But they won’t. They can’t do any worse. Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign adviser, offers the Democrats some good advice. In fact, she’s been saying the following for a long time:
“Republicans are using religion to separate us from our constituency,” [I disagree with her here, of course] Brazile said. “We need to become the party of reform. Most Americans believe we’re liberal elitists who are out of touch with real people. That was yesterday. Now we have to get them to believe we’re an important force in checking the Republicans’ abuse of power.“And we have to offer positive alternatives. We cannot just be the party of no, no, no,” she said. Instead of complaining about GOP efforts to strip away the power to block judicial nominees through filibusters, Democrats should be explaining why the judges they are blocking are bad, and stressing the overwhelming percentage of judicial nominees who are approved.
Brazile said she’s tired of watching Sunday morning talk shows “and seeing five different Democratic leaders give five different positions on Iraq.” She also said Democrats can’t be satisfied with just blocking President Bush’s proposal for private Social Security accounts, they have to convince voters they would fix the system if they were in charge….She argues she’s just a consultant, pointing out to the people who hold office the flaws she sees in the Democratic strategy, and the things Republicans are doing right that should be cause for concern. (Source)
The Democrats are a very reactionary group. They’ve got nothing fresh or wholesome to offer, so they merely react to whatever Republicans are doing. Granted, they are the minority party and have to do a fair amount of reacting, but that’s all they seem to do. One hilarious aspect of their November election losses was the whining about “failing to get out the message.” Some really believe that’s why they lost.
Not so, of course. Democrats lost precisely because they got the message out, loudly and clearly, and the majority of voters didn’t want to hear it. Policies based on child killing and marriage between anyone and anything are repugnant to most people, whether they admit to it or not.
[A commenter says "marriage between anyone and anything" is over the top. Could be. But if you want to argue that two men should be allowed to "marry," an argument could be made that three people should be allowed, or four or ten. Do we limit "marriage" to only two? Why? Isn't that a violation of somebody's civil rights? I can see the analogy being extended to the unspeakable quite easily.]
Last year Brazile e-mailed me in response to Condi Rice, Donna Brazile And The White Boys. The post itself was a response to one of Ann Coulter’s columns. She criticized liberals for their hypocrisy in questioning Rice’s qualifications to be Secretary of State, while they had no such doubt about some of Bill Clinton’s not-so-qualified appointees. Coulter commented on Brazile’s remark about not the letting the “white boys win in this election.” As you may know, “white boys” in a political context usually refers to conservatives, although the man Brazile was campaigning for was indeed a “white boy.”
I don’t recall if Brazile addressed the “white boy” comment in her e-mail (I’m searching for it now), but she wrote this about Rice: “I fully support Dr. Rice…not withstanding my politics as a self proclaimed liberal Democrat. Dr. Rice will have the strong support of many Black Democratic women and so many others.”
That’s good to know, but if Brazile plans on “consulting” the liberal white boys on how to use “religion” to win back the vote, she’s wasting her well-paid time. Expressions of faith need to be natural and genuine and part of who you are. Using “moral values” as a political ploy to get voters when your moral values are in conflict with most Americans is a bad strategy.
Maybe I should do some consulting for the Democrats. Seeking advice from one of their own will probably result in more of the same: election losses.
Related: When Worlds Collide
{ 1 trackback }
{ 62 comments }
There is a long list of what constitutes ‘moral values’. It is not the short list of abortion and gay marriage that are toted around to the exclusion of all other issues. The death penalty is a moral issue, the treatment of the poor in our society is a moral issue, the waging of war is a moral issue. Breaking the regulations concerning Shabbat (the sabbath) carry the same penalty as engaging in sodomy according to the bible, but somehow the first transgression has been swept aside by modern society, but the latter is still stigmatized. Don’t think you own this issue. . . .
Ms Brazile you don’t need to become the party of “reform”, you need to “reform” the Democrat party.Your party has shifted so far to the left that most people can’t relate to your views. Your party has left out moderates and there are no conservatives to be found.
At what point has the Democratic Party pushed for “marriage between anyone and anything”? Yes, liberals/Democrats support same-sex marriage in greater numbers than conservatives/Republicans, but that is not an implicit endorsement for marriage between a man and his dog or a woman and her couch or any other such nonsense. This argument is not supported by facts and is intellectually dishonest.
Now, if you want to make the argument that people believe same-sex marriage is wrong and not guaranteed by any interpretation of the Constituion, ok, that’s a valid discussion. There are plenty of arguments on both sides of the issue that deal with truth and common sense without resorting to over-the-top claims that aren’t true.
No one is going to listen to that Black girl. Gore didn’t listen to her, in fact they moved her to the side.
On point post.
La Shawn, Ratso; spot on.
Speaking of gay marriage, in this morning’s Boston Globe (City & Region section) is a story about two male inmates having their bid for marriage denied by the corrections authorities.
I know that many folks think that the appelation “white boys” is a harmless, descriptive phrase, but it’s not. Unless it is refering to white males below the age of 18, it is a derogatory epithet. It seems to slip out of black folks mouths quite easily.
It is not used among white men as a term of solidarity or endearment, either. I, for one, don’t think it has a place in political discourse.
Wow. . .
Brazille is one of those few democrats whose acid tongue tends to override the intelligence that may actually reside a few inches behind it. She’d be their Lee Atwater if they ever got away from their paralyzing hatred of those to the right of them.
Usually, it’s just the opposite. But I doubt they’ll listen to her, anyway. Perhaps their penchant for feeding tubes extends to their own political animation as well.
Ron
“But if you want to argue that two men should be allowed to “marry,” an argument could be made that three people should be allowed, or four or ten. Do we limit “marriage” to only two”
If we’re talking about ‘traditional’ marriage, i’m sure there’s a tradition of poligamy out there.
But we’re not. We’re talking about couples. Gay couples that should have the same access we do to make families and live their lives.
As a person who would probably be mostly described as becoming more moderate and less liberal as I get older and examine ideology more in depth, I think she makes cogent points about the state of the Democratic party. However, some of her points about the Republican party resonated as well, most importantly being the government involvement in the Schiavo case when one of the planks of the party is smaller government. I do worry about too much governmental involvement in private affairs.
And as a side note: I wish that folks would stop calling someone they disagree with stupid (in reference to the above commenter’s point about Ms. Brazile’s intelligence). I don’t like Ann Coulter’s views at all, but I don’t doubt for a minute that she’s an intelligent and savvy lady and has managed to capitalize on that. If you don’t agree with their politics, fine. Leave the ad hominem out of the equation.
Stupid is as stupid does. If the things a person does are consistently stupid, then that person fits the description.
Now understand, I don’t throw out accusations of stupidity without really meaning it. I don’t automatically assume someone is stupid just because the media puts a (D) behind their name. I do, however, assume that they’re wrong and/or misguided, because most liberal policies are one or the other.
Army NCO,
That dog doesn’t hunt with me. I agree in part with some liberal policies, for example affirmative action (yes, I’m black) and just because you may not agree with said policy (or feel it’s wrong/misguided), doesn’t mean that the individual is stupid.
However, I’ve no wish to engage in a pissing contest. It’s all semantics. I just think it hinders rational, reasonable discussion.
Whatever one believes, is just that: what ONE person believes.
Joshua – In the Old Testament, the blood of lambs was required for forgiveness of sin, but no longer. Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law as well as the law of stoning sodomites and adulterers. His death on the cross fulfilled those requirements. The law was a reminder that we are sinners and that it can’t save us. It was a sign pointing to Christ. That’s what Christ followers believe. If you want to know why Jews no longer stone sodomites, you’ll have to consult one.
You are absolutely correct that the death penalty, the way we treat the poor and war are moral issues. I believe society is morally obligated to obey the law, and capital punishment is mandated under the law. It is neither immoral nor unbiblical. Liberals believe “the poor” should be treated like helpless children and perpetual victims with no moral authority or requirement to provide for themselves. I am not against feeding and helping the poor, but part of “helping” must involve the goal of providing for one’s self as best you can. Seeking help when you need it is one thing; existing on government scraps and taxpayers’ backs is quite another. That is immoral.
I believe our government is morally obligated to protect us from attack from within and without. War is the result of sin, and as long as we exist, there will be war. But that does not absolve civil government of its responsibility to fight, to protect, to liberate, to stop evil. Contrary to what many believe, especially those who don’t know what’s in the Bible, a country’s engagement in war is not unbiblical. You might want to leaf through the Old Testament when you find the time.
And about what I “own” as far as moral values are concerned, please see the link at the end of the post,”When Worlds Collide.” I wrote about the election and moral values. We all live by a code, so to speak, and we all have a worldview. Just because someone is not a member of organized religion does not mean he isn’t religious. We all appeal to something or someone as a moral authority. I appeal to Jesus Christ, God who became a man to save men. Many others believe man is his own authority. Humanism is no less a religion than Buddhism.
Actus,
I disagree. Men can’t marry and have a family. Nor should they be allowed to adopt children in my view (Gays in general shouldn’t be allowed to do so). I believe it’s amoral and harms the children, no matter what leftist (elitist) psychiatrists say.
And LaShawn has it right on. There’s nothing stopping someone, once you open the gates, saying “Well, I love my duck. And I can’t marry her/him/it? That’s discrimination!”….
You have to stop it where it starts. Period.
Dan
Just a couple of comments on the comments. What one person believes can be more than what one person belives if two or more agree. Once that occurs, then head on down the street to consensus.Who knows, what one person believes may even be the truth!
It was also stated that gay couples should be allowed to “make families and live their lives”. How does a piece of paper affect this in any way? And PS, they are extrememly limited in the ability to “make” families.
the idea that gay unions are some kind of slippery slope, is absurd. There are compelling state rationales for banning polygamy/polyandry, and incestual marriages, and between people and animals or people and inanimate objects.
What’s the compelling state rationale for banning same sex unions?
La Shawn,
Saying that liberals treat the poor like helpless children is going a bridge too far. Certainly some do, especially those who have taken on the poor as a constituency, but to generalize it in a swipe with a very broad brush is to castigate many good-hearted folk, who really do care and really do want to help get folk on their feet so they can stand on their own. I’ve known and worked with many. The Great Society was a collection of emergency policies necessary to intervene in horrendous situations faced by the poor of all races. Whatever inequities developed later does not negate the need for action at the time. Scripturally, we can’t call certain policies which help the poor immoral per se. Romans 13:1-7 gives governments extremely wide latitude to collect taxes for the purpose of doing good and punishing evil. That passage also gives explicit approval of the death penalty as you have pointed out. Contrary to what so many conservative Christians believe, God is far more interested in our attitude toward government than in the governments’ actions themselves. And remember that Nero was probably in power when Paul wrote this letter. One exception, along with others, is governments’ care for the poor. Those that do not will reap the judgment of God, who has set His eye on the poor in a special way. Nations, not just individuals, are responsible for caring for the poor. Witness the example of Sodom and Israel, both Ephraim and Judah. Sodom was punished for immorality AND neglect of the poor.
As far as our own nation’s morality, the Constituion is an amoral document. It neither proscribes nor prescribes. All this is left to the states and is obviously dependent on the will of the people. Abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. are not activities that were initiated by liberal, activist judges. They are activities carried on by millions of sinful American people, both conservative and liberal, who are seeking legal approval. Unfortunately, when appeals go as far as the Supreme Court, the Constitution stands silent. Religious tradition of any kind yields to science in that science has determined that the fetus is not human or viable until later in the gestation period. Science has determined that homosexuals are born that way so sodomy is now legal as a legitimate way for homosexuals to express their love for each other. Pornography is actually now a good thing, in that it stimulates sexual desire for one’s partner. Now, you and I both know that this is all anathema but as Renee once pointed out, the founders deliberately created a document which required a very large community of committed, obedient Christians to carry it out. This was a fatal error based on the thought that men are created good. It is clear in Romans 3 that this is not true and also clear in Scripture that most folk choose the broad road and many fewer the narrow. Scripture also states that only the “remnant shall be saved.” The founding fathers gave much more attention to the Enlightenment than to the whole counsel of God, hence we face the situation we are in. “Liberal” legislators and judges, etc. represent a very large % of the US population. They didn’t come out of the air. To continue to castigate them without recognizing that our friends and neighbors put them in office is to over-simplify. And any hint that conservatives are more moral is also misleading. True, Christians SHOULD be more moral but every poll taken by Christian-oriented pollsters indicates that we are close to the national norm in abortions, divorces and the viewing of pornography. Sometimes, I think, we need to focus on our own house instead of throwing stones at the liberals’ glass houses. God loves all of us, liberals and conservatives, just the same and is “not willing that any of us should perish.”
The state has an interest in perserving and supporting the family, which provides societal stability. People who create these unions (a man and a woman) benefit economically and socially, as they should. Being married, staying together and raising decent children takes a lot of work and sacrifice.
Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else. What they want and will not get are the benefits of marriage without serving a similar function. Two men sleeping together serves no compelling state interest.
la shawn–
thank you for your answer. How does a gay union not support the notion of family, and provide societal stability? What about a gay union would be different in that respect from a straight one? You seem to be suggesting that “being married, staying together and raising decent children” is somehow beyond the competency of gays. I’m not sure why; can you explain?
Homosexuals clearly do NOT have the same civil rights are everyone else; we wouldn’t be having this discussion otherwise. On another angle, gays can be fired in most parts of this country simply for being perceived as gay. Clearly, that is an unequal application of civil rights.
Finally, I didn’t ask what compelling state interest is served by gay unions. That doesn’t seem relevant; the Constitution grants rights presumptively. Gays naturally HAVE the right to marry, unless the state can show compelling interest why not.
And I’ll ask again: what is the interest in preventing it? What harm is caused should they occur?
“I believe it�s amoral and harms the children, no matter what leftist (elitist) psychiatrists say.”
Believe what you believe about the morality of homosexuality, but to state that children of homosexual parents are harmed automatically is ridiculous. My aunt has now lived with her partner for more than 20 years. That’s long enough to have purchased two homes, pay for college, and retire comfortably in her early fifties. Her son, my cousin, divided his time between living with his mother and father as a kid since they all lived in the same city. Allow me to review how this immoral behavior harmed him:
- He graduated from a prestigious university.
- He has a career as an architect.
- He’s happily married.
- He owns his own home.
Hmmm, I don’t really see any harms so far, just “the American Dream”, but maybe I’m not looking hard enough. I guess at some point in the future he’s going to go off his rocker and do all kinds of immoral and criminal things. I promise to let you know because you’re convinced they’re going to happen, no matter what.
As for marrying a duck, that’s absurd. Animals and furniture and automobiles and whatever other absurd example anyone offers have no legal standing in the United States. Without legal status, they can’t get married and no one is asking that they be given legal status. Until your duck gets legal status, there can be no marriage. That argument is pointless because it’s merely a diversionary tactic meant to belittle and marginalize. Worse, it’s transparent.
Was all of that elitist?
Many years ago I bought a book of sayings which contained the observation, “He who throws the first punch has run out of ideas.” Now it’s, “She/he who throws the pie…” Here lately that seems to be the juvenile way liberals are responding to conservative speakers. No fresh ideas? So throw a pie, call a name, tell a lie.
A Black, Democratic coworker told me before the election that she though Kerry would lose because all he did was criticize Bush. She voted for Kerry because she was a Democrat but was not at all enthusiastic about it. Dems had better watch out. She is a potential Republican vote in a future election.
Democrats not only have blind hatred for Bush, their hatred blinds them and keeps them from acting like mature political people. Kerry now seems to want to be the Whino in Chief, still insinuating that somehow he should have won Ohio, even though he carried four states with less votes than Bush won by in Ohio.
Democrats didn’t get their message out? When Osama bin Laden just before the election and Senator Arlen Specter just after the election can come out with Democratic talking points, I would say the message is getting out pretty well.
A further word of caution to Democrats. Be careful about trying to pander to the “faith and values” vote. When I was in college, I used to have a policy that I would only date Christian guys. During the debates, John Kerry’s statement about how he had faith, he just didn’t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn’t know Genesis from Revelation. There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama. Those days are gone.
Appealing to concern for the poor has limited value also. Some of us have figured out that giving government more money to spend on the poor just means a more bloated bureaucracy with fantastic salaries, benefits and pensions for the bureaucrats and not very much done for the “poor.”
Finally, for all the Liberals who love to na-na-na about smaller government and the Shiavo case. I also believe in smaller government but not to the point where I want to see someone die for it. The Congress and President tried to give Terri the right of appeal that a condemned murderer would have. I’m for that. And women and minorities might want to watch developments in this type of case closely. Somehow I think we’re liable to get the short end of the stick in these cases.
I believe society is morally obligated to obey the law, and capital punishment is mandated under the law. It is neither immoral nor unbiblical.
That statement I agree with 100%. However, an unjust law cannot be supported. IMO, with the current implementation of the death penalty, it is an unjust law. Personally, I believe it is immoral to support it. When volunteers in one state show that 50% of people convicted of crimes that have been given the death penalty, the death penalty in that state cannot be supported.
There are so many people who are proven to be innocent of the crimes that they have been convicted of committing, across the country, that I believe supporting the death penalty is wrong.
The state has an interest in perserving and supporting the family, which provides societal stability.
To take your point a bit further, then the state should have interest in not supporting people who are single, regardless of whether they have families or not, because single people, especially single men, tend to care less about the society at large and more about themselves. Single people take more risks, across the board, then do married people. So, states should punish single people.
That’s taking what I believe is your logic, to the next step.
DarkStar, just because people abuse and misapply a law doesn’t make the law itself immoral. People take advantage of laws all the time. The problem may lie in its execution and not the way its written or even its existence.
Punishment has no place in the discussion of the state’s compelling interest in marriage. When I wrote what you quoted, I was responding to a commenter who asked about the state’s interest in banning homosexual “marriage.” That doesn’t mean that the state doesn’t have an interest in all its citizens. Unmarried people can’t take advantage of the economic benefits of marriage (tax breaks, for instance), but that’s not “punishing” them. Childless people usually can’t claim dependents on tax returns, but that’s not punishment, either. You’re taking the analogy too far.
Society [and I think we are too often confusing society and government] ALREADY does give more respect to married men than single men, in many ways. This is proper. A man is created by God to be with a woman, and vice versa.
Stan, excellent breakdown of what the Constitution is, and is not, as well as its flaws and limitations. Our second President, John Adams, stated that the Constitution, and the form of government therein, is for a moral and religious people, and is unsuited for the governance of any other.
Tiffany,
I would not call you stupid simply for believing in affirmative action. I would call you ignorant, but before you take offense, allow me to explain. Me calling someone ignorant about something doesn’t equate with me calling them stupid. Being ignorant of a situation merely means that you haven’t had the truth revealed to you yet. Voluntary ignorance, on the other hand, is a form of stupidity. So for the benefit of doubt, I’ll presume that nobody’s ever explained to you how awful of a system affirmative action is.
And I won’t give a discourse here and now- but I will say a few things. Yes, I am the sort of person Brazile was talking about when she said “white boy”. I am considered “Cauasian”- whatever the heck that means, as I am not from the Caucasus, have never been there, and don’t plan to go- and my skin is not “white”, it’s kinda-sorta tannish-beige. My wife is “black”- at least that’s how people would label her. I wouldn’t, and I don’t. I wouldn’t consider La Shawn to be “black”, nor you- I label people based on how they act, what they say, and how they think. “Race”, as it involves skin color, is not even important enough with me to be considered a moot point.
However, I realize that I am very much an exception to the rule, and that the average person would see my complexion and immediately make certain assumptions. As they do for anyone else they meet. Therefore, I am not blind to the fact that a great deal of racism still exists in the world today. It always will- some people need an excuse to hate other people, so they make stuff up.
So. Affirmative action. It’s quite the racist policy. Reverse racism, true, but racism nonetheless. Is it fair to me if a less-qualified person is given a job we both applied for simply because I’m “white”, and he’s not? I hope you would say no. Does AA fix some problems? I’m sure it does- because I can guarantee there are still racist white people in America who would rather not hire blacks, or Hispanics, or whathaveyou. Fine. I wouldn’t want to work for them anyway. If you’re so stupid (yes- here I will throw out the S-word) that you’ll automatically disqualify- what, 60%? 70%? of potential employees, you can take that job and shove it, I don’t wanna be around you.
But does that make affirmative action right? No, because all it does is give non-whites an excuse to be racist against me. If a race quota keeps me from having a job that I should get, and gives it to someone else just based on his race, that is unmistakeably racist. If someone else is more qualified, or more experienced, or did better in his interview, fine. I don’t care what color his skin is- if he can do better work than me, good on him. It’ll make me strive to be better. If the boss has to hand out jobs to less-qualified people because affirmative action says so, then I was done wrong, because I didn’t get the job. The boss was done wrong, because the less-skilled employee will not help the company as much as I would have. Even the new employee has been done wrong because there’s no incentive for him to improve himself- you can’t live with everything being handed to you. Trust me on that one, I’m- er- white enough to have seen a gaggle of spoiled rich kids who are out in the Real Worldâ„¢ now, and they’re hurting.
Is it justified by being reverse racism? No. Put simply, two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because black people in America had to put up with a lot of crap at the hands of racist white folk doesn’t mean you can turn the tables on me. I didn’t do it. You can’t punish me for something my great-great-grandfather might’ve done a century ago.
Kay I’m about out of steam. I guess that did turn into a discourse, sorry about that.
Stan/Evon/La Shawn good solid points.
Geez. Off-topic, too. Sorry La Shawn…
Luke 23:43 “And jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”
It doesn’t sound at all to me like Jesus was concerned with repealing the death penalty–or the physical one, at any rate.
-T
Army guy–
can you provide some examples of when what you described has happened? Because what you’re describing isn’t an affirmative action policy that I’m aware of. When have you experienced a competition for a job (or been privy to one), where a less-qualified minority was given a job over a better qualified white one? And if you can, please explain how you came to determine their relative qualifications. Thanks.
Hooah
La Shawn, I love your comment “Using “moral values” as a political ploy to get voters when your moral values are in conflict with most Americans is a bad strategy.”
Even more to the point is that democrats are trying to use moral values as a political ploy to get voters when their moral values are not moral!
LaShawn, I’m curious to know why you said this – “Granted, they are the minority party and have to do a fair amount of reacting, but that’s all they seem to do.”
In my view, a minority party seldom needs to react to what the majority party is saying or doing. In fact, if they were out front with their own policies, they could well drive the agenda.
For example, when Bush says Social Security should be changed or it will go bankrupt, the Dems could easily say, “We applaud the President for bringing this issue to the fore. Here’s how WE think it should be reformed: step 1, step 2, step 3, etc.
Just because you’re in the minority does not mean you can’t offer your own solutions. In many cases you could put the majority on the spot and force them to reconsider their views.
La Shawn,
I’m for a Constitutional amendment to disallow homosexual marriage but when we say that the purpose is to protect the family, as Mr. Dobson continually points out, we forget that the greatest danger to the American family is heterosexual adultery and divorce and child abuse. Homosexuals that live together are going to do so. Even President Bush seems to approve of civil unions (I do not) and it seems to me that VP Cheney is giving implicit approval to homosexual marriage. Legalized homosexual marriage won’t encourage more heterosexuals to become homosexuals. And it won’t endanger any more children than are already endangered. That damage has already been done.
I was simply pointing out that those out of power seem to do little more than react to what the majority is doing. I agree they should do more than just react. Actually, the Democrats could benefit from your advice, especially the last paragraph.
Army NCO Guy,
Affirmative action was a necessary device used to try and right several centuries of horrendous wrongs. If it appears that it was rascist, it is because an easily identifiable dark race of people had put up with a lot of “crap” from whites, like the Middle Passage, slavery, phony Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, denial of civil rights, etc. You should go back and study, I mean really study, our history as it pertains to blacks before you go on and on about this. The question at present is when and how should affirmative action should be terminated. Those are valid discussions. Your points are not. My grandparents didn’t come here until 1912 so I guess I’m not responsible either. But I am an American and we’re all in this together. I don’t have any problem with helping bring justice to unjust situations. The prophet Daniel prayed for God to forgive his and his peoples sins going back in history. And the prophet Micah calls out, “…what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God…”
LaShawn,
Donna Brazile is smart and has more political savy than the people she supports. Did Al Gore or John Kerry really listen to her. The Democrat party has been taken over by the Michael Moore and other left-wing types. Brazile would vote Democrat no matter who was running! I can remember seeing Harry Truman is his inauguration,
but the current Democrats are far from Truman. After being elected in 1948, Truman said that behind every successful man was a proud wife and surprised mother-in-law! He tore into critic who said his daughter could not play the piano. He said he expected to be a father long after he was president. He stepped down from the Presidency over firty years ago! Blacks have not done badly, politcial types excepted, in the last few years. I angered a reporter a few years ago, saying that I did not vote straight ticket (all D or R). She had no time for such arguemnts!
James M. Barber
Dan,
“I disagree. Men can’t marry and have a family.”
You do know that gay families exist don’t you? Why frustrate them? Cuz you want to be in the way of that?
Democrats proposed health care reform in 1993. Good idea or bad idea, it was shot down. Under President Clinton, we reformed the old welfare system. Democrats have plenty of ideas. Some are good and win. Some are good and lose. Some are maybe not so good. But one thing Democrats are, more than Republicans, is liberal, and proudly so.
La Shawn says “The Democrats are a very reactionary group.” That’s odd, because reactionary is defined as “ultraconservative, extreme right-winger — (an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism)” — see: http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=reactionary
It’s fine to criticize the ideas Democrats propose — that’s the job of the “opposition” — ironic use as the Democrats are the opposition party now. But to suggest that Democrats have no ideas at all, that’s preposterous. Democrats are fighting hard for environmental protection, for corporate accountability, for a more cooperative approach to international relations, for energy conservation, for a woman’s right to choose, and many other issues. Yes, a lot of these positions are not popular in La Shawn Barber’s corner. That is OK, you are entitled to your opinions. But please don’t accuse Democrats of lacking ideas.
Andy – Thanks.
James M. Barber – I agree with you about Donna Brazile. I wish she was on TV more often. I often disagree with her but I like her voice. The usual women the MSM have on: Eleanor Clift, Susan Estrich and Maureen Doud – have voices that hit my ears like a rotor rooter on steroids.
Were you able to find Miss Brazile’s e-mail?
I am sorry again, i can never make it all the way through all the comments without feeling the need to interject. So, this has to deal with some stuff said early on. God’s laws are not involved with “what works” here on earth. Just because you seem to think that gay marriage solves a myriad of issues, does not make it right in God’s eyes. Are we to be measured(judged, and I mean the classic definition, not the one bandied about by libs!) by men or by God? Pragmatism/practicality is pretty much paganism/humanism dressed up. You say, “But we all agree”……So what! “They each did what was right in ther own eyes”
Anom, get it straight, or quit spinning the fact. Either way, your choice.
The MSM/DNC, or more explicitly, cHillary did not popse Health care reform, she proposed nothing less than nationalization of healthcare. Many didn’t buy it and she was shot dowm. A good idea that lost? Hardly. A bad idea that justly got banished to the sahheap.
Just so we’re clear about 1993.
Believe it or not, usually no idea is better than a bad idea. An apt proverb comes to mind, ‘better to be thot an idiot than to open mouth and remove all doubt. That cHillary has in spades.
Evon,
All U.S. presidents have worn their faith on their sleeves. Why do you think they all go to seek Billy Graham’s blessing? They want him to say that they are of faith or “born again” and he pathetically goes along. I personally remember him giving his stamp of approval to the “faith” of Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush 2, etc. He said that JFK was a “secret believer”. Conservative Christians comprise a fairly significantly sized “interest group” if and when they vote. I’ve watched us be duped for 50 years in this regard. We willfully suspend belief every time someone says that one of the candidates or presidents is “born again” or something similar. Then if they don’t do what we thought they would do, we blame it all on those “liberal Democrats”! And then we fall for the same miserable tripe 4 yrs later. Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times…and on and on it goes. Those days are not gone…we just got it handed to us….again. If you can give me one example of how our country is better off for electing “one of our own”, the born again President Bush, we can have a discussion. And I’m not suggesting Kerry would have been better. I’m suggesting that we’re the most naive dupes to be found.
“The MSM/DNC, or more explicitly, cHillary did not popse Health care reform, she proposed nothing less than nationalization of healthcare.”
As I recall it it envisioned people moving into HMO’s. private, for profit ones, with regional regulations. People got up in arms because they didn’t want to switch to HMOS. well, the switch to HMO’s happened, and without the consumer protection.
If only we had the french system. Short lines, cheap. We’re already paying for it too: our government expenditures on health care are greater than european countries. And for that govt money, they get national care. We get to pay thousands more.
Few things are more sad or pathetic than a group of conservatives trying to tell liberals and Democrats what they should do.
Your Republican President has lower second term approval ratings than any President since Nixon. Your Republican legislature’s is even worse.
You’ve lost governorships in Montana and state legislatures throughout the nation.
The Dems don’t require your advice.
I was being sarcastic. – Admin
“when your moral values are in conflict with most Americans”
Just a gentle reminder, in the last Presidential election, 48% of the electorate voted for the Democratic candidate.
Nothing is more annoying in our politics than the constant lie that those of us in that 48% are somehow not Americans, or not “genuine” Americans.
I have no problem with your asserting that your moral views are better than mine. I would hardly expect less if you hold them with any degree of faith and certainty.
I do have a problem with the assertion that I don’t exist. This is a matter of fact, not “values”. And, as a matter of fact, I do exist, and so do the rest of that 48%. And they don’t necessarily hold your moral views.
The most destructive thing about the people in the current government, and the 51% who voted for them, is their fantasy that merely by saying so they can make matters of plain fact anything they please.
It will, however, be their political downfall. For the Democrats can be defeated, but the facts cannot be made to budge. People who are gripped by the fantasy that they can wished away, routinely run into them at a high rate of speed.
Joseph, I hope your speaking generally and not calling me a liar. If you’re responding to a commenter, it would be helpful if you prefaced your comment with his/her name. I assume all general comments are directed toward me, and those get special scrutiny. – Admin
CharlyG wrote: “God’s laws are not involved with ‘what works’ here on earth….”
The official name of Pakistan is “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” The official name of my country is “The United States of America.” It is not “The Christian United States of America.” Just plain United States of America.
Here in America, we have Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Baha’is, and members of just about every other faith on earth — and also people who are not affiliated with any religion, and some who are affiliated with more than one religion.
Some of those religions have believe in one God; other have many, and others have none.
When our country was founded, the framers made an agreement. Freedom of worship, and no state religion.
Those who believe in God have many ways of understanding what God’s laws are. Strictly Orthodox Jews count 613 commandments in the Torah (five books of Moses) and believe that all of them are binding — but only on Jews. (For example, Jews do not believe that non-Jews are required to keep kosher.) Many Christians believe that some of those commandments are binding, and others are not. But Christians differ on exactly which of the 613 commandments are binding and which are not. Moslems have an entirely different set of commandments. Buddhists don’t have commandments as such, but they do have an elaborate system guiding behavior.
There are many different ways that Americans understand what God’s law is. Thank God that the framers declared that each of us is free to worship in our own way, and there would be no state religion. The Bill of Rights, incorporating that declaration, was ratified by the legislatures of all 13 of the original states.
So it doesn’t matter if an Orthodox Jew’s God says eating pork is an abomination, or if any particular Christian’s God says gay sex is an abomination, because this is the United States of America, not the Jewish United States of America or the Christian United States of America. Just plain United States of America. There is no official religion here, and we don’t all agree on what God’s law is.
God must love religions, because she made so many of them. Viva la difference!
Donna Brazile is a buffoon. If you think she speaks for the lib/dems, you are sadly mistaken. This washed up hack should go write recipe books (oh, wait…she’s already done that). Nevermind. in any case, go do something else. After having helped run Gore’s campaign into the ditch, then haplessly flailed around on TV for a few years, she’s got practically ZERO credibility with Democrats. Oh, sure…they wheel her out on CNN from time to time to feebly do battle that wretched hag Bay Buchanan, but otherwise…Completely USELESS!
OK, can _anyone_ describe what it is that gives the state compelling reason to restrict marriage rights?
Anomalocaris,
I am coming in really late here. But your comment from early yesterday evening on welfare reform under Clinton, please review carefully. The program was designed by a Republican lead Congress. The only significant input Clinton had was his signature on the bill. Healthcare reform? Andy covered that above. I took a serious look at Kerry during the last election. Then I visited the White House web site which detailed the President’s initiatives. I followed that up by visiting the DNC and Kerry web site – woefully vague in details for a Party which claimed to be quite aware (at least on the surface) why the President was ruining America. Frankly it pains me to say this but I think there is at least a sliver of truth in what Brazile says. But why these people begin to think AFTER the election when the epiphany is no longer helpful is beyond me.
“If only we had the French health system”
The only way you’ll get it is if you move there. Just do your grandparents a favor and leave them here lest they wind up dying from a summer heatwave.
France and Germany are practically bankrupt. Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?
Donna Brazille is sounding more like a Republican every day.
Please allow me to apologise for any such misunderstanding. My comments were directed to a general meme and not you personally. I’m deeply sorry if I have in any way offended.
Joseph Marshall
Andy: “France and Germany are practically bankrupt. Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?” Excuse me, they already did roar past our economy. Unemployment: President Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs. Even now, our economy is creating jobs at a rate barely sufficient to cover population growth, if that. There’s a reason the U.S. dollar is tanking against the euro. “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Anom, you have got to stop reciting those over-the-top AND delusional talking points. Stick to the study of dead fish and leave the psuedo-economics to Krugman.
“they already did roar past our economy…” How do you figure? When Euroland barely made 2% growth for 04? In spite of the infusion of 10 low-tax and growing economies last year. Injecting New Europe into the overall GDP only prolongs the inevitable collaspe of the socialistic and parasitic economy. And in contrast, our economy grew how much? I caaaan’t hear you, speak up!!
Here, check out these two and be edified.
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf
&
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles_en
Unemployment:
Lessee, Germany just announced yet another round of social spending rollbacks in less than a month since I was there. Not to mention tinkering with their stats and rules (if a brothel wants to hire Ilse who is an unemployed typist and she turns it down, she’ll lose her benefits) to drive down the reported rates. Know what? They still can’t drive down the rates, in fact, it just crept up another point or two.
Yup, Germany is smoking. Hash that is.
Lessee, while I was in Euroland last month, Chienraq reluctantly rolled back the mandatory 35 hour workweek. Contrary to what his esteemed ecole de commerce insisted, back in 98/99 was a surefire way to increase jobs, instead companies outsourced their labor. And unemployment crept from around 8% when introduced to the current 11%. Haydek, Adams, even their own
Yup, France is smoking. The Hookah that is.
Why do you cling to that myth that Bush presided over the 1st net job loss since Hoover? It’s not what BLS says. Certainly doesn’t jibe with our 5-something% unemployment rate. Certainly doesn’t jibe with our economic growth rate which still outpaces Euroland.
If anyone deserves that title, it’s Jimmah Cartah. Does anyone remember double-digit inflation & unemployment? Does anyone remember how Michael “fat-head” Moore staked his claim to fame? Try half-truths on the backs of the 22% unemployed in Flint. Which is why I hightailed it outta Flint heading for TX.
Yeah, we’re smoking alright. Cigars wrapped in $100 bills.
Excange Rate:
You obviously don’t understand how that works. Against their will, Bush got Germany & France to finance our GWOT. How? By weakening our dollar. More of our products flow to them and less of their products flow to us, not to mention more of their $$. Now that he’s done milking them, rates are going back down.
Quick Figures:
Jan 01, $0.94/Euro (repercussion of DotCom Bust)
Jun 01, $0.85/Euro (Stablizing towards historical pre-Euro trends)
Sep 01, $0.91/Euro (9/11)
Mar 03, $1.07/Euro (Invade Iraq)
Dec 04, $1.34/Euro (Peak)
Apr 05, $1.28/Euro
Dec 05, $1.15/Euro (My guess)
It’s leveraging the economy stupid. This is what moonbats w/o HBU MBAs don’t get.
Now, do pray tell us another moonbat reality-based truth. Hint, if someone offers you Kool-aid, just say no.
I am not sure what Donna Brazille’s credibity is in the Democratic Party is but, she has hit on something and the Dems would be wise to take note. The only way the Democrats can make themselves relavant again is to become the Limited Government, Constitution Party. Since the current Republicans in power have taken thier place as the big government “to hell with the Constitution” party, the Dems should take up the issues the Republicans were supposed to stand for:
Limited Government, Individual and State’s Rights, and Homeland Security (specifically border security).
Being an independant and viewing the activities of both camps I know that the Dems won’t take on those issues because they have always liked spending and can’t stop. Also, Republicans will never get back to thier roots because they are now power drunk and have developed the same affinity for spending and enlarging government.
Ooops. Correction
“Haydek, Adams, even their own”
I got sidetracked and forgot to finish that section as follows:
===================================
Haydek, Adams, even France’s own Frédéric Bastiat could have warned them that this would have happened.
Chienraq would do well to heed Bastiat’s “Selected Essays on Political Economy”
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
and throw collected works of Marx/Stalin/Lenin in the trash where it belongs.
===================================
I’m Gen Y, so I don’t remember a time when Republicans weren’t in charge. For those of you who are older than I, how much “wailing” and “no no no” and filibustering did the Republicans do when they were a minority? Please be unbiased about this.
Stan,
My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.
I was too brief on one of my points.
When I said:
“Be careful about trying to pander to the “faith and values” vote… During the debates, John Kerry’s statement about how he had faith, he just didn’t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn’t know Genesis from Revelation. There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama. Those days are gone.”
I was speaking to your point. (I think)
Sounding religious or being “born again” isn’t enough. I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.
I originally was for John “I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick” McCain in the primaries in 2000. To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again. My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn’t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the "Bible Belt" if Christians are so hung up on "born again" candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different “conversion stories” in Decision Magazine, his campaign didn’t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate. I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President. I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon. I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota. I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.
You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be “born again.” I never have and I don’t know anyone else that has.
When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.
What I saw in John Kerry was a lack of integrity [his grandmother was onto something]and character. In foreign relations, taxes, life issues, etc. George Bush is much better. He’s not perfect, just better.
Stan,
My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.
I was too brief on one of my points.
When I said:
“Be careful about trying to pander to the “faith and values” vote… During the debates, John Kerry’s statement about how he had faith, he just didn’t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn’t know Genesis from Revelation. There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama. Those days are gone.”
I was speaking to your point. (I think)
Sounding religious or being “born again” isn’t enough. I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.
I originally was for John “I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick” McCain in the primaries in 2000. To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again. My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn’t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the "Bible Belt" if Christians are so hung up on "born again" candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different “conversion stories” in Decision Magazine, his campaign didn’t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate. I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President. I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon. I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota. I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.
You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be “born again.” I never have and I don’t know anyone else that has.
When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.
George Bush was and still is the better choice for America in foreign relations, taxes, social security reform, pro-life issues, and a number of others. John Kerry lacked character and a did not tell us clearly what his vision was.
Shayne,
You don’t remember a time republicans weren’t in charge? It hasn’t been very long, you do know?
http://www.factcheck.org/article317.html
Also, in 1975 it was the democrats who lowered the filibuster level from 66 to 60 votes.
SCSI, you’re right. It used to be 2/3 as opposed to 60%. I wonder why
“Sounding religious or being “born again†isn’t enough. I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.”
Right on Evon. R_E_S_P_E_C_T. Is it so hard to understand for smart adult people. Well yes, if you’re smart and adult but really don’t respect religion like most of the Democratic Party leadership.
Comments on this entry are closed.