White evangelicals, Republicans and wanting to ‘take our country back’

Linda Harvey of the “Christian radio” program Mission America chimes in with her own version of Michael L. Brown’s awful “why have black people betrayed Christianity?” riff following the 2012 election. Harvey says:

Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

“Some people,” white evangelical radio host Linda Harvey says, “are swayed by race.”

Harvey can’t imagine any reason that black Christians would vote for President Barack Obama other than because he’s black. (I suppose that’s also why Obama won over three-fourths of Asian-American voters and a large majority of women voters — because Obama is an Asian-American woman.)

Harvey goes on to claim, falsely, that Obama’s re-election means “that people of faith should be forced to pay for other people’s abortion-causing drugs … drugs that kill unborn babies.”

And then she speculates sadly on the cause of this tragedy, in which most African Americans have chosen to be Satanic baby-killers rather than real, true Christians:

Some people are swayed by race, giving him the benefit of the doubt; some find it impossible to accept the jaw-dropping reality about his actions though. He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. But folks decide which camp they want to be in: the cool camp, the one with the hip president who likes big government programs and nods at sexual sin, even if great harm comes to children as a result. No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

There’s just something about Obama that, for Harvey, is an insult to “our Lord, our values and our faith.” Whatever could that certain, ineffable something be? And what do you mean “our,” Kemosabe?

Whenever white evangelicals like Harvey speak of “our Lord, our values and our faith” or of “our country,” it’s always done in a way that excludes — to use Harvey’s phrase there — “some people.”

Just like Michael L. Brown and most of the other white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism, Linda Harvey would insist that she favors diversity, in principle, and that she would be very pleased to see “our” church become more inclusive. In theory, people like Brown and Harvey can nod along with Alvin Sanders as he outlines his “Mission Lessons From Election Night“:

For 20 years I have beat the drum telling evangelicals that they need to get their institutional house in order because diversity is coming. That line no longer is accurate. Ladies and gentlemen, diversity is here.

And as demonstrated [Election] night, the organizations that figure out how to express their values, attitudes, and beliefs in a diverse manner will be the ones that come out on top. The ones that don’t will slowly and steadily lose their impact.

Here are the facts. Our country is browner, is more female, and is well on its way to becoming an ethnic minority/majority country. If we can’t figure out how to speak to this reality evangelical institutions will be completely marginalized.

The white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism can murmur approvingly when conservative columnist Anthony Bradley writes:

And here’s a valuable lesson for conservative evangelicals from last Tuesday’s election results: If your church, college, seminary, denominational annual meeting, etc., looks like Romney’s concession speech audience, you likely will be unable to transform, influence, or engage America. To do so, you’ll need to start including minorities and women as executive leaders and thought leaders who will help chart institutional direction.

Michael Brown and Linda Harvey and other white evangelicals are fine with that. And they’d be perfectly comfortable tapping “minorities and women as executive leaders and thought leaders” just as long as those folks share all the exact same opinions, perspectives and priorities as those of the white evangelical establishment. They’re all for diversity, but only in the sense that they like the optics of a diverse-looking crowd all pledging unquestioning allegiance to the pure white evangelical agenda in lockstep conformity.

Matt Taibbi was writing about politics, not about the church, when he wrote the following. But I think Taibbi’s comments here on the Republican Party as a whole apply just as much to that party’s subgroup of the white evangelical church. Symbolic attempts at “outreach” to women, Latinos, African Americans, etc., won’t work, Taibbi says, because the real problem isn’t symbolic, it’s the resentful, indignant, self-righteous heart and soul of the Republican/white evangelical ideology:

But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they’re surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average “illegal,” as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can’t win votes when you’re calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

You can’t win votes by insulting potential voters. And you can’t win over everybody else when you’re convinced you’re better than everybody else — because they’re all a bunch of evil, depraved, Satanic baby-killers.

Anthea Butler gets at the heart of white evangelicals’ “take our country back” rhetoric and the assumptions underlying it:

After four years of hearing the refrain “Let’s take our country back,” it is clear that 2012 is not only, as Sarah Posner writes, a religious realignment, but also a moral realignment.

Fake God talk doesn’t cut it with Americans. Everyone sees through it. For Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and a host of others, the last four years have been a confidence game, a careful calculation that if they could just promote themselves, their god, their America, and Obama as a socialist just enough, the tide would turn their way and the money would flow. It didn’t. Many Americans want gay people to have the right to marry, recognize that rape is rape, and view women’s reproductive rights as important.

Americans are tired of racist remarks and the denigration of the office of the President of the United States simply because an African American with a dual heritage and a white mother cracked and decoded the American dream.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • Antigone10

    He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. But folks decide which camp they want to be in: the cool camp, the one with the hip president who likes big government programs and nods at sexual sin, even if great harm comes to children as a result. No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

    Your values are terrible, your Lord is a bully, and “big government programs” means people get to eat and have a job.  What you call “sexual sins” I call “ethical fun”*.  I can’t seem to get a lot of conservatives to understand one fundamental points- I didn’t adopt your value structure and then rebel from it in some hedonistic orgy**- I rejected your value structure and adopted one of my own.  A better one, in my opinion, if you actually care about flourishing human lives.   But one that is completely outside of your moral boxes.  

    *With the exception that some of the things they call “sexual sins” are actually unethical- rape, sexual assault, incest.  But normally they are talking about “homosexuality and non-procreative sex”.
    ** Though I probably would participate in one.  Maybe.

  • Carstonio

    If we can’t figure out how to speak to this reality evangelical institutions will be completely marginalized.

    Notice how Sanders defines evangelical as white and male. The only thing I can add to Taibbi’s excellent analysis is this – fiscal conservatism and small government have historically been about keeping government too weak to interfere with corporate exploitation. So when it began the Southern Strategy, the GOP was already offering nothing for groups on the low end of the power imbalance. The strategy was simply an expansion of the party’s mission, keeping government too weak to interfere with discrimination.

  • Amaryllis

    You know,  all my life I’ve waited to vote for a woman for President. And then, in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, I read the Letter to the Editor proposing a Palin/Brewer ticket for 2016.

    These people can’t be serious.

  • Sarah Jane

    “They’re all for diversity, but only in the sense that they like the
    optics of a diverse-looking crowd all pledging unquestioning allegiance
    to the pure white evangelical agenda in lockstep conformity.”

    I worked for a Christian school that often wondered why it couldn’t attract a more diverse student body — you know, as long as the students were willing to follow the school’s very strict “Christian standards” that included rules like no dancing, no long hair on men, no R-rated movies, no lottery tickets. They just couldn’t understand WHY their prospective students were almost exclusively middle-class white kids.

    It astonished me that these otherwise intelligent and educated folks recognized “diversity” solely in terms of skin color, and were oblivious to the fact that a more diverse student body would almost certainly bring with it more diverse experiences, values, and ways of practicing the Christian faith. I’m not sure where that idea comes from (kinda hoping it’s a generational thing that will fade out with time?) but my experience is that it’s a fairly universal notion of “diversity” within the leadership of the evangelical church.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    [S]ome people [...] choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.

    Translation: It’s not fair! We’ve spent all these decades using divisive code words and dog whistles to get white evangelicals to vote against their economic interests. And now suddenly your votes matter too? That’s some catch, that Catch-22.

  • Michael Pullmann

    Lady, I DID choose my candidate based on the content of his character.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    I have yet to read the whole post, I have read almost none of it.  Here’s what stopped me:

    Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

    Since the whole Southern Strategy thing, haven’t the vast, vast, vast majority of African Americans voted for Democrats?  Isn’t that sort of how these things work?

    I, as a white American from a middle class family who has a back yard, am (if we’re talking demographics) statistically much less likely to vote for a Democrat than a randomly selected African American voter.  That’s how it works.  I voted for Obama.  I voted for him because he’s a Democrat and I happen to agree in large part with Democratic ideals (though I wish they’d fight for them harder and if Elizabeth Warren had been an option I’d vote for her over Obama if I thought she had a chance of taking the election).  People like me make up a certain percentage of the Democratic share of the white vote.  For every percentage point there is of people like me in the white vote, there should be many more percentage points of Democratic voters in the Black vote.

    Where the fuck does the candidate’s skin color fit into this?  The candidate could be purple with pink swirls and if he or she is a Democrat running against a Republican I’m betting that the majority of voting African Americans will vote for him or her by a sizable margin because it seems to me that this isn’t about candidate, it’s about party, and how the party has treated certain groups.  One of those groups being African Americans.

  • Carstonio

    Hmm…a subset of voters whose opposition to Obama is grounded in his race (and his education) assumes that another subset of voters uses race as a reason to support Obama. Anyone here not see this as projection?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    As I’ve said for many years now, I am of the opinion that the vast majority of right wing Christians actually worship Mammon but delude themselves into thinking that Mammon is Christ because they’re afraid to acknowledge that they are no different than the rich young ruler who turned his back on Christ rather than sell all his possessions and whom Christ, in response, implied was going to hell. The overwhelming evangelical support for Mormon plutocrat Mitt Romney and nominally Catholic Rand-cultist Paul Ryan prove this. If the Antichrist ever did rise to power in our lifetime, he would be a Republican President, he would be a conservative Christian, and he would win the votes of the overwhelming majority of white evangelical Christians.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    On the other hand, maybe I voted for Obama because he’s white.  Have you seen his mother?  His maternal grandparents?  Guy’s white.  Not as white as me, but I’m only a few shades short of albino.

    Perhaps it is identity politics all the way after all.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    And, making my way through the post:

    “Our country [...] is more female”

    Um… I doubt that.  I realize that childbirth was a lot more dangerous in the past, but then we do seem to have had a larger proportion of the male population dying in conflicts in the past and statistically speaking women live longer so…

    I’m kind of thinking our country is probably round about as female as it’s ever been, and I expect that proportion to hold roughly steady as the years move on.  If you mean the voting population is more female, no idea.  But that wouldn’t be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination (more people legally voting == good) unless you’re allied with people who have done things to piss off those who happen to be female.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    Perhaps she should have asked “Why has American Evangelical Christianity abandoned black people?”

  • Carstonio

    I voted for him because he’s a Democrat and I happen to agree in large
    part with Democratic ideals (though I wish they’d fight for them harder
    and if Elizabeth Warren had been an option I’d vote for her over Obama
    if I thought she had a chance of taking the election).

    That describes me as well even though I don’t belong to a party. From my reading of the election results, the percentage of whites voting Democratic in the presidential race hasn’t changed much in the past 20 years. What has changed the percentage of whites in the electorate.

    The evangelicals that Fred quotes here remind me of the downunders in Harlan Ellison’s “A Boy and His Dog.” No coincidence – Ellison was inspired by the reaction to Kent State, where the local burghers declared that the National Guard should have shot all the protesters.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    According to a book I read some 10 or 15 years ago about epidemiology (and the name of which currently escapes me), men had longer life expectancies than women up until the advent of treatments (sanitation, vaccinations and then antibiotics) for contagious diseases. Women were more vulnerable to tuberculosis than men, for example, according to the author. The life expectancy for both men and women increased as contagious diseases were brought under control, but women’s life expectancy increased more than men’s. So the current sex ratio hasn’t been the case forever and ever, but it has held for most of the time that women have had the vote.

    I wish I could remember the name of that book, or at least the author.

  • Sarah Jane

    I am guessing if a person can’t see past Obama’s race to recognize him as a particular individual, then it’s going to be nigh on impossible for that person to imagine that anyone else is seeing Obama as a particular individual, either. I don’t know if it’s a projection so much as a universal failure at imagination and empathy.

  • MikeJ

    If Romney had promised gay stoned abortions for everyone along with a 10% tax cut, gay stoned abortions would be the most important thing in the world to evangelicals.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    Ok, finished the post, and it is a good post Fred.

    -

    This is something that lingers with me “our country” it is our country.  All of us.  (Note that I’m not addressing this to all the commenters, just all other US citizens.)

    It’s my country for multiple reasons.  I was born here*, my mother was an American at the time of my birth, my father was an American at the time of my birth (they both still are, but that’s not in the criteria.)  Any one of those three things would make the US my country.  So I can rightly speak of “our country”.  But if I’m going to be accurate about ownership of the country, I also have to include people like Linda Harvey in the mix, because it’s her country too.

    And I have to include theft and conquest in how that ownership came to be.  Not to mention various efforts (some more successful than others) at genocide.

    There’s no reason that I have to include all of the other people who can claim ownership when I say “Our country,” any subset will do.  So excluding me from “Our country” isn’t factually wrong.  But when people talk about taking, “Our country back,” rarely are they talking about doing it from an invading force of whoever is invading in the new Red Dawn movie (I’m going to guess the Chinese or some coalition because I don’t think France** can pull it off on their own), it’s always from people who can lay equal claim to the words “our country.”

    So it comes out meaning, “We have to take our country back from the will of the majority of the people in our country,” which is just weird.  You don’t take something like that back, you persuade it back.  And through that persuasion you, perhaps, take back (in their eyes) the Senate and the Presidency or (in my eyes) the House and maybe the Supreme Court.

    But you can’t take your country back from the people whose country it is unless you’re going to do away with democracy and that would be treason.

    -

    * I almost wasn’t because my mother’s doctor apparently couldn’t count and had my due date set a month later than it should have been and my mother, not expecting my not-premature birth for another month, had just come back from a trip to Canada.

    ** Yes, I did pick our oldest ally for no good reason whatsoever.  I wanted a random country, France popped into my head.

  • Jenny Islander

    I am a middle-class white Christian homeschooling stay-at-home mom.  (I work part time, but it’s small enough to be the little woman’s little job that pays for her little things; only a serious patriarch would find it threatening.)  I am precisely that group on whose behalf the Republicans want to take back the country, except for my lack of a penis.  I am not registered with any party.  I voted for President Obama because Romney didn’t need people trash talking his background in order to lose.  No spin whatever was required.  How did people convince me to vote for Obama over Romney?   By quoting Romney’s exact words, at length, with citations leading me back to proof that he had in fact said those things.  He damned his campaign with his own tongue.

    The people who wanted to take my country back on my behalf offered as candidate a man who called eating a privilege.  

    If you had put a man like that into a novel, I would have said that it was way over the top, a bad imitation of Dickens.  But here we are, and here he is, the man who wanted to take my country back on my behalf by condemning people to starve for lack of money.  So much for the Constitutional right to life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.davis.9256 Karen Davis

    ” For Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and a host of others, the last
    four years have been a confidence game, a careful calculation that if
    they could just promote themselves, their god, their America, and Obama
    as a socialist just enough, the tide would turn their way and the money
    would flow.”

    And if you convince people that Obama is a socialist, all most of them are going to do is say “Hey, that’s socialism? That’s not so bad.” Because not only isn’t he, but you can’t actually define it, not if you think he is.

  • Frank from Canada

    Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

    It’s because over 80% of African-Americans are liberal democrates. In 1992, 83% of African-Americans voted for Clinton, 10% for Bush and 7% for Perrot. In 1996, 84% of African-Americans voted again for Clinton, with the rest evenly split between Dole and Perrot. A lot of people at the time said that Clinton was America’s first black president, which is kind of a stupid thing to say, but in league with what is being said now about that community.

  • Jenny Islander

    And, yes, I know that Romney didn’t actually want to “take America back;” he thought he was interviewing for a job in middle management, after which he would conduct business as usual, that is, dismembering the parts of his new department that didn’t directly line his bosses’ pockets and liquidating as much of it as possible.  But they presented this shiny-toothed flat-eyed pointy-haired underboss with rhetoric about making America better for the likes of me.

  • Lori

    No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it.  

    The massive lack of self-awareness required for Betty Bowers, American’s Best Christian*, to say this is truly astounding. It’s right up there with Bill O’Reilly talking about how there are whole media organizations devoted to promoting ideology and what a problem that is**.

    *http://www.bettybowers.com/  

    see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Bowers

    **http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162359/-Great-moments-in-obliviousness-Fox-News-edition?showAll=yes

  • hagsrus

     Remember Mrs Thatcher…

  • hagsrus

    Not what you’re looking for, but this still leaves me gobsmacked:

    ” A hundred a year would make them all perfectly comfortable.”

    His wife hesitated a little, however, in giving her consent to this plan.

    “To be sure,” said she, “it is better than parting with fifteen hundred pounds at once. But, then, if Mrs. Dashwood should live fifteen years, we shall be completely taken in.”

    “Fifteen years! my dear Fanny; her life cannot be worth half that purchase.”

    “Certainly not; but if you observe, people always live for ever when there is an annuity to be paid them; and she is very stout and healthy, and hardly forty…”

    (Sense and Sensibility)

  • hagsrus

    I looked at the Betty Bowers site – poe. The quote seems to come from Linda Harvey.

  • Hypocee

     http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com

  • Lori

     You are indeed missing the point, which I guess I didn’t make quite
    clear enough. Betty is satire (that’s why I included the 2nd link to the
    wikipedia page that says that she’s fictional), but Linda Harvey is
    widely considered to have provided much of the inspiration for Betty.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    In 1992, 83% of African-Americans voted for Clinton[...]. In 1996, 84% of African-Americans voted again for Clinton.

    You can take this back even further. If the GOP and the religious right were bemoaning this trend in good faith, they’d have noticed their problem by at least 1984. This was the second biggest landslide in electoral history, with St Ronnie pulling in nearly 60% of the vote. Yet African-American voters supported Mondale by a 91%-9% margin. Given the overall spread, you can argue that this was a much greater thrashing than Romney took from African-American voters. And I’m pretty sure Walter Mondale was a white guy.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    I’m going to guess the Chinese or some coalition

    North Korea. Anything plausible would exclude a very large movie-buying market.

  • esmerelda_ogg

    Notice how Sanders defines evangelical as white and male.

    One of the things that startled me a bit, reading the post-election tantrums from the right wing, was discovering that I’m not white. Apparently I’m one of those Ebil Voting Block People like blacks, hispanics, and “young people” (who also aren’t white, none of ‘em). Nope, to be really truly white you have to be old and male.

    Who knew?

  • esmerelda_ogg

     Darn Disqus. Won’t let me give this comment ten or twenty likes the way it deserves.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     It’s a mistake to look at messages like this as a sign of confusion or an attempt to sort something out.

    They aren’t “earnestly looking to understand” why black voters would “forsake christianity”.

    The purpose of Linda Harvey’s rant, or Bill O’Reilly’s rant, or any of the other isn’t because they’re confused how african americans could have possibly voted against the wishes of evangelicals.

    The purpose is to shout “THis is all the fault of the n—–s, the c—-s, the d—s, the f–s, the s—s!” without giving up the ability to be shocked, shocked and offended if anyone calls them racist for it.

    They’re venting their impotent racist rage.  A few of them lost control enough to do it forthrightly.

  • AnonymousSam

    It isn’t that there are more women, it’s that the women are getting more and more politically active and are starting to show their resentment toward elderly white men who tell them what their bodies are really like by, I dunno, voting against them :p

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     You know I recently found out that everyone got moved over a peg in the actual Dilbert strip? The pointy-haired boss is now a hair more sympathetic since they’re giving screen time to *his* boss, a cone-headed CEO.

  • Lori

    From my reading of the election results, the percentage of whites voting Democratic in the presidential race hasn’t changed much in the
    past 20 years. What has changed the percentage of whites in the electorate.   

    This is Ann Colter’s reading as well—we now have way too many Hispanics, not enough Americans (who are obviously by definition white & Republican).

    Liberals brag about having won the hearts and minds of America, as if, through logic and argument, they’ve persuaded people to accept their bankrupt European socialist ideas. Democrats haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They changed the people. More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points — the widest margin since 1984. But in 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980. If the same country that voted in 1980 had voted in 2012, Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did. [snip] The only hope is to run another appealing Republican candidate in four years — when we’re not up against an incumbent president — and return
    our immigration policy to one that helps America and not just the Welfare Party.

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/11/ann-coulter-there-are-too-many-hispanics.html

    (I don’t want to give Colter & Townhall page views, so the link it to a post at Joe.My.God where Joe quotes Colter. The usual rules about Joe.My.God apply—the post is totally SFW, the sidebar ads may not be.)

  • Tricksterson

    If it cheers you Warren is already being talked up for 2016

  • Tricksterson

    “He has insulted our Lord, ourvalues and our faith in ways too numerous to mention”

    So lets not mention them shall we?  Because then I might have to give concrete, disprovable examples.

  • Madhabmatics

     Freep has absolutely melted down and has a ton of angry dudes shaking their fists, declaring that women’s suffrage inevitably leads to communism In The Year Of Our Lord 2012.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Wow. (O_O) Universal adult suffrage has been around for – what – 100 years? That’s a long-ass time for women to help vote in the Commies.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    If it cheers you Warren is already being talked up for 2016

    Calling it now: Biden/Warren 2016. :D

  • Kiba

    Just like Michael L. Brown and most of the other white evangelical leaders of white evangelicalism, Linda Harvey would insist that she favors diversity, in principle, and that she would be very pleased to see “our” church become more inclusive.

    Yeah, too bad diversity means you sit down, shut up, and do what they tell you to do. But, hey, at least they allowed all those other folk in the front door, right? That’s inclusive, right? 

    He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. 

    Too numerous to mention because I got nothing and how dare you ask me for specifics.

  • ReverendRef

    These people on the evangelical/conservative right are whining about the election like it’s the end of the world.  And, for them, it really is.  The gospel for today was from Mark 13:1-8, part of the “little apocalypse,” so I’ve had end-of-the-world stuff on my brain for a week.

    From my sermon today:

    The biggest threat to the world is
    equality.  Peasant revolts, the Civil
    War, women’s rights and the Civil Rights movements in the U.S. and the end of
    apartheid in South Africa were formed around the idea of equality.  The world is built on the oppression of
    others and those in power fear the equality of the oppressed.  And when the dominant or ruling class is
    required to share equally, or to live with equal rights for all, then that
    time, for all practical purposes, becomes the end of the world as they know it.

     In some respects, I can’t blame them for running around like the world is ending, because it is.  But it’s ending in a good way.  And if equality is a problem for you, well, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.  Because, really, it’s about damn time we started treating people with dignity and respect.

    And it’s 1:30 on Sunday afternoon — I need to quit preaching, go home and find a football game.

  • Albanaeon

    “Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character? ”

    Ms. Harvey, many of use don’t pronounce the words “skin-color” starting with a “ch/k” sound…

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I think France would put up a better fight against America than North Korea, which is who the new Red Dawn guys picked.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    OK, I can’t figure out half of those bowdlerised words. But then, I was mystified about what “the t word” could be when I heard that Palin had been called it.

  • Lori

    Do you actually want to know? Because (for obvious reasons) I’m not going to type them out, but I could give hints if you tell me which ones are mystifying you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    Since most states that allowed women to vote before the Suffrage Amendment passed, and since the Republican Party supported women’s suffrage, women largely voted Republican up until the time that the Republican Party abandoned its support for the Equal Rights Amendment.

  • cjmr

    No, we still have 7 years to go before it is 100 years.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    That was supposed to be, “Since most states that allowed women to vote before the Suffrage Amendment passed were Republican”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X