Why do Republicans eat their own? Identity politics...

[Eaglewings]

My Father-In-Law was a republican all of his life, but after the Tea Party Hi-Jacked the Republican party calling themselves the Holier than Thou party, republicans began to crumble and he left the party, didn't want anything to do with those crazies.

If the party starts to get a better grip on their foundation and separate themselves from the Tea Party , you may just get the party that you love back.

I think it is going to take some more losses to motivate a change within the party.

So if your father in law quit the Republicans because the tea party came along saying we spend too much money and our taxes are too high, why was he a "Republican" in the first place?

Where in my reply did I say the Republicans spend too much money and have high taxes? Did you forget to put your glasses on this morning , or do you just make things up?


.

 

[kaz]

My Father-In-Law was a republican all of his life, but after the Tea Party Hi-Jacked the Republican party calling themselves the Holier than Thou party, republicans began to crumble and he left the party, didn't want anything to do with those crazies.

If the party starts to get a better grip on their foundation and separate themselves from the Tea Party , you may just get the party that you love back.

I think it is going to take some more losses to motivate a change within the party.

So if your father in law quit the Republicans because the tea party came along saying we spend too much money and our taxes are too high, why was he a "Republican" in the first place?

Where in my reply did I say the Republicans spend too much money and have high taxes? Did you forget to put your glasses on this morning , or do you just make things up?


.

That's what the Tea Party says, that's what they stand for. Think about it, the "tea party." And you said your Father in law left because of them. Why would a group that thinks taxes are too high and we are spending too much make a Republican leave the party? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to stand for?

 

[Eaglewings]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

Right On!!!.....Exactly.. Pat Robertson got that fake christian movement going in 1992 . ..

I pretty much stopped going to some churches because they were hi-jacked the whole hour, telling me how to vote

The Tea Party captured that audience , and split the party.

.

.

 

[Eaglewings]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

 

[Eaglewings]

That's what the Tea Party says, that's what they stand for. Think about it, the "tea party." And you said your Father in law left because of them. Why would a group that thinks taxes are too high and we are spending too much make a Republican leave the party? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to stand for?

I should have made that more clear... No he left the republican party after the fake religious nutters of the Tea Party hi-jacked the party..
I am a christian and they tried to tell me I am not because I didn't vote for them.

They also claimed that it is a sin if we don't support our presidents decision to go to war, they are the crazies out there now with the hateful signs..

Brainwashed all of them.


.

.

 

[kaz]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

And when the religious right was running the party they nominated HW and Dole? LOL, sure they did.

BTW, I left the Republican party in the middle of that, roughly 1990. And sure, there were a lot of active socons, but that isn't what he said, he said they had a "love affair with the religious right." That's the portrayal of the liberal media.

I'm not a Christian and I don't love the religious right, I left because Republican after Reagan failed to differentiate themselves from Democrats

 

[kaz]

That's what the Tea Party says, that's what they stand for. Think about it, the "tea party." And you said your Father in law left because of them. Why would a group that thinks taxes are too high and we are spending too much make a Republican leave the party? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to stand for?

I should have made that more clear... No he left the republican party after the fake religious nutters of the Tea Party hi-jacked the party..
I am a christian and they tried to tell me I am not because I didn't vote for them.

They also claimed that it is a sin if we don't support our presidents decision to go to war, they are the crazies out there now with the hateful signs..

Brainwashed all of them.


.

.

What "religious nutter" are you associating with the tea party? Cruz is the most successful tea partier and while he's a social conservative, he's running an economic platform, not a religious one.

You seem to still be stuck on the liberal caricature of the tea party. I'm not a tea partier, BTW, I'm a libertarian. We're way, way worse. They just want to trim spending and taxes, I want to slash the Federal government by at least half

 

[Eaglewings]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

And when the religious right was running the party they nominated HW and Dole? LOL, sure they did.

BTW, I left the Republican party in the middle of that, roughly 1990. And sure, there were a lot of active socons, but that isn't what he said, he said they had a "love affair with the religious right." That's the portrayal of the liberal media.

I'm not a Christian and I don't love the religious right, I left because Republican after Reagan failed to differentiate themselves from Democrats

"The Christian Coalition: On The Church and State, January, 1992.

"When I slipped into the national leadership meeting of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, I thought I knew what to expect. I'd written many stories about the Religious Right. But I was unprepared for what I saw, heard and felt inside Robertson's Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters for two days in November during the "Road to Victory" Conference and Strategy Briefing."

Taking Over the Republican Party


It started in 1991, but took off in 1992, I remember it was right after my son was born.

 

[kaz]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

And when the religious right was running the party they nominated HW and Dole? LOL, sure they did.

BTW, I left the Republican party in the middle of that, roughly 1990. And sure, there were a lot of active socons, but that isn't what he said, he said they had a "love affair with the religious right." That's the portrayal of the liberal media.

I'm not a Christian and I don't love the religious right, I left because Republican after Reagan failed to differentiate themselves from Democrats

"The Christian Coalition: On The Church and State, January, 1992.

"When I slipped into the national leadership meeting of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, I thought I knew what to expect. I'd written many stories about the Religious Right. But I was unprepared for what I saw, heard and felt inside Robertson's Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters for two days in November during the "Road to Victory" Conference and Strategy Briefing."

Taking Over the Republican Party


It started in 1991, but took off in 1992, I remember it was right after my son was born.

Again, they were "taking over the Republican Party," yet the nominees were all left wing tax and spend liberals. Yeah

 

[Eaglewings]

That's what the Tea Party says, that's what they stand for. Think about it, the "tea party." And you said your Father in law left because of them. Why would a group that thinks taxes are too high and we are spending too much make a Republican leave the party? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to stand for?

I should have made that more clear... No he left the republican party after the fake religious nutters of the Tea Party hi-jacked the party..
I am a christian and they tried to tell me I am not because I didn't vote for them.

They also claimed that it is a sin if we don't support our presidents decision to go to war, they are the crazies out there now with the hateful signs..

Brainwashed all of them.


.

.

What "religious nutter" are you associating with the tea party? Cruz is the most successful tea partier and while he's a social conservative, he's running an economic platform, not a religious one.

You seem to still be stuck on the liberal caricature of the tea party. I'm not a tea partier, BTW, I'm a libertarian. We're way, way worse. They just want to trim spending and taxes, I want to slash the Federal government by at least half

Haven't you seen the crazy Ted Cruz praying and holding his bible up everywhere he goes, and hating the gays?
The Tea Party people say..."What a Holy Man" he is a fake...

The Tea Party was founded by the corrupt Koch brothers, and is as corrupt as hell, so is Ted Cruz.

"The Blaze channel " with Glen Beck is picking up right where old creepy Pat Robertson left off, and these Tea Parties believe everything Glen Beck says.

Not all christian's are in the Tea Party ., actually the Tea Party is getting weaker because they are seeing the lies.

.

 

[Eaglewings]

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

And when the religious right was running the party they nominated HW and Dole? LOL, sure they did.

BTW, I left the Republican party in the middle of that, roughly 1990. And sure, there were a lot of active socons, but that isn't what he said, he said they had a "love affair with the religious right." That's the portrayal of the liberal media.

I'm not a Christian and I don't love the religious right, I left because Republican after Reagan failed to differentiate themselves from Democrats

"The Christian Coalition: On The Church and State, January, 1992.

"When I slipped into the national leadership meeting of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, I thought I knew what to expect. I'd written many stories about the Religious Right. But I was unprepared for what I saw, heard and felt inside Robertson's Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters for two days in November during the "Road to Victory" Conference and Strategy Briefing."

Taking Over the Republican Party


It started in 1991, but took off in 1992, I remember it was right after my son was born.

Again, they were "taking over the Republican Party," yet the nominees were all left wing tax and spend liberals. Yeah

Who, Obama? He got in because of his brilliant campaign and his us of the internet for the first time.
He pulled the rug under everyone.

.

 

[kaz]

That's what the Tea Party says, that's what they stand for. Think about it, the "tea party." And you said your Father in law left because of them. Why would a group that thinks taxes are too high and we are spending too much make a Republican leave the party? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to stand for?

I should have made that more clear... No he left the republican party after the fake religious nutters of the Tea Party hi-jacked the party..
I am a christian and they tried to tell me I am not because I didn't vote for them.

They also claimed that it is a sin if we don't support our presidents decision to go to war, they are the crazies out there now with the hateful signs..

Brainwashed all of them.


.

.

What "religious nutter" are you associating with the tea party? Cruz is the most successful tea partier and while he's a social conservative, he's running an economic platform, not a religious one.

You seem to still be stuck on the liberal caricature of the tea party. I'm not a tea partier, BTW, I'm a libertarian. We're way, way worse. They just want to trim spending and taxes, I want to slash the Federal government by at least half

Haven't you seen the crazy Ted Cruz praying and holding his bible up everywhere he goes, and hating the gays?
The Tea Party people say..."What a Holy Man" he is a fake...

The Tea Party was founded by the corrupt Koch brothers, and is as corrupt as hell, so is Ted Cruz.

"The Blaze channel " with Glen Beck is picking up right where old creepy Pat Robertson left off, and these Tea Parties believe everything Glen Beck says.

Not all christian's are in the Tea Party ., actually the Tea Party is getting weaker because they are seeing the lies.

.

OK, I get it now, you're speaking in hyperbole

 

[kaz]

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

And when the religious right was running the party they nominated HW and Dole? LOL, sure they did.

BTW, I left the Republican party in the middle of that, roughly 1990. And sure, there were a lot of active socons, but that isn't what he said, he said they had a "love affair with the religious right." That's the portrayal of the liberal media.

I'm not a Christian and I don't love the religious right, I left because Republican after Reagan failed to differentiate themselves from Democrats

"The Christian Coalition: On The Church and State, January, 1992.

"When I slipped into the national leadership meeting of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, I thought I knew what to expect. I'd written many stories about the Religious Right. But I was unprepared for what I saw, heard and felt inside Robertson's Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters for two days in November during the "Road to Victory" Conference and Strategy Briefing."

Taking Over the Republican Party


It started in 1991, but took off in 1992, I remember it was right after my son was born.

Again, they were "taking over the Republican Party," yet the nominees were all left wing tax and spend liberals. Yeah

Who, Obama? He got in because of his brilliant campaign and his us of the internet for the first time.
He pulled the rug under everyone.

.

Obama was a Republican from the 80s and 90s? Are you following our discussion?

 

[SwimExpert]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

When I saw your post I just knew you had to be responding to Kaz (I have him on ignore, so it looked like you were talking to yourself). Kaz is delusional. He sees what he wants to see. Period.

 

[kaz]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

When I saw your post I just knew you had to be responding to Kaz (I have him on ignore, so it looked like you were talking to yourself). Kaz is delusional. He sees what he wants to see. Period.

You guys are the ones claiming the religious right controlled the party, yet you can't point to any Republican nominee in that period that wasn't a tax and spend liberal, LOL. Yeah, Robertson wanted ... Bob Dole ... Sure he did

 

[Eaglewings]

I find it interesting that we bitch to no end about how the left divides the nation along identity lines but we absolutely devour our own if a strict line isn't followed.
The GOP would never win another election if it weren't for the votes of so called "Rinos" but daily we condemn them. To make matters worse yet someone who has never voted for a Democrat can be labeled a Rino simply for disagreeing with any given position. Or worse yet be labeled the infamous establishment or libtard.

Why craft such a narrow view when you must spread a wide net to win ANY national election.

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

When I saw your post I just knew you had to be responding to Kaz (I have him on ignore, so it looked like you were talking to yourself). Kaz is delusional. He sees what he wants to see. Period.

You guys are the ones claiming the religious right controlled the party, yet you can't point to any Republican nominee in that period that wasn't a tax and spend liberal, LOL. Yeah, Robertson wanted ... Bob Dole ... Sure he did

Pat Robertson ran in the
Republican Party presidential primaries, 1988
and Lost against Dole and Bush

So out of bitterness he founded the Christian movement....in 1992

.

 

[kaz]

The problem stems from the late 80s/early 90s when the party's love affair with the religious right reached it's full maturation period. The party changed its mentality. It went from thinking of itself as the better of two options, to thinking of itself as the only acceptable option. The former is an inclusive mentality, the latter is exclusive.

This kind of mentality is destined to lead to the very kind of dog-eat-dog culture that we are seeing now, and has permeated the orthodoxy American Christianity and its roots. The Catholic church excommunicates people, Salem Puritans had witch-hunt hysteria, and the modern GOP has a Tea Party that labels people as Rinos.

You're just making that up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember the 80s and 90s and can call you on your shit. And look at the candidates then, HW, Dole, yeah, they were religious right.

Democrats do love to rewrite history, don't you?

Sounds like you were having blackouts in the 1990's because SwimExperts quote is exactly what happened...

.

When I saw your post I just knew you had to be responding to Kaz (I have him on ignore, so it looked like you were talking to yourself). Kaz is delusional. He sees what he wants to see. Period.

You guys are the ones claiming the religious right controlled the party, yet you can't point to any Republican nominee in that period that wasn't a tax and spend liberal, LOL. Yeah, Robertson wanted ... Bob Dole ... Sure he did

Pat Robertson ran in the
Republican Party presidential primaries, 1988
and Lost against Dole and Bush

So out of bitterness he founded the Christian movement....in 1992

.

And controlling the Republican party, he got HW nominated again in 1992 and Dole in 1996? Your argument is pretty good ... that he didn't control the Republican Party ...

 

[Eaglewings]

And controlling the Republican party, he got HW nominated again in 1992 and Dole in 1996? Your argument is pretty good ... that he didn't control the Republican Party ...

Presidential Clinton term: January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001 HW/ Dole lost to Clinton in 1996

 

[kaz]

And controlling the Republican party, he got HW nominated again in 1992 and Dole in 1996? Your argument is pretty good ... that he didn't control the Republican Party ...

Presidential Clinton term: January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001 HW/ Dole lost to Clinton in 1996

And that shows the religious right controlled the Republican party ... how?

 

[Eaglewings]

And controlling the Republican party, he got HW nominated again in 1992 and Dole in 1996? Your argument is pretty good ... that he didn't control the Republican Party ...

Presidential Clinton term: January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001 HW/ Dole lost to Clinton in 1996

And that shows the religious right controlled the Republican party ... how?

• • Jane DevinCultural critic, essayist, and author
  
  
  When Ronald Reagan began courting the religious right in his bid to win the Presidency, I doubt he knew he was spelling death to the lean tenets of Goldwaterconservatism. Yet soon afterward, under the thumb of right-wing religion, the Republican party became a bloated fool, stuffed with hypocrisy, greed, and anti-intellectualism. In 2008, the price is being paid through lost elections and a loss of public trust.
  
  While Bush railed about the axis of evil, there was another axis that gathered steam during the Reagan years. The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and The Christian Coalition were all formed within years of each other as religiopolitical groups. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, the respective leaders of these movements, formed a triad that sought to influence politics through a gospel of neo-conservative Christian rhetoric aimed at millions of faithful adherents whose votes, it was hoped, could swing the socio-political pendulum away from progress and back to “traditional values.”
  
  In order to win the votes of the triad’s faithful followers, Republican politicians bartered themselves into a hear-no-wrong, see-no-wrong trade-off. This trade-off allowed Falwell to hold sway with politicians, and appear as a respected political pundit on right-wing shows, even after outlandishly insisting that the purple Tinky Winky children’s character was gay, or that the anti-Christ was coming in the form of a Jew. He could promote the idea of ending the public school system in favor of church-run schools, as he did in his book, America Can Be Saved, yet still wield considerable influence in Washington.
  
  In trading endorsements for blindness, Pat Robertson could say that feminism “is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” — and even suggest that a nuclear device should be used to blow up the State Department — yet Senators and other politicians would still appear on his CBN network, even after other controversies, such as the use of Operation Blessing planes for mining activities, splintered his Coalition.
  

When Ronald Reagan began courting the religious right in his bid to win the Presidency, I doubt he knew he was spelling death to the lean tenets of Goldwaterconservatism. Yet soon afterward, under the thumb of right-wing religion, the Republican party became a bloated fool, stuffed with hypocrisy, greed, and anti-intellectualism. In 2008, the price is being paid through lost elections and a loss of public trust.

While Bush railed about the axis of evil, there was another axis that gathered steam during the Reagan years. The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and The Christian Coalition were all formed within years of each other as religiopolitical groups. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, the respective leaders of these movements, formed a triad that sought to influence politics through a gospel of neo-conservative Christian rhetoric aimed at millions of faithful adherents whose votes, it was hoped, could swing the socio-political pendulum away from progress and back to “traditional values.”

In order to win the votes of the triad’s faithful followers, Republican politicians bartered themselves into a hear-no-wrong, see-no-wrong trade-off. This trade-off allowed Falwell to hold sway with politicians, and appear as a respected political pundit on right-wing shows, even after outlandishly insisting that the purple Tinky Winky children’s character was gay, or that the anti-Christ was coming in the form of a Jew. He could promote the idea of ending the public school system in favor of church-run schools, as he did in his book, America Can Be Saved, yet still wield considerable influence in Washington.

In trading endorsements for blindness, Pat Robertson could say that feminism “is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” — and even suggest that a nuclear device should be used to blow up the State Department — yet Senators and other politicians would still appear on his CBN network, even after other controversies, such as the use of Operation Blessing planes for mining activities, splintered his Coalition.