Would you approve of a Democratic candidate pandering to the religious...

[_Jumper_]

...right in a close election?

[mmonk]

1. no

[terrya]

No.

There would be too many strings attached to that support.

[Walt Starr]

2. Absolutely not

This is why I am opposed to Lieberman no matter what. He panders to the religious WRONG.

[soleft]

3. no way in f*cking hell

[Forkboy]

4. I smell a "gotcha" coming

[aldian159]

5. Christian Right Is Neither

Bumper sticker I saw on the way to the train this morning.

[Padraig18]

6. No. n/t

[mikehiggins]

7. No

Not even if it was possible, which it isn't.

YOu can be religious, and go to Church and offer up your first born child to Jesus and you won't make an impression on the Falwell's, Robertson's etc., of the world.

They are doing God's work, whether He knows it or not.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

9. The religious right turnout has tanked since 1994. Any theories?

I have a feeling that Republicans would like to make black and union turnout tank.

If you can figure out what has made religious right turnout tank, you could probably identify the methods right wingers will use to discourage minority and union turnout.

Obviously, the Contract on America was a high water mark for the religious right, and Gingrich's demise is part of the explanation. However, there must be more to it.

Could it be the internal inconsistencies in the political right's message? I mean, who is Rick Santorum to bitch out a Catholic priest and tell him that he knows more about religion and faith than a priest when the priest tells him that his policies are unchristian?

I know one way big business tries to change party affiliation for black voters. It tries to make the youngest generation of black voters reject their parent's and grandparent's generation, by encouraging a rejection of history and of the civil rights legacy, and it tries to replace history with a culture of consumption. It frames the options as consumption vs history -- you can't have both.

In white culture, there isn't this dichotomy. The Seventies Show, Happy Days, Grease, all repackage a nostalgic version of history which is resold to the youngest generation. With black culture, you have two choices for repackaging history -- you have the history of racism, which you're never going to repackage and sell to anyone who's black today, and you have the history of the civil rights struggle.

Spike Lee has tried to repackage and sell the civil rights struggle. However, he's alone in this effort since about 2001. Even rap, which had its share of social historians, has entered the 21st century without having many voices telling people to party for their right to fight, like it did in the '80s and '90s.

I know this is just a momentary backsliding, and I hope the Democrats take control soon so that we don't go too far backwards.

But, I digress...

Why is religious right vote participation tanking?

[salinen]

10. similar

to custer asking the indians to vote for the forked tongues. the religious right are the enemy. if bush is to come up with $200 mil. for re-supreme court decision, 50% will come from falwellco, and 50% from enrons. blood money is not desireable. if we loose, we loose with our pride intact.

[Redleg]

11. Pandering, no, sensitive to their needs, yes

EOM

[Zynx]

12. No.

They are a group we should not touch. I am a Catholic and I firmly believe these people have perverted our Christian faith with their nonsense.

[Grins]

18. We have to reach them.

Pander? Hell no. But you have to reach out to them.

They are a force in American politics and we have to reach out to them - if for no other reason than to pull some of them from the conservative right that has abused them (and I think that's the right term). You will never get all of them, but who ever does? If you can get 20% of them you have done some damage to the right wing.

Reach them by being true Americans. Give them the real truths. A candidate should tell them I respect your religion and I’m going to defend it – by leaving you alone. You do likewise.

And that means you don’t get to re-make the United States into a “Christian Nation”. You already have something better – a Constitutional Republic! That is what protects you.

I won’t let Jewish, or Islamic, or Catholic prayer in your schools – or yours either.

The 10-Commandments DOES belong in every Courthouse in the United State, but we call them the Bill of Rights!

A “Christian” university that spews hatred doesn’t get the taxpayers money.

Stand up in front of them like Kennedy did and tell them you are not their enemy, but you'd rather be in Hell than turn the republic over to those who would re-write the Constitution. Not standing up to them is like running from a dog, it's sure to chase and nip at you. It's important for them to know you are not afraid of them.

If they don't like it - fine. They know where you stand. But you tried, and maybe, you raised some doubt about the forces from the dark side.

You don’t need all of them, but you have to try. I think Dean was right to say he was going after the guys with the flags on their truck bumpers. He said it clumsily, but he’s right. National figures just can’t write off sections of the electorate. You have to be President to all of them. Clinton was vilified, but he went after their vote.

[kayell]

13. NO

but it would be interesting to see one pander to the religious left. Or better the irreligious left. Or maybe just for grins and giggles, pandering to the left, period.

[Syn_Dem]

14. No

n/t

[Syn_Dem]

15. No

n/t

[Blue Gardener]

16. No, No, No

What would there be to pander to? How to hate anyone who isn't like "us"?

[Blue Gardener]

17. No, No, No

What would there be to pander to? How to hate anyone who isn't like "us"?

[zonmoy]

19. Tell me

has hell frozen over and invaded heaven simply to get warm. That would be the only time that the democrats should do anything other than demonize the religious right.

[jsw_81]

20. How do you define pandering

If the candidate said he wanted the votes of all people, regardless of religion, that would be fine. But if he/she started supporting mandatory school prayer, creationism, sodomy laws, and bans on abortion, then I would have no choice but to vote third party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. No, but I would try to reach them by

appealing to their economic interests, and if I were to address a fundamentalist audience (fat chance that a Dem would even be invited to a fundie church, but a Dem could be campaigning in an area with lots of fundies), I would talk about how my platform matched the admonitions of Jesus and the Jewish prophets and even the early apostles--as well as with the admonitions about charity and peace in other religions.

It might cause some of their heads to explode, but you have to speak their language, or they will tune you out.

However, I would tend not to bring up the subject at all unless some heckler were to call me a "baby killer" or a "Satanist."

[info being]

22. Actually, yes

It's a necessary evil unfortunately. Its better that they are with us vs. against us.