NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, at least according to some Republican policy-makers. Yes, in a memo from within Delay's campaign (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html), the offical party-line strategy for electoral victory has been stated in black and white.

This memo was delivered by DeLay aide Michael Scanlon to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. It is now a matter of public record.



"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."

...

In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.



So, in other words, the DeLay campaign strategy is to pander to their base. Or, as they call them, wackos! So nice to know the depths of their respect for their voting public....

Gee, I thought that at least one "wacko" here would be annoyed enough to take issue with that characterization.

Oh well, I guess self-interest wins all. Who cares if they think so poorly of you as long as they keep pandering to you....

Gee, I thought that at least one "wacko" here would be annoyed enough to take issue with that characterization.

Oh well, I guess self-interest wins all. Who cares if they think so poorly of you as long as they keep pandering to you....

So you basically just admitted you were trolling?

And where was the source for the article?

Gee, I thought that at least one "wacko" here would be annoyed enough to take issue with that characterization.

Oh well, I guess self-interest wins all. Who cares if they think so poorly of you as long as they keep pandering to you....

I'm already aware that anyone who isn't really a born-again Christian thinks of us as 'wacko' - regardless of their party affiliation.

It's not a surprise. You think they are wackos, so what's you're problem?

I've seen the story elsewhere, but here's one link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html) to it. The quote about "wackos" comes from page 119 of this pdf document (http://indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205exhibits.pdf), and it's a quote from Tom DeLay aide Michael Scanlon.

What this shows, more than anything else, is the disdain with which the money republicans regard the conservative wing of their party, which has been handing them electoral victories in recent years. This isn't liberals calling conservative christians "wackos" (although we do it, no question)--this is Republicans doing it to their own.

I'm already aware that anyone who isn't really a born-again Christian thinks of us as 'wacko' - regardless of their party affiliation.

It's not a surprise. You think they are wackos, so what's you're problem?
I think he was using the term more in a facetious way to highlight the article

I've seen the story elsewhere, but here's one link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html) to it. The quote about "wackos" comes from page 119 of this pdf document (http://indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205exhibits.pdf), and it's a quote from Tom DeLay aide Michael Scanlon.

What this shows, more than anything else, is the disdain with which the money republicans regard the conservative wing of their party, which has been handing them electoral victories in recent years. This isn't liberals calling conservative christians "wackos" (although we do it, no question)--this is Republicans doing it to their own.

And I'm saying I'm not surprised.

And I'm saying I'm not surprised.
I can't say I am either. For all the lip service the Republican party pays to evangelicals, they really haven't done much to hook them up since they've been in power--Alito is the first real bone they've gotten, and they had to slit Miers' throat to get him, and if Bush hadn't been so weak on other fronts, they might not have gotten that. No Federal Marriage Amendment. No Abortion Amendment. No prayer in schools. They've gotten a lot of promises but no action, and yet they still continue to support the party.

I can't say I am either. For all the lip service the Republican party pays to evangelicals, they really haven't done much to hook them up since they've been in power--Alito is the first real bone they've gotten, and they had to slit Miers' throat to get him, and if Bush hadn't been so weak on other fronts, they might not have gotten that. No Federal Marriage Amendment. No Abortion Amendment. No prayer in schools. They've gotten a lot of promises but no action, and yet they still continue to support the party.

It's not like the Democrats give them any alternative. See the point made by Jimmy Carter - if the Democrats weren't so fixated on the abortion issue, more evangelicals might cross over.

I would cross over for some Democratic candidates if they weren't so fixated on gun control. But even the ones who say during the election that they are not fixated on gun control turn around and pass more gun control as soon as they are in office.

So, until the Democratic Party offers a real alternative - one where abortion is off the table permanently, and one where gun control is off the table permanently, you're not going to get certain voters to leave the Republican party.

There's a similar situation with African-Americans and the Democratic Party - I feel they have been used hard by the Democratic Party and hardly rewarded for it. And yet where could they go? Certainly not to the Republican Party.

I can't say I am either. For all the lip service the Republican party pays to evangelicals, they really haven't done much to hook them up since they've been in power--Alito is the first real bone they've gotten, and they had to slit Miers' throat to get him, and if Bush hadn't been so weak on other fronts, they might not have gotten that. No Federal Marriage Amendment. No Abortion Amendment. No prayer in schools. They've gotten a lot of promises but no action, and yet they still continue to support the party.
if the republicans passed all those things they promised to the religious wackos then they would have nothing left to campaign on. they will never do anything meaningful about any of those issues. it only hurts them in the long run

so why do evangelicals stick to a party that disrespects them and will never actually pass any of their core issues? is lip service really so much more important than action on other issues that might actually benefit them?

I can't say I am either. For all the lip service the Republican party pays to evangelicals, they really haven't done much to hook them up since they've been in power--Alito is the first real bone they've gotten, and they had to slit Miers' throat to get him, and if Bush hadn't been so weak on other fronts, they might not have gotten that. No Federal Marriage Amendment. No Abortion Amendment. No prayer in schools. They've gotten a lot of promises but no action, and yet they still continue to support the party.
true, but those issues aren't nearly as important to most Christians as others that the republican party are supposed to be on our side for, and I say supposed to be because I haven't really seen them "stick to thier values" at all lately. :( At least the congressman I voted for is doing what he said he would even if everyone else hates him for it. ;)

So you basically just admitted you were trolling?

And where was the source for the article?

No, I was not trolling, nor is that term one I would normally use which is why I put it in quotes. Sorry that I forgot the link, but I see that Nazz picked up the slack there....

And, since you didn't seem to notice, it is the supposed RIGHT using that term which is what I thought that some evangelicals here might have taken offense at.

It's not like the Democrats give them any alternative. See the point made by Jimmy Carter - if the Democrats weren't so fixated on the abortion issue, more evangelicals might cross over.

I would cross over for some Democratic candidates if they weren't so fixated on gun control. But even the ones who say during the election that they are not fixated on gun control turn around and pass more gun control as soon as they are in office.

So, until the Democratic Party offers a real alternative - one where abortion is off the table permanently, and one where gun control is off the table permanently, you're not going to get certain voters to leave the Republican party.

There's a similar situation with African-Americans and the Democratic Party - I feel they have been used hard by the Democratic Party and hardly rewarded for it. And yet where could they go? Certainly not to the Republican Party.
Well, I tend to think that the Republicans, evangelicals especially, are far more focused on abortion than Democrats are, and the proof is that we have anti-abortion people not only in our caucus, but in our leadership, while the reverse isn't really the same in the Republican party, and the gun-control issue is a bugaboo that is, quite frankly, crap. Our party is pretty healthily divided on that issue--the NRA has won that battle, and to some extent, for the better.

As for evangelicals and abortion, here's how I feel about it--if they're not willing to acknowledge that there are legitimate differences of opinion on this issue, then I don't want them in my party. I'm not going to lie to them and tell them otherwise--I don't want to be in a party that has members who will call me a murderer because I believe a woman ought to be able to choose. I don't like abortion personally, but I'm not going to impose that on others--that's the difference between me and evangelicals on this issue. Choice, as long as I have anything to do with it, will never be off the table--if that means evangelicals are never in it with us, then so be it.

But they could also look at it this way--we wouldn't be using them anad then not coming through. There are other issues we do agree with evangelicals on--taking care of the poor and aged, for starters--and we could be good allies on that and live and let live on the other. And then there's always the third party option.

true, but those issues aren't nearly as important to most Christians as others that the republican party are supposed to be on our side for, and I say supposed to be because I haven't really seen them "stick to thier values" at all lately. :( At least the congressman I voted for is doing what he said he would even if everyone else hates him for it. ;)

Interesting trend common to our current and past President.

Both pandered to a certain demographic in order to win.
Clinton ran to the center - figuring the die hards in the Democratic Party would vote for him no matter what.

Bush, while saying things to the die hard right, keeps trying to swing center (although not as centrist as Clinton) - figuring the die hards in the Republican Party will vote for him no matter what.

Clinton is remembered by Michael Moore as "the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan". I know many Democrats personally who are grievously dismayed at most of Clinton's policies (we can start with his embrace of Newt Gingrich's idea - to end welfare as we know it).

I find this thread offensive. I feel need to remind you that not all wackos are christians:mad:

It's nice to see the truth come out here, even if the wackos don't give a shit.
Knowing how little most of them understand Jesus anyway, it's not supising how little they know about politics as well.

If being a Christian makes you a "wacko", then I guess I can live with that moniker. Comfortably. Might even accept it as a badge of honor.

I was talking with a friend of mine who is Christian, and I showed her a quote out of Psalms 137, verse 9: "Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!", and I asked her if she knew about it, in response, she said, "I really haven't read much of the bible-" So I said, "Then how can you believe in it if you don't even understand it?"

That aside, if DeLay's campaign did call the Christian supporters 'wackos', then I'd love to see it being distributed and having him lose his wacko foundation. I love irony..

That aside, if DeLay's campaign did call the Christian supporters 'wackos', then I'd love to see it being distributed and having him lose his wacko foundation. I love irony..

Yes... Yes, I'm sure that would work...

They would run right over and support the Democratic Party, which has called them "wackos" so many times it's an official mantra.

Yay! I'm a wacko. Now pander to me and quite being a bunch of *insert dirty words here*. Christians span the scale. They just play to the wacko one often times.

I find this thread offensive. I feel need to remind you that not all wackos are christians:mad:


Don't remind me. I already know that.

I am simply pasing on to you the opinion as espoused by a member of Tom DeLay's team.....

Yes... Yes, I'm sure that would work...

They would run right over and support the Democratic Party, which has called them "wackos" so many times it's an official mantra.

Yet consider what they would do when they find out that the person they support considers them wackos.

Did I ever say they would become Democrats? They'd simply find a new Republican candidate. Don't be such a dick.

If being a Christian makes you a "wacko", then I guess I can live with that moniker. Comfortably. Might even accept it as a badge of honor.
Worked for Jacko!

http://www.uncoveror.com/disfigured.jpg

Worked for Jacko!

http://www.uncoveror.com/disfigured.jpg

God, I hate that picture. Never would have thought that you could even become addicted to surgeries. Then along comes Michael Jackson. Poof goes that idea. Yeesh. What a freak.

I find this thread offensive. I feel need to remind you that not all wackos are christians:mad:
True, but the $cientologists and the Wiccans don't have any political clout.

The most shocking thing about the "Christians=Wackos" statement has nothing to do with what was written, but to the inevitable shrug by the offended party.
It's obvious that the Christians are in the Republican's pocket, not the other way around. In recent years the Christians have become so enamoured by the right and hateful of the left that it wouldn't mater if the head of the GOP were the antichrist himself. He'd get their vote.

If the Democrats made a similar statement about blacks (in writing), do you think it would be swept under the rug like this is sure to be? Hell no.

There'll be no outrage because believeing they have a party on their side makes them feel better, regardless of whether it's true or not. Sounds familiar.

oddly enough, this actually made me feel better about the republican party. i can deal with crazy pro-capitalist fascists who merely pander to the christian taliban but actually hold them in utter disdain slightly better than an actual alliance between them as equal partners.

I find this thread offensive. I feel need to remind you that not all wackos are christians:mad:


No.....but all Christians are wackos. lol.

Don't remind me. I already know that.

I am simply pasing on to you the opinion as espoused by a member of Tom DeLay's team.....I suggest adding the link the Nazz gave a few posts back to your original post to avoid confusion as to what your source is...

I suggest adding the link the Nazz gave a few posts back to your original post to avoid confusion as to what your source is...

Good idea...... :)

No.....but all Christians are wackos. lol.
Only the ones who talk in public. I'm Christian and I'm not a wacko. http://67.18.37.14/108/141/emo/crazy.gif

oddly enough, this actually made me feel better about the republican party. i can deal with crazy pro-capitalist fascists who merely pander to the christian taliban but actually hold them in utter disdain slightly better than an actual alliance between them as equal partners.

it actually occurs to me that this is just the sort of moment to force a break between them. if only we had some sort of active christian left (it couldn't call itself that, obviously) to form a 'splinter' party and focus its talking points on jesus's words about the treatment of "the least of these" and selling all you own to give to the poor, etc., pushing out state intrusion on religion in terms of defining religious marriages and divorces and such, along with general pro-lifeyness.

i'd form it myself, but i'm an atheist, so that wouldn't work. plus, it'd need a bit of money. but i bet you could get some of the mainline christian churches behind it.

Well, if you can believe in an imaginary friend who created the world in 7 days, created women to be subservient to men and created homosexuals in order to give everyone else a scapegoat to beat on, then you can believe that the Republican Party this modern age actually is fighting for your values.

I saw this story listed on Free Republic earlier (I occasionally go there for a laugh).

I managed to see the link, click it, no posts present, was not surprised, and it was deleted soon after.

Seems the Freepers don't like things that challenge their world view.

It is pathetic beyond words.

I find this thread offensive. I feel need to remind you that not all wackos are christians:mad:
Jesus H christ dont you people understand? he was not calling you waco's he was showing you what PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO BE ON YOUR SIDE BETRAY YOU while claiming religous richousness at the same time

Jesus H christ dont you people understand? he was not calling you waco's he was showing you what PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO BE ON YOUR SIDE BETRAY YOU while claiming religous richousness at the same time

You didn't get his joke. He said not all Wackos are Christians.