taiwan (because he couldn't find a decent job here) Vern is using an abacus."

The abacus, combined with those Chinese Happy Balls and the kow-tow exercises are probably doing the old duffer some good.

There's another major difference between AARP and a preacher using his pulpit to announce favor for a candidate.

AARP long ago established branches of the organization that perform political consultancy, supported candidates and the orgs. preference for them comes from that side of the house.

Any church that wanted to do so could establish the same sort of thing. Absent that, a preacher pushing that message from the pulpit has every reason to expect a big tax bill next year.

I don't know how anyone can make that statement, just looking at the tax code and the Supreme Court.

#22 | Posted by Danforth

You don't want to know how, I think.

If you believe and Agree with Obama when he says he's going to give a tax cut to the middle class, where do you think that's going to come from?

Ever hear him mention the "Peace Dividend"?

There can be no peace dividend when the wars we are currently fighting are done on borrowed money. Any tax rebate we get today will be at the expense of our children and grandchildren tomorrow since it will be done with the same borrowed money.

And as far as the supreme court is concerned, democrats are as responsible for the current bench as republicans at this point. They bend over backwards allowing themselves to be lied to in order for the president and the rest of the GOP not to label them as obstructionist, while they go along and confirm some of the more conservative justices the court has seen in generations.

Using the threat of future nominations is fear mongering as despicable as that which democrats accuse the GOP of playing.

"If you believe and Agree with Obama when he says he's going to give a tax cut to the middle class, where do you think that's going to come from?"

I don't agree with tax cuts for ANYONE while we're running the largest deficits known to man.

"And as far as the supreme court is concerned, democrats are as responsible for the current bench as republicans at this point."

Republicans placed 7 of the 9, iirc.

"Using the threat of future nominations is fear mongering as despicable as that which democrats accuse the GOP of playing."

It's not fear-mongering if it's the truth. Quite simply, if McCain is elected, Roe is toast. Scalia has actively been trying to overturn it for years and years; one more favorable justice and it'll be undone within the first term.

"Quite simply, if McCain is elected, Roe is toast."

so you're advocating voting based on one issue?

I thought only republicans did that?

"so you're advocating voting based on one issue?"

It's more than the one issue; it's the thrust of the law for a generation.

"I thought only republicans did that"

I'm a lifelong Independent.

My final paragraph from a lecture last week on The Elections, the ACLU and You:

"And so, even if freedom itself hangs in the balance, ACLU does not endorse people. The Supreme Court's Fascist Four are solidly entrenched against our constitution. Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will NEVER oppose torture, limit guns or allow counsel for captured people. With four court moderates, the country is REALLY run by Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in 5-4 decisions. Under the next president that balance of power can shift. Four more years of the Bush party, maybe executed by The Alaska Airhead, and dictatorial darkness would fall over the land. A Change We Can Believe In just might restore balance. Must I name names? herm