Brent Bozell writes:
As Dr. Dean traveled the country dispensing gaffe after gaffe, the national networks ignored him almost entirely. On Thursday, June 2, he cracked at a left-wing convention that a lot of Republicans “have never made an honest living in their lives.” ABC, CBS and NBC ignored him for three days, until the Sunday morning interview programs, which have about one-quarter to one-half the ratings of the evening news.
I’ve noticed as well that the media’s been rather quiet about Howard Dean, especially since he’s become the chair of the Democratic National Committee. What gives?
Dean must love the taste of his own feet. I have no political experience to speak of, minor exposure to television and moderate exposure to public speaking, but I’m more polished than Dean. He seems to say things without thinking, which is senseless since he’s used to being in the public eye. (He was a governor, for crying out loud.) Right out of his mouth, one gaffe after another falls (my Yoda impression).
A few months ago he said to a group of black Democrats: “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” *rim shot*
So two blacks walk into a bar one night, and one says to the other…
Some black Republicans called for his head, and I said, “Let him stay!” He’s only helping our cause.
For reasons unknown to me, Dean was selected to lead the party. But I have to wonder the same thing about him that I did about James Carville.
Update: Liberal Philadelphia Inquirer (reg. req. - bypass through BugMeNot) says the Democratic party is a “ball of confusion.” Agreed.
For instance, Dean claims to want to “reach out” to evangelical voters, but then calls Republicans a “white Christian party” that’s “not very friendly to different kinds of people.” Presumably the evangelicals Dean wants to “reach” are either Republican-voting independents or members of the very party he just disparaged!
Karl Rove, if you’re behind this, you deserve a raise!
Update II: Frank J. says, “So Howard Dean insults white Christians (which, he at least pretended to be before a dispute on bike trails), has insulted anyone who votes Republican, southerners in general, and insulted minorites (the hotel staff remark, if you remember). An interesting question is, if Dean is as efficient as possible, how many more statements will it take to alienate absolutely everyone in America?”
Liberal blogger Billmon: “[Dean’s] mouth isn’t working in tandem with his brain.”
[Note to disgruntled liberal visitors and rude blogger: I don’t think I misused this quote in any way, but since this is partisan politics, rudeness is to be expected. I read the entire post and concluded that libs have serious problems with Dean, although they differ from the problems conservatives have. But whatever. I’ll leave the quote as is so readers can judge for themselves. After all, it’s the least a “nitwit” can do.
They were right…
Dean is the best thing to happen to the Republican party since Ronald Reagan
ROFL
Comment by Renee — 06.08.05 @ 10:27 am
From FOX news:
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday defended his recent harsh criticism of Republicans, including his observation that they are “pretty much a white, Christian party.”
He never fails to stick his foot in his mouth. Like you said, he really loves the taste
Comment by Renee — 06.08.05 @ 10:40 am
What bothers me is not that the statement is false. The majority of Republicans are white (As are DEMOCRATS. Whites are, after all, the majority group!), and I’m willing to speculate a good portion are also Christians. But it’s Dean’s implication that it’s somehow wrong or evidence of racism that’s the problem. One can make (And I have!) similar arguments about Democrats, ESPECIALLY when it comes to who they choose for leadership positions.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.05 @ 10:45 am
Renee beat me to it. Me loves this guy, too. He’s awesome!
Comment by LawWife — 06.08.05 @ 10:45 am
Right on Renee.
He also said “The Republican party is made up of white Christians”, the dummy. Then after sticking his foot further into his mouth, bit down on it hard with this classic, when ask about the meaning of the previous comment on MSNBC, “Well what’s wrong with that. I am a white Christian”.
Go Howie! We wuv you.
Comment by Jim R — 06.08.05 @ 10:52 am
I agree with you La Shawn, it’s not the comment, it is what he implies by his comment. Just as stupid as the below:
“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.â€
The sad part is, many listen to this crap and fall for it (failing to see where the real division is coming from) because they are using feelings (lets throw the good ole’ race card in there cause it always works) and not their brains. Very sad.
Comment by Renee — 06.08.05 @ 10:56 am
La Shawn, My comment was being ‘created’ while yours was being posted. You are right about his lack of political savvy. He is a dummy, not because it is false, but because it was meant as a racist criticism of the opposition.
Comment by Jim R — 06.08.05 @ 11:01 am
La Shawn:
What’s this about “White Christians” screwing up voting?
Black Christian poll workers in FL screwed up votes (”disenfranchised”) of Black Christian voters.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.08.05 @ 11:02 am
What? A Star Wars reference from La Shawn? Could it be?
Comment by Eddie — 06.08.05 @ 11:05 am
I think you’ve got it wrong: Dean is not making “gaffes”, rather he’s saying what he actually believes. He is truly insane.
Comment by Jeff H — 06.08.05 @ 11:52 am
“He is truly insane.”
The one that gave me the laugh for the day … LOL
Thanks Jeff
Comment by Renee — 06.08.05 @ 11:53 am
I had dream where Dean was on Saturday Night Live in black face, big white lips, threadbare and patched up overalls, singing and playing his banjo trying to get the Black contributions to the DNC.
Comment by Ripama — 06.08.05 @ 11:53 am
He’s about as subtle.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.05 @ 11:55 am
So Howard Dean was played by Ted Danson in your dream?
I agree with LB and Renee… Dean is the best thing that could happen to the Republican party right now. His special brand of intolerance and asshattery only serves to consolidate the moonbat left, and alienate the moderate and conservative democrats. And once they start looking outside the democrat fold, they may see they have a home on the right.
I know when I left the dems, I found the right was far more accepting of dissent and differing opinion.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.08.05 @ 12:03 pm
Dean represents the most influential element of the left, the part that raises the most money, registers the most voters, and pursues the most radical ideologies. The DNC is finally coming out of the shadows, and all of America is getting opportunities to see their true colors.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.08.05 @ 12:05 pm
La Shawn- That was great! It really made me laugh. Thanks. I am going to link…
Jim
Comment by Jim Hoft — 06.08.05 @ 12:12 pm
La Shawn,
SCSIwuzzy and others are right.
Be happy. Two black Secretaries of State in a row, female and black judicial nominees, the most diverse cabinet ever, an hispanic Attorney General — and Mr. Dean says the Republican party is all white men. If this is the best the Dems can do, your party will dominate the White House and both houses of Congress for the next twenty years. This is a big disapointment to me because I think the Dems should have something worthwhile to the current political discussions, but they keep going off the deep end, in ways that are demonstrably false and stupid. I want higher quality (more pointed, more true, less vicious, more helpful) criticism of this Administration.
Comment by Valerie — 06.08.05 @ 12:21 pm
Unfortunately, the Republican party’s best recruiter is soon to be out of his job. Howard Dean, chairman (with a capital C) of the DNC, is having difficulty finding a D who will be seen with him in public or support his harikari, er, uh, I mean comments. The question is, can Dean DNC without the D?
Comment by Kathy — 06.08.05 @ 12:23 pm
At least one Democrat of my acquaintance is convinced that Howard Dean is an RNC agent. Which makes sense from the Democrats’ point of view - everything bad in the world can be blamed on Republicans. Considering the near total news blackout of Dean by the MSM, the Democrats could easily make a leadership change without being noticed.
Perhaps the Democrats should consider making Paris Hilton their next chairperson (chairbabe?). The heirhead fits the Democrat’s style of “image without substance”, she is a ruthless self-promoter, and compared to Dean she has a Nobel Prize-caliber intellect.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.08.05 @ 12:30 pm
Karl Rove’s eeeeeviiiilllll plan is working perfectly! Every time Dean opens his mouth, Condi ‘08 looks more and more possible. And of course, Hitlery, determined not to let Screamin’ Howard eclipse her image as a hardcore moonbat, tries very hard tomake even the farthest right-wingers look like moderates.
Everybody cheer with me: Condi!-Condi! Ra-Ra-Ra!
Comment by Improbulus Maximus — 06.08.05 @ 12:39 pm
It is so disgusting to me to hear Howard Dean say that Republicans dont make a honest living….PLEASE….. what a stupid, ignorant comment. We are normal, everyday people….who work hard. My husband works hard for this family…we have 6 kids, and I stay at home. Not alot of people are able to do that. Thanks Mr. Dean, but I would never go to your side of the plank…its a sinking ship.
Comment by rose — 06.08.05 @ 12:54 pm
This thread is hilarious. Dean and all the great comments he is producing are making my day
Comment by Renee — 06.08.05 @ 1:08 pm
“Perhaps the Democrats should consider making Paris Hilton their next chairperson (chairbabe?). The heirhead fits the Democrat’s style of “image without substanceâ€, she is a ruthless self-promoter, and compared to Dean she has a Nobel Prize-caliber intellect.”
Plus, she really knows how to sell a hamburger.
Comment by Kevin — 06.08.05 @ 2:45 pm
# 23, If I hadn’t lived in CA back in the day, I would have thought Carl Jr’s was a ‘gentlemans club’ after seeing the PH commercial
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.08.05 @ 3:00 pm
Think if there were a Republican doing and saying the same things that Howard Dean has been saying, the MSM would be paying slightly more attention?
Comment by Mark La Roi — 06.08.05 @ 3:03 pm
Mark,
If a Republican was making similar gaffes in regards to the left or black people, they’d be hanging him out to dry.
This only exposes the slant of the news again..
Howard Dean is an idiot.
Dan
Comment by Dan — 06.08.05 @ 3:15 pm
Great (and amusing) post, LaShawn! Howard Dean…really, he is so funny I’m surprised he hasn’t shown up more often on the news.
Of course, they agree with him. But still. lol
Comment by Miss O'Hara — 06.08.05 @ 4:24 pm
The hits keep on coming
More hits from the GOP’s favorite party chariman, (w/apologies to Ken Mehlman)…. A few days back he made the comment that most Republicans never had a real job…now he’s saying the GOP is the white Christian’s party. Does this guy…
Trackback by ConservativeOutpost.com — 06.08.05 @ 4:43 pm
Dean EXPECTS Hotel workers to be BLACK!!
Doesn’t such a remark define racism.
Just think what Jessie would be saying if a Repub said anything close to that.
Dean the man who drove Blacks into the Republican Party.
Way to go Dean.
Comment by Dan Hamilton — 06.08.05 @ 5:29 pm
Dean EXPECTS Hotel workers to be BLACK!!
Doesn’t such a remark define racism.
You really don’t want to go there, do you?
Read about a Black Republican, Shannon Reeves, experience at a GOP convention.
http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=63
Comment by DarkStar — 06.08.05 @ 5:36 pm
DS! Missed you.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.05 @ 5:37 pm
Nice to be missed.
BTW, Dean is a fool. But I think the “liberal press” misrepresented him with the scream.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.08.05 @ 5:44 pm
As I noted elsewhere today:
His wheel’s still spinnin’, but the hampster done died.
Comment by MargeinMI — 06.08.05 @ 5:46 pm
It’s hard for people to believe, but Howard Dean actually was a decent governor in Vermont. For the most part, he made reasonable decisions and listened to people from all across the political spectrum in the state. It may not have been the greatest governorship in our nation’s history, but it was nothing to be embarrassed about, either. Because Vermont, in general, is farther to the left than its neighboring states, Dean’s “moderation” led to him being labeled a “Republican” by his Progressive Party and far left-Democratic opponents.
However, as soon as he started running for president and getting accolades and applause from college students for his hardcore, over-the-top anti-Bush message, something snapped in his brain. My guess is that he was intoxicated by the sudden attention he was getting and soon became addicted to the “rush” of preaching to the converted.
What’s really surprising is that he didn’t learn anything from the implosion of his presidential campaign, but one of the problems true addicts have is that they do the same thing over and over and yet expect different results.
Comment by Jon W. Hastings — 06.08.05 @ 6:19 pm
” Dean must love the taste of his own feet. I have no political experience to speak of, minor exposure to television and moderate exposure to public speaking, but I’m more polished than Dean.”
Some people think Dean has this weird tendency to speak with the general term when his gripe is with the specific. As if that was a problem.
Comment by actus — 06.08.05 @ 6:58 pm
DS,
There is no shortage of idiots in this world. Some, like Dean and Bill Back, just seem to be picking up the slack for those among the thinking.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.08.05 @ 7:25 pm
If the Dems need to tone it down, they can always trot out tired Walter Mondale, as usual.
Gray Davis is also available to be a consultant.
Comment by Glamchild — 06.08.05 @ 8:02 pm
By the way, the reason why Howard Dean got elected to the chair of the DNC is simply because of Liberal’s misuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Howard Dean gets a job because he is mentally disabled. (I use a wheelchair, and a conservative Christian white girl and I can’t get a job! — again an example of Liberals misuse of the ADA.) I’m rolling off the soapbox now.
Comment by Karen of Scottsdale — 06.08.05 @ 8:45 pm
MargeinMI/Glamchild/Karen, LOL
Comment by Andy — 06.08.05 @ 8:51 pm
Too bad for the liberals they have choosen a real extremists to lead them and he is bad news for them they have their own hitler and their stuck with him for a while
Comment by firebird — 06.08.05 @ 9:10 pm
Dean Defends Deanism and Puts Other Foot in Mouth
After putting his foot in his mouth in San Francisco the other day by making more inflammatory comments toward Republicans. Howard Dean went on TV today and defended those same comments and put his other foot in his mouth as well. Dean defended his re…
Trackback by Scared Monkeys — 06.08.05 @ 10:21 pm
Don’t forget, the democrat pandering always comes with crumbs. Dean also said that his party has to do more than just include different people, they have to hand out houses and jobs, as if minority people haven’t figured out how to get houses and jobs on their own steam.
Comment by tokyobk — 06.08.05 @ 11:18 pm
We can add Charie Rangel to Dean’s band of moonbatic brothers & sisters.
“It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country,” Rangel told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.”
It’s not actually quite as bad as it seems:
Asked to clarify his Holocaust comparison, Rangel told Malzberg: “I am saying that people’s silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there.”
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/hysteria-of-charles-rangel.html
Oh yeah, Rangel kept quiet about Aristide’s mini-holocaust since he was a ‘brutha’.
Comment by Andy — 06.09.05 @ 2:31 am
Howard Dean: Revealing The “New” 2008 DNC Strategy
Politics is a costly business. Takes a lot of money to run a successful election. But looking ahead to 2008, there’s more than dollars at stake. Listening to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who recently spoke with reporters at the S.F. Chronicle, the new cu…
Trackback by California Conservative — 06.09.05 @ 10:26 am
Why is it necessary to use the words Hitler and Holocaust to make ones point. It actually demeans the ‘real’ seriousness of these words as well as the those who throw them out loosely.
Is it a way to curse without actually cursing?
Comment by Jim R — 06.09.05 @ 11:56 am
I don’t think liberals are embarassed by Dean.
I was watching C-Span a day or two ago, the question was for Demorcrats only, “Does Howard Dean speak for you?” Only one caller disagreed with that statement.
I think that Dean’s views are the actual mainstream of the party, that is why it is in the minority, it’s the reason why my 80 year old mother broke a streak starting in 1948 and voted for a republican for president in 2004.
If the demorcrats who have decided to stay in the party believe he is right they should make their case to the people, if they agree so be it, if not then they have to either be resigned to minority status or reconsider their positions.
Comment by P. Ingemi — 06.09.05 @ 8:15 pm
The Return of the Duck Hunt
It’s baaaack!!!! The greatest, best, most stupendous (and only, I think) linkfest devoted to that former Vermont governor, failed…
Trackback by The American Mind — 06.10.05 @ 12:08 am
Don’t you GET IT, “Bro”? I don’t CARE what they or YOU think about me. If you’ve got something to say, be a man and stand behind those words instead of sneaking in here with a stupid alias. I’m very disappointed with all this male cowardice around here. - Admin
Comment by Bro — 06.10.05 @ 1:25 am
I created a fine PhotoShop regarding Dean and his anti-Christianity/Republican comments…
If you want to check it out, go here:
http://www.juggernuts.com/comments.php?id=3738_0_1_0_C
Cheer, -Yarbz
Comment by Yarbz — 06.10.05 @ 11:25 am
Calling all big-government, spend-without-paying RINOs! Dean was quoting John Danforth, former senator from Missouri.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/033005H.shtml
“By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians…
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement…
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.”
Comment by Svejk — 06.10.05 @ 1:53 pm
“I’m very disappointed with all this male cowardice around here. - Admin”
Male cowardice is the essential character trait of your critics, La Shawn.
Comment by Kevin — 06.11.05 @ 12:14 am
Sen Danforth and others use the Christian moniker to mainstream their liberal (whoops, I meant moderate) views. Anytime values that represent most Americans run counter to the more left-leaning crowd, they jump up and label them as “extreme right-wing” or “Christian-right.” It is an assault on the values held by most Americans. If it weren’t, then how can someone like Janice Rogers Brown get elected by 76% of the vote? Yet her views are called extreme. That’s the mode of operation. Marginalize what the majority wants by calling it wacko or extreme.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.11.05 @ 11:26 am
While I’ve never been a Deaniac, and I would have chosen better phrasing, Howard Dean was speaking accurately. The right wing of the Republican party has co-opted Christianity to mean whatever it says it means, rather than reflecting the teachings of Jesus Christ. This isn’t the first time the faith has been co-opted in this manner… it was the very reasons our forebears set out to create this then new nation… one that would protect faith from being co-opted by government, and would respect and protect the religious rights of those of differing faiths from by a majority of any one religion.
People of faith, whether Christian or otherwise should take a stand against the right wing co-option of faith, especially Christians who truly believe in and seek to live their lives as Christ intended. It’s painfully apparent to me, a Catholic that neither George Bush, or his right wing “moral” majority do not practice the values Christ taught, I don’t believe I’m exagerating when I say that if Christ came to Earth today, and preached the same message he did originally, in the same way, Mr. Bush would have him investigated by Homeland Security. What is plain to me is that the only God they worship is the almighty dollar and the power it brings. They impose mass suffering, and take no personal responsibility for their actions.
As a Christian one is obligated to speak out against the imposition of suffering on the most powerless, one is required to care for others as Christ advocated. What about our brave young men and women sacrificing their very lives in our military? What about the fact that Mr. Bush came into office desiring war with Iraq, was informed that the attacks that followed on 9/11 could happen and ignored it, that Bush used those attacks as a rationale to start a war in Iraq, and lied to us, and the troops he is obligated to act responsibly for. What about the fact that it was more important to Bush to give billions of our tax dollars to his corporate contributers/”contracters”, while refusing to properly equip our service men and women, the lives lost/maimed because of not enough body and vehicle armor? What about the fact that Bush only fights to protect his tax cut, placing the burden on many of the same people fighting in Iraq, many of which come home to find their jobs gone, their homes lost, their families suffering, to find they have little to no coverage even for injuries they received fighting on behalf of their country?
If your faith is in Christ, having heard what Christ advocated, how can your understanding be that the place for Christians is in the Republican party, when the leadership of that party makes a mockery of Jesus Christ’s teachings and life? I think any Christian who is so blind as to think that perhaps might be guilty of the same bearing of false witness to Christ that Bush and his cohorts do.. wearing ones faith on ones sleeve, but rationalizing imposing suffering, ignoring the duty to treat others as one would treat Christ. I have to say to you Gideon, you might be blowing a trumpet, but it’s not in service to the interests of good Christians who seek to follow Christ’s teachings.
Comment by Mary — 06.12.05 @ 10:57 am
Hmmm,
Mary is that similar to the Democrats mainly saying “I have faith however my faith does not dictate my politics”? Who’s the hypocrite?
Comment by Renee — 06.12.05 @ 12:38 pm
Also…
Please clarify what the “teachings” of Christ are? (Please don’t regurgitate feed the poor)
Comment by Renee — 06.12.05 @ 12:41 pm
Mary,
I think there is a subtle, nuanced even, difference between a government co-opting faith and faith co-opting government.
In the former, the German system is a good example. The government hires/fires the pastors and other religious leaders. It collects taxes based on your faith and disburses those funds accordingly. Other than that, it is somewhat benign only to the degree that it does not mandate faith, nonetheless, it can affect the ‘faith’ based on who it employs. Want to promote abortion, gay marriage? Use a litmus test in confirming pastors.
The counterweight to that system is the proliferation of ‘Free-Churches’. Free Churches are assemblies of groups that shun receiving financial handouts and the direct linkage to federal oversight. What’s telling is that membership in FCs are growing while State regulated churches are declining. Another point of unintended consequnces, other than the devout, others decline to state their faith as a ‘tax dodge’. Church tax is not like the checkbox we have at the start of our tax forms for redirecting 3 bucks to presidential elections. It’s taxes over and beyond the taxes collected for the general fund.
In the latter, that is where our forefathers were more concern, given their experiences with the Church of England or the dominance of the RC in French legislative & justice system. Simply put, they didn’t want the doctrine of one sect, Puritans for example, to be codified as law for the nation as a whole. Hence the 1st admendment and the notion of States Rights under a federalist framework.
As for the rest of your post. Please!
If your faith is in Christ, how can your understanding be that the place for Christians is in the democratic party that is openly hostile to Biblical truths/ You’re naively conflating morality (conscience) of which God is the authority (Truth, Good, Life) with the implementation of public policy, be it moral, amoral or even immoral. It is the obligation of every Christian to turn back policies that are immoral whenever possible. For example, I am completely within my rights to insist that the Government should not take my tax dollars to subsidize immoral activities such as abortion or p*** christ. I would settle for an amoral situation where States, as a consensus of its population can legalize or criminalize abortion and I would have the choice of where to live acordingly. Likewise, under this amoral framework, p*** christ would be free to stand or fall on its own merits.
In any case, I rather suspect your rant is in favor of liberal, progressive policies of feeding the poor, rather than teaching them how to fish. For that, La Shawn has a slew of postings that address your concerns. Check them out, if you still don’t agree, too bad.
Comment by Andy — 06.12.05 @ 12:56 pm
Renee, short & sweet as usual.
Comment by Andy — 06.12.05 @ 12:57 pm
Mary, don’t you weep. There is a marked difference between what the Messiah taught and what the so-called religious right is screaming. They are selfish; He was/is selfless. He is the ultimate advocate for the downtrodden; they would continue to trod upon them. So, with that in mind, I encourage you to keep your moral compass steered in the direction of the Master. Keep searching for His truth. Be concerned about politics while managing to be as apolitical as you can. There is no placating or reasoning with folk that worship at the altar of Reaganism. Be sure that their convenant with Hell and their agreement with death will be exposed in due time. Why? Because judgment WILL be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet! Their convenant with death will be annulled and their agreement with Hell shall not stand in the least. Just be encouraged and strengthened as you run to the Light Mary. Peace.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 06.12.05 @ 1:15 pm
Rafael, we’re still waiting on the scriptures to support that feel-goodism.
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The government’s giving of handouts to the poor has increased the destuction of the nuclear family, given rise to illegitimate babies, children having children and abortion. The preaching of safe sex has only lead to higher rates of infection of AIDSHIV. Pray tell, what has these doing good gotten us?
Which is the greater good? Giving condoms freely and preaching safe sex or preaching abstinence? Be caeful how you answer.
Comment by Andy — 06.12.05 @ 1:43 pm
There is a marked difference between what the Messiah taught and what the so-called religious right is screaming. They are selfish; He was/is selfless. He is the ultimate advocate for the downtrodden; they would continue to trod upon them.
And that why the right leads the left in charitable giving… wait, under your worldview, that can’t be true. And yet it is.
Really, Raf, try backing up your assertions some day. Most conservatives I know, be they religious or not, don’t favor government programs, whether they have a good intention or not. Why? Because they feel that the government is almost always the lest effective groups out there. There are some things, like roads and oversight agencies (FDA, AFT, FAA) that the government is better suited than free enterprise/market. But beyond that and national defence/international diplomacy, where the government is more expensive and less effective than the alternatives.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.12.05 @ 2:48 pm
“Really, Raf, try backing up your assertions some day.”
It’ll take Raf some time to back it up without it falling apart right off the bat. I won’t hold my breath, but I think it’s another hit and run.
I’m all too often struck by the fact that self-described intellectuals, progressive christians included, are in reality idiots. Why is that? Thomas Sowell explains:
“Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as night the day, the real world is wrong and needs to change.“
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050611-112056-3607r.htm
Comment by Andy — 06.12.05 @ 5:10 pm
That’s me Andy (you can always tell when my fun meter gets pegged)..:)
Comment by Renee — 06.12.05 @ 5:42 pm
Andy, being carfeul isn’t my issue. Let me respond to your allegations first, since you SEEM to be saying I support certain things that I do not.
I don’t support what I believe you would call indefinite gov’t handouts to folks. A temporary hand up, yes. You know the proverb: Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him to fish and he’ll eat forever. Families and the community should be the ones providing the bulk of the help. And yes, community includes churches.
SCSI, I don’t know or care who leads in charitable giving. I am just glad people do give. Incidentally, you don’t know my worldview, dude. Just rest assured that it isn’t one that thinks a political philosophy is superior to the wisdom of El Shaddai.
Andy, I don’t believe that there is any such thing as “safe sex” outside of the marriage bed. Period. To even ask me the condoms vs. safe sex question is insulting, especially from someone that prefers an amoral situation (your words) to a moral one in ANY circumstance.
Moving on, I referenced Isaiah chapter 28 in my mini-rant against Reaganites. I remember that whole “ketchup is a vegetable” flap. I remember people who were legitimately on assistance BEING CUT OFF. One family I knew suffered greatly. I mean, a quad CAN’T work! I remember them cutting and running in Lebanon after 241 of my brothers-in-arms were slaughtered. I also remember Iran-Contra. I wasn’t as fond of Ronald Reagan as I am sure you were, so no further need to even discuss him.
Do you really need a scriptural basis for asserting that Jesus was selfless? You do know that He sinless, died for our sins. He voluntarily laid His life down. That is selfless (see John 10:17 & 18). Do you need scripture to tell you that He was and still is an advocate for the downtrodden? Check out the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) to get His attitude on that issue. There are obviously others, but that is enough for me to get my point across.
I like your quote from Proverbs. However, maybe you should look at it with you as the subject. I say that because I hear all of the love and respect you have for the conservative agenda, but not a peep about the love of God and how…no need to go there.
The sole purpose of my post was to let Mary know she wasn’t alone. Whether or not you agree with her, her words rang out with compassion and feeling. NONE of us have all of the answers. I have said and I maintain that the extremists on BOTH sides of the political spectrum are WRONG. There are some good things about the conservative agenda and there are some good things about the liberal agenda. Man, if people were really willing to talk to each other rather than call each other names what would we have then? I’d encourage you to think about that and to think about it seriously. No more calling folks moonbats and idiots and other such hateful rubbish. Love people. Respect people. Then perhaps you will see the differences between you are not so insurmountable. So (hoping you won’t need this scripturally referenced also :-D), I’ll leave you with this Andy & SCSI: LOVE.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 06.13.05 @ 9:02 am
Raf,
I never claimed to know your worldview. But you, however, claimed to know the view and heart of a few million Americans, ‘dude’. And I find it laughable, that you percieve that I made an assumption about your views and take unmbrage, while you are calling entire segments of the population selfish oppressors as a blanket statement, and with nothing to back it up.
You can complain all you want about the word moonbat and other hateful rubbish, but when you use the term Reaganite dripping with loathing, you just show you’re a hypocrite. Let the love into your own heart, ‘reverand’.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.13.05 @ 9:29 am
Your words, SCSI: “And that why the right leads the left in charitable giving… wait, under your WORLDVIEW , that can’t be true (MY EMPHASIS).”
I am NOT here to argue. I have a pronounced OPINION of the views of a few million Americans, that is true. I am NOT a fan of a lot of what I see. I can speak out about that, as can you. I haven’t called anyone an an oppressor. I do, however, feel like many of those on the extreme right are seriously unconcerned about those that are not in their circle. If the brush splatters a little paint on you, good. There was a time it would have splattered some on me. Incidentally, this applies to the extreme left also.
“Reaganite” is an identifier. When did I use that term with loathing? You make an assumption you can’t back up, so let me clear it up for you. Supporters of Ronald Reagan called themselves Reaganites WITH PRIDE back in the 1980s. If Reaganite is a hateful term, I am honestly not aware of it. I spoke of those whose worship at the ALTAR OF REAGANISM, but not with loathing. I don’t loathe/hate/despise anyone. Saying I feel pity for them would be the accurate description, because they (just like their polar political opposites) have substituted a philosophy of selfishness over the wisdom of God as their guiding principle.
I am simply saying I’d like to see some civil discourse. You SEEM to be peeved. I can’t take any responsibility for that. I don’t like the extreme right’s agenda. Does that cover all conservatives? No, it doesn’t. I am wrong for saying that? No, I am not. I don’t like the agenda of the extreme left either. Does that cover all liberals? No, it doesn’t. Am I wrong for saying that? No, I am not. I (maybe foolishly to some) happen to believe there is common ground to be found. People of differing opinions can work together. People can and should love and respect each other. If you have a problem with that SCSI, that is for you to work out (or not).
Freedom of speech is a great thing. It just happens to come with a greater responsiblity. I am shocked and appalled at the nastiness that comes from both sides of the fence. It doesn’t have to be so. Maybe you think Howard Dean gets a free pass from me when he shoots off at the mouth: he doesn’t. Some remarks simply should be tempered and not in the name of political correctness. They should be tempered in the name of civility.
I am going to ask you a personal question: why are you (seemingly) offended that I chose to leave you with LOVE? What is the issue with that? Is LOVE wrong? Is it uncomfortable for you? )I am asking rhetorically.)
I put into practice what I believe SCSI. I try not to allow any anger to trickle into what I post, even when there have been issues that I responded to that nearly had my hair on fire. I know that LOVE is the answer; God’s way of doing things is the only way to do them. If you think that calling people out of their names and being churlish is a proper way to conduct business, then I suppose that is what you will do. I just disagree that it is necessary. Folks can have strong disagreement without killing each other physically or verbally.
Oh, and the word is “reverend”, not “reverand”. I never have and never will call myself reverend. That is a name reserved for God. I did get a chuckle out of the attempted sarcasm. (You were being sarcastic, right? :-D) Again I will leave you with one word/concept/thing: LOVE.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 06.13.05 @ 10:22 am
My mistake, I did use the word worldview. In the context of your comment to Mary, I will stand by what I said however. Just like I will stand by my opinion of your hypocrisy. I’ve never liked anyone who holds out that their interp of scripture is the only one, any other be damned.
You’ve still yet to shed light on your assertion that the “religious right” don’t follow the teachings of Jesus, or that they are selfish and oppressive.
I do agree that we will all be judged some day, however. I’ll go to mine knowing that I may be wrong, and I’ll deal with those consequences. But I’ve always thought that believing you know Gods plans and reasons is the highest conceit and the worst variety of pride.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.13.05 @ 12:22 pm
Rafael,
“I don’t support what I believe you would call indefinite gov’t handouts to folks. A temporary hand up, ye…
Good. Then you’ll agree that some people can be justified in saying that the gov’t has no business meddling PERIOD in community business without being called heartless or unchristian?
“I don’t believe that there is any such thing as “safe sex†outside of the marriage bed. Period. To even ask me the condoms vs. safe sex question is insulting, especially from someone that prefers an amoral situation (your words) to a moral one in ANY circumstance.”
Good, I wanted to hear you come out and say it cause it wasn’t evident in your comment to Mary that you were trying to lead her precept by precept, line by line to wean her from milk and make her understand doctrine.
To ask you condoms vs safe sex??? Surely you mean safe sex vs abstinence? It’s not at all insulting, it is critical to know where you stand, to know whether you are speaking to truth or just another false teacher. If a false teacher, then your reference to Isa 28, particularily verse 15, would apply. Or?
While we’re on the subject of condoms, I think everyone is interested in helping to reduce the rate of AIDS/HIV infections. But how do we do this when Worldly Wisdom = Safe Sex, God’s Wisdom = Sin No More?
Now how often have we heard that Pope John Paul and other fundamentalists are responsible for the growth in the rate of infection due to dogmatic moral values? Now let us rightly divide the truth. Did you know that on a country by country analysis, the rate of AIDS/HIV infection is inversely related to ‘religiosity’? No? I wonder why? It wouldn’t have anything to do with progressive ideology (MSM/DNC/UN/WHO) which is at odds with the truth would it?
Moral values & ABC is winning the war on STD:
http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/061005D.html
Circumcision reduces AIDS/HIV and other hygenic problems:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/valley_hiv.shtml
WHO pushes the myth that a majority of AIDS/HIV comes from heterosexual contact:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2005_04_24_dissectleft_archive.html#11142964
Plus La Shawn has blogged often about ABC & sex.
As for amoral vs moral, I said; “It is the obligation of every Christian to turn back policies that are immoral whenever possible. For example, I am completely within my rights to insist that the Government should not take my tax dollars to subsidize immoral activities such as abortion or p*** christ. I would settle for an amoral situation where States, as a consensus of its population can legalize or criminalize abortion and I would have the choice of where to live acordingly.”
The term amoral is distinct from the terms moral and immoral, and simply refers to the state of lacking any moral characteristics. An amoral act is not morally good nor is it morally bad - it simply is. I grant you I could have been a little more clearer, but given my druthers, I’d rather have a ‘moral’ code, but would settle for an amoral legal stance as opposed to abiding a code of law that not only is simply immoral, but requires that I support it.
Why the scare quotes around moral? Because legislation is political and as such there has to be some compromise. For example, taking God out of the school is immoral; freedom to pray, or not, if a team wishes is amoral; mandating that teams must pray a certain way, while moralistic, nevertheless is government enforced and becomes de facto state-sanctioned church. Regardless of whatever world, it would be my obligation to persuade one to think/act morally. See the difference?
“I remember that whole “ketchup is a vegetable†flap. I remember people who were legitimately on assistance BEING CUT OFF…”
Again, some of believe the govt has no business giving handouts whatsoever. I also recall the government moving in to stop, impede communities from taking care of their own. Yeah I remember the catsup flap, you mean that was immoral? I’ll be hornswoogled. Ever read the nutrition labels for both? How about the nutrition labels for soda pop in school vending machines? Follow the money.
So you weren’t fond of Reagan and your choices were?
“Do you really need a scriptural basis for asserting that Jesus was selfless?”
No, but your telling me would help me determine whether you’re a liberation theologist or not.
“I like your quote from Proverbs. However, maybe you should look at it with you as the subject.” Thanks, that’s something we should all evaluate everyday. I think the difference is that God has many attributes of which LOVE is but one. Those who ignore TRUTH, LIGHT, JEALOUS, HATER OF SIN, etc do so at their peril.
“The sole purpose of my post was to let Mary know she wasn’t alone. Whether or not you agree with her, her words rang out with compassion and feeling.”
Compassion is a good thing. Compasion can be misguided. Compassion can also be self-injurious. Feeling God is not like feeling Lucas’ Force. Feeling can be sincerely wrong. Feeling = seemth. The trick is knowing when AND how to be compassionate. Would have been nice to have taken the time to rightly divide the truth about compassion with Mary.
“NONE of us have all of the answers”
That’s why we have a user’s manual called the Bible and customer service agent called the Holy Spirit to walk us thru it.
No more calling folks moonbats and idiots and other such hateful rubbish.”
You mean I should stick to hypocrites, white-washed sepulchers, full of dead man bones, vipers, children of Satan, fools, blind — IOW ONLY if Jesus said it then I can repeat it, when appropriate?
Loving sinners is telling them they’re lost and on the highway to hell. Respecting people means not mincing the truth nor wrapping it up in feel-good liberation platitudes.
I’ll leave you with this: Truth (Acts 17:11)
Comment by Andy — 06.13.05 @ 6:20 pm
Rafael said: “I know that LOVE is the answer; God’s way of doing things is the only way to do them.”
Since you like to talk about love, I did a keyword search (God Love) and came up with 107 verses (271 hits), but only twice did a verse state God is love (1Jo 4:8 & 16). Of the 107, 85 talks about loving the brotherhood, love of God towards man, man loving God or labor of love. About 12 verses pertaining to ungodly love.
So we can see that love is indeed very important: 1Jo 4:10 Herein, is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The remaining verses are unrelated to each other, ie beloved: 1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
So then, even tho you say love is the answer, how do we tell what is true and what is a lie? By looking at God’s way of doing things? By looking at the life of Jesus?
Ironic that the ‘abusive’ Roman empire, nor the quisling Herod administration had any issue or animosity towards Jesus. It was instead the false teachers within the faith that sought to crucify Jesus because he condemned their progressive ways. It is the false teachers & prophets that screech and carry on the politics of personal destruction while believers simply point out the truths and use scriptures to point out the hypocrisy. And in their zeal, these vipers leveraged the civil government into doing their dirty work.
Well before I get accused of being OT, let me bring it full circle to the topic at hand, Dean’s tirade against eviiiil, hard-hearted white Christian republicans. La Shawn, I guess that means you’re white, do your parents know?
Sort of like the race pimps, ACLU, etc in our day and age. Speaking of race pimps, did you know that according to his hometown paper, sKerry once got up, before flip-flopping, and gave a warning about the costs of a ““culture of dependency. . . . We must ask whether [social disintegration] is the result of a massive shift in the psychology of our nation that some argue grew out of the excesses of the 1960s, a shift from self-reliance to indulgence and dependence, from caring to self-indulgence, from public accountability to public abdication and chaos. The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms“. (Google “Herky-Jerky Kerry“)
There’s that word again: TRUTH.
God=Truth, Satan=deceit. In the interest of maintaining some semblance of short & sweet, examine the following scriptures for TRUTH: Deu 32, 2Sam 7 & 22, Psa 25,41,42 & 31:5-6, Pro 30:5-6, Jer 7:28, Jer 10, Dan 2:47-49, Mar 12, Joh 3:20-21.
The notion that only the Godly should sit in judgment of the public is found in Exodus 18 (secondary issue that sometimes when on a mission from God, it’s better to leave the family at home). Now why on earth would some ‘christians’ insist that faith be separate from politics? All Christians should take offense at the notion that Christians in politics/justice are extremists and should just butt out.
Godly wrath/justice, good intentions notwithstanding vis a vis moral equivalence and refusing to heed His ways: 1Ch 13:9-10, Job 31, Hos 4 & Zep 3. From the historical evidence, our founding fathers certainly believed that our democracy was only fit for a Godly nation.
Also considering a few examples/teachings of Jesus regarding personal responsibility vs. social justice & do-/feel-goodism:
–Good Samaritan: if Jesus thot it was the government’s role to assist the down & out, then it we must be missing a few verses from the Bible about the good Samaritan sending up a 911 smoke signal so that the king’s men and horses could rush in and put the victim back together again.
—-LESSON: If heathens can show mercy/love & take it upon themselves to help a fellow man, let alone a stranger (ethnic foreigner), at personal risk and cost, what’s your excuse? You the individual discovered the need, you take care of it.
—-No mention about government stepping in for you to take care of the downtrodden.
–The Adulteress: Go and sin no more.
—-LESSON: Sin is the root of human affliction. The first step towards relief is repentance, not assistance.
—-No mention of Church or State putting together a support group to provide self-esteem therapy, hypnotism, financial aid to get back on her feet.
–The Debt Forgiver: A debtor whose marker was called, pled for mercy and was granted it. Receiving sanctuary from debtor’s prison, turned and tossed a fellow man in prison for a smaller debt. When his lord heard of the injustice, he angrily revoked the forgiveness and locked him up until the debt was repaid (inflicted suffering???).
—-LESSON: Be merciful to others because we have a greater debt to God. Also, Debtor’s Prison is a valid concept — gasp. That’s why believers ought to be in debt to no man.
—-No mention of reforming bankruptcy laws and/or doing away with stiff penalties for failing to pay debts.
–The Laborers: Some worked all day for a penny, others worked half a day and again some only worked an hour, yet all got the same pay (unfair???).
—-LESSON: Fair compensation is in the eye of the employer and the contract between him and the worker.
—-No mention of the government mandating what is fair pay.
–Rich Man following Jesus: When asked, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor.
—-LESSON: If you’re going to take on the mission of helping the poor and sick, use your own resources (personal price???). Helping someone is a personal one-on-one mission.
—-No mention of giving the money/resources to the government so that they can take care of the poor.
(You recall I warned you to be careful about your answer? Ironic that you should quote Mat 25:31-46 to tell me about the goats & sheep. I was waiting to use the following on you. If you had read further up, like Mat 25:14-30…)
–The 1, 2 & 5 Talents: Rich man about to take a business trip (capitalist pig). Tasked his servants to take care of his money. The industrial & capitalist entrepreneurs were richly rewarded and the one who buried ‘in order’ to protect the cash was cursed (not loving???) for not even at least putting the money to work in a bank account where it could at least earn interest and was FOREVER banished.
—-LESSON: Be self-reliant and learn something about capital & economics.
—-No mention of socialism whereby everyone, rich and poor shares in the generated wealth.
(Strike Two, a little bit further up from the parable of the talents, like Mat 25:1-12)
–The 10 Virgins: 5 wise virgins came with an extra supply of oil and 5 foolish virgins had just what was in their lamp. When their lamps went out, they asked the wise five to share, which they wisely refused (no compassion???). When the 5 FOOLS finally showed up, they were turned away with “I don’t know you”.
—-LESSON: When you make a foolish mistake, don’t look to others to bail you out. Instead take positive steps remedy the situation and hope & pray that you resolve it before it’s too late permanently. IOW, we can’t save others from their folly.
—-No mention of oil/wealth redistribution.
As for the goats and sheep, if you take Mat 25:31-46 to mean that the government should feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc, it would seem obvious that you have taken that passage totally out of context. Strike THREE. OTOH, if you mean it is the Christian’s obligation to do so when presented with the opportunity, you hit a line drive. However, as a referee, based on the way you’ve been swinging your bat, I’m calling it a foul ball. In either case, I do believe I got your number, but please don’t hang up.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. If you ‘feel’ for the common man, go and personally do something about it. Don’t expect to compel others to help, otherwise that ‘effort of love’ becomes but a clanging cymbal.
Oh!!! BTW, I’m pretty sure that REPENT is the answer (105 verses) and is God’s only way of accepting us, ie Lord, what must I do to be saved? REPENT!
You know there’s another parable where Jesus talks about 100 sheep. Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Rafael: Peace & Love unto you.
Comment by Andy — 06.13.05 @ 8:37 pm
It looks like Dr Democrat has created a monster and its name is HOWARD DEAN and he just may destroy some democrats before he is stopped.
Comment by firebird — 06.13.05 @ 8:54 pm
Andy, that is too much to even try to respond to this early in the AM. I’ll justv hit a couple of points, then go to work, ‘cuz I don’t wanna lose my job and have to get handouts (sarcasm intended).
I do not believe the gov’t should take the place of the family/community in supporting the family/community. A quick hand, yes. Being on the dole as a way of life, no.
Safe sex vs abstinence IS what I meant, even though I said condoms. BTW, thanks for clarifying your purpose for the question.
The choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream is an amoral one LOL. I understand the difference Andy. The thing is are we supposed to accept amoral when there is a clear choice?
I have to scoot dude. We’ll talk later.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 06.14.05 @ 6:05 am
Rafael, that’s fine. I’m just being pragmatic in that better to tactically take incremental steps while strategically aiming for higher ground. It’s taken nerly 40 years for the liberals bring us to this moral low, bit by bit. And by God’s help you, I and the others will turn it back.
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 9:57 am