It's 1994. The GOP promised to dismantle social programs, cut taxes and balance the budget. Newt Gingrich massaged the message, and the "Me Generation" bought it hook, line and sinker. This was the new GOP, and they had made a "Contract with America."
It was a promise built upon "family values" lies...
Instead, the GOP Class of 1994 that were ushered into power with a promised 'family values' core that would be the driving principle behind their legislative actions turned out to be rife with family value hypocrites who sold America a bill of goods:
The sex scandals that have tarnished Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) don't appear to have much in common. Yet there is one thread that binds them together: Both Ensign and Sanford were members of the famed Republican House class of 1994, as well as its latest casualties.As it turns out, the pressures and demands of political life have inflicted devastating damage not only on the Ensign and Sanford families, but on the families of many of the 71 other freshmen who formed the vanguard of the Republican Revolution.
In the 14 years since that star-crossed class arrived in Washington espousing an agenda that placed family values at its core, no less than a dozen of its members have been caught up in affairs, sex scandals or in messy separations and divorces from their spouses that, in more than a few instances, led to their political downfalls.
This isn't something that took years to develop -- the GOP hypocrites who were voted into office failed from the outset.
The problems started almost as soon as they took office, and by the end of their first year in Congress, the marriages of at least four Republican freshmen had collapsed.One of the first to see his marriage unravel was Rep. Jim Bunn (R-Ore.) who, not long after taking office in 1995, divorced his wife, married one of his political aides, and later elevated her to chief of staff. Bunn lost his 1996 reelection bid.
Rep. Enid Greene, who became the first female member of Congress from Utah in 1994, spent most of her single term in the House dealing with a scandal of her husband's making. Joe Waldholtz, who married Greene in 1993, embezzled millions of dollars that he used to help finance her campaign. Once authorities finally caught up with Waldholtz, Greene filed for divorce and took custody of the couple's daughter. She did not run for reelection in 1996.
Former Rep. Jon Christensen (R-Neb.) was another high-profile casualty -- he divorced his wife during his first term after she admitted to marital infidelity.
All of this came despite an acknowledgment at the start of the 104th Congress that the grueling pace of work in Washington could tear families apart. Then-newly installed House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who later got divorced for a second time in 2000, even warned as much.
And Gingrich pledged to do something about it, setting up a bipartisan task force, the Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee, to rethink the congressional work-life balance.
"We have established the principle that we are going to set schedules we stick to so families can count on time to be together, built around school schedules so that families can get to know each other, and not just by seeing us on C-SPAN," Gingrich said in a speech at the opening of the 104th Congress on Jan. 4, 1995.
Gingrich, recognizing the hypocrisy that early, still failed to turn the tide. Today, most Republicans refuse to acknowledge or address the hypocrisy, using the time-honored techniques honed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to deny the existence of the 800 pound gorilla parked on the living room coffee table...
... and the hypocrisy of that -- of the GOP "family values' party that today refuses to even acknowledge the problems posed by their hypocrisy, is the bottom line left behind with the Republican "Contract with America."
It wasn't a contract "with America" -- it was a contract "on America" -- and America lost dearly.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!
Comments (45)
Ive begun to notice a trend here.
It seems that rather than defending the current policies of the democratic party, Lee would prefer to rail about old battles the democratic party already lost.
Its almost as if there isnt anything new for Lee to crow about.
1. Posted by LiberalNightmare | July 2, 2009 3:44 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 15:44
Sanford and Ensign are new hypocrites to crow about.
But yes, Republican hypcorisy has, as this article points out, been a big problem for the GOP since 1994.
Nothing new there...
2. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 3:49 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 15:49
I think the greatest problem with the Contract for America is that programs that were intended to be made more efficient or eliminated resulted in an increase in spending of about 13% according to the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4463
The Republicans campaign heavily on family values and I agree that these marital indiscretions clearly don't help the cause.
But I was not under the impression that family values with respect to marriage was a significant part of the Contract for America; the Personal Responsibility Act or the Family Reinforcement Act of the Contract did not spend any significant print space proposing guidelines for strengthening marriage.
I think if Republicans are going to campaign on family values you, me and any other voter have every right to question the sincerity of this stance if any candidate campaigning on this issue is found wanting with regard to infidelity in his/her own marriage.
So what does this mean? Republicans campaign on family values and according to you as a Party fall very short and are therefore hypocrites. Since marital infidelity occurs with politicians in both parties is it best to do as the Democrats and not bring it up because it is an unattainable ideal? Or is it an ideal worth campaigning on because marital fidelity is one example of behavior that lends stability to civil society and despite failure in a minority of cases is still worth advocating?
3. Posted by DaveD | July 2, 2009 4:02 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 16:02
"Family values" was used by Gingrich to sell the GOP Contract for America.
From Newt Gingrich's website, speaking of the 1994 election:
"Family values" became the buzzwords used by Republican hypocrites to garner votes in this and subsequent elections.
Problem was, any jackass can claim to support 'family values' while at the same time they're breaking their wedding vows, porking campaign staffers' wives, tap dancing under the stall dividers in airport men's restrooms, etc.
Just another Republican lie... and yet, time and time again, as these examples surface, the GOP loudly defends folks like Sanford instead of excoriating them.
What happened to the 'contract'? What happened to "a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family"?
"Republicans campaign on family values and according to you as a Party fall very short and are therefore hypocrites."
Many Americans, of all political persuasions, fall short.
To claim a higher moral ground, as Sanford did with his promotion of 'family values,' and then be exposed cheating on his wife, is hypocrisy.
I don't recall John Edwards or Bill Clinton or any other Democrats exhibiting the same hypocrisy as the 'family value' Republicans. If you do, feel free to give examples.
And the toe-tapping, gay-bashing Senator Larry Craig stands to this day as the epitome of Republican hypocrisy, but there are many others...
That's a list from 2007. It needs an update if anyone has lots of time on their hands...
4. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 4:39 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 16:39
Lee, holy crap! Those above real sick crimes make any guys into kink like cross dressing or riding crops look real tame by comparison.
5. Posted by Paul Hooson | July 2, 2009 4:54 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 16:54
Interesting list of crimes, Lee.
Got one like that for Democrats? Or doesn't it matter what they do?
6. Posted by JLawson | July 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 17:17
A more up-to-date list of Republican sexual predators and family values hypocrites is available at Conservative Babylon - here's a few recent additions to the list:
Details are available at Conservative Babylon.
7. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 5:22 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 17:22
Feel free to post a list of Democrats who campaigned on their 'family values' and then were caught lacking, JLawson -- if you can find one.
My guess is that you won't do it, because any list you may in fact come up with is going to pale in comparison to the list of GOP hypocrites -- but go ahead, give it your best shot.
8. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 5:25 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 17:25
*sigh* ... Another muddled post from Lee.
Opening line - "It's 1994. The GOP promised to dismantle social programs, cut taxes and balance the budget."
And they accomplished all those things, didn't they? The 1996 Welfare reform was the most successful turnaround of any big budget entitlement program to date. Capital gains taxes were cut in 1997, and income taxes were cut in 2001. The budget was balanced in fiscal 2000.
Tell me, Lee, how did the Republicans "fail" in any of those endeavors?
"Family Values" was a remarkably successful political strategy; so successful in fact that even to this day, Democrats can only engage in savage personal attacks in a weak attempt to counter it, e.g. the all-out assault by the Hollywood Left and the Democrats on Dan Quayle in 1992. And I'll challenge you to find any major party platform or general election strategy for the Republican party that says, "We guarantee that no one affiliated with our party will ever commit a sexual indiscretion."
The fact that liberals try to pretend that Republicans made some kind of blanket promise that every person affiliated with their party is a saint only illustrates how misguided their understanding of "family values" is.
After you've finished your list of Republican "hypocrites," I'd like to see you work out a list of Democrat sex offenders. You can start with two infamous cases from Oklahoma -- Custer County Sheriff Mike Burgess, who was convicted on 13 felony counts of forced sodomy and rape by instrumentation after forcing female inmates in the Custer County jail to perform sexual acts on him, and District Judge Donald Thompson, who was convicted on four counts of indecent exposure stemming from his use of a penis pump on himself behind the bench while his court was in session.
Dare I say that those cases illustrate the kind of values that the Democratic party upholds?
9. Posted by Michael Laprarie | July 2, 2009 6:11 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:11
"Tell me, Lee, how did the Republicans "fail" in any of those endeavors?"
laPrarie - see comment #3 above:
The Democrat Party doesn't claim to be the party of "family values" -- that's the Republicans.
And that's where the hypocrisy lies.
This isn't about sainthood, it's about "family values" hypocrisy - (see post title above).
10. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 6:16 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:16
Liberal Hypocrisy is abundant:
"We care about the children."
"We support the troops."
"This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history."
"We want every vote counted."
"We support Israel."
"We are a Party of Tolerance."
11. Posted by John | July 2, 2009 6:26 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:26
And LaPrarie -- fact-checking your links I can't find anything that supports your contention that Thompson was a Democrat -- your link says nothing of the sort and checking further I can't find any news stories that identify Thompson as a Democrat.
So I'll call bullshit on that one.
I haven't fact-checked the other link you provided. Do I need to?
12. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 6:28 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:28
"The Democrat Party doesn't claim to be the party of "family values" -- that's the Republicans.
And that's where the hypocrisy lies."
Okay, Lee, in your original post you headlined the words family values and in ensuing text focused on examples of marital infidelity. I know how you relish banning folks who don't stay focused so I asked you a question or two about this aspect of family values and you followed with a list of Republican pedophiles. Well, I admit it's a painful list to read but I also realize that on this site it is encumbent upon the "guests" to continue to chase your train of thought wherever it decides to go.
I agree with you that Republicans campaign on family values and I agree vigorously that those who cannot practice it in their own lives are hypocrites. That is the very definition of hypocracy, isn't it? I would hope that in future post you will broaden your critique to Democrats such as, let's say the current president, who campaign on certain policy positions only to shamelessly change his/her mind once he/she gets in office.
Also for me, marriage infidelity (again your focus of your original post) is a trifle compared to pedophilia which is in my mind unforgiveable. But let's face it, the list of Democrat pedophiles will never be as long as the Republican list. The Democrats as you say do not campaign on family values so the social standard is inherently more fluid and since shame is almost unheard of in Democrat circles they are able to justify socially deviant behavior much more conscience-free within their political philosophy compared to Republicans.
13. Posted by DaveD | July 2, 2009 6:41 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:41
"I know how you relish banning folks who don't stay focused so I asked you a question or two about this aspect of family values and you followed with a list of Republican pedophiles."
I also replied to you with this:
So far - no examples. You're expecting me to go find some examples that support your thesis? That's your job, or the job of your numerous fellow conservatives and Republicans who troll these comment threads.
As I said, Americans of all political persuasions fall short... but that doesn't make them all "family values" hypocrites.
14. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 6:49 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 18:49
Democrats campaign on compassion and empathy, so how about posting a list of democrats who fail to show compassion and empathy. Lets start with Democrats who won't support giving parents the right and the means to take their kids out of failing public schools so that they can get a good education. Democrats would rather support unions as long as their own kids get to go to a good school. Now that's callus and selfish. What a bunch of hypocrites.
15. Posted by Mac Lorry | July 2, 2009 7:07 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 19:07
Lee, digging in the past again? What's the matter, too much Democratic "nuance" (the rest of us call it hypocrisy) going on? How's Charlie Rangel's wife doing? How's it going with Chrarlie's THREE rent controlled apartments? Hey, heard anything more on "Dollar" Jefferson's trial lately? How about the details on Chris Dodd's CountyWide "Friends of Angelo" mortgage? Could write more, but what's the use. After all, you guys "Won".
16. Posted by GarandFan | July 2, 2009 7:25 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 19:25
Note that the Free Republic also identifies Judge Donald Thompson as a democrat.
17. Posted by Mac Lorry | July 2, 2009 7:35 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 19:35
If lee really wants to talk about hypocrisy, how about a review of the one's campaign promises?? How do you think that will turn out lee?
18. Posted by J.R. | July 2, 2009 7:50 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 19:50
"How do you think that will turn out lee?"
Probably about the same as every other elected politician -- but maybe even a little worse -- because I agree that Obama promised much more than he could deliver, and I pointed that out on several occasions before he was elected.
Not sure what your off-topic question has to do with 'family-values' hypocrisy, J.R., but many of your comments lead away off-topic.
Let's try to get back on topic if we can -- ok folks?
MacLorry - your New Republic site links to a non-existent story back on TULSA WORLD. I googled the second sentence of the blog post...
and got two hits. One was the New Republic post, and the second was another blog post which quoted the New Republic verbatim.
I'm calling bullshit on the New Republic link you provided as being any evidence of Thompson being a Democrat.
Think about it - would a news story writer set off "- DEMOCRAT - " that way? Of course not - the word "DEMOCRAT" was inserted by some right wing moron trying to make a point that further investigation reveals was false.
I'm just shocked that Michael LaPrarie wouldn't have fact-checked this before posting it.
I wonder if he fact-checks his blog posts?
19. Posted by Lee Ward | July 2, 2009 8:12 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 20:12
I don't know if hypocrisy is the right term. Conservatives by nature are selfish and self-serving. Add in some ignorance and a belief in a forgiving God and you can get away with a lot of shit.
If you have a wife that also believes in a forgiving and loving Jesus you are probably going to be able to bang that bartender and get away with it. You come to Christ. In the parlance of professional christian charlatans this is called "cheap grace"
20. Posted by drlava | July 2, 2009 8:13 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 20:13
Wow, the "Republican sex offenders" list again. The last time I saw Mr. Ward post that, it nearly cost him his job. Ah, the good old days...
Seems to me like the common element here is the offense of "Impersonating a Kennedy."
J.
21. Posted by Jay Tea | July 2, 2009 8:26 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 20:26
It seems that if the Democrat can avoid piddling on the carpet, then he/she is suited for public office and will stay there indefinitely. because when you have no values you espouse Wizbang Blue's residents will never call you a hypocrite.
Whereas if you are a normal human, make a mistake and are a Republican, well then. We will put a big scarlet "H" on your ass and kick you to the curb.
The lesson here is to never stand for anything. Which our current President has learned well.
22. Posted by MunDane | July 2, 2009 10:33 PM
Posted on July 2, 2009 22:33
Don't see much in the Contract with America that deals with family values as the term is being used here. Indeed, most of the items are winners today - fiscal restraint, work ethic, strong defense, legal reform, term limits.
Not present - marital fidelity, abortion, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality or other fevered sexual nightmares from Lee's mind regarding hypocritical Republicans.
23. Posted by pvd | July 3, 2009 12:53 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 00:53
drlava,
I volunteer many hours of my time, not to a church because I'm not religous, but to my local school. I donate supplies for the school. I donate services for the school.
I also volunteer at a local animal shelter. Contribute cash there as well.
I do a fair share of pro bono work in a field that no one else does pro bono.
And I am very conservative by nature. So are most of the people I see contributing, in time and money, in my community.
Liberals, oth, want someone else to sooth their conscience rather than do the dirty work themselves or put up their own hard earned cash.
So, drlava, how many hours do you volunteer?
24. Posted by pvd | July 3, 2009 12:59 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 00:59
pvd, it's been shown again and again that conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals. Liberals prefer to increase public support for charity.
In other words, conservatives are more generous with their own money. Liberals are more generous with everyone's money.
J.
25. Posted by Jay Tea | July 3, 2009 4:13 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 04:13
I actually help people, mainly elderly people from 7:30 to 10:30 every Saturday.
I do what I do because I really enjoy people, especially those with long histories not because I want to spread some bullshit about Jesus or out of guilt acquired from some mythological texts.
PVD typifies the sanctimonious narcissism that is really the gnawing reality in the back of every Christians brain: "Do I really believe in the Bible?"
26. Posted by drlava | July 3, 2009 7:22 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 07:22
Only a fool says nothing exists beyond the limits of their senses and their knowledge. The gnawing reality in the back of every non-fool's brain: "What if God really exists?"
27. Posted by Mac Lorry | July 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 08:52
lava, if we're having a contest, I have a seven-gallon pin from the Red Cross for blood donations -- which means I'm close to roughly six times my body's total blood volume.
And no, that was one pint at a time, over about two decades.
I'm also a born-again agnostic.
The message of this article, though, seems to be "it's OK to be an utter and complete scumbag, as long as you don't pretend to be anything but."
With the notable exception of being The Embodiment Of Hope And Change, and then being the champion of the same ol' same ol'. Then you get a bye.
J.
28. Posted by Jay Tea | July 3, 2009 9:36 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 09:36
Missed the part about I'm not religous, huh? Or just ignored it because it doesn't fit your worldview?
No, I don't believe the Bible. Unlike you, I tend to be very tolerant of those that do. Who knows, they might be right and I might be wrong. I'm even tolerant of those who believe in the Koran. Except the 40 percent or so who want to whack off my head.
Them I'm a bit less tolerant of.
You, on the other hand, appear to start at a position of religous bigotry and then defend your position of "rationality" while acting far less tolerant or loving than those you assail.
29. Posted by pvd | July 3, 2009 10:02 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 10:02
"pvd, it's been shown again and again that conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals. Liberals prefer to increase public support for charity."
And that's been shown to be false if you exclude "charities" like a church building fund.
Which isn't a charity. It doesn't benefit the poor, the sick, the elderly -- it just feathers the conservative nest more at the exclusion of others. They attend church more, and when donations to churches are excluded conservatives no longer are "giving more to charities"
"Conservatives give more to charity" is a lie.
"Conservatives take more non-profit tax deductions for donations" - true.
Big difference.
"Wow, the "Republican sex offenders" list again. The last time I saw Mr. Ward post that, it nearly cost him his job. Ah, the good old days..."
I've never come close to "losing my job" - that's a lie also.
"The message of this article, though, seems to be "it's OK to be an utter and complete scumbag, as long as you don't pretend to be anything but.""
Nowhere have I suggested aberrant behavior is okay or acceptable by anyone. In fact, twice I've pointed out that people across the political spectrum cheat on their wives, etc.
One of the Wizbang bloggers attempted to counter by listing two "democrat" examples, and simple fact-checking showed that one of those two examples was lacking. That's pretty pathetic when compared to the huge list above.
An ex-Wizbang blogger, Jay, then resorts to smear tactics - suggesting I almost "lost my job" for posting this list of Republican pedophiles -- also a lie, and he then suggests the author supports the kind of sick behavior listed in the article above.
I guess Jay couldn't come up with a list of democratic transgressions either, so he attempts these ad hominem attacks on the author instead.
But harassing me is part of Jay's usual pattern. He's been at it constantly since the ban was lifted. And its earned him the first banning since.
Congratulations, Jay -- you're out of here. You were given a chance to act responsibly, but its clear that you're just here to harass. You lie repeatedly, and launch personal attacks against the author. Yesterday and last week -- twice now -- when confronted with evidence that you have posted comments using fake aliases, you repeatedly dodge the question, although you have eventually admitted to doing so. And in researching the matter yesterday I've uncovered a third instance where you done the same.
This after you were banned from this site for this very same violation of the Terms of Service. The very same Terms of Service that you used to enforce while you were an editor at Wizbang. You knew the rules, you violated the rules, you were banned, and you continued to violate the rules after your banning. Yesterday you were also caught posting from multiple IP addresses.
I'd ask you if this comment, posted by "Hamish" on August 7, 2007 was yours but I'd just have to suffer through more of your long-winded non-denial denials and ad hominem attacks - because you're just plan too dishonest to say the words "Yes, I posted that comment."
It's yours Jay. You used your 'bunnythief" email address - the same email address you mention in your May 5, 2004 blog post where you brag about the lengths you went to get banned (for hate speech, no less) and then proceed to brag about how you got around bans by using multiple IDs. At current count, I have you down for using 7 fake names at Wizbang Blue to post comments.
See ya. Feel free to send emails -- which will be ignored just like the rest of your emails -- but you're out of here.
30. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 10:25 AM
Posted on July 3, 2009 10:25
@ pvd in 23, who wrote "Don't see much in the Contract with America that deals with family values as the term is being used here."
"family values" as the term is used here, was used by Speaker Gingrich - linked and discussed in #4 above. The GOP class of '94 was the first to run on and promote their "family values".
@ pvd in # 24 above, who wrote "Liberals, oth, want someone else to sooth their conscience rather than do the dirty work themselves or put up their own hard earned cash."
No better example of volunteerism exists in America today than Habitat for Humanity, a cause championed by Jimmy Carter.
31. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 12:18 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 12:18
I hope "lava" notices your mention of Habitat for Humanity there Lee as it was started by a Christian, missionary (read: Evangelical) couple. So I guess Christians aren't so horrible after all, even nonbelievers can agree- thanks!
32. Posted by Mike | July 3, 2009 12:36 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 12:36
Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian. I don't think Christians are horrible.
And yes, as others have written, you have to espouse a moral viewpoint to be a hypocrite, and some avoid being hypocritical by not taking a moral stand on the issues, I acknowledge that.
That doesn't excuse the hypocrisy that exists and has been so prevalent among GOP "family values" politicians since 1994.
33. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 12:57 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 12:57
Lee,
I have an on topic question:
Can you cite what part (s) of the 1994 contract with America were tied implicitly or explicitly with family values?
I was a democrat back then, young and callow, and not terribly interested in what Newt had to say. Though I did appreciate the financial parts, being at the time a social liberal and financial conservative.
An off topic observation: I find it amusing that you and Jay are feuding, in almost the opposite positions, now that you are an author and he the commenter.
I wonder if a simple acknowledgement that when you were a troll at wizbang you were quite the intemperate dick would be all that Jay needed to back off. Would admitting that being 'the man' is not so easy, esp when there are commenter types nipping at your heels screaming 'LIAR' placate Jay? Or does the mutual loathing go deeper than that?
34. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | July 3, 2009 1:24 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 13:24
Lee,
I don't think church building funds are a big percentage of what Christians contribute to charity. Even then, if church building funds are not a charity then neither are hospital, university, or museum building funds a charity. Every charity, other than giving directly to the poor, needs facilities and has administrative overhead. Christian charities like the Salvation Army and World Vision have some of the lowest overhead compared to secularly charities like the United Way. Churches do more than spread the Gospel, they also help the poor directly and also by running food and clothing drives to help stock local secular food shelves and free clothing stores.
A Church I used to belong to sponsored legal immigrants fleeing from oppressive govenments. We paid for lots of their daily needs like rent, utilities, food, clothing, driver's training. Our church was their network in helping them find jobs. Some of the families were Muslim and we didn't try to convert them with words, but in time our deeds opened their hearts.
The pastor of the Church I belong to organized all the churches in our community to provide funds for the local police chief to use at his discretion to help needy people the police run across in the course of their duties. Some need a tank of gas, some a meal, some a room for the night, or to get their car fixed. Helping strangers in their time of need comes right out of the Gospel and the Gospel is real in the lives of Christian as many in need have discovered to their joy.
It seems you believe conservatives lack compassion for others and can't empathize with others. Whether or not that's true, just think what we would be without the Gospel.
Here's a question for you, are conservatives more likely to identify themselves as Christian than liberals?
35. Posted by Mac Lorry | July 3, 2009 2:15 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 14:15
"Can you cite what part (s) of the 1994 contract with America were tied implicitly or explicitly with family values?"
See comment #3 above, where Speaker Gingrich, architect and spokesman of the 1994 Contract on America, declares that the GOP-led Congress will uphold and embrace family values.
And stay on topic, SCSI.
"I don't think church building funds are a big percentage of what Christians contribute to charity."
Well I'm sorry that you don't think that -- but the fact is that if you deduct non-charitable giving to churches from the "conservatives" scorecard, you'll find that conservatives do not give more to charities than liberals.
I'm not saying that all church-related giving should be deducted from the charitable-giving equation, I'm referring specifically to the millions raised to put up new church buildings, buy land, etc.
"It seems you believe conservatives lack compassion for others and can't empathize with others. Whether or not that's true, just think what we would be without the Gospel.
No, I don't believe that conservatives lack compassion for others. I believe that a conservative's donation to church building funds and related non-charitable funds does not count as "donation to charities."
36. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 2:35 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 14:35
"Well I'm sorry that you don't think that -- but the fact is that if you deduct non-charitable giving to churches from the "conservatives" scorecard, you'll find that conservatives do not give more to charities than liberals."
And you link to this is??????
If you're going to require links from other commenter, you better supply yours also, or we'll have to start calling you a hypocrite for requiring others to do what you won't.
By the way, where is your link to 'bias' in the Ricci desicsion? Still haven't seen it.
37. Posted by engineer | July 3, 2009 3:10 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 15:10
After reading your comment, engineer, I scrolled up the list looking for a link to any evidence supporting the contention that conservative are more charitable than liberals. None to be found.
Show me that evidence, and the analysis behind it, and I'll show you that the analysis includes all giving to all-non-profits.
It's my argument that donations to church building funds should not be counted as "donations to charities." In my view a piece of dirt is not a "charity" and donations to a church that are used to purchase dirt and lumber and plumbing are not "charitable giving" even if the donation and eventually owner of the dirt and building is a non-profit entity.
38. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 15:26
Lee,
Having been a treasurer of a church for many years I can tell you the cost of building our church and maintaining it was less that 5% of the giving to the church over the expected life of the building. Also, any valid analysis of relative giving between conservatives and liberals must to use the same criteria. If you discount building funds for churches than you must also discount building funds for all other organizations that claim to be a charity. If you discount administrative costs for churches then you have to discount administrative costs for all other organizations that claim to be a charity.
What this really comes down to is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a charity. The only factual data is as you have already stated, which is that conservatives claim more deductions on their income tax return. Charity or not, conservatives are giving more of their earnings to others than liberals.
It's false to assume that conservatives don't care about the plight of others, it's just that we have rules as to who is deserving. People who, by their own actions or decisions bring on their own plight warrant help only if they change their ways. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, unconditional generosity creates a permanent dependence and a permanent underclass.
What seems to rub some liberals the wrong ways is that some Christians follow a set of immutable rules, some of which deal with marriage. We also have rules about murder, thievery, false witness, and being law abiding. We fail at those just like anyone else does, but no one is saying those rules are wrong because some who profess them fail. Why then claim the rules about marriage are wrong because some who profess them fail?
39. Posted by Mac Lorry | July 3, 2009 3:27 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 15:27
"The only factual data is as you have already stated, which is that conservatives claim more deductions on their income tax return. Charity or not, conservatives are giving more of their earnings to others than liberals."
Yes, I agree on that point.
But that's when you put the caveat "charity or not" on it -- and I thought the discussion was "donations to charity" - see comment #25:
It's my belief that this statement is not true - that conservatives take more tax deductions, but I contend that not all tax deductions to non-profits should be counted as "charitable giving" - ad I specifically cite one area that doesn't count is donations to church building funds.
A place of worship does not a charity make. And while a church may be a non-profit entity, it might in fact not do any charitable work at all, and if it does sitting in a pew doesn't count as 'charitable work' in my view.
40. Posted by Lee Ward | July 3, 2009 3:32 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 15:32
Blood donations? I'm at 63 pints, got the needle tracks to prove it.
PVD and Jay are right - liberals ARE more generous, with OTHER people's time and effort and money.
41. Posted by Doubting Thomas | July 3, 2009 4:19 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 16:19
Obviously, I need to stop letting comments sit for 6 hours before hitting the 'post' button.
Sorry for the delay.
42. Posted by Doubting Thomas | July 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 16:20
Fewer donations, DT, and space them out some.
You'll be fine.
43. Posted by pvd | July 4, 2009 12:10 AM
Posted on July 4, 2009 00:10
Lee,
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism
Wiki:
44. Posted by pvd | July 4, 2009 12:26 AM
Posted on July 4, 2009 00:26
Lee, that isn't an answer. What specific piece of the contract with America was tied to family values?
Your quote is something any politician would say.
45. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | July 4, 2009 7:55 PM
Posted on July 4, 2009 19:55