Amy Sullivan reports in the Washington Monthly that the Iowa Republicans are changing the name of their party to "Hezbollah":
Posted by DeLong at August 30, 2004 09:39 AM | TrackBackThe Washington Monthly: Guest: Amy Sullivan: "God's Official Party"?....That's what the good souls in the G.O.P. are apparently calling themselves these days, according to Mike Crowley's report from a morning meeting of the Iowa Republican delegation in New York. Ah, humility...
I'm sure that God mightily approves of the vast increase in the rate of poverty in the U.S. under Bush. Nearly 1 in 5 kids in this, the richest country in the world, now live in poverty.
Yeah, I'm sure God approves. That, and supporters of gay marriage being the same as Hitler (see Atrios.)
also:
http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003283.html
Posted by: MattB at August 30, 2004 10:30 AMIt's too bad liberals absolutely refuse to entertain dissent from this part of the Sojourner's ad to which Amy Sullivan linked:
"We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)"
Abortion, embryonic stem cell research and increasingly euthenasia are issues from which major Democratic candidates are forbidden to dissent and those minor figures who try are roundly castigated by the Robert Reich "religious war" crowd. If the Dems were actually serious about courting religious voters as you seem to think they are, they would take this element much more to heart.
Sure these Iowa Republicans are loons. But Democrats are hypocrites -- and we religious types know well what Jesus said on that subject.
Posted by: General Glut at August 30, 2004 10:39 AMFor the record, I'm a Green.
Posted by: God at August 30, 2004 10:41 AMThere is no party but the GOP, and Allah is its chairman.
Posted by: Allah at August 30, 2004 10:44 AMActually, the figures on Protestant religious belief among Republicans have been much the same for 140 years. The delegates today are 66 percent Protestant, 33 percent evangelical. That is remarkable homogeneity in a diverse country. The pietistic versus ritualistic dichotomy was true in the 1880s and is apparently still true(with the addition of course of some non-religious people in the Democratic Party. Nothing to get excited about: it is the Prots versus the Catholics, Jews, and secularists, Red states versus Blue States, Metro polyglot versus Retro Anglos and Germans.
Posted by: g-lex at August 30, 2004 10:49 AMThe reference to Hezbollah is very funny. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.)
But I'm afraid the irony will be lost on the "My God's Bigger than Your God" bunch.
Posted by: Paul Callahan at August 30, 2004 11:13 AMWell, that's good to know the GOP is our direct conduit to God! We'll need it shortly, after the elections, when Israel makes good on it's threat to (again) bomb Iranian nuclear power facilities and so bring down global Islamic jihad on the US.
Hope Georgie and Dickie have their red phone to the Big Guy all warmed up, for everytime a pay-back truck bomb detonates in downtown Manhattan.
Give some warning about your posts, eh? I nearly choked on my breakfast when your page loaded.
what idiots...do you think this will convince my republican parents that their part has gone off the deepend?
devgirl
is laughing
I've often wondered the same thing about the constant references in the discussion of Rove to his courting of "the base" -- which is the literal translation of al Qaeda.
Posted by: P O'Neill at August 30, 2004 11:37 AMI have noticed, in an unscientific way, that fundamentalism seems connected to a lack of economic opportunity. The most fundamentalist states in the Union have been the poor ones.I don't know why the Dems decided it would be a great idea to abandon the working class and become the New Democrats, or do I mean Republicans? Besides a few crazies and strawman social issues (prayer, gay marriage) I am beginning to think that there isn't much difference between the two parties. That is why the electorate is split so evenly, there is not a candidate that speaks to the ordinary person. So the working class has a choice between a Dem nominee that doesn't really seem interested in protecting workers and a social conservative that doesn't care about workers at all. Talk about being between the devil and the deep blue sea! I actually wish that Edwards had been the nominee, he is very good at speaking to the middle and working classes.
Posted by: Lynne at August 30, 2004 11:57 AMIn defense of the GOP, we should note that there is a highly developed theology supporting one's being a "Fool for Christ's Sake."
Unfortunately, the tradition of revering the Holy Fool is primarily Russian Orthodox (see, eg., Woody Allen's depiction of the "Village Idiot's Convention" in _Love and Death_")
In contrast, to call someone a "clown" in traditional American lingo is to insult him.
Doubtlessly, the Iowa Republicans are attempting to broaden our social horizons by their performance.
Posted by: Anasthaseus at August 30, 2004 12:09 PMBloggy Award for best headline, with inscription in Arabic.
Posted by: Randolph Fritz at August 30, 2004 12:17 PMAh, Lynn, you've pulled back the curtain and exposed the Wizard of the Democratic Party for what he is! A humbug (or more accurately, a "liberal Republican").
Posted by: General Glut at August 30, 2004 12:40 PMWell, Pat Robertson did inform us that God told him that it was going to be "Bush in a landslide," unless he made some major errors. Maybe he was on to something.
Posted by: Brian at August 30, 2004 12:50 PMGeneral Glut wrote, "It's too bad liberals absolutely refuse to entertain dissent from this part of the Sojourner's ad to which Amy Sullivan linked: 'We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)' "
??
Did you intend what you wrote? You're implying that liberals are absolutist *in favor of* what you quoted.
Posted by: liberal at August 30, 2004 12:50 PMThe General would be surprised to discover reality if he were to venture out off the culture wars battlefield just a bit.
The reality is that the Democratic Party has plenty of room for dissent, to the point that it has allowed opportunists like Zell Miller to actually betray the party, rather than discipline them. When Republicans dare to utter the slightest dissent, the right wing runs challengers in the primary, gladly sacrificing a seat rather than tolerate even timid variance from the dictates of The Hammer.
The Democratic convention featured a pro-life speaker. Indeed, many Democrats-- especially the many Catholics and evangelicals in the party-- would describe themselves as pro-life. They simply don't believe in legislatively imposing their religion-based beliefs on others. They also believe that being pro-life is more than simply being anti-abortion. It means staying out of wars of choice and of not executing people.
The Republican Party has increasingly little in common with God and increasingly more in common with Hezbollah.
Posted by: Charles at August 30, 2004 12:58 PMI suppose closeness to God is what enables Theresa LePore (Florida-butterfly ballot queen) to divine which absentee votes are valid in an election where she is a candidate. Oh wait, maybe its the party affiliation that is stamped on the envelope. Oh well, I guess it's God's blessing that allows her alone to determine which signatures are valid.
You know, she used to be a Democrat...but then she really turned out to be a Republican after all. I wonder if she is the only one that will make that pilgrimage.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0830-08.htm
And the good Lord said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself...unless he's Arab. In which case, kill the bastard."
Posted by: Chris at August 30, 2004 04:32 PMOops--forgot to cite my source. It's in the Republican Appendix to the Bible. You did know that they've been writing wholesale new sections to the Bible (since God is talking directly to them)? Your New Testaments are out of date.
Posted by: Chris at August 30, 2004 04:51 PMShouldn't there be a "Middle Eastern terrorist" variant of Godwin's Law? There isn't anybody in America who deserves to be compared with an organization such as Hezbollah that sends children and young adults strapped with explosives to kill civilians, and celebrates their "martyrdom" afterwards.
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 30, 2004 11:14 PMWon't the Party of God in Iran claim infringement here?
Posted by: Bob H at August 31, 2004 06:03 AM