published Thursday, November 8th, 2012

GOP must hit 'reset' button

Months ago, it looked like a cakewalk for the GOP. The Republican nominee would face off against one of the most divisive presidents in history.

Barack Obama would be running on his record: four years of big government boondoggles, statist economic disasters, government intrusion and failure after failure to revive the floundering economy. The Republican presidential candidate, on the other hand, would champion a platform based on the Constitution, limited government, individual liberty, states' rights and private enterprise -- beliefs supported by a large majority of Americans.

The president's time in office had been an abject disaster by any reasonable standard. When he wasn't stumbling his way through foreign policy disasters, Obama spent most of his first term driving the economy in the ground with his bailouts and handouts and stimulus schemes.

How could Republicans lose?

But, as Republicans, we forgot something. Two things, actually.

First, we forgot to elect a decent Republican nominee to run against the failed president -- someone who didn't come across like an unprincipled flip-flopper to conservatives and Rich Uncle Pennybags in magical Mormon underwear to everyone else.

Second, and more importantly to the future of the GOP, it apparently slipped our minds that, in 2012, being the party of racism and homophobia just isn't going to work.

Nominate a good candidate

Mitt Romney was a sorry candidate. Pathetic.

He failed to energize conservatives -- mainly because he wasn't one.

Romney's record remains one of ideological malleability. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He created Romneycare, and then campaigned against Obamacare. He hiked taxes and fees in Massachusetts, but didn't want to increase taxes if elected president...except for some people ... in certain circumstances ... sometimes. He wanted to slash spending, but he refused to touch the bloated military budget. He wanted to be everything to everyone.

More importantly, Romney was not someone anyone could root for.

His moments of likeability -- like his speech at the Republican Convention and moments during the first and third presidential debates -- were powerful, but far too rare.

Still, plenty of Americans checked Romney's name in the voting booth.

Few, however, were excited to write the Romney campaign a check, canvas a neighborhood on his behalf or festoon their car with one of those Romney/Ryan bumper sticker with the silly logo that looked like somebody wrote the "R" with a tube of Aquafresh.

That's because almost none of us, as conservatives or Republicans, were actually excited to vote for Romney. We just wanted to vote against Obama.

Romney wasn't who we wanted; he was just a means to an end -- a way to get rid of Obama.

Until the Republican primary produces a candidate that we can embrace -- someone who actually has a track record of upholding conservative principles -- rather than just a candidate who is the lesser of two evils, the conservative base won't put forth the effort necessary to elect a Republican as president.

Bigotry is bad policy

Even if we are able to put forth a solid conservative presidential candidate who could do what Mitt Romney couldn't -- unify the Republican base without scaring off moderates -- would it even matter?

Judging by the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election, probably not.

That's because the GOP, as a result of its homophobic and racist policy stances, already alienated a large number of America's voters before a vote was ever cast.

The Republican Party claims it is the party of individual liberty, but continues to attack and condemn gay Americans.

A withering portion of the GOP is comprised of people who feel somehow threatened by gays and lesbians. Thankfully, this number is decreasing. Most younger Republicans don't support the political bigotry aimed at gay Americans by some in the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, however, there are still enough people in Republican circles who oppose gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay parades and everything else that could be seen as advancing the "gay lifestyle" that anti-gay legislation is seen as a viable function of the GOP by some.

It's not.

The Republican Party must realize that gay Americans aren't mostly Democrats because they're gay. They're mostly Democrats because they've been persecuted by dumb laws advanced by a small minority of narrow-minded extremists who affiliate themselves with the GOP.

Many gay Americans are small business owners, Christians, Second Amendment advocates, and supporters of lower taxes and less government. In other words, people who would make damn fine Republicans.

Rather than engaging in a cultural warfare against gay Americans that simply isn't supported by younger generations of conservatives, the Republican Party must become a welcoming home for all Americans -- regardless of sexual orientation.

Not only is it the right thing to do, but party support will increase as a result.

•••

An even bigger problem for future Republican presidential candidates in terms of electability is the party's perception among the Latino community.

Going forward, it will be almost impossible to win the White House without winning a sizeable share of Latino votes. Latinos (or "Mexicans" as they're known here in Tennessee, whether they're from Mexico or not), currently comprise nearly 20 percent of the American electorate. As Latino birth rates and immigration rates continue to climb, that number will rise.

Historically, Latino voters are both fiscally and socially conservative. The Republican Party should be a natural political home for most Hispanic Americans. The Republican Party's unreasonably aggressive and malicious policy stances regarding immigration and deportation have turned even Latinos whose families have been in America for generations away from the GOP.

In 2000, George W. Bush won nearly half of the Latino vote. On Tuesday, Romney struggled to pick up 27 percent of Latinos. The Republican Party's perceived racism against Latinos cost Romney Colorado, Nevada and even Virginia. Unless Republicans work to become more inclusive of Latino Americans and stop coming across as racists in their policies, the GOP will simply no longer have a viable chance of winning enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency.

As it stands, Republicans can't beat even the worst Democratic candidate.

Unless we, as Republicans, are willing to both choose better presidential candidates to represent us, and work to become a party that accepts and embraces gay Americans and recognizes Latinos as a valuable part of our nation, electing a Republican president will become all but impossible.

49
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Stick to your self-introspection. Obama spent his term fixing the broken economy, and the results have begun to show. You do know his policies weren't immediately implemented, right?

If you want to see failure, see Austerity in Europe.

November 8, 2012 at 12:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Are you suggesting that the Republican Party alienate its core constituency of angry old white guys? A high percentage of these old buzzards belong to to the GOP because of its whiteness, not because of ideology. They love to hate. Take a good look around the State of Tennessee. Look at the small town politicians. They are largely the white hater class that the GOP has encouraged and recruited.

Maybe the author just wants a bigger sprinkling of variation to give a better image of inclusivity without really diluting the ethnic and idealogical purity that has become synonymous with Republicanism.

Inclusivity is probably just a fad. Let the Democrats keep all those immigrants...and women...and scientists...and pointy headed intellectuals...and artists...and blacks...and...

And next time nominate a good (meaning far-right I suppose) candidate and see how that works for you.

November 8, 2012 at 1:38 a.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

In another universe where people started realizing that the GOP is ineffective and antiquated, Gary Johnson, for instance, might have been competing with Obama, which I would have been ecstatic at, even if he lost.

November 8, 2012 at 3:39 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

I pretty much agree about Latinos (Ted Cruz '16, anyone?) and about Romney, but (IRONY ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT!) as an evolutionist I think the non-breeding behavior of 'gays' should be punished by execution as soon as they cease to be socially productive, which many of them are for awhile. And if they spread diseases, execute them right away; they're attempting murder when they have sex.

Seriously, it's one thing to stop sending the cops after 'gays;' it's another thing, which the libertarian Drew ought to clearly repudiate, to start sending the cops after people and groups which in some ways draw a line against 'gay' behavior. The Bible and historic Christianity condemns all sex outside holy marriage-- fornication, gay sex, divorce, lustful staring, all--Adam and Eve set the standard. Repent; repudiate sexual sins, forsake them (which can be very, very hard), and get forgiven in Christ Jesus, with warm welcome (at least in theory; churches need to repent both of failing to make God's law clear, and of failing to welcome sinners who do repent.) So Christian groups that don't want to hire 'gays,' or do business with them, should be fine and dandy; right, Drew?

The GOP may need to welcome 'gays,' but it should, as a big tent, also welcome those who have Christian (or other) standards. Do 'gays' show traditional moralists the welcome they wish for themselves? Let there be freedom not just for diverse individuals but for diverse groups ('gay' is a groups of at least 2, right?) And insurance companies that set their rates according to risk factors are not discriminating; why force healthy lifestyles to subsidize disease?

November 8, 2012 at 4:18 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Andrew, the GOP doesn't have a problem with electing ("hiring") an adulterer and hypocrite. I'm sure they are all Christians, but are willing to look the other way when private behavior doesn't fit their standards. To say they should be free to discriminate against gays reveals that you are a hypocrite as well as a homophobe.

My insurance premiums pay for the poor lifestyle choices of many, including overeating and being sedentary. Perhaps I should claim that this violates my religious belief? They cost much more than gays and their supposed "high risk lifestyle" (of course, you are forgetting that lesbians have a much lower risk, but then again, most homophobes only think of males when they consider gays).

No one should be able to discriminate or deny rights to any group based on religious beliefs, Andrew. If you like that way of governance, move to Iran.

BTW, this editorial is spot on, except for the lousy description of Obama's first term. It wasn't the failure you say it was, foreign policy wasn't a disaster, and a lot of the slow progress made was slow because of the GOP putting its goals ahead of helping the country recover.

November 8, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

The fanatical religious right with their intolerance for anyone and anything but Jesus and Old Testament brutality lost the election.

Believing religious fairy tales as historical fact have no place in a modern world of reason, science, and an honest search for solutions.

"Give Me That Old-Time Religion" doesn't work and never has, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Mormon.

November 8, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.
conservative said...

"the Constitution, limited government, individual liberty, states' rights and private enterprise -- beliefs supported by a large majority of Americans"

Baloney!!!

Are you serious? A large majority, not even close. A large majority of the American people have contempt for ALL of the above and that is why we are in the mess that we are in.

You had it right the other day when you wrote - "In fact, almost every member of Congress, governor and major political figure in the United States today is a socialist, as well."

You may argue that these are only a few Americans, but these are the representatives of the American people, repeatedly reelected to provide socialist programs and checks to Americans and those here illegally.

Furthermore, your key word "socialist" is anathema to our "Constitution, limited government, individual liberty, states' rights and private enterprise."

Today you contradict yourself. Why?

November 8, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.
timbo said...

I don't agree with Drew on this one. Kiss up to Latinos by compromising your principles is just plain wrong.

The reason that Romney lost was turn-out. The Obama voters showed up and the Romney voters stayed home. A 2% increase in conservative turnout would have beaten President Piss Ant. The conservative base was not enthused.

Drew, you said we should play up to Latinos but you didn't say how. Did you mean ignore border control? Did you mean give them special treatment? What did you mean exactly?

Those types of things are not conservative.

November 8, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
nucanuck said...

c-man asks: Why?

When you not only hold a losing hand, but are continuing to lose ground, the sensible thing would be to make a new plan. I imagine that it was with deep pain that Drew suggested broadening the base of the Republican Party. Reality sometimes sucks.

And about c-man's favorite topic: Socialism. The really big social dollar outlays have been to prop up big banks and the military industrial complex...the common man is getting a capitalist cold shower...shrinking wages, unemployment, and rising prices for necessities. Yeah, we have socialism...socialism for corporations and banks and crumbs under the table for the poor.

c-man, again I ask you to name the countries that are experiencing the most success. You won't because they are all countries with capitalism blended with properly funded social programs. All isms can be harmful if pursued to excess. Wake up, man!

November 8, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
librul said...

Sheldon Adelson: F-I-F-T-Y F-O-U-R M-I-L-L-I-O-N D-O-L-L-A-R-S spent, Z-E-R-O results. And when asked, he said it was "just like paying bills".

Commentators then explained that the hundreds of millions upon millions spent by the GOP in an attempt to buy this election were all targeted at an electorate that the insular, isolated, rich old white men of the party BELIEVED it to be. In contrast, the technicians and ground troops of the Obama team worked diligently in a systematic way to appeal to what they KNEW the electorate's composition to be.

Sadly, we're still likely to be witness to Obama offering up compromises on critical issues and social programs to just try to move the tea party troglodytes in the House off their dunce stools.

Result: F-O-U-R H-U-N-D-R-E-D M-I-L-L-I-O-N D-O-L-L-A-R-S thrown to the four winds for absolutely nothing in a country that has sick people who can't afford to get treatment, cities being forced into bankruptcy, failing infrastructure, an environment in decline, an energy crisis, a world made dangerous by our reckless militarism and an economy beholden to others for sustenance.

November 8, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Leaf said...

OK, just a little fact-checking here. Drew writes in the very first line, "Months ago, it looked like a cakewalk for the GOP."

Really? What Fox News poll told you that? The whole reason the GOP didn't field their A-list candidates is because Obama looked unbeatable before the primaries started. It was only in the last few weeks before the election that Romney's numbers started to go up to levels where they thought they had a chance.

I know that you true believers like to change history to suit your opinions, but try not to be so blatant about it.

November 8, 2012 at 1:29 p.m.
Leaf said...

One thing this election taught the GOP that you didn't mention, Drew, is about the effectiveness of PAC money. It taught them that money spent on high profile races doesn't give you the value of money spent in House races. The GOP picked up a fair number of House seats even in this era of a deflating TEA party and anger at Congressional Republican naysayers.

Not coincidentally, the conservative PACs also overwhelmed their Democratic opponents' spending in these smaller races. The lesson? Buying Representatives is cheap and easy. Buying the Presidency is harder.

November 8, 2012 at 1:41 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[Romney wasn't who we wanted; he was just a means to an end -- a way to get rid of Obama.]

He's not who TN wanted at least (Santorum was the winner here), but he is who the Republican party as a whole wanted (good or bad). I see stark difference between Romney's conservative/moderate ideas and Obama's hugely liberal positions. However, I think the biggest problem was that a lot of folks didn't see much difference at all between the candidates. Mr. Johnson, you are apparently one of those folks. And as a result, either folks voted to keep the incumbent in just for continuity, or they simply voted for somebody who didn't have a chance (i.e. Gary Johnson). Or maybe they just stayed home on Election Day not excited about anybody.

[Unfortunately, however, there are still enough people in Republican circles who oppose gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay parades and everything else that could be seen as advancing the "gay lifestyle" that anti-gay legislation is seen as a viable function of the GOP by some.]

So the solution for Republicans is to let the gays redefine the institution of marriage just to pick up a few more votes? You are making the party look desperate by suggesting such a thought. Again, I think the main issue is getting a candidate that folks are excited about. After Obama leaves us in 2016 with a wrecked economy along with the debacle of Obamacare in full bloom, the Dems won't have a chance. Who'll be their next nominee? Joe Biden? Now that's funny.

[The Republican Party's perceived racism against Latinos cost Romney Colorado, Nevada and even Virginia.]

Sorry but supporting legislation to clean up our country of the illegals that are here is not racism. It's a step toward a solution of ensuring that our country is safe and that all people are playing by the rules. Maybe Hispanics/Latinos comprise most of the people who are affected by this, but it is not simply because their ethnicity. Maybe the liberal media has painted the picture of racism, but that's not something the conservatives can control.

[Unless we, as Republicans...]

Welcome back to the Republican party, Drew! Just the other day, you detached yourself from the Republican label in defense of not endorsing the Republican candidate.

November 8, 2012 at 1:49 p.m.
Jalan said...

Congratulations on being right on the mark on your editorial. I left the Republican party years ago because of exactly the things you wrote about today. It has become a party dominated by extremism and exclusion. This is either a country with equality for everyone or for none. Our great country is better than the narrow minded bigots that have too much voice in the GOP. It takes a lot of courage to write the truth when the backlash can be so loud, but fortunately for us you had the courage to say what a lot of us think of the current GOP. I hope someday to return to a Republican party that will be the party of inclusion, compassion, and conservative principles instead of the party that gives a voice to bigotry, hatred, and exclusion.

November 8, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
aae1049 said...

The Republican Party has failed to embrace political activism and evolve. Locally, they had a period of clarity with an educated and intelligent leader, but the core haters ran her off.

November 8, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.

AndrewLohr, it's kind of hard to welcome somebody who wants to put you in an isolation camp surrounded by barbed wire.

Or stone you to death in the public square.

Yet apparently that's somehow intolerant to you, or something?

November 8, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Here's AndrewLohr at his best, dressed in a bathrobe in someone's attic. Wonder why the religious right fanatics can't win an election? Here's proof and here's Andy!

http://voices.yahoo.com/video/osama-bin-laden-meets-king-david-3455908.html?cat=9

November 8, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
conservative said...

"party of racism" "racist policy stances"

Why no specifics? Although you never used the word black that is nearly always who is in mind when those words are used.

Blacks, single and divorced women and Hispanics mostly vote for more government and more welfare spending and that is why they vote Demoncrat.

Less taxes, less welfare, less social programs and less government are color blind polices and are NOT racist.

November 8, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
conservative said...

So, according to your reasoning if the Republican party would just run a black Hispanic woman who was a lesbian, then Americans would elect a Republican president.

November 8, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Blacks, single and divorced women and Hispanics mostly vote for more government and more welfare spending and that is why they vote Demoncrat

Gee, and I voted democrat without fitting a single one of your criteria. Did it ever occur to you that many of us vote democrat because we find the GOP platform to be hypocritical, cruel and beneficial to corporations more than people? And that the social issues ("prolife", anti gay, prayer in school and gun rights) are just a smokescreen to get middle america to vote against its own economic best interests?

No, I guess you didn't.

November 8, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.
conservative said...

Now to bigotry or rather the use and misuse of the words bigotry and bigot. If one were to look up the words it would be seen that virtually everyone is a bigot or practices bigotry in some areas of their life.

Mr. Johnson under the sub heading "Bigotry is bad policy" focused on the area of "gay" issues. Now, simply stated and factually correct, homosexuality is immoral behavior! Yes it is!Now, why is it that those who defend and support homosexuality will not openly state that homosexual behavior is moral behavior or state that homosexual behavior is not immoral behavior?

You will not find in a mainstream dictionary a definition of bigotry stating an intolerance of homosexuality by someone.

November 8, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.

Ah, conservative giving a lesson on bigotry.

How...self-illustrative.

November 8, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Please tell us how someone being gay or marrying someone of the same gender takes away your rights as a citizen, conservative.

While you are at it, please tell us how someone not being a "TROO CHRISTIAN" as you define it takes away your rights as a citizen.

I personally think that teaching children that a talking snake gave a naked woman an apple and that the earth is only 8000 years old and that some guy put animals on a ark so God could drown everyone in a world flood and that God loves you but will send you to hell if you don'e believe in him are all forms of child abuse and are therefore immoral. So, using your reasoning, conservative, you as a fundy Christian should not have full rights as a citizen and should be discriminated against.

November 8, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Most conservatives in Hamilton County are independent conservatives. Calling all Republicans bigots, is similar to calling all Dems stupid. Well, maybe that is ok if you include Happy, kidding.

November 8, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
conservative said...

"Did it ever occur to you that many of us vote democrat because we find the GOP platform to be hypocritical, cruel and beneficial to corporations more than people?"

If by "many" you mean the majority then you are surely correct. The notion that the majority of Demoncrats had even read the Republican platform is beyond belief, reality or common sense and I can hardly type this because of my laughter.

November 8, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Glad you are amused, conservative. I am not as I detest people who stereotype. I have read both platforms. I am guessing that your version of Jesus would support your smug self-righteousness.

November 8, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
conservative said...

However, you singular is far numerically from the "many" which you proposed.

Now tell us all that "many" did not vote Demoncrat because of a government check or government program.

You are on a roll, keep the laughs going.

November 8, 2012 at 7:48 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How about answering my questions first.

Then you can tell me how your stereotypes describe the majority of voters, since Obama just won the election.

November 8, 2012 at 7:55 p.m.
conservative said...

Now, you and bulbs could not refute what I wrote about bigotry so you both struck out in anger.

Now, publically state under your fictitious names Ikeithlu and happywithnewbulbs if homosexual behavior/practice is moral behavior or not.

November 8, 2012 at 8 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I don't think that homosexual behavior is immoral. Answer my question: how does someone else's sexual behavior affect your rights?

November 8, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

It seems that "conservative" can not accept God's Will that Obama was re-elected.

Maybe "conservative" doesn't know God's secret plan that He is coming out of the closet, wearing pink robes, appointing Freddy Mercury as choirmaster, and twirling His rainbow sash for God's Gay-Day Parade and the Million Fetus Crawl down Market Street on December 25.

Wonder how "conservative" will look in his eight-inch stilettos and tight, bare-butt chaps since it's God's Will?

At least that's what God told me was going to happen. And sure can't argue with what God says, can you?

November 8, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You see, conservative, I don't give a rat's patootie what you think is immoral. Thankfully, I am an American, and my rights (and everyone else's) are protected from your version of "morality". You don't like that? Too bad. Suck it up or move.

November 8, 2012 at 8:21 p.m.
conservative said...

"I don't think that homosexual behavior is immoral"

I'm sure this is an honest answer and consistent with the thinking of an atheist. However, I wonder if you are honest enough to positively state that homosexual behavior/practice is moral behavior?

November 8, 2012 at 8:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes, in the context of a monogamous, committed relationship. Surprised? Are you going to tell me why you think gays threaten your rights? Because I don't think you have an answer. I think it just burns you up that in a free country your religious judgment doesn't apply to everyone else, as much as you'd love it to. I also think that it pisses you off that someone like me is allowed to NOT believe and still vote, raise a family, buy a house, and mix with the public when you would prefer I be suppressed, jailed, maybe even executed-who knows?

BTW, most non-atheists I know think homosexual behavior is moral AND is none of our concern anyway. They are Christians, even if you think they aren't.

November 8, 2012 at 9:02 p.m.
conservative said...

"Answer my question: how does someone else's sexual behavior affect your rights?"

How does homosexual rape of a child by a homosexual scoutmaster or "priest" or any adult affect your rights?

How does aids and the cost to treat aids affects your rights?

How does rape affect your rights?

How does adultery affect your rights?

How does theft affect your rights?

How does murder affect your rights?

How does lying affect your rights?

How does leagalization of drugs affects your rights?

How does any crime affect your rights?

I'm going to be merciful to you tonight and let you know that I am calling it quits so you won't stay up hours looking for what I might write.

November 8, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Quitting after dumping a bunch of unrelated crap? All of what you wrote are crimes with VICTIMS, with two exceptions: legalizing drugs and treating HIV. Obesity costs more then HIV in the US.

We were discussing homosexuality, you dolt. Not a crime and NO VICTIM. You have yet to show how gays deny you your rights.

I swear, fundy religion must make one stupid. What would Jesus think?

November 8, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

Since heterosexual rape of a child is also possible, I guess that means heterosexual sex is also immoral.

That is conservative's logic, right?

The same applies to AIDS.

But conservative is still locked into his bigotry. There's nothing to refute, because it's an excellent demonstration of bigotry.

I'd rather you get on national TV conservative, and express your platform. That way everybody can see it for what it is.

aae1049, take a look at conservative here. You've got your chance to disavow his bigotry.

Instead you'd rather take potshots at me, thereby demonstrating your own character.

November 8, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

lkeithlu said...

"I swear, fundy religion must make one stupid. What would Jesus think?"

"Does this flowing robe make my butt look big?"

"Last one in the Jordan River is a Pharisee!"

"Tell Mary M. that booty call is on after lamps out."

"I wish Mom would quit following me around. I'm sick of that hang-dog look she's always wearing."

"Dad's off His lithium and He's talking that crazy Armageddon stuff again."

"Hey Peter, let me hold five sheckles until Friday."

"That's just great. Another wedding invitation and I'm supposed to bring the wine."

"Can't we have pizza for once? These loaves and fishes everyday is getting old."

"Tell James I'm not washing his feet if he steps in donkey crap again."

"You thought I was serious about drinking my blood and eating my flesh? Boy, are you stupid!"

"I got the check for the next-to-last-supper. Let's sneak out and stick Judas with this one."

"I've got to carry this heavy wooden cross how far? Jesus Christ, don't they make 'em in fiberglass?"

"I hope Monty Python makes a movie about me."

That's what Jesus was thinking.

November 8, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
UMigrator said...

AndrewLohr: There's a term other than "evolutionist" for what you are. It's "Social Darwinist." It was extremely popular among a certain now-hated party in WWII Germany, if you catch my drift.

Do you really want to associate yourself with that sort of thing?

November 9, 2012 at 12:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

Many good reasons by both sides that support the Libertarian platform. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative with state sovereignty respect. I have no regrets for supporting Gary Johnson.

November 9, 2012 at 2:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The leadership of the republican party has no intent of "resetting". They are convinced that a policy of playing the world's policeman while pursuing the war on drugs and giving nothing more than lip service to the Constitution is the way to go. If the party is ever going to change the current leadership will have to be kicked to the curb.

November 9, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.
conservative said...

"Many gay Americans are small business owners, Christians....."

No, homosexuals are not Christians! No, No, No!

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is morally disgusting.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

November 9, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
dao1980 said...

What about when a woman lies with a woman conservative?... good stuff? I'm sure the sky-daddy like that at least... right?

November 9, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Poor conservative. He's got his white sheet and pointy hat in a wad this morning.

November 9, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Conservative: you have unfinished business! How is someone being gay take away your rights as an American? (Assuming you ARE an American; I'm beginning to have my doubts) How does allowing gays to marry take away your rights? Who is the victim in an adult consensual sexual relationship, gay or straight? When does an adult consensual sexual relationship become a crime in this country based on its secular law?

Of course, you could dodge like you usually do, throwing bible passages in your wake like a squid squirts ink...

November 9, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.

BigRidgePatriot, put on your boots and get to work then.

November 9, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

crickets chirping

Yeah, that's what I thought. Crickets are more pleasant than bible verses, though.

November 9, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Excellent article by Ron Hart on why the religious wing-nuts of the Republican party must go.

http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=546

November 9, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
chet123 said...

who can compete against these hypocrites preachers in the so-called bible belt (where in the Southern Baptist Convention they cherry pick verses to use against their opposition but conveniently ignore verses which comdemn the republican agenda)

This is the same South that enacted Jims Crows Laws out of the Church

HA HA HA....what a joke!!!!!!! GOT YOU!

November 11, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.