<p>
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008639[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008639</a> </p>
<p>Lets hear it for a revival of that *old time religion<a href=“old-timey%20meaning,%201960%C2%92s%C2%85no%20further%20back%20than%20that,%20if%20you%20please%C2%85and%20not%20really%20religion,%20if%20at%20all%20possible”>/i</a>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
I realize Democrats hate President Bush, hence the “Bush regime”, but the “Eisenhower dictatorship”? What’s next - the Lincoln imperialist period?</p>
<p>PS: Mr. Dean, I certainly don’t want to relive the 50’s or the 60’s. Why would you?</p>
<p>But Mr. Obama also warned, “Whatever we once were, we are not a Christian nation.” </p>
<p>He might be technically correct [I don’t think so], but he was exceedingly stupid to say and phrase it in that way. Better put those national ambitions on hold for a couple of senatorial cycles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>could be my big break if a bunch of acting jobs open up,…what do i say to get whitelisted?</p>
<p>I’d put my money on something highly PC and milquetoasty. Something common to a metrosexual.</p>
<p>holy psychedelic bowties, batgirl!</p>
<p>Common thread</p>
<p>Clinton: Got power-hungry in white house (hence why she once said when she and Pres. Clinton were being interviewed, "We are the President.)</p>
<p>Obama: Will run for president eventually (He should too, he’s alot better than the last two democratic nominees. They really should have nominated the guy who played for the knicks, whatever his name was, in 2000. I liked that guy.)</p>
<p>Dean: Ran for president, wants to be the genius who finally shows democrats how to form a proactive platform and then a few elections later run for president again. After all, Nixon managed to become president after loosing a presidential election.</p>
<p>The religious thing cuts both ways. Reagan, GHW Bush, Nixon and Eisenhower were certainly not deeply pious individuals yet were GOP Presidents.</p>
<p>Democrats are in a quandry how to reach out to religious groups without having to give a lot in return. Reagan handled the Religious Right masterfully; he made it very clear that he was in charge and not the other way around.</p>
<p>Bradley, his name was Bill Bradley. He should have gotten the nomination in 2000.</p>
<p>Also, remember Bush in early 2001? The compassionate conservative, economic reform, education reform, domestic reform-in-general president? This guy didn’t run for president to fight wars, yet war came to him. True, he did too much too broadly too fast (should have definitly have finished the job in afganistan before branching out), but pre sept. 11th and post sept. 11th are like two different presidencies. He really didn’t live for the religious right before, he just happened to be christian.</p>
<p>I have always appreciated and been comforted by the knowledge that Bush has a direct line to G-d, who has advised him, even give him the A-OK, on his war mongering. It’s an odd juxtaposition of Christianity and geopolitical meanuevering, but hey…people seem to like that about him.</p>
<p>“Lets hear it for a revival of that old time religion (old-timey meaning, 1960s no further back than that, if you please and not really religion, if at all possible).”</p>
<p>The OP’s latte is ready, complete with a double-shot of sanctimony. Nice to know that conservatives can condescend with the best of them.</p>
<p>
Spoony,</p>
<p>by, with the best of them, do you mean this: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=202478[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=202478</a></p>
<p>If so, I agree. </p>
<p>However, I do not see Howard Dean et al as a threat to democracy and motherhood, as does the loyal opposition in the case of the dwindling Patrick Henry College. I just see the Democratic Big-Wigs and Silver-Tunas as being a bit out of their element, unsteady and floundering about the beach like flop, flop, flopping fish out of water that is to say, pandering to the FISHERMAN but not biting the hook.</p>
<p>Its comic, imho.</p>
<p>(awaiting your disapprobation of the above linked thread that accuses the largest sect of Christians in this country as being traitors bent on the overthrow of our institutions, destruction of democracy and toppling of America normally spelled with a K)</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. Now that conservatives have enjoyed some power, they have imbibed, along with all those lattes, the same type of condescension that got the left into so much trouble.</p>
<p>
Spoony,</p>
<p>I would have preferred hubris but I will accept condescension…for both political dispositions–then and now.</p>
<p>Still and all, I find the communing of the religious-minds amongst the Democratic trout er candidates, very funny in a fun way no threat to democracy there, just a good Saturday Night Live, or John Stewart sketch in the making. I believe they could spruce it about a bit with a dose of MLK style allegory; you know, the type that actually references the object of religion: God and the good book…absent that, a little sincerity would suffice.</p>
<p>If the Tuna have a “dream” it seems to involve little more than swimming with the BIG fish (meaning political power, not transcendent glory).</p>
<p>[FWIW, I don’t think I disagree with you on the main point.]</p>
<p>But Mr. Obama also warned, “Whatever we once were, we are not a Christian nation.” </p>
<p>He might be technically correct [I don’t think so], but he was exceedingly stupid to say and phrase it in that way. Better put those national ambitions on hold for a couple of senatorial cycles.</p>
<p>Would anyone have any interest in what Sen. Obama has to say if he were white?</p>
<p>Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. Now that conservatives have enjoyed some power, they have imbibed, along with all those lattes, the same type of condescension that got the left into so much trouble.</p>
<p>Which is exactly why the base is so very unhappy.</p>
<p>It’s crap like this that really makes me doubt whether or not the Democratic Party wants to actually win anything.</p>
<p>And yet I can’t bring myself to vote for most Republicans.</p>
<p>Fun.</p>
<p>Oh, and don’t anyone dare start on the hyperbole of the Democrats right now. The GOP has said some incredible things in their “loyal opposition” days. I should drum up some of Newt’s finer statements about Clinton…</p>
<p>By convention, being christened “Newt” you are afforded a greater deal of rhetorical and poetic license along with no specific paternal obligation or manners. </p>
<p>The same was true for a legendary boy named “Sue”; named thusly, they say, you come away with a different point of view.</p>
<p>Y’know…</p>
<p>I think this may be the first time that I can’t really argue with you.</p>
<p>Still, on a serious note, I think that silly stuff that Dems say now could easily be matched in intensity by Republicans. Hell, I get told all the time that I hate America because I dare disagree with Bush on “this” or “that.” I don’t hate America! I just hate the IRS.</p>
<p>“Would anyone have any interest in what Sen. Obama has to say if he were white?” </p>
<p>I’ll grant you that part of what makes Sen. Obama interesting to me is his life story, and the unique perspective that gives him. </p>
<p>Bill Clinton’s early life story is a big part of what prompted interest in what he had to say. Likewise, people took interest in what George W. Bush had to say early in his political career in no small part because of who his parents were.</p>
<p>I’d also posit that one of the reasons that people are interested in what Sen. Obama has to say is that his mother is white; she was divorced from his Kenyan father when Obama was only two years old. He had an Indonesian stepfather. He spent much of his early life in Hawaii, being raised by his mother’s parents. For phenotypical reasons, people regard him as black, but the circumstances of his life have given him a perspective on race that’s outside the usual “us versus them” paradigm.</p>