From the Post this past Sunday:

How the GOP Became God's Own Party

By Kevin Phillips
Sunday, April 2, 2006; B03

Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.

Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.

The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.

Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860.

I have a personal concern over what has become of the Republican coalition. Forty years ago, I began a book, "The Emerging Republican Majority," which I finished in 1967 and took to the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, for which I became the chief political and voting-patterns analyst. Published in 1969, while I was still in the fledgling Nixon administration, the volume was identified by Newsweek as the "political bible of the Nixon Era."

In that book I coined the term "Sun Belt" to describe the oil, military, aerospace and retirement country stretching from Florida to California, but debate concentrated on the argument -- since fulfilled and then some -- that the South was on its way into the national Republican Party. Four decades later, this framework has produced the alliance of oil, fundamentalism and debt.

Some of that evolution was always implicit. If any region of the United States had the potential to produce a high-powered, crusading fundamentalism, it was Dixie. If any new alignment had the potential to nurture a fusion of oil interests and the military-industrial complex, it was the Sun Belt, which helped draw them into commercial and political proximity and collaboration. Wall Street, of course, has long been part of the GOP coalition. But members of the Downtown Association and the Links Club were never enthusiastic about "Joe Sixpack" and middle America, to say nothing of preachers such as Oral Roberts or the Tupelo, Miss., Assemblies of God. The new cohabitation is an unnatural one.

While studying economic geography and history in Britain, I had been intrigued by the Eurasian "heartland" theory of Sir Halford Mackinder, a prominent geographer of the early 20th century. Control of that heartland, Mackinder argued, would determine control of the world. In North America, I thought, the coming together of a heartland -- across fading Civil War lines -- would determine control of Washington.

This was the prelude to today's "red states." The American heartland, from Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico to Ohio and the Appalachian coal states, has become (along with the onetime Confederacy) an electoral hydrocarbon coalition. It cherishes sport-utility vehicles and easy carbon dioxide emissions policy, and applauds preemptive U.S. airstrikes on uncooperative, terrorist-coddling Persian Gulf countries fortuitously blessed with huge reserves of oil.

Because the United States is beginning to run out of its own oil sources, a military solution to an energy crisis is hardly lunacy. Neither Caesar nor Napoleon would have flinched. What Caesar and Napoleon did not face, but less able American presidents do, is that bungled overseas military embroilments could also boomerang economically. The United States, some $4 trillion in hock internationally, has become the world's leading debtor, increasingly nagged by worry that some nations will sell dollars in their reserves and switch their holdings to rival currencies. Washington prints bonds and dollar-green IOUs, which European and Asian bankers accumulate until for some reason they lose patience. This is the debt Achilles' heel, which stands alongside the oil Achilles' heel.

Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate. Many millions believe that the Armageddon described in the Bible is coming soon. Chaos in the explosive Middle East, far from being a threat, actually heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ. Oil price spikes, murderous hurricanes, deadly tsunamis and melting polar ice caps lend further credence.

The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington's multiple deceptions and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies -- the GOP coalition is unlikely to turn back -- is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grass roots.

Four decades ago, the new GOP coalition seemed certain to enjoy a major infusion of conservative northern Catholics and southern Protestants. This troubled me not at all. I agreed with the predominating Republican argument at the time that "secular" liberals, by badly misjudging the depth and importance of religion in the United States, had given conservatives a powerful and legitimate electoral opportunity.

Since then, my appreciation of the intensity of religion in the United States has deepened. When religion was trod upon in the 1960s and thereafter by secular advocates determined to push Christianity out of the public square, the move unleashed an evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal counterreformation, with strong theocratic pressures becoming visible in the Republican national coalition and its leadership.

Besides providing critical support for invading Iraq -- widely anathematized by preachers as a second Babylon -- the Republican coalition has also seeded half a dozen controversies in the realm of science. These include Bible-based disbelief in Darwinian theories of evolution, dismissal of global warming, disagreement with geological explanations of fossil-fuel depletion, religious rejection of global population planning, derogation of women's rights and opposition to stem cell research. This suggests that U.S. society and politics may again be heading for a defining controversy such as the Scopes trial of 1925. That embarrassment chastened fundamentalism for a generation, but the outcome of the eventual 21st century test is hardly assured.

These developments have warped the Republican Party and its electoral coalition, muted Democratic voices and become a gathering threat to America's future. No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system.

Conservative true believers will scoff at such concerns. The United States is a unique and chosen nation, they say; what did or did not happen to Rome, imperial Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain is irrelevant. The catch here, alas, is that these nations also thought they were unique and that God was on their side. The revelation that He apparently was not added a further debilitating note to the late stages of each national decline.

Over the last 25 years, I have warned frequently of these political, economic and historical (but not religious) precedents. The concentration of wealth that developed in the United States in the bull market of 1982 to 2000 was also typical of the zeniths of previous world economic powers as their elites pursued surfeit in Mediterranean villas or in the country-house splendor of Edwardian England. In a nation's early years, debt is a vital and creative collaborator in economic expansion; in late stages, it becomes what Mr. Hyde was to Dr. Jekyll: an increasingly dominant mood and facial distortion. The United States of the early 21st century is well into this debt-driven climax, with some analysts arguing -- all too plausibly -- that an unsustainable credit bubble has replaced the stock bubble that burst in 2000.

Unfortunately, three of the preeminent weaknesses displayed in these past declines have been religious excess, a declining energy and industrial base, and debt often linked to foreign and military overstretch. Politics in the United States -- and especially the evolution of the governing Republican coalition -- deserves much of the blame for the fatal convergence of these forces in America today.

Kevin Phillips is the author of "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" (Viking).

It's amazing to me that this kind of crap gets published.

Anti-republicans, of whatever stripe, have been wailing and gnashing their teeth for the last eight years. This last election was "anybody but Bush" or (according to them) we're all doomed. DOOMED.

That's partisan, but tolerable.

What's not is the continual ego-boosting claims that they insert that this whole religious/Republican/conservative thing is an aberration caused by an organized minority.

Even when Bush didn't get a clear majority of the voters (last time), he DID get enough to take the electoral college. 49% isn't a minority, considering how it's divided.

This time he got both, the EC win and the majority vote. But still it's "the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP ... a rogue coalition." Paint them as a threat, but diminish them.

This is crap. If liberals and/or Democrats want to win an election anytime soon, they need to fire all these morons. If the Republicans are a threat -- and they are, to Democrats -- then paint them as a threat and don't diminish them. They're not "a rogue coalition," you imbeciles. In fact they're the party that has kicked your asses in the last 7 elections. (Forget Clinton II, it's a Republican-dominated legislature.)

After losing a bunch of times, you would think someone would "clue up" and stop using phrases like "rogue coalition." How about "800-lb. gorilla."

This pipsqueak, along with several other ranking Democratic players, reminds me more than anything of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Arthur: "Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!"
Knight: Yes, I have.
Arthur: LOOK!
Knight: It's just a flesh wound.

Or, to bring it into context:

American Voters(98, 2000, 02): Look you idiots, you've got no desirable candidates left!
Democratic Party: Yes, we have.
American Voters(2004): LOOK!
Democratic Party: It's just a rogue coalition!

Honestly, I hope this was a subtle ploy to get international contributions to the DNC coffers. Does Mr. Phillips really belive that either party's position on global warming is a deciding factor in presidential politics?

Is there anyone out there who thinks that either party's explanation for fossil-fuel depletion is winning them a majority of swing voters?

What the f*** are these guys doing? This article might have flown in 2001, or early 2004. But now is NOT the time to stick your head in the sand. It's certainly not the time for this kind of cranio-rectal insertion.

As Tuco said, "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."

Or, to bring it into context:

Win a damned election!

If the Democrats win an election, they get to write all the patronizing "rogue coalition" articles they want. But until then, SHOOT, don't talk.

Kevin Phillips is a long time Republican strategist.

Republican or Democrat??

Used to be (after 1945) the winner of a presidential election was the politician who most convincingly stated he hated communists more than his opponent.

When the Berlin Wall came down in the late 1980s it was symbolic of the demise of communism.

The 1992 & 1996 presidential elections (won by draft dodging Clinton) was like the eye of the hurricane, i.e. there was nothing Americans feared abroad and the topic(s) moved onto other issues (like ... "it's the economy, stupid" which poppa Bush had a hard time comprehending).

That didn't last long.

Arab terrorism replaced communism as a legit threat for Americans to concern themselves with.

The Republicans seem better suited to convincing the American public that they will protect the citizenry from outside threats.

The Democrats have unfortunately over the years been the party of unpopular minorities.

Democrat (and southerner) Lyndon Johnson with his Great Society/Voting Rights Act/appointing black juror Thurgood Marshall to Supreme Court/etc and Kennedy before him with troops to the campus of Ole Miss Univ in Oxford, Mississippi ran southern Democrats into the Republican Party by the end of the 1960s with their pro-black stance.

Young Republicans of today are too young to know it (maybe) but what drove the dixie south to Republicanism for the first time since the days of Reconstruction in the 1870s was ... not religious politics ... it was racism!!

The friend of my enemy = my enemy.

The friends of the blacks were Democrats, i.e the Kennedys, Senator Jacob Javits (a Jew from New York) and many northeastern liberal Democrats.

Southerners, including segregationists like Senators John Stennis & James Eastland of Mississippi (both Democrats) were, upon old age, succeeded by new Mississippi Republicans like Trent Lott/Cochran, just as traditional dixie values politicians just running as Republicans.

Lately it is more popular for southern politicians to run embracing pro religion, anti abortion, anti gays, etc than to call themselves for what they really are ... simply anti-black.

Why democrats don't bash them on that (you know, benign neglect of blacks and all down-trotten, in the name of shifting the tax burden away from the affluent white rich ... and not calling it racism) I don't know.

The way politics are nowadays in the USA =

the democrats have all the alliances with poor voting turnout, i.e.
* young
* blacks
* poor
* pro-abortion
* gays (their voting is fairly high)

and the Republicans have all the blocs who do vote
* rich
* senior citizens
* those who attend church weekly
* white straight middle age men

Just telling it like it really is!!

Until the democrats are willing to call a spade a spade (and quit being polite) ... I don't see much changing.

PS: Eli Wallach was great as Tuco (the Ugly) in the Clint Eastwood movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". When he heard an enemy in the building (with tongue in cheek) he said "Just a moment and I will open up!".

Nice rant Gnomes, but wrong target. Kevin Phillips is a Republican who is pretty much disgusted at what the Republican party has become. Much like a lot of Republicans I know.

what are the real differences between the 2 parties? not talking about abortion / gays / other meaningless wedge issues can anyone see a real difference? I cant , we are fucked I cant afford to pay for aggression/tax breaks for companies and trust fund babies /insane drug prices for old people ,our national debt is insane we need more parties these clowns are out of control , even in a fake democracy these results are unacceptable

I have to say as an outsider looking in there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Democrats and Republicans its almost as if the one with the best publicist wins a case of rhetoric over substance, G-d forbid that they deal with the real issues facing this ever shrinking planet. What does surprise me is that with the wealth of talent in the United States, the idiots you choice to run your country. No offence I luv the good old US of A, I went to school there for a short time, travel there at leased once a year (normally to Jazz fest in New Orleans, sadly not this year) and have family there but it saddens me when I see the total misallocation of resources and some of the US’s fucked up priorities.

By misallocation, I assume you mean the BILLIONS of $$ our taxpayers spend trying to fix the rest of the world's problems.

Ejack

The US's donations and participation in aiding the third world as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest in the world. It should also be noted that Americas trade policies actively hamper growth in the third world and is a contributing factor to anti American sentiment around the world. Even in the arena of enlightened self-interest America fails dismally. No offence Ejack but take a look from the other side of the looking glass for a moment it would do you the world of good. Once again I am not anti American but the “we give you money so shut up and be thankful” is the biggest lie perpetrated by the US government against its own people, outside of America most people have given up believing in an altruistic Uncle Sam long ago.

I have to concur with Isawal. Examples: our sugar price support program keeps the price of US sugar artificially low (by a considerable amount) and prevents the sugar cane industries in developing countries from being able to compete for our market. Without the price supports we pay to large agri-businesses, those economies in developing countries would be much stronger, and less dependent on aid from industrialized countries (and Isawal is right; we are tight-fisted bastards when compared to most EU countries on a % GDP basis).

A different type of example: we give assistance to developing countries to combat HIV/AIDS (through the US PEPFAR program) but do so in a way that ties the hands of the countries receiving the money. They have to spend specific portions of the money promoting abstinence programs. This has forced some of these countries to reduce spending on prevention activities (such as mother-infant transmission) which are far more vital to the battle against the spread of AIDS than unproven abstinence programs. The US Goverment Accountability Office released a report Tuesday blasting the Bush Administration for these policies that place ideology over effective government, science, and public health.

Another example of our ham-fisted genorosity: the US (the Bush Administration, that is) decided two years ago that it would no longer provide developing countries with certain AIDS prevention financial assistance unless those goverments sign a statement declaring that prostitution is "dehumanizing and degrading." Brazil, where prostitution is legal, said "Fuck you very much" and told USAID to keep their $48 million (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102316.html). Again, ideology supercedes public health.

And, yes, Kevin Phillips is and always has been a Republican. He was a speechwriter for Nixon, worked for Reagan, and was the key strategist behind the "southern strategy" leading to the Republican takeover of Congress. Yet even Phillips is now horrified by what Bush, Tom DeLay, and the kooks running the national Republican effort have done to the Grand Old Party. So am I. These folks have nothing in common with the political philosophy of the "Party of Lincoln." They are not about small, efficient goverment. They are spending our money faster than ever (look at the latest figures on political pork spending by Republicans), waving the saber and sending Americans into wars without a plan, and jamming religiously-based ideology down our throats and those of people around the world.

I'd had enough of this a year ago. I re-registered as an Independent. A pox on all their houses.

Bran,

As a former Northeast Republican myself - pretty much an extinct species these days, since we were all told to go away back in the 90s when the fundementalist christians took over the party - I find myself to be a fairly hard-core Democrat these days. I basically went from one party to another, but what I think a lot of people will do is pretty much what you did. You go from voting pretty much all-Republican all the time to being an independent, where you might vote Republican on local issues and Democrat on national and state issues. At the same time, many independants are going from that schema to all-Democrat all of the time. I live in Fairfax County, VA, which has the highest per-household incomes in the country, one of the best public school systems and all of the other benefits of a good suburban lifestyle. As late as just a few years ago, Fairfax was still voting in the low 50% range for Republican national elections; in 2004, Fairfax went in the low 50's for Kerry and in the recent state elections, over 60% for the winning Democrat candidate.

I think that the comment that all the rich people are Republican is very incorrect these days. Most tech folks are Democrats, and that's still the fastest growning wealth machine there is. Yes, if you run an oil company or a financial company or one of the "traditional" rich-guy occupations, you're probably Republican, but a lot of those guys grind their teeth in having to put up with the religious conservative bullshit.

Bran

I appreciate your comments and as they say in the classics I could not have said it better myself. I think that a lot of people outside the States are confused by American foreign policy, which some of the time seems so well intentioned but seem to go so wrong. Americas political leaders have a justifiable pride in being the “last super power” that has transcends very quickly into arrogance and xenophobia.

If the republicans are "GOD'S OWN PARTY", then GOD must hate the world so much that he wants his children to suffer a polluted environment, outrageous greed, extreme poverty, unmanagable debt and a thousand other hardships that these lying theives are putting upon mankind.

This is not the GOD or SON found in my bible, especially not in the new testament. Republicans serve SATAN and depend upon easily deceived voting fools to hold power.

The GOP truly is the ORIGIN of EVIL.

Democratic campaign strategy. Go around and call everyone an idiot who doesn't think like them. Then wring hands and snivel when they loose again.

Prediction, '08, McCain defeats Hillary in a landslide. Democrats sulk for 8 more years and decide everyone are idiots.

You heard it here first.

Want me to search and dig up my postings her with predictions for the '04 election?

Newsflash people: the U.S. is a right-wing country! The liberals and Dems are has-beens, at least on the national level. It's not just the fault of the theo-nuts, it's a cultural/societal swing. Compare us to Canada or Europe which tend to have more "progressive" politics.

I think Sancho is right. There's a lot of bitching and complaining going on right now and the poll numbers are real low, but when push comes to shove, people will end up voting Republican in the end.

And once the GOP propaganda machine goes into full swing later this year, (via Faux News, Chris Matthews, Swift Boat Redux, etc.), the Dems are toast. They just don't play the game as ruthlessly as the other side does.

Fortunately, us liberal elite northeasterners have our little haven from this wingnuttery, at least for now. . . ;-)

Being in a country with 11 official languages and more political parties then you can shake a stick at, I see the lack of political diversity as one of The USA's major problems its seems that the Democrats and Republicans usually the bitterest of rivals close ranks to keep others out, how can two parties effectielly represent the best interest of all the American people?

I think that two parties work well. Take a look at the countries with two-party systems: USA, Canada, UK, Japan, etc. Certainly it's not perfect, but all are in good shape compared to the rest of the world. Now take the countries with many parties, such as Italy and Germany. When you have many small parties, you have a situation where a true "tyranny by minority" can set in. If one party is at 47% and another at 45%, one small party with 3% of the vote can put the one with 47% in charge - and the larger party will bend over backwards to accomodate them. But, if someone in the 3% gets pissed, they could pull out, the goverment grinds to a halt while a new majority is cobbled together, and even more horse trading goes on. At least with two parties, you know where the skunks are. With a bunch of parties, the skunks are smaller and harder to follow.

The US has had plenty of 3rd parties over the years. The Reform Party was the most recent and actually got people elected - although getting Jesse "The Body" Ventura elected governor of Minnesota may not have been the best thing! Still Ross Perot got enough popular vote in 92 and 96 to make an impression, although he got not one Electoral College vote, which is all that counts.

Catocony

You might be right but the Democrats and Republicans seem to be in the main to similar. Yes there are extremes in both parties but in the main they remind me of the end of George Orwell’s book animal farm were the difference between the people and the pigs is totally blurred.

The problem in Africa has always been two fold; the lack of an effective opposition which leads to dictatorship and the failure to create a true democratic ethos which has lead to a corrosion of democratic institutions such as free speech and human rights. In the US its seems to be apathy and a lack of political diversity where people and the pigs look and act the same I will not say which political party is the pigs…the elephants or the donkeys but it has had ominous results the deterioration of the freedoms Americans once help so dear.

I would also add that the cost involved in fighting an election in the USA is an effective bar on the entry of an effective third party as Ross Perot found to his cost.

I always laugh when anyone says the Republicans and Democrats are the same. They diverge greatly on issues of taxation, education, trade, foreign relations and most obviously, social issues. Would you say the US is acting the same towards the world today as it was six years ago? If not, that's the difference between Democrats in charge vs Republicans in charge.

America only has one political party which is the property party. Wake up!!!

Catocony

Perception is important you might few the parties as wildly divergent but outside the USA we really don’t see it. The primary difference seems to be that the Democrats fuck you and hope you enjoy it wile the Republicans just fuck you. I know that’ this is a gross over simplification but that seems to be the sense of it out here. In a country were communists and fascists contest elections in the same district whether estate duties should be 20% or 25% over the first two million dollars does not seem a biggy.

I wonder what would happen if political parties could only accept campaign contributions from private individuals and not from corporations.

Isawal, that kind of generalization is exactly the kind of misconception that puts people like Bush in power. As Catocony correctly points out, when you list the issues specifically, it's relatively easy to differentiate where the parties stand.

The misconception seems to stem from the fact that politics has to be played with large sums of money and comprises have to be made to put together a coalition strong enough to defeat the other side.

Hopefully after eight years of Bush the more progressive on the Left will have realized this and abandoned the Naderesque claim that Republicans and Democrats are the same.

Isawal, why would someone who doesn't live in the US understand US politics? We generally have three very distinct levels of elected offices here: federal, state and local. Most Americans don't understand half of it, which is really why complete morons like Bush get elected in the first place.

I don't have a clue about South African politics, except that under apartheid the white guys with the weird accents were in charge and since apartheid is gone, the black guys with the weird accents are in charge. That's the general perception here; I doubt if that's all the difference there is. The accents sound the same to me, so other than the fact that the old white guys have been replaced with black guys I would assume nothing is different and the two groups are the same.

Hi Catocony
Actually the reason that I have a small understanding of American Politics is because when I was at school American and European history was part of our required curriculum ( One of the perks of being one of the white guys with the weird accent was that we got one hell of an education) I also studied International relations at university. BTW we get CNN, NBC and the rest here. We have a vested interest in American politics. Decisions made in Washington have very real effects on our lives so we read the New York Times and the Washington Post. I imagine that if the black guys with the weird accents could destroy your economy and affect the stability of your government or compromise your security you might take a keener interest in them. There is an old cliché that goes “When America sneezes the rest of the world catchers a cold” there is some truth to that.

I was trying to give you and idea of how America is preserved from an outsider’s point of view. That the American Government can be preserved as uncaring, manipulative and untrustworthy whether its Jimmy Carters betrayal of the Shari of Iran, Ragan’s support of the Taliban or the Bush family’s long standing friendship with The Bin Laden’s.

Got to go, Leno is on and I hate to miss Jay’s monolog.

It's probably safe to say that many of the Americans on this board do know how the US is perceived outside the US, since many of us travel regularly.

I would never think of defending the current administration. In an earlier time and place a govenment like Bush and Cheney and crew would be swinging from nooses or heads would literally be rolling. I generally believe that things must get worse before they get better for the US to make major political changes. It didn't get bad enough before the 2004 elections so there we are. I truly feel that things are changing now, that the Bush crew has lost a lot of the benefit of doubt that many have given them. Republicans are in open revolt, the question will be if they can recombine in time to save themselves. You have very, very disparite groups that make up Republican support today. The religious factions are trying to stay united on the surface, but Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are not groups that tend to get along for very long. The business community generally holds their noses over the social issues, the mega-rich just want tax cuts so they can keep more of their money. The rural supporters have no money and no power so are fed a long string of bullshit and myth so that instead of worrying about important subjects such as their economic condition or their family's future, they get wrapped around the axle on completely fabricated and unimportant issues such as gay marraige.

Here's something to ponder - the "red" Republican states, where supposedly no government intervention is good intervention, are those states heavily reliant upon farm subsidies and goverment payrolls, through military bases and the like. Always ironic, the guy who wrote the book Metro vs Retro has hit it on the head I believe.

One thing I will always defend is that the US government should always represent the best interests of the US. We currently don't do that with Israel. We should take a much stronger hand with them and settle the bullshit with the Palestinians unitlarerally. Basically, draw up a map that splits the water and good land more evenly, and that causes the least amount of family movement, and basically tell Israel to go along with it or go alone. The same for the Palistinians.

Regarding the Arab countries, the biggest problems is that we chose sides when we should not. If religious dictatorships take over, hey, as long as the oil gets shipped, which is in the best interests of everyone, who cares? We just won't issue visas for those countries' citizens to come here.

The world just needs to get over that inferiority complex. The US is different from the rest of the world, and we will have different ways of doing things. I believe the net result is very beneficial for the world in general, but there will of course be negative incidents. Was South Africa better off with apartheid? It was pressure from the US and other countries that eventually caused South Africa to change. I believe that our intervention in Bosnia and later Kosova was very good, and if we hadn't acted in the 90s Milosovic would be sitting in Yugoslavia today with millions more dead. We don't always get it right, but until the Bush regime, we certainly never got it this wrong.

All I am hearing from Liberals is that they hate Bush, they Hate the war on terror, they hate the christian right, they hate all republicans. If a black man like Alan Keyes speaks up then they hate him call him a traitor to his race, because they think he's a misguided blackman

Then they have the gaul to say that conservatives, Bush, or our brave troops are the ones that hate because they are attempting to do the job they were hired for, to stamp out terrorism where ever they find it, huuum who's the hypocrite here.

Hot4ass2

You liberals crack me up you say were killing inocent people in Iraq. But its really you who are the real murders ABORTION, uthinasia, Terry Shrivo Murder. What do you think god is going to do when he askes you why you supported murdering 10 of thousands of his babies each year. Shame on you you hippocrites

Scooby,

What terrorism has been stomped out the last three years?

Wow, I've never seen a mongerer opposed to abortion before. This a definitely a new one on me. Aside from HIV, babies are usually the last thing hobbyists want. But then again, I guess HIV was sent from god to kill all the mongering sinners who inhabit this board.

Jezus fucking Christ.......

I though it was bad having to listen to the mindless liberal drivel......Then in walks a bible thumper.

Scooby re-posted a mindless right wing chain email piece of drivel in a trip report. I think he should be lauded for actually posting his drivel in the off-topic section.

He is a typical right wing he-man wing-nut so don't expect any thoughtful, relevant postings from him.

OH NOOO... I fed the troll...

My man Scooby ! !

Anyone who chooses a cartoon figure as a handle wears his IQ on his sleeve in the double digits likely.

This is the same idiot who chided Hunterman for not wearing a condom on his last trip to AC.

I guess you can " fornicate " all you want as long as you wear your Goodyear !


Ummmm Scooby
Hitler's troops were also "attempting to do the job they were hired for".
Don't go there.
And please do not come back trying to say I am comparing our troops with the Gestapo. Just pointing out the lunacy of your argument.

BTW

It was Terry Schiavo not Shrivo. Guess you really cared for her eh ??

Jesus Christ , listening to scooby makes me want to kill myself.

scoob we cant afford the war , religion sucks scoob ,Israel sucks and we cant afford that shithole either if you want to steal land its a good Idea to wipe out the natives first so there arent any busses blowing up, ever hear of a suicide bomber blowing up a bus in philadelphia 230 years ago? I dont think so.


Cat I really dissagree about the 2 party thing its a joke Noam chomsky calls them the 2 factions of the buisiness party and I agree they may throw some red meat to scooby and some "conservative" may talk about being pro life but thats all bullshit. same goes for the so called liberals , being pro choice and anti gun makes you liberal? These mutts will represent the highest bidder and that is not their constituents Banks and Industry own this country 2 partys only exist to give us the illusion of choice. We are fucked guys like scooby arent that rare and they are actually allowed to vote, good thing it doesnt matter who gets elected.

Hi Catacony

No one is trying to say that the USA doesn’t do some good internationally or that the you don’t on occasion have some good intentions. I agree about Israel, you should throw your support behind the peace wall and the dis-engagement policy, BTW did you know that 2/3 of Israel is already under Arab rule its called Jordan and was stolen by the Brits in the 1920’s and given as a bribe to their Arab allies. Yes I am a Zionist.

As for sanctions in South Africa, didn’t work, sorry. The sum total of American disengagement was that IBM changed its name to ISM and City Bank took down the sign on their building. By the end of sanctions in the mid 90s SA had a weapons manufacturing industry in the top ten in the world, an effective oil from coal conversion process as well as a few multi Headed ICBMs (don’t worry those were dismantled before the black guys who talk funny took over) and best of all no Big Macs, unfortunately those did arrive with “liberation"

Simple question to you all, there are 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) Americans citizens is Old Goergie the best you could do...really.

To the Christians Happy Easter, to the Jews a happy and peaceful Passover to the Atheists go out get laid it’s a long weekend and to the Arabs... duck!

Those that proclaim that USA politicians only serve business and moneyed interests and it does not matter who get elected have it wrong.

USA Politicians serve the best organized and focused special interests and they sell their souls to these special interests for the votes that they can deliver. By channeling their resources and money, these special interest groups deliver to politicians what they want, the votes that get them re-elected or the cash to fund their campaigns. Think NRA, Labor, Industry... they cover the ideological spectrum. If you can deliver a block of votes, that is a currency that spends in USA politics.

Most armerkuns are apathetic, disinterested and do not vote. If they do vote, they vote for those politicians that pander to their simple minded, jingoistic prejudices. That's where the special interests that only have money get their influence. They fund the campaign efforts for the pandering. There is actually very little quid pro quo "pay me for my vote". Politicians are more addicted to power.

The Bush machine had a very powerful coalition of special interests that is now falling apart because of it's inherent instability and the breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration. Pragmatic businessmen really have very little in common with the religious right. The appalling cluster-fuck that is Iraq and the Bush Foreign Policy, Domestic arrogance, fiscal irresponsibility and Criminal Acts (can you say High Crimes and Misdemeanors?) have eroded the Bush spin doctors ability to distract all but the dimmest of the public (Hey Scooby, what up?)

Why the despicable and criminal acts perpetrated by the Bush administration on its own people (Domestic spying, establishing a fundamentalist theocracy, denying Citizens of their fundamental Rights, all in violation of the Constitution and Bush just generally being a Moron) have finally caught the attention of the General Public where the despicable and criminal acts perpetrated by the Bush administration on the rest of the world (Aubu Grave, Gitmo, Renditions and justifying torture) have not is something that shames me, but does not surprise me.

One thing that all my travels always reminds me is just how deeply and fundamentally American I am. It saddens me when when simplistic idiots try to make being an American evil so that they can beat their chest, proclaim their so called "patriotism" and spout useless drivel so they can ignore just how intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt they are.

**whew**

Hey, I went to AC and had a great time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/nyregion/12hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Would the Religious right approve?

Photo: Treasure Island Gospel 2

RG.