Posts
Schaeffer endeavors to convince readers that [Marvin] Olasky is a dangerous "far right" extremist, "who has been working to more or less turn America into a theocracy ever since the late 1980s and early 1990s," and whose work "was largely funded by far right banker" Howard Ahmanson. Generally speaking, I distrust any writer who, as Schaeffer does, insists on shoehorning three "far rights" into a single paragraph. Schaeffer earns compound interest on my distrust when, in support of his claim that Olasky is an advocate of "Bible-inspired totalitarianism/theocratic neofascism" (!) he cites Max Blumenthal, son of our old Clintonista acquaintance Sidney Blumenthal.Read the whole thing.
Most remarkably, Schaeffer does all this while posturing as a friend to Republicans and conservatives . . .
Meathead Rob Reiner whining that Bluesky communists are being mean to him
-
They are calling Bluesky (the leftist alterative to Twitter/X) “Digital
Canada”, and I couldn’t think of a better name. All
The post Meathead Rob Reiner ...
10 hours ago
Spot on Stacy. Schaeffer is making the same arguments David Frum is making for reforming the GOP. Following that would be a mistake.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with David Frum's criticism of Sarah Palin. His points were not much different than Charles Krauthammer's--she killed McCain's experience argument.
Even though I disagreed, that was a legitimate point. I do not have any problems with that. What I have problems with is witch hunts led by Andrew Sullivan.
In hindsight, would have McCain done better with Mitt Romney (who certainly had business experience to deal with the financial crisis that hit)? Maybe--but I doubt it. I think they still would have lost to Obama-Biden. If you go back with what McCain was facing in losing his own base, Sarah Palin was a good choice. Unfortunately, there were just not a lot of options. Unfortunately Romney, Huckabee, or McCain could not have won in 2008.
Back to Frum and Schaeffer. I do not disagree that attacking the Susan Collins and other liberal to moderate Republicans in the Northeast is short sighted and dumb. Each race has to be treated as a unique event. You look at the political realities of the race and choose the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN (that btw is the William F. Buckley formula).
But I absolutely and totally disagree that the Republican party should be Democrat-Lite or Democrat-Fiscal Conservative or Socially Liberal-Fiscal Conservative. That will not cut it. There can certainly be social liberals in the GOP, but that does not reflect the mean of the party.
What the party should be (on a national level) is socially libertarian/federalist (in leaving social issues to the states mostly to resolve) and fiscally conservative/strong national defense. That makes much more sense. It is more democratic. It addresses state rights better. It addresses regional differences. And it is a sound formula for winning elections.
If you have the time Stacy, I highly recommend Schaeffer's Obama endorsement in the Huffington Post. It's one of the most idiotically-written, faux-thoughtful pieces I've ever read, notable for Schaeffer's belief that Obama is the real pro-life candidate, which he doesn't both to support with you know, evidence.
ReplyDeleteSchaefer's objection is to the dominionism in the conservative movement. For example, Sarah Palin told the Wasilla Assembly of God -- at state expense (airfare from Juneau) -- that her work as governor was of no avail unless the hearts of Alaskan's were right with God. (Source McClatchy News article, plus video that was posted on the church website (now removed), but copied to many other sites)
ReplyDeleteI'm back! The dominionism issue is a separation of church and state issue. Here is the link to the McClatchy article I mentioned, previously.
ReplyDeleteI am very disappointed with "Frankie" Schaeffer. (I remember when he went by that instead of "Frank.") I read his book on Christianity and the arts years ago and felt I found a kindred soul. Not anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe audacious hubris of accusing Sarah Palin supporters to being "cult-like" while ignoring Obama's own self-made worship halls is enough to make me go "enough." He can join the rest of the sell-outs as we board the ark.
Because obviously, he doesn't think a flood is coming.
Anonymous? Dominionism? Uh oh...
ReplyDeleteLook out, Stacy! It appears that you've been found by Leah "Dominionist" Burton. She's a grade-A nutbag.
Burton defines dominionism for us-
Definition: Dominionists seek influence and control over secular civil government, through political action and spiritual warfare with a theocratic mandate to forcefully impose "biblical law" as the ONLY law of the land, and that the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.
Sarah Palin is the leader of this dominionist cult btw.
More on Burton-
http://tinyurl.com/cvsulv
http://tinyurl.com/czfh7x
@Toki,
ReplyDeleteBurton's is an interesting troll.
I've never heard this 'Dominionist' term.
I suspect it may not have currency beyond a few guano-heads.
As with anthropogenic global warming, however, I'm sure we'll grow weary of it. *sigh*
Anon..
ReplyDeleteThe link you gave is bunk.
For the few who don't know, Wasilla is her home, Juneau, the capitol of Alaska, is where she worked.
She was allowed to fly home from her job, as with all the politicians who work in Juneau but live elsewhere.
She was allowed to claim her meals on a per diem, as with all the politicians who work in Juneau but live elsewhere.
She was allowed to speak with groups as an elected official, as with all the politicians who work in Juneau but live elsewhere.
As for the statement in question (iirc).. the key quote was clipped out. She started out by saying the same thing Abe Lincoln did by prefacing her prayer that people pray that they are on God's side and seek out his will -- not do their own will and pray that God in on their side. Subtle difference but it's there.
Dave C: Where she lived is immaterial. The article is about her difficulty separating church and state. She said that her work as governor was of no avail unless the hearts of Alaskans were right with God. She talked not about praying to be on God's side but to pray that God's will -- as if she knows what that is -- be done with respect to the pipeline. Please read the article. The video/audio can be seen, also. -- not Leah
ReplyDeletesmitty1e: I am not a troll. I am just alerting you to what this is all about. Barry Goldwater was a staunch conservative and supported separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when Franklin Graham vistited Alaska, the governor went with him and told the natives that they would need to embrace religion to gain respect and move forward.
-- not Leah
Smitt1E, you've got to get McCain to get out in front of this issue. It is explosive. To waste a lot of resources on Palin only to find out these problems exist would be a tragic blow to the conservative movement. We don't need people with that sort of problem; what we do need are sound conservatives without a lot of uncecessary baggage. I do believe that there is nothing wrong with religion and faith in God, but a Baptist doesn't want to be ruled by a dominionist Catholic, and vice versa, etc. -- not Leah
ReplyDeleteWondering if anyone has seen "Pretrib Hypocrisy" on engines like Google. I'll bet the Assemblies of God church has, but I'm not sure about Sarah Palin. Natalie
ReplyDelete