Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

It is so nice to see all the men out, again, deciding what a woman can do with her body. Also, and repeatedly, there is no such thing as an unborn child. It is a fetus.

But I suppose if you are going to describe the Democratic party by this one position, it would be fair play to describe the Republican Party by one position...

Therefore, when I think of the Republican Party ... I think I will see the image of Senator Vitter, in a diaper, getting spanked by a $300.00 per hour hooker.

 

[Big Don]

I think there were some thoughtful questions at the Presidential debate last evening. The fact that Mr. Guiliani, Mr. Thompson, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Romney choose to schedule other things speaks volumes. Not only did they not participate in a debate at a prestigious black university, they also did not appear at the Univision debate, the Values Voters debate and the YouTube debate. One might make the assumption that they wish to lead an America comprised of White Anglo Saxon Protestants only.

Univision debate: We speak English here. The Constitution, all the founding documents, in fact, were written in English. While being able to speak a foreign language is admirable, not being able to speak English in this country is nothing more than self-limiting. Why pander to those who have so little respect for the 400 years of English speaking tradition in this country? The You Tube debate? Random loons with camcorders asking what turned out to be mainly idiotic questions, yeah, that's where you go for a serious discussion of issues...
What, in your opinion does the abject refusal of the Democrat candidates refusal to debate on Fox News Channel signify? You know, aside from craven cowardice.

 

[rustyself]

well, my opinion is based on the fact i believe in the word of god, our holy bible. it is meant for all people, but god loves you enough to give you free will to believe how you wish. it does not change the fact of him being. as i said, and you make the case for me, liberals are not spiritual people. i happen to be spiritual, therefore i am conservative.

i believe the liberals put on a good show of pointing fingers and spinning the facts to suit them. sure, the republican party has issues. last time i checked, hillary got caught with a bunch of stolen money, and her husband got caught with a page girl when he was in office. the point is, every one is human and makes mistakes.

i, having the ability to confess jesus christ as my saviour, just know that my mistakes are forgiven.

 

[michaeledward]

If I can take your observation a little further, Michael, that is because scientists call it the "Big Bang Theory," not the "The Big Bang Law," or "Creation: Big Bang Style." I don't see how a scientific theory challenges a creation story because people experience their belief of these two different notions in rather different ways, or I would assume they do.

As for some of the abortion commentary... If I understand it, one who believes in a woman's right to choose abortion is a liberal/Marxist and therefore not a Christian, thus unfit to vote or run for office in a country that has been governed by two parties for how long? My takeaway is that anyone in the USA who is not a Christian (Athiests, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims) should not be allowed to vote or hold office.

I guess I would believe the public tears cried over an abortion if the same tears were shed at an execution. Is it not remotely possible that if a woman is pregnant, that is entirely her business, not a matter for public consumption, and that if she seeks whatever medical attention she chooses, no one needs to know about, so therefore she can walk into a hospital or clinic, and nobody has to get upset about anything? Instead, they can drive over the local state prison, open the trunk or tailgate, and have a kegger.

Gordon Nore ...

The Creation belief being most strongly pushed in this country does not fit at all with the scientific evidence at hand. There are dramatic inconsistancies with the physical sciences and the 11,000 year old creation belief presented by some groups of evangelical Christians. (www.creationmuseum.com)

There are a great number of believers who have come to terms with a 15 billion year old universe, and posit that a devine being brought it into existance, and set in motion all that we observe today. These believers see the hand of god in evolution, and I am fine with that, too.

But, personally, I am an athiest, and see the scientific evidence presenting us with useful, but not fully understood, information right back to the instants (milliseconds) after the "Big Bang". Science has not yet tried to identify what the cause of the big bang was, nor what came before it. Science does have a pretty good idea of what happened, by examining the immediate after effects of the happening.



Concerning your second paragraph .. I am not sure where this was directed. However, our Constitution specifically states that no religous test can ever be applied to persons running for office, and by corollary, to those who vote. There is nothing more un-American, than to declare a specific religion as mandatory among our citizens and servants.


Concerning capital punishment ... there are some, as we see here, who recognize an difference between terminating a pregnancy and executing a fully reasoning sentient human being. The only-inconsistancy in this position is if one chooses to refer to himself as 'pro-life'.

 

[Big Don]

Therefore, when I think of the Republican Party ... I think I will see the image of Senator Vitter, in a diaper, getting spanked by a $300.00 per hour hooker.

That's fine. When I think of Democrats I think of Mary Jo Kopecne, Vince Foster, William Jefferson and $90,000 cash, you know, murder victims and bribe taking scum.Oh, and we can't forget 110,000 Japanese AMERICANS locked up by FDR, Jimmy Carter trying to kill a rabbit with an oar, Carter leaving 52 Americans in the hands of terrorists for over a year... A gay brothel being run out of Barney Frank's home (But, he never knew...) Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives, Cruz Bustamante using the dreaded N word at an NAACP event, Child molestor Mel Reynolds,Chandra Levy,FBI files, Rose Law firm files, HSU, Robert Byrd and the KKK, Gerry Studds, you know, all those honest, law abiding democrats...

 

[michaeledward]

Univision debate: We speak English here. The Constitution, all the founding documents, in fact, were written in English. While being able to speak a foreign language is admirable, not being able to speak English in this country is nothing more than self-limiting. Why pander to those who have so little respect for the 400 years of English speaking tradition in this country? The You Tube debate? Random loons with camcorders asking what turned out to be mainly idiotic questions, yeah, that's where you go for a serious discussion of issues...
What, in your opinion does the abject refusal of the Democrat candidates refusal to debate on Fox News Channel signify? You know, aside from craven cowardice.

I am wondering if Fox News Channel is a constituent of the office that the Presidential Candidates wish to hold. Is the Fox News Channel a citizen of the United States? Our government was instituted to be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', wasn't it? Does Fox News Channel qualify as a member of 'the people'? (I of course recognize that the current Adminstration works very hard to serve the demands of Fox News ~ may have something to do with being founded by a Republican operative).

And, as we are all aware, our country was founded, in part, as a revolt against centuries long traditions. And in its founding, the founders decided not to establish an Official State Church, or an Official State Language. So, regardless of whether speaking a foreign language in this country is 'self-limiting', there are citizens in this country who speak foreign languages. The President of the United States will be their President too. Don't they deserve a President who at least makes a claim to hear their concerns?

 

[rustyself]

well, ok:
since you bring it on yourself...
the earth is billions, maybe even trillions, of years old. most christians DO NOT believe the earth is only thousands of years old, no matter what your atheist buddies try to tell you.
when you go back to the original hebrew translation of the bible, you find a time lapse between the first and second verses of genesis. the earth was created, then MADE null and void. it was not created null and void. it was MADE null and void. there was a time when satan was an angel. he ruled the earth, and wanted to overthrow god. they had a huge war in heaven, satan was cast down, and earth was made over from the time satan was over it. this is severely paraphrasing, however, if youre going to attempt to criticise our beliefs, at least try and get them straight.

also, im not saying ANYONE has to agree with a christian worldview. the way some peoples parents brought them up probably doesnt allow it.
HOWEVER, i AM saying that anyone who agrees with abortion is agreeing with murder. nothing short of a fool could say a fetus is not a baby. fetus is a TERM for a DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE of a child.

but, hey, if it makes you liberals feel better so you can sleep at night, go ahead. if you would like to "pick apart" anything i have said, feel free. i am well versed in the politics and motivations of abortion, and will reply when i have an opportunity.

nothing on this earth gives me greater joy than to expose the propaganda at planned parenthood and the aclu in a public forum-

Gordon Nore ...



The Creation belief being most strongly pushed in this country does not fit at all with the scientific evidence at hand. There are dramatic inconsistancies with the physical sciences and the 11,000 year old creation belief presented by some groups of evangelical Christians. (www.creationmuseum.com)

There are a great number of believers who have come to terms with a 15 billion year old universe, and posit that a devine being brought it into existance, and set in motion all that we observe today. These believers see the hand of god in evolution, and I am fine with that, too.

But, personally, I am an athiest, and see the scientific evidence presenting us with useful, but not fully understood, information right back to the instants (milliseconds) after the "Big Bang". Science has not yet tried to identify what the cause of the big bang was, nor what came before it. Science does have a pretty good idea of what happened, by examining the immediate after effects of the happening.



Concerning your second paragraph .. I am not sure where this was directed. However, our Constitution specifically states that no religous test can ever be applied to persons running for office, and by corollary, to those who vote. There is nothing more un-American, than to declare a specific religion as mandatory among our citizens and servants.


Concerning capital punishment ... there are some, as we see here, who recognize an difference between terminating a pregnancy and executing a fully reasoning sentient human being. The only-inconsistancy in this position is if one chooses to refer to himself as 'pro-life'.

 

[rustyself]

I am wondering if Fox News Channel is a constituent of the office that the Presidential Candidates wish to hold. Is the Fox News Channel a citizen of the United States? Our government was instituted to be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', wasn't it? Does Fox News Channel qualify as a member of 'the people'? (I of course recognize that the current Adminstration works very hard to serve the demands of Fox News ~ may have something to do with being founded by a Republican operative).

And, as we are all aware, our country was founded, in part, as a revolt against centuries long traditions. And in its founding, the founders decided not to establish an Official State Church, or an Official State Language. So, regardless of whether speaking a foreign language in this country is 'self-limiting', there are citizens in this country who speak foreign languages. The President of the United States will be their President too. Don't they deserve a President who at least makes a claim to hear their concerns?

you guys NEVER cease to amaze me at how unaware you really are when it comes to what our "founders" wanted...

no wonder why there are so many of your type who are in hollywood...

the seperation of church and state was to keep the state out of the CHURCHES business, not the church out of the states business.

actually take the time to read some of the remarks that were written by them while pondering the issue....

 

[Big Don]

I am wondering if Fox News Channel is a constituent of the office that the Presidential Candidates wish to hold. Is the Fox News Channel a citizen of the United States? Our government was instituted to be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', wasn't it? Does Fox News Channel qualify as a member of 'the people'? (I of course recognize that the current Adminstration works very hard to serve the demands of Fox News ~ may have something to do with being founded by a Republican operative).

And, as we are all aware, our country was founded, in part, as a revolt against centuries long traditions. And in its founding, the founders decided not to establish an Official State Church, or an Official State Language. So, regardless of whether speaking a foreign language in this country is 'self-limiting', there are citizens in this country who speak foreign languages. The President of the United States will be their President too. Don't they deserve a President who at least makes a claim to hear their concerns?

Yeah, Murdoch is such a great republican he donated THOUSANDS to Hillary Clinton, way to spot the republican operative! http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/citizenship.htm Yeah, that's why basic fluency in English is a requirement for naturalization(citizenship)

 

[rustyself]

here is a good article about how the left REALLY views the world...
it indeed shines a bright light on which way they want the world to shift:
begin quote:

Perspectives: Freedom of speech okay for Ahmadinejad ... but not for Michael Savage

James L. Lambert - Guest Columnist
OneNewsNow.com
September 28, 2007

Is it just me -- or does anyone else see a double standard in how liberals are applying the principle of freedom of speech these days? Let's look at the examples of Mahmoud and Michael.



It was amazing to see all the clamoring among liberals in the last few days regarding Columbia University's offer to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their university forum. The New York-based university's President Lee Bollinger spent a lot of time defending his decision to invite the Iranian dictator to speak at his school.
I guess liberals have a short memory. Just 60 days ago, liberals representing San Francisco's Board of Supervisors (an elected government body) were just one vote away from censoring radio talk-show host Michael Savage's on-air remarks about pro-illegal alien demonstrators. They charged accused Savage of race and hate speech crimes. (See earlier column on this issue)
The cities of New York and San Francisco both have a long history of electing and supporting liberal, left-wing causes. But these folks on the left seem like they are particularly unclear and uncertain when it comes to free speech. Perhaps they need to read the First Amendment again: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Leftists agree that their speech should be protected in the public forum. But the speech of conservatives is a different matter. Such is the case at Columbia University in New York. The school would not tolerate Minuteman Jim Gilcrest's freedom of speech. The students disrupted Gilcrest's appearance to the point of terminating his speaking engagement there last fall. Bollinger and his liberal friends wouldn't "tolerate" the ROTC on their campus -- but they welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms.
What is frightening about this is that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous person. He has real power. It has been proven that his regime actively supplies improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to terrorists in Iraq that have killed American soldiers. His regime is challenging the world community with his country's expansion of its nuclear program. And on numerous occasions Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the United States, as well as for the extermination of Israel.
I ask you: With Iran's link to terrorism and this man in power, how safe is the world community? Yet leftists are more anxious to censor the speech of radio talk-show hosts such as Michael Savage.
I guess liberals don't understand that Michael Savage doesn't have the kind of power that is at the disposal of the president of Iran. The radio talk-show host can't order the annihilation of a people, as Ahmadinejad has called for with the Jewish people. And while his afternoon radio program does reach close to ten-million people per week, Savage is not the leader of a nation. He is a U.S. citizen and is protected by the First Amendment.
In contrast, Admadinejad has denied freedom of speech to his opponents; culture police rule urban Iran; and freedom of speech as we know it in America is denied to Iranians.
Admadinejad's regime presents a clear and present danger to the peace of the world. One small suitcase nuclear bomb, if strategically placed, can disrupt the security of the world for generations. With Iran's ties to known terror groups, liberals in New York and San Francisco should be more concerned with this than with the words of a weekday radio talk-show host.

James L. Lambert, a frequent contributor to OneNewsNow.com, is a licensed nationwide real-estate mortgage loan sales agent and can be contacted through his website.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.</EM>

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

​

 

[Ray]

And, as we are all aware, our country was founded, in part, as a revolt against centuries long traditions. And in its founding, the founders decided not to establish an Official State Church, or an Official State Language. So, regardless of whether speaking a foreign language in this country is 'self-limiting', there are citizens in this country who speak foreign languages. The President of the United States will be their President too. Don't they deserve a President who at least makes a claim to hear their concerns?

Isn't the ability to speak English part of the process to become a citizen? The Russians, Romanians and South Africans that I know that are citizens all speak English.

I don't know why religion is brought up as an issue when speaking of Republicans. There are people of faith who are liberal, both socially and fiscally.

 

[michaeledward]

Isn't the ability to speak English part of the process to become a citizen? The Russians, Romanians and South Africans that I know that are citizens all speak English.

I don't know why religion is brought up as an issue when speaking of Republicans. There are people of faith who are liberal, both socially and fiscally.

Ray, to become a Naturalized Citizen, a measure of English comprehension and fluency is required. You will recall, that those people born within the territorial boundaries of our country are, automatically, citizens. If the ability to speak English was a mandatory part of the process, no infant born within the nation's territorial boundaries could be considered a citizen, until and unless they demonstrated the fluency you describe. I'm sure no one will argue that an new born can not demonstrate the ability to speak English.

Now, some immigrants arrive with documentation to work in the mills of Manchester, or Lowell, unable to speak English. Their children are born and raised in homes that do not have English as a first language. Those children are automatically American Citizens.

As for how religion got into this thread, I believe that the teaching of Jesus, 'what you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me', is about as liberal as one can get. But, from my point of view, you're right, I intended this thread to be about politics, and not religion. But, discussion threads have a tendancy to migrate over time. I'm good with that. I just don't want to be rehashing discussions we've had in other threads here. (I think some of the comments here better fit in other threads ... but ... rustyself and BigDon are newer folks on the board, and I appreciate their contributions)

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah, Murdoch is such a great republican he donated THOUSANDS to Hillary Clinton, way to spot the republican operative! http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/citizenship.htm Yeah, that's why basic fluency in English is a requirement for naturalization(citizenship)

Mr. Murdoch is an Australian, and as the head of a very large multinational corporation, I am certain he financially supports anyone whom he believes will be in power, so that he may curry favor, and favorable positions for the operations of his conglomerate.

I was, however, speaking of the President of Fox News Corporation, and chairman of the Fox Television Stations. You may better know him as a media consultant to Richard Nixon. He certainly was a success as a political media consultant. He (and Lee Atwater) helped Vice President Bush defeat Governor Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential campaign. (who can forget the tank, and those willy horton ads - ahh, dirty politics at its best).

I am speaking, of course, of Roger Ailes. The last four decades of his life have been about advancing Republican positions, by what ever means necessary. Being 'Fair and Balanced' is a media consultant's language, not a strategic goal of the organization.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Gordon Nore ...

There are a great number of believers who have come to terms with a 15 billion year old universe, and posit that a devine being brought it into existance, and set in motion all that we observe today. These believers see the hand of god in evolution, and I am fine with that, too.

That's what I was getting at -- a belief in The Almighty and a belief in a scientific theory regarding the origins of our existence are two different kinds of beliefs that can be held by the same person at the same time.

[block]Concerning your second paragraph .. I am not sure where this was directed. However, our Constitution specifically states that no religous test can ever be applied to persons running for office, and by corollary, to those who vote. There is nothing more un-American, than to declare a specific religion as mandatory among our citizens and servants. [/block]

That was to rusty. From what I could tell of his analysis, fifty percent of the population of the US was unfit for citizenship.

Concerning capital punishment ... there are some, as we see here, who recognize an difference between terminating a pregnancy and executing a fully reasoning sentient human being. The only-inconsistancy in this position is if one chooses to refer to himself as 'pro-life'.

Precisely what I was getting at. Again, I failed to direct my comments. To me the difference goes beyond sentience. A fetus is not being sentenced to die at the hands of the state. A woman is having a medical procedure in the privacy of her doctor's care -- so I'm a bit fatigued over the idea that conversation is still going on.

In the case of an execution, the government is terminating a life on behalf of its citizens, and that to me is deserving of public debate.

 

[Ray]

Ray, to become a Naturalized Citizen, a measure of English comprehension and fluency is required. You will recall, that those people born within the territorial boundaries of our country are, automatically, citizens. If the ability to speak English was a mandatory part of the process, no infant born within the nation's territorial boundaries could be considered a citizen, until and unless they demonstrated the fluency you describe. I'm sure no one will argue that an new born can not demonstrate the ability to speak English.

Wow. Thanks, but that much I already knew.

As for how religion got into this thread, I believe that the teaching of Jesus, 'what you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me', is about as liberal as one can get.

Gee, it's what "we" believe and do (as best we can). By "we" I mean the religion I belong to--but I'm not sure how many are conservative vs liberal--I'm certainly a conservative politically.

I thought I had read an earlier post that you didn't believe in Jesus, sorry if I was wrong.

But the important thing is that we (liberal, conservative, m.o.r) do as much as "we can for the least of these." PS: I'm still a Republican.

 

[Kodiak61]

The question is anyone still a Republican? However reading thru the posts I have found that an individual seems to have started a crusade to slam everything they don&#8217;t believe in and Christianity seems to be the biggest target. Here is where the irony strikes me. If a Christian where open this conversation and try to expose the love of God and share the Gospel, the shouts to have the tread ended and possibly the individual remove for the forum would be deafening. I served for 23 years in the military and did my part to provide for the defense to he this nation and our founding principles. I have been cold, hurt, and far away from loved ones in that service. I have been spat on and had urine flung at me in protests. What really rubs me the wrong way is self-important individuals claim the RIGHT to free speech but has never protected it. Remember it&#8217;s not the report that provides free speech, but the soldier. I was serving during the Clinton administration and if anyone care to remember American troops were sent into harms way in the Balklands. We still have a presence in that area. It was an internal matter; however the DEMS decided they need to look strong on national defense and humanities efforts. While stationed in Germany I and some of the airman under me transferred coffins of fall troops from one aircraft to the other. Let us not forget the Clinton also enforced the &#8220;NO-FLY&#8221; zone over northern Iraq as well.

Moving on to Christianity; I am a Christian and a Pastor. My call as a Christian is not to beat anyone over the head with God or the Bible. I am to live according to the Law of GOD which is&#8230; Matthew 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? (37) Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. I am to carry out the Great Commission&#8230;Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. (19) Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world. Amen.

This will undoubtbly draw great and terrible wraith from those that oppose GOD; but I serve GOD and am unconcerned with what humanity thinks. Oh, by the way I am a Republican I just spell it Conservative.

 

[Gordon Nore]

My call as a Christian is not to beat anyone over the head with God or the Bible.

But since you're all gathered here today...

I am to live according to the Law of GOD which is… Matthew 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? (37) Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. I am to carry out the Great Commission…Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. (19) Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world. Amen.

This will undoubtbly draw great and terrible wraith from those that oppose GOD; but I serve GOD and am unconcerned with what humanity thinks. Oh, by the way I am a Republican I just spell it Conservative.

 

[michaeledward]

Wow. Thanks, but that much I already knew.

Ray, I have no doubt that you were aware of my statement. But the words you wrote did not include that rather important caveat. I realize that it may seem 'self-evident' when one sees it written. But, I think when we bring assumptions into a conversations, without spelling them out, it leads to confusion. This is why I gave an example (a valid one, I believe) of how a Natural Born Citizen might grow up unable to speak English.

Gee, it's what "we" believe and do (as best we can). By "we" I mean the religion I belong to--but I'm not sure how many are conservative vs liberal--I'm certainly a conservative politically.

I thought I had read an earlier post that you didn't believe in Jesus, sorry if I was wrong.

But the important thing is that we (liberal, conservative, m.o.r) do as much as "we can for the least of these." PS: I'm still a Republican.

You are correct, Ray. I have stated that I am an athiest. I do not accept the divinity of the person commonly referred to as Jesus. I am on the fence as to whether the historical persona of Jesus was a real person, or an amalgamation by the authors of the bible. I do believe, however, that the teachings of Jesus, as described in the Gospels, are powerful morality lessons that all people could benefit from. I often wonder why people can reconcile these positions; (person is not god, teachings are valuable).

I also think, Ray, that good citizens can be members of the Republican Party, and members of a Christian Church. I do not find them mutually exclusive in any way.

My point throughout this thread really has been about a group of Republican officials who have hi-jacked the party, and taken actions that I think most reasonable people would find distasteful. I'm wondering when folks like yourself are going to shout out against what President Bush, former Attorney General Gonzales, and political advisor Rove have done to your political party. Actions take by politicians like Christy Todd Whitman, and John Dean.

There may be some claims in this thread that appear to be 'cheap shots' at the Republican Party throughout this thread. But, more, I hope it is about people taking the Republican Party to unsavory places and putting in place unsavory policies. I hope it causes you, and concientious folks like yourself to say "Enough".

 

[Gordon Nore]

There may be some claims in this thread that appear to be 'cheap shots' at the Republican Party throughout this thread. But, more, I hope it is about people taking the Republican Party to unsavory places and putting in place unsavory policies. I hope it causes you, and concientious folks like yourself to say "Enough".

I think there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the Republican Party under its current and potential future leadership. Michael, you began this thread with a very legitimate question:

Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

Now I want to address the religious aspect of this thread because if we're going to talk about US politics today in general, and Republican politics in particular, religion is going to come up.

Apparently, there are many on this thread, like me, who see Republican leadership as having handed the GOP over to a portion of the population that follows a very specific view of Christianity. The problem, as I see it, is that public and foreign policy is being contrived by the narrow dictates of that world view and does not take into account the broader views held by many of the electorate.

This phenomenon, however, is not limited to the GOP. Even in the Democratic camp, there have been lengthy discussions about the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of candidates. During the Clinton presidency there were how many photographs of the President coming out of church with his bible in one hand and his wife in the other? When Gore ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency in 2000, there how many discussions about whether Joe Lieberman could carry out his duties as Vice-President because he was a Jew?

More recently, how many times has Mitt Romney taken it in the back from Democrats and Republicans and other Christians for being a Mormon? There has been so much discussion about this, I'll bet there are more people who know his grandparents were polygamists than know what he actually proposes today.

There was a time, I believe, in America when ones religion was ones private business. The Republican Party, in my lifetime, has turned from that sharply. Naturally it is driving away believers and non-believers alike, and so, the question...

Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

...is a legitimate one, not an attempt to bash traditional conservative ideals or the faithful.

 

[Big Don]

To answer MichaelEdward's question:
Excerpted from NRO: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2MzMTJhNGU5NDE4MzgxMDY3NGNiM2Q2NDY0NDA0M2I=Four Reasons Republicans Won't Show Up For the Morgan State Debate
I’m slated to appear on Captain Ed’s show on BlogTalkRadio this afternoon at 3 p.m., discussing criticism of the top Republican candidates for not appearing at the Morgan State University debate this week.

The way I see it, the debate, slated to focus on African-American issues, has four problems deterring the top Republican candidates from showing up.
Problem One: It’s on PBS. As one Republican strategist told me earlier this year, “our voters watch Fox News.” The last Republican debate on Fox News drew a 2.2 rating and 2.47 million households (UPDATE 3.14 million viewers.) I haven’t been able to find the ratings for the AARP debate on PBS last week, but I suspect the audience was tiny; it certainly didn’t make much of a splash in the news.
All of these candidates have an immediate and pressing goal, to win over Republican primary voters. Nevermind whether the topic is one that is important to those groups of voters; the venue is one they don't watch.

Problem two: It’s at the end of the fundraising cycle. This doesn’t prevent every candidate from every debate invitation, but the organizers of this debate had to know this when they set the date. One might even suspect they picked the time of year candidates were least likely to show up. Appearing at this debate will take them away from a fundraiser, and several of these guys need to collect every last dollar before the deadline to avoid the “he’s toast” buzz.

Problem three: There are too darn many of these debates, and with the exception of the YouTube debate, the debates have been getting really predictable. Pretty much the same questions, pretty much the same answers each time. Candidates can legitimately ask, “is anybody going to be watching this?” Only political junkies like us are seeking out debates to watch, and to be honest, if watching them wasn’t part of my job, I’d be tempted to tune them out after an hour.

And, as noted at the link above, it’s not like this is the only debate the top Republican candidates are turning down – they turned down the ValuesVoter event as well. Is this a sign of anti-Christian attitudes in the GOP's frontrunners? Come on, it says the opportunity cost of participating in that debate was too high.

Problem four: Moderator Tavis Smiley. I like Tavis Smiley. He did a fine job moderating the Democratic debate, and I think he would make an attempt to be fair in moderating a Republican one. But he’s not shy about his views. He wrote a book entitled, "Hard Left: Straight Talk About the Wrongs of the Right." He just hosted a book event for Bill Clinton.