Political Discussions
Sex and the GOP
Posted by clioandme • 6/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: gop, john ensign, lying, mark sanford, scandal, sex
I don't know if anyone cares, but Gov. Mark Sanford (R, SC) is apparently only the second recent sex scandal in the GOP. The other one was Sen. John Ensign (R, NV). Does it matter?
voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/sanfords-admits-affair-first-t.h...
User Comments
-
The Sanford deal, with the dissappearance and all is at least as sensational as John Edwards -
It wouldn't matter if Republicans didn't pretend to be the party of morals and family values. Not to mention what they did to Clinton regarding his personal life. -
I guess the one thing that amazes me is his disappearing for five days. What kind of public servant does that?
-
I know... that's like diaper-wearing-astronaut-roadtrip crazy!
-
-
When his wife gets done with him, he may have his own "Nullification Crisis" (lol, a little South Carolina humor there
) -
As Sati pointed out, their sordid affairs would be a blip on the radar if they didn't condemn everyone else about what they do in their bedrooms so vocally.
But the GOP does seem to have serious issues with sex, right to privacy in the bedroom, and reproductive rights. Again though, this goes under the category of non-issue issue. Personal liberties means just that, they shouldn't care what others are doing with their personal affairs, and then we would grant them the same courtesy.-
AWOL governor is newsworthy, regardless of party affilliation
-
-
Did Fox sit on the Ensign story for three days? Here's a report that says they did: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/report_fox_got_ensign_letter_thr...
(hat tip: twitter.com/Wisco)-
Faux news, cover up and ignore a political scandal for the GOP? The hell you say! Had it been a democrat they'd have been all over it *snicker*
-
-
What Sanford did was wrong. Very, very wrong. But he stood up and admitted it freely. His press conference, which I caught a good portion of, was refreshing, really. I mean he screwed up, and that is wrong. He did it because he is HUMAN, not because he is Republican.
I liked that he made no bones about it, he didn't try to hide it and he didn't try to excuse it or shift the blame. Say what you will, but that took guts.
It is one thing to be wrong, but to try and deny or cover it only adds to the problem. Governor Sanford was forthright and honest in his explanation. -
If it weren't for their preachy meachy "family values" seminars....-
What do you have against family values? Do Democrats NOT favor them? If so, is that why you like them? Or hate the Repubs so much?
Just wondering. -
I believe that putting "Family values" in quotes was to say that they don't actually promote family values.
Most families have a value system, the problem with the "family values" that the GOP espouses is that if your family values aren't in lock step with them, then you have no morals, and like eating babies and worshiping the devil or whatever.
That is to say you should never: be gay, have sex before marriage, be a single parent, be gay and get married, use birth control, have control of your reproductive organs and so forth.
Obviously values are good, otherwise they wouldn't be values. We just all have a different set of values that apply to our own lives - something the mouth pieces of the GOP simply don't get. -
The GOP is not against Gay people, that is preposterous. It is just felt that the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman. I personally think that if two people have a long term committed relationship, then they should be afforded the same privileges as married couples. Some names have been bandied about, Civil Union is one.
And as far as what family values is, maybe we should ask Bill what the meaning of "is" is.
Democrats cheat on their spouses too, ya know. -
"Family Values" is one of those sneaky terms, like "law and order" and "state's rights" were for Nixon. It implies that the federal govornment should condone things that the other party may not. It subtly implies the near-absolute moral authority of husband over wife and parents over children... analogous to what is called "Family Law" in some muslim countries.
-
Being gay, and using family values to describe a gay person or couple tends to set off the conservative base. Which was more my point.
However, the rest of the comment missed my point entirely - Bill Clinton had an affair. Yep. But then again the GOP and conservative base have been stating the Democrats don't have values anyway, so where's the surprise?
Democrats make mistakes, Republicans make mistakes - that's not the point. The point is that the conservative base demonizes those mistakes (impeachment for a blowjob?) all the while quietly making the same choices behind closed doors.
They pretend to promote a very strict definition of "family values" and tout that set of values as the right set of values for everyone...but themselves.
My family values are very different from the values of others. They are still good values, in that as few people are affected or hurt as possible by my choices and worldview. But they are not the same as the values of the conservative base, and therefore I have no values, according to them.
And that's why "family values" was put in quotes -
@Anok - okay, I see where you went with it now. Good point. Both sides do wrong and both sides demonize the other. I guess I want to believe in a sort of circular argument where politics are concerned - "Why can the politicians leave the politics out of being politicians?"
As far as Clinton - I say that if being the leader of the free world isn't reason enough to get yer knob polished, then the job ain't worth having! -
Ha! LOLLOL.
-
-
Quoth Politico (www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24168.html):
> All told, Republicans now have two sitting governors,
> Sanford and Nevada’s Jim Gibbons, and two sitting
> senators, Louisiana’s David Vitter and Nevada’s John
> Ensign, tainted by the brush of adultery.
Of course, this isn't about who they're sleeping with, but rather what it does to them politically. Anything? Politico uses the following headline for its story, though maybe it's more about getting attention for their paper: "Sanford saga adds to GOP woes."
I agree about the holier-than-thou Republicans getting their comeuppance. Preaching that they're only human after dragging an entire presidency through the mud doesn't really wash. But I'm not sure that that is why this would hurt the GOP. The current media narrative seems to be about the GOP in search of a viable and attractive leader, and now they can't flirt with the idea of Sanford either. Here's how that same Politico piece begins:
> Gov. Mark Sanford a week ago: an intelligent, handsome,
> well-spoken conservative who does not work in Washington,
> exactly the kind of politician who might have something
> interesting to add to a potential Republican revival.
On a side note, and just for fun, remember how Biden "complimented" Obama for being "clean" and "articulate"? Is it now unusual to have an articulate, not-totally-creepy GOP candidate?-
I don't think it's the scandals themselves that is hurting the party, but rather the hypocricies of the party members is becoming more transparent to voters, not just from headlines about adultery, but in many areas at the same time.
Plus, you do have the hard-core base that is all about religiously conservative ideologies. Having their spokesmen or women out doing the things that the party uses against Democrats in their single issue talking points really does hurt them. It undermines their general platform. And gives the other part(ies) ammunition come election time.
"Remember the party of family values? Their members don't practice what they preach, so what do they really stand for?" Or something to that effect. -
Oops!
-
-
Well, even more than the hypocrisy, there's the dereliction of duty, and the allegations that he used public funds to finance some of his trips to see his amour. Only the people of the South Carolina can hold him accountable for that - and I hope they do - but I for one think this should disqualify him from getting even close to any sort of national office.
Btw, Fox News referred to him as Democrat when they first aired this story. They apparently have a pattern of doing that with embarrassing Repub's. Nice going Fox, glad to see it's not a mistake
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-identifies-sanfo_n_220377.html-
Fox News has actually managed to amaze me. I thought they promoted their political agenda through their emphases and their loony commentary. Didn't know they would stoop to lies. Or was this just a Freudian slip, not a plan? Either way, pretty bizarre.
-
-
this is alternately comedic and tragic....
"It was indeed a long day. I am most jealous of your salad under the palm tree... while I did not need love fifteen years ago — as the battle scars of life and aging and politics have worn on this has become a real need of mine. You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that is so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificently gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curves of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light — but hey, that would be going into the sexual details we spoke of at the steakhouse at dinner — and unlike you I would never do that!" -- Excerpt from Sanford email to Maria
www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html-
This is garbage journalism at it's worst. There is no way private communications like this should come to the public light. It is tacky to say the least and I for one don't know how anyone could enjoy reading someonelse's private communications.
-
my bad. i forgot to include the date, which was July 10, 2008. So, more than "five months" like Sanford said in the press conference...
-
I for one don't know how anyone could enjoy reading someonelse's private communications.
I know! It was horrible! The mixed metaphors, the misuse of adverbs, the illogical adjectives, the complete perversion of the English language! That alone should be an impeachable offence! -
we tried that logic for Bush... it didn't pan out
-
"I know! It was horrible! The mixed metaphors, the misuse of adverbs, the illogical adjectives, the complete perversion of the English language!"
I wouldn't know if Sanford adhered to the rules of proper grammar or not. Since I am not a pervert who gets off reading private emails, I didn't read them. So tell us sati, how bad were they? -
No? Well you right-wingers sure were interested in Bill Clinton's personal life back in the 90s.
-
No I wasn't. Like I told Anok - "As far as Clinton - I say that if being the leader of the free world isn't reason enough to get yer knob polished, then the job ain't worth having!"
JFK, FDR and a whole host of other Presidents had affairs while in office. That is their personal life and has nothing to do with the job of running the country.
sati, this fascination you and other liberals have with prying into the private lives of others is just creepy. I hope you enjoyed reading those emails... -
Rich Becker makes a compelling case for why JFK and others got away with it, but current GOP leaders are taking a hit. www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/sex-and-the-gop#comment_1004195
-
-
Democrats have done the same thing and its really no surprise. Not that big a deal in my book.-
I know that Barney Frank has a speech impediment, but... oh right, you meant the affairs
-
-
What I find bizarre is some of the commentary on the "right" seems to be portraying this as part of the same cosmic struggle as the war on terror o_0
-
Limbaugh is blaming it on Obama!
"This is almost like, 'I don't give a damn, the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here,'" said Limbaugh. "He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle. He said, 'What the Hell. I mean, I'm -- the federal government's taking over -- what the Hell, I want to enjoy life.'"
"The point is," he added, "there are a lot of people whose spirit is just -- they're fed up, saying to Hell with it, I don't even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it."
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/limbaugh-on-the-sanford-affair-its-obam... -
Too funny.
-
Anachronistic arguement.
July 10, 2008 (date of email that i quoted above) is before Obama was elected.
o_0 -
July 10, 2008 (date of email that i quoted above) is before Obama was elected.
There you go again bringing reality into the equation. *rolls eyes* -
unless he divined the election results by the power of "Cosmic Good"
-
So lemme get this straight, Limbaugh is blaming this guy's affair on the fact that his constituents wanted and needed the stimulus money that Obama offered?
He had an affair because he fulfilled his obligations?
I wanna use that excuse next time I do something naughty -
Well, I am sure some lib somewhere will find a way to make it Bush's fault...
10 bonus points to the first blogger here who can track it back to Bush!
Ready? Go! -
What? No takers?
-
I'd say it's the result of his abstinence only education programs, but I think he's a wee bit too old to have been in them to qualify
-
-
Communications guy Rich Becker (also a BC member, www.blogcatalog.com/user/Rich) has written a piece on Copywrite, Ink:
"Flirting with Brand Damage: Mark Sanford"
copywriteink.blogspot.com/2009/06/flirting-with-brand-damage-mark-sanford.h...
Rich, by the way, is most definitely not in the tank for Democrats. -
Lush Rimbaugh is a funny, funny little man.
I think what irritates me most about the "sex scandal" as far as the GOP is concerned is that the party seems to have this Victorian hyperfocus on the sexuality of *others*, yet some key GOP figures pick the most blatant ways of underperforming to the standards they preach so stridently about.
As a governor, there are protocols for handling the unique authorities that come with the job. You can't just disappear regardless of the reason.
As a father, did Sanford think last weekend was the best time to run off and shag the mistress? Really?
Such poor choices - both personally and professionally. -
more from the HYPOCRACY front....
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/sanford-was-harsh-critic_n_220325.html
ouch!-
HAAAAAA!!!!!
-
-
What I don't get is why any Republican would even bother trying to respond to what happened. Why not ignore and wait for it to go away? The responses only make them look worse.
-
mark, as I read more and more of your posts, I have come to believe that there is a lot you "don't get."
-
I love the smell of a personal attack in the morning. So much better than anything of actual substance on the topic of GOP communications strategy. Or is this the strategy?
-
-
how bout we not turn our government into the Nancy Grace show and instead fire the people who do this because they have no business being in our government? why bother with all the politics?
-
Here, here!!
-
How about resurrecting the Gong Show and putting our elected officials on it? We could have Obama nationalize it!!
-
So, you want to fire politicians for infidelity? Because they made a mistake in their personal lives?
I didn't realize that their job came with a sexual morality clause. -
It's in the fine print on their Moral Majority membership card.
-
Anok- If people cheat on their wives, then they probably cheat among their job. His reputation is trashed anyways and i don't think he has any chance for reelection. (Well...Barney Frank is a gay sodomite so anything is possible)
-
Do I want to fire politicians because they couldn't keep it in their pants? No. I was just making a bit of a joke. Oh hell, let's just fire all of 'em on second thought.
-
J - that's a logical fallacy, and pure rhetoric. if you used infidelity as a guideline for morality or responsibility in the workplace - a good majority of the population would be without a job.
Being a crappy spouse, and being bad at your job are mutually exclusive. -
Anok-This is a fundamental difference in what I want in my congressman and what you want. It is pointless to discuss and so we will just have to disagree.
-
I wonder if you will quite your job(s) when you realize that your boss has had an affair, is gay, has an open marriage or whatever else you fundamentally disagree with.
Personal liberties = personal freedoms = none of your business. What they do in their bedrooms and with whom is a PERSONAL FREEDOM.
Why do you hate freedom? -
Whose boss is having a gay affair outside his open marriage? Wow, how does he even have time to work?
-
-
Sanford and Ensign just followed Meghan McCain's suggestion that the GOP should be the Pro-Sex Party. -
The recent lone dissenting opinion in the "school strip search case" (Redding v. Safford) brounght this one back to my consciousness
"Anita, who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" -- Clarence Thomas (summary quote)-
but yeah, no problem with guys who are into beastiality sitting on the bench and making these important rulings
-
-
The Style section of the Washington Post put together some quotes that make the particular case of Mark Sanford really special. Or something. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403581.ht...
-
These quotes seem to have all the hallmarks of a midlife crisis. It is just remarkable to watch it play out at a governor's press conference. Seriously. Reminiscing about his high school days? Talking about the emotional process of going astray instead of just saying he messed up? Somebody's got to be milking this stuff for a novel.
-
"God's law, indeed, is there to protect you from yourself and there are consequences if you breach that.
This is one of the major flaws of right-wingers: the belief that we are inherently bad and we need religion (and government) to protect us from ourselves. -
@Sati; "This is one of the major flaws of right-wingers: the belief that we are inherently bad and we need religion (and government) to protect us from ourselves." This is true, but not unique to them.
Consider that we need regressive taxation to help us save for retirement, warning labels on music, sin taxes on unhealthy products, etc. -
Consider that we need regressive taxation to help us save for retirement,
No, that's to pay for gov't spending.
warning labels on music,
That's mainly for parents to protect their children
sin taxes on unhealthy products, etc.
That's to pay for gov't spending -- not a penalty. -
setting aside the warning labels, the other two ideas were initially pursued on the basis of behavior modification, regardless of what they are actually used for.
but I see the greater part of your point. "The devil made me do it" or "my broken sin nature" are weak cop-outs based on a doctrine of self-hatred.
-
-
ooopsie daisie! Sanford added and extra stop to a corporate welfare expedition
www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1458182.html-
Look the guy f*cked up. Royally. He came clean about it, admitted it freely and said he was wrong. Why continue to rake him over the coals? I could understand if he was denying it or trying to cover it up. So many times our elected officials try to do just that. When the rare time comes that one of them is open and honest about their wrongdoing, this is how they are treated?
C'mon Agit8r I expect sati to get all giggity about Sanford's mistake, but you? I thought for sure you were above that. -
well jeeze he dissappeared "off the grid" (whatever that means).
Corporate welfare (free industrial park lot + loading dock reconfigure + whatever else--tax-breaks... what have you--that beat out Chattanooga's "serious bid," whatever I wasn't able to dig up... all for 80 measily jobs) is a major pet peave of mine. That's why I'm a Jeffersonian, not a Hamiltonian. -
Agit8r, calm down. I was just saying that he screwed up and owned up to it. He did something politicians RARELY do these days. He DIDN'T TRY TO COVER IT UP.
Just saying... -
i was just saying that it is harder to sweep something under the rug when one dissappears "off the grid" for several days. ...Just sayin'
-
Okay, we're both just saying!
-
-
Has anything risen to a level yet where the people of South Carolina will begin to demand his resignation? Anything that will require legal action by the state? Has an investigation of any kind begun? Or is all the action still only in the media?
-
yes and no... or is that the other way
www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/spartanburg_herald_journal_calls_for_sa...
-
-
Interesting note of departure from the norm of celebrity politicans gone wild:
His wife has told him to get out.
Now as the news reported, the Republicans are applauding his wife for not standing by her man. I'm not sure how to take this change of pace
On a personal level, I think it's up to each couple to decide if they can work through it or not, and I certainly would support the couple's decision either way (if I were a personal friend). So I'm not sure why they would applaud one decision but not the other?
Isn't the family unit something the right considers to be paramount to society? I guess they are now viewing the act of working through it as "condoning" affairs, while divorce is not. I would have to argue that neither is the case, as affairs affect different relationships in different ways. I'm sure that the women who decided to work through it weren't condoning what their husbands did, but rather accepted that it was done, and that the marriage was worth saving, and those who have chosen to divorce decided that the betrayel was the last straw, and wanted out.
Of course none of that has anything to do with condoning marital affairs.
I dunno, any thoughts on that?-
It seems to me that either decision could comport with "family values": stand by your man vs. hold your man accountable. Both work. So any applause is either genuine, but unaware of the contradictions to which you point, or it is opportunistic, that is, it perceives praising Mrs. Sanford's move as an opportunity to reaffirm "family values" and maintain the GOP's current brand. They might think the contrast to Spitzer and Clinton is convenient, though they'd be missing the point.
-
The fact that Sanford pushed for Clinton's impeachment makes him the worst kind of hypocrite. It makes it all that much more apparent that the Republicans tried to remove a popular Democratic president for purely political reasons, which is against everything this country is supposed to stand for.
-
Yes, I would put him right up there with Leahy in that hypocrite category.
-
-
Gee I don't know the words SEX and GOP just don't seem to fit
-
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is," is.
-
well played
-
-
-
Of course it matters, it has to do with honesty and integrity. Even though it doesn't directly affect their politics, (hopefully) it does go to show their general aptitude for integrity.
Will it affect their political career? Not sure, Clinton made it through his mess without having to resign. So maybe not, then again, the repubs have always tried to hold the "moral high horse" leaving them more vunerable to these affairs.
Sanford "Paying back" money he misappropriated to get some poon is however a completely different deal, that alone should have him kicked out on his rear end. -
-
Republicans hold their people to a higher standard of conduct. Of course, that is because they actually HAVE standards which Democrats obviously do not. The fact that people recognize a system of right and wrong does not mean that they will not fall short at times. You can call that person a hypocrite, but i would rather be guilty of hypocrisy and ethical failure than of having no moral standards at all.
Republicans who make these mistakes are typically never heard from again. If anything, the GOP goes overboard in ostracizing fallen individuals. In Sanford's case, he was making the case for a return to federalism (you know, that pesky Constitution thing) and was a burr in the saddle of the Left and of squishy "moderate" Republicans. Now, the party will shun him and the Leftist media will use his personal failures to try to discredit his political ideology.
It would take too much bandwidth to list all the Democrat sexcapades and other scandals. Geez, Ted Kennedy killed a girl and he is still in the Senate. Bahney Fwank had an escort service being run out of his office and he is still there. Bill Clinton was treated as a hero for his sexual conquests. Gerry Studds remained in Congress for years after diddling with a teenage boy. Does anyone really think John Edwards is done? The list goes on and on and, in most cases, they never lose their positions and often advance.
By the way, the word hypocrite denotes someone who believes something is wrong for someone else but OK for them. Sanford admitted he was wrong (rather than dragging things out for a year and denying it over and over)and never claimed his behavior was just or right. That doesn't excuse his action, but it does properly frame it. Hypocricy would be a party that says "what's the big deal, its just sex" when one of their people is a serial horndog and then wants to use a sexcapade from the other party to paint them as a bunch of deviants in hiding. Know anyone like that?
edgycater.blogspot.com-
And of course, Sanford is intelligent enough to know what "IS" means.
-
Republicans hold their people to a higher standard of conduct.
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.
How about these?
President of the United States George W. Bush raped Margie Schoedinger, who later died in a questionable case of suicide.
Bush had an affair in 1999 with Tammy Phillips, a former stripper.
While possibly A.W.O.L from the Air National Guard at age 26, Bush had sexual relations with a 14 y/o girl.
And that's just Bush.
No, one party doesn't hold the moral high ground over the other. Power leads to temptation and opportunity, and many succumb. -
Lol, Sati making sh-t up as he goes along.. I see nothing changes here.
-
I didn't make them up. But they are just rumors, just like the rumors listed against Democrats. See, it works both ways.
-
That's right. Anyone not a Republican has no morals, ethics, or quality of character. And we like to sacrifice babies and eat kittens, too.
*rolls eyes* -
Unfortunately, I ran through my quota of kittens. Too many Democrats in DC, I guess. Well, now I'm going to start in on local puppies.
-
I don't think that when men use their little head to do their thinking that "it" is concerned with how they vote...
-
Antics - Ha! Lollol!
Mark, we have a kitten for eating trading post here. I could send you some kittens to eat if you could get me some babies to sacrifice. Also, we're running low on puppies to kick, and we have more crack than welfare checks can reasonably buy...did you dem's up there need some? -
There was a Chinese restaurant here in Denver that was serving cat meat in their food (unbeknownst to their customers). They must have been Democrats.
-
-
Whether they be Democrats or Republicans caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the wives and children deserve better than to have their lives tarnished by the selfish behavior of these men.
-
Politico reports that "South Carolina's Republican establishment . . . is now actively seeking [Sanford's] resignation." www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24426.html
Apparently this came out of an interview he gave AP yesterday. (And it wasn't even a blip on my screen. Oh well.) In that interview, he also mentioned having committed other indiscretions, though he wasn't clear about it. -
Catchy discussion topic in the Washington Post: "It's a Southern Thing." (You know, not just Sanford, but also Clinton and Edwards.
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/gustav_niebuhr/2009/06/its_a_...
Won't get to this till tomorrow, but the Southern dimension is interesting.-
JFK / Monroe?...
Guess we'll just have to move New England to the south... who's got the fulcrum? -
Uhm...Erik? The article was about the use of religion/religious language in the explanation and apologies - not the number infidelities that have occurred in what part of the country.
In the south, more filanderers use religious language than anywhere else. -
yeah, but JFK hung around with LBJ... see o_0
ever heard the White House tapes of LBJ macking on Jackie after the assassination?
-
-
-
Yarrrr!!!! Now I be feeling like a pirate! First me eye patch and then me booty! -
hahahaha!
argh matey -
Okay, so there was sex. And it was on CBS. And it was a Republican having sex. Now perhaps you could explain the political angle? The article sure didn't.
-
He was bragging about his sexual conquests in detail with LOBBYISTS. (The sex was with lobbyists, not the discussion). Oh, and he did it on camera/ on a live mic LOL
Considering he ran a the anti-gay family values front man.... -
now, now it was a LADY whose "eyepatch" "he" was "leaking out of"
I don't know who she lobbies for, but they surely are getting some laws "rammed through" on their behalf
*not saying anything about "pork"* -
*stifles a giggle*
-
*holds back the vomit*
-
So is anyone losing a job?
-
He already resigned.
-
Okay. This: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091000256.ht...
Was a busy couple of days for me and completely missed it. -
Pfft if you were on facebook you'd have know sooner.... heh
-
he's been a naughty boy...
now he has to walk the plank
-
-
"But these Republicans’ ties extend beyond their marital woes. All three have, at one time, lived in a former convent on Capitol Hill known as the C Street house, and all three are connected to a secretive group known as the Fellowship, or the Family. It’s probably an organization you’ve never heard of, but it’s one of the most powerful Christian fundamentalist movements in this country."
www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet
"JEFF SHARLET: That is actually available on an audio sermon that you can find on the website of another Christian right group called the Navigators, with which the Family has always worked for decades.
You can also find online video of Coe talking about the model of fellowship that he wants politicians to follow. He says, “Look at Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler, these three nobodies who get together, and look at all they were able to accomplish.” Now, he’ll be quick to say they’re evil men. This is not some neo-Nazi, you know, kind of conspiracy. It’s a sort of a fetish for power and strength. That’s the model. That’s why he says Hitler, Lenin, Mao.
He’s also fond of saying to congressmen, “Who were the three men in the twentieth century who best understood the New Testament?” And it’s sort of a trick question, because maybe you say Martin Luther King, or maybe, if you’re conservative, you say Billy Graham. And again, it’s Hitler, Stalin and Mao. These are not aberrations in his speech. This is the core of his teaching, that the New Testament is about power and strength.
AMY GOODMAN: He talks about Pol Pot—
JEFF SHARLET: Pol Pot.
AMY GOODMAN: —and talks about Osama bin Laden.
JEFF SHARLET: Yeah, yeah. There’s nobody who is—you know, there is no sort of strongman killer that they’re not interested in. Going back to the group’s early roots, they began with the idea that democracy was done, that democracy couldn’t compete with fascism or communism. They didn’t want to be communists. Fascism was OK, except that it had this cult of personality: where Jesus was supposed to be, you’d find a Hitler, a Mussolini. And so, they came up with this idea of totalitarianism for Christ, but they illustrate it with these awful models from history."-
We could then say, isn't it nice that they're so broad-minded in their choices of readings and use of role models? /sarcasm
-
sure, because all of that "New Testament being about Power and strength" is completely in line with jesus' being tested on the pinnacle
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
