Wesboro baptist church, a political party?

[Zaitsev]

Is it possible for the extremist group the Westboro baptist church to gain a seat in a State legislature or the US congress? And if so how?

[LostCosmonaut]

No.

They are a fanatical fringe with a few dozen members at best who exist solely to troll via lawsuits and such.

[Juam Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Zaitsev

Is it possible for the extremist group the Westboro baptist church to gain a seat in a State legislature or the US congress? And if so how?

With all honesty,i can't see that happen with the current voter swings and the current electoral system in the USA.They pissed the Neo-Cons by demonstrating during soldier's funerals,they pissed the Jews off and the liberals would never vote for a Christian extremist party.Then again,i am not an American so i might be in the wrong.
Besides,i can't see why people who believe in this:
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/
Would want to establish a political party.

[Matt Wiser]

No. Three chances: slim, none, and when pigs fly. Besides, the entire "church" is made up of the extended family of Fred Phelps, who founded the group. And half of the adult members are lawyers....Kinda hard to get elected when you revel in being the most hated people in America (Fred Phelps has said as much on CNN).

[Abhakhazia]

No. Way.
Seriously, these guys make me look like Vladimir Lenin.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Zaitsev

Is it possible for the extremist group the Westboro baptist church to gain a seat in a State legislature or the US congress? And if so how?

The same way as anyone else gains a seat, by being voted for. Did you honestly have to ask this?

[Silver Priest]

Well, Fred Phelps did run for governor and senator various times. According to Wikipedia, he came closest to winning a primary for the senate, winning 31 percent in 1992. Of course, even if he did somehow win the primary, Kansas has not elected a Democratic senator in ages( since the 30's IIRC) so that's probably not an option. Governor is slightly more realistic, but even that's maybe a 1/1000 chance. Were he ever able to get the nomination, I suspect the Democrats would treat him like the Republicans did David Duke.


Maybe the best bet is to get a member of the church into power before he went off the deep end? Late 70's to the early 90's might work.But once he starts picketing military funerals, he's lost any chance of being a viable candidate for dog catcher. Had he stuck to just anti gay bigotry, it might have actually helped his career, especially in the past.

[kevvy2010]

It is very possible. Simply choose a massively conservative area where people agree with most of what they do, or have a sleeper member run in a Republican primary, win, and then defeat the token Democratic candidate.

The best you'd get is one or two congresspeople though. And they'd probably keep their relationship with the WBC a secret if they wanted to keep getting re-elected.

[Juam Maxwell]

[QUOTE=kevvy2010;6375295]It is very possible. Simply choose a massively conservative area where people agree with most of what they do.QUOTE]
I can't think of any major conservative area where people agree that Americans are going to hell for joining the army.

[Matt Wiser]

And even if a Congressman or state representative got elected out of the WBC, all it takes is one nosy reporter finding out the connection, and that person can kiss reelection good-bye. And the GOP would disown them so fast, run their own candidate in the primary-and win.

[Zaitsev]

A wbc member could run in an extremely conservative area on a purley anti-gay campaign and gain the republican nomination after all the other candidates drop out do to sex scandels. That could be a possibility. Of course mostly crazy people would have to come out to vote. Everybody else could be at the zoo that day or just not feel like voting.

[Juam Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Zaitsev

A wbc member could run in an extremely conservative area on a purley anti-gay campaign and gain the republican nomination after all the other candidates drop out do to sex scandels. That could be a possibility. Of course mostly crazy people would have to come out to vote. Everybody else could be at the zoo that day or just not feel like voting.

The vast majority of Conservatives would prefer not vote than to choose between an adulterer (or any other kind of "perverts" in their eyes and a candidate related to a church that hates the US and demonstrate during funerals of dead soldiers.Heck,i don't believe even Ron Paul supporters would vote for such a candidate as he opposes personal freedom.

[pearsonwright]

Originally Posted by Juam Maxwell

The vast majority of Conservatives would prefer not vote than to choose between an adulterer (or any other kind of "perverts" in their eyes and a candidate related to a church that hates the US and demonstrate during funerals of dead soldiers.Heck,i don't believe even Ron Paul supporters would vote for such a candidate as he opposes personal freedom.

I'd vote for an adulterer if It meant keeping a WBC member out.

[Zaitsev]

Originally Posted by pearsonwright

I'd vote for an adulterer if It meant keeping a WBC member out.

As would I

[d32123]

Originally Posted by kevvy2010

It is very possible. Simply choose a massively conservative area where people agree with most of what they do, or have a sleeper member run in a Republican primary, win, and then defeat the token Democratic candidate.

The best you'd get is one or two congresspeople though. And they'd probably keep their relationship with the WBC a secret if they wanted to keep getting re-elected.

No offense but you should really take of those Democrat-tinted glasses of yours.

There is no chance in hell the Republicans would ever allow WBC types into their party. Homophobes, sure, but the WBC? Heck no.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

No. Way.
Seriously, these guys make me look like Vladimir Lenin.

And the funny thing is, that whenever I see your name, I imagine you looked exactly like Vladimir Lenin.

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by d32123

No offense but you should really take of those Democrat-tinted glasses of yours.

There is no chance in hell the Republicans would ever allow WBC types into their party. Homophobes, sure, but the WBC? Heck no.

I would have thought that this would very much be the case. The WBC are pure poison for the Republicans.

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by Zaitsev

Is it possible for the extremist group the Westboro baptist church to gain a seat in a State legislature or the US congress? And if so how?

I disagree with the above posts, but I think it's mostly a matter of creativity. Fred Phelps wasn't, once upon a time, a man who made his money by trolling the legal system. He was a more mainstream civil rights activist with a nasty temper.


The question isn't whether the current church has any chance of gaining political power (everyone from liberals and catholics to the KKK hates them) but whether the current church can be butterflied into something better. It's still a difficult shot, given Phelps' own tendencies to be incredibly cruel to people including his own family. But perhaps things bad enough in Kansas that the former Civil Rights hero with a dedicate message of a better, traditional way of life can break through.


In a science where one of the best written works leads to the United States choosing between Charles Manson and Jim Jones in 1976, I have to think a major PoD can put Fred Phelps as a Kansas Assemblyman. He probably won't stay there--indeed, he may very well blow up so badly that he gets impeached or arrested. But I think a lot of luck and some good PoD hunting could get it done.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Juam Maxwell

Heck,i don't believe even Ron Paul supporters would vote for such a candidate as he opposes personal freedom.

I like having a good laugh at Grandpa Simpson as much as anyone else here but saying he opposes personal freedom? Dude, it’s time you changed the bong water.

Or is Fred Phelps the one you’re saying is opposed to personal freedom? In which case you're right, but that sentence needed to be phrased differently.

[d32123]

Originally Posted by Cook

I like having a good laugh at Grandpa Simpson as much as anyone else here but saying he opposes personal freedom? Dude, it’s time you changed the bong water.

I think the guy is talking about Phelps, not Paul.