...which lays out the story in some detail, talks about how Haggard's congregation was handling the sex scandal, etc. All of that made sense, but then the article wraps up with this:

Haggard's situation is a disappointment to Christian conservatives, whom President Bush and other Republicans are courting heavily in the run-up to Tuesday's election.

Many were already disheartened with the president and the Republican-controlled Congress over their failure to deliver big gains on social issues even before the congressional page scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley.

Haggard, who had been president of the evangelical association since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

The Foley comment can perhaps be explained by the fact that it was another recent sex scandal. But what do Bush and the Republicans have to do with Haggard? Nothing, as near as I can tell, other than some telephone conversations with GOP staffers on a few occasions, and some lobbying of Congress. What relevance does any of that have to do with evangelicals being "disappointed" with the Republicans?

None that I can see. This was just a very clumsy way to squeeze in another reference to evangelical "disappointment" with Republicans.

Posted by: Ragnar at 08:20 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ah! Religion.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 05, 2006 09:33 PM (cNF2m)

2 I see you've uncovered the agenda.

"Stay home from the polls."

"You can't trust the Republicans."

The agenda of MSM who miss weilding power from their unelected thrones. They want to be king makers. Power brokers. A bunch of cut-rate Charles Montgomery Kanes. They aren't close enough to being Hearst. They can only aspire to the celluloid imitation.

At the supermarket today was the nearly ever-present pitch person for the local newspaper. It used to be two newspapers but is now, really, one.

I didn't even waste time telling him why I won't give that paper my money.

Posted by: GI Joe at November 05, 2006 09:43 PM (0euLV)

3 I thought they meant Merle Haggard...
 
No, seriously.  I've never heard of this preacher, so why is the MSM focusing on this?  Naw, there's no bias there.

Posted by: RepJ at November 05, 2006 10:54 PM (T3Wz2)

4 When the hell did George W. Bush become a "GOP staffer"???
 
Haggard had a regular weekly telephone conversation with the president and this information absolutely is relevant. Perhaps, if you really do wish to pursue this line of argument, you should ask yourself what a poorly delivered attempt at humor has to do with the Democratic party or any House or Senatorial campaign?

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 05, 2006 11:29 PM (Bwpq7)

5 I wonder why queers aren't disappointed with Democrats for the Gay witch hunt they've been waging since Foley wrote that naughty e-mail to an 18 year old page?

Could it possibly be due to the fact that voting the Democrat ticket is irrational?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 06, 2006 12:31 AM (bLPT+)

6 Non-sequitor.  I fail to see how the sin of one of its members would turn evangelicals away from the GOP.   More likely just Liberal wishful thinking.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 06, 2006 01:28 AM (8e/V4)

7 Von Nostril: Oh never mind.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 06, 2006 07:59 AM (cNF2m)

8 Apparently Nostril von Retard is able to intercept the President's phone calls through his tin-foil hat.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 06, 2006 09:00 AM (v3I+x)

9 I fail to see how the sin of one of its members would turn evangelicals away from the GOP

Exactly...at the very least the gay republicans will make the
evangelicals afraid to turn their back on them to avoid getting it in
the kester 

Posted by: Randman at November 06, 2006 09:37 AM (Sal3J)

10 Hmmmm,  let me try  to follow this liberal logic:    Haggard is a faggard, therefore all rebublicans must  be defeated......yup. makes sense to me.

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 06, 2006 10:31 AM (qXNHZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment