As for Newt Gingrinch, you didn’t mention that he was removed as House Speaker. This when it was (and still is) widely believed that he was the cause of the Republican take over of the House.

I am not arguing that Republicans are saints. Or that they are perfect. My only point here is with respect to moral issues, they seem to be alot less tolerant of moral infidelities than Democrats. That’s all.

I would say that a little math would probably indicate that the Republicans in Arkansas were more tolerant of Mr. Hutchinson’s behavior than were the Democrats (looking at the % of voters registered with each party, comparing Hutchinson’s primary numbers with general election numbers, and throwing in the state’s results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential election for comparison). Regardless of how such math would come out, it’s not a good example of Republicans high standards regarding marital fidelity. They voted for him again!

In addition, regardless of whether or not

I’m not as familiar with this specific race as I should be. But my point wasn’t that Republicans tolerate it less than the Public in general. My point was that they tolerate it less than the Democrats. THis guy might have made it through the primaries, but he did eventually lose primarily because of this issue (where as Democrats will not only tolerate sexual infidelity, sometimes they will defend the politician in question - Bill Clinton or Gary Condit for example).

Whether it’s good or bad aside, it is a fact that Republicans hold their candidate to a higher moral standard than Democrats.

“In the senator or governmental elections of 2002, I remember reading that
Democrats picked up a seat because it was discovered that the Republican
in question had had marital affairs.”

I am familiar with this because it occurred in my home state of Arkansas. It doesn’t help your point that “while both parties are equally guilty of
sexual misbehavings, Republicans generally don’t tolerate it”. This guy made it through the Republican primaries, even though his marital indiscretions were known as well as they were during the general election. Thus it seems they tolerated it more than the entire population. What’s more, this bag of filth was given a federal job by the family values president after the voters of Arkansas tossed him out. His name is Tim Hutchinson. Check it out.

Hmmm. I re-read the comment in question. And your right. I did imply that MLK’s religious views(w/o specifically stating they were Christian) were what seperated him from modern day liberals. And that isn’t completely fair. So correction noted. Thanks for letting me know.

With that said, let me be more specific on what makes MLK different from modern day liberals.

1. He was a devout Christian. So not only was he religious (something I grant liberals can be), but, more specifically, he was a religious Christian (although in principle acceptable to liberals, in practice it is a rarity amongst modern day liberals to be a devout Christian).

2. In addition to being a devout Christian, he also believed racism to be wrong based on religious principles, specifically Christian principles. So when he was fighting the good civil rights fight, he was essentially fighting to change public policy and instill specifically Christian principles onto our legal system (few things are more offensive to modern day liberals than this).

So, although I went too far in my comment, the point behind my statement is still very valid.

Also, I wholly disagree with you that the early feminists would be lining up on your side. Whatever their position on abortion and birth control, they were adamantly in support of women’s rights. I’m afraid they would not have adhered to a party that was as opposed to feminism as the current Republican party.

You’re begging the question. The early feminsts were also in support of women’s rights and ‘feminism’. They just happened to define womens rights as pro-life, where as modern day liberals (feminists) define womens rights as pro-choice. So it’s a question of who was truly supporting womens rights, was it the feminsts of the past, or the feminists of today? Modern day liberals assume it is the feminists of today, modern day conservatives assume it was the feminsts of the past. But both believe to be supporting true feminism.

Not until you buy me a drink first, sailor.

You may not endorse our religions, or agree with them, given that we’re not conservative Christians, but we lefties are religious, we are spiritual, and I, for one, am getting a little annoyed at you folk co-opting religion in such an hubristic manner.

Also, I wholly disagree with you that the early feminists would be lining up on your side. Whatever their position on abortion and birth control, they were adamantly in support of women’s rights. I’m afraid they would not have adhered to a party that was as opposed to feminism as the current Republican party.