home

Religion And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 12:35:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Back in 2006, then Senator Obama decided to hand out advice to Democrats and liberals on "how to talk about religion". It was a textbook example of triangulation repackaged as the "post partisan unity schtick." It didn't work:

President Obama warned against "using religion as a bludgeon in politics," pushing back against critics who have accused him of waging a "war on religion" through recent policy decisions.

[. . .] "When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people's faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we've got a problem," Obama told Des Moines's local NBC affiliate, Who TV. [. . .] Obama was responding to recent accusations that he is engaged in a "war on religion" through recent actions such as the contraception mandate.

No magic bullet for Obama on dealing with the Radical Right. It makes his 2006 speech all the more ridiculous now:

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that—regardless of our personal beliefs—constitutional principles tie our hands.

At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

How'd the PPUS work out on this?

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | The Bully Pulpit >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Religion And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He's right about one thing (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    I think we've got a problem.

    Unfortunately Obama won't take on the bludgeoners point by point. He keeps talking in terms of unity and division instead of dealing in the facts. Oh I know, it would make Rick Santorum throw up, but it has to be done.

    For an X-Demential Chess Player... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    ...he sure has a hard time grasping reality.

    "When we start using religion as a bludgeon in politics, we start questioning other people's faith, we start using religion to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we've got a problem,"

    Especially when you get accused of being an entirely different religion, that bludgeoning hurts, don't it, especially in Alabama & Mississippi.  Less people would think he was Muslim if he was actually Muslim.

    And at what time in history has religion ever brought anyone together.

    As far as working out, I would say it's worked out as well as all of Obama's unity initiatives, bludgeoned so bad, they actually work against him.

    I hardly know where to start. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    Maybe with the most obvious problem: that Obama sees religion as a means of bringing the country together.  But whose religion?  His, yours, mine?  Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, Episcopalian, Hindu, Evangelical?  How does religion bring the atheists and agnostics into the fold?

    Part of this problem is that I fear he sees himself as the exact right person to find the sweet spot where all this coming together is going to happen - it's part of his apparent need to be all things to all people, when all we really want or need him to do is be the president, uphold the Constitution (I can't even go there - he's lost his way on that score), captain the ship of state.  

    Is that too much to ask?  Apparently so.

    What really pretty much ticks me off is that Obama keeps alive the idea that as long as religion is wielded for good (again - his good?  my good?  your good? - who decides what's good and what isn't?  Doesn't he know that everyone with a religious axe to grind thinks his or her good is the one, true good?), it has a place in what is supposed to be secular government.  Yes, I know we have God on the money , and invocations and prayers and blessings echoing through the halls of government - but we shouldn't.   And rather than keep trying to maintain the existing religious presence in government, we should be working to establish a perimeter beyond which religion does not have a seat at the table.  That doesn't mean that those who govern and legislate and work for government cannot bring truth and integrity and conscience and consideration to the work they do - it just means that we don't constantly have to be fighting over whose religion is going to win the day.

    And this opinion is the kind that will brand me as someone "on the left, who hates religion and disdains people of faith."  But that would be pure, unadulterated BS.  I am bone-weary of being told that, because I don't think religion belongs in the public square, I am intolerant of religion - by people who never seem to feel they owe any tolerance to my desire to leave the specifics of widely divergent religious doctrine out of a process by which we are all governed. Apparently, tolerance only works in one direction.

    Those of us who daily see that because every religious voice seems to feel entitled to a say in secular government, we are fast approaching  War OF Religion territory - and no one's going to win that one, not if the wealth of historical experience of many religious wars and conflicts is any indication.

    Oh, how I long for Obama to say that he is the head of state, not an arbiter of religious doctrine or dogma, that while he and the elected members of Congress may have taken their oaths of office with a hand on the Bible, the oath they took was not one of allegiance to any religion, or to stand in judgment of anyone's faith or lack thereof, or to legislate based on religious doctrine.  Their oaths were taken in service of the country and the legal document that forms its underpinning - the Constitution.

    But no.  If only - if only - he would stop trying to prove that he is a person of faith to people who will never give their approval - and who see every accommodation, every concession, every acknowledgment as incremental progress in fully legislating their religious beliefs.

    That's not how he rolls.

    Your first para (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    Yeah, zactly!  I don't understand the allegiances to the many faiths.  It's horrible, but I did attend a Christian School for some of my high school years, and it is their fault that I'm a Buddhist :) What I liked about the school was that we all did treat each other well.  It was a pleasant school in that respect.  My grandfather always told me that religion was for the weak minded though, knowing of course that being weak was a genetic imbued fear in our family :)

    And then some minister's wife attempting to connect science to her God gave the whole school a lecture on Revelations one day and the end times.  She told us all that how the earth would be consumed in fire on judgement day is that God would hit the earth with a giant lightening bolt.  And since the surface of the planet is 70% water, the electrical current would split the water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are very combustible in pure forms and kaboom.  For a minute she scared the $hit out of me because I did know that an electrical current can split water molecules.

    But then I remembered all the people he would be burning up and I thought "what a doucebag".  Who wants to spend an eternity with a doucebag?  That sounds like hell. And after reading the Bible and trying to understand exactly what God wanted me to do while knowing that if I got this wrong I would be burning to death on the globe of fire, I just can't live what little life I have acting schizoid waiting for an evil doucebag to come and save me from him so that I can spend eternity in hell.  And these followers, they go to great lengths to scare the $hit out of children just to manipulate them.  I don't think I'm capable of intimate relationships with Good Christians, only Not Good Christians.

    Parent

    Saw Santorum giving a speech (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    after his "debate" with Gingrich the other night.

    He stated, (paraphrasing,) "many people claim the Constitution is the basis of our democracy, and our system of laws emanates from the precepts contained within that document.

    They are wrong!

    The basis of our system of laws emanates from the Bible, and the Constitution exists only to fortify it."

    And he is running neck and neck with the incumbent.

    Let us pray...


    Parent

    Well, give him some credit Anne (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    He's pretty goo at loving thine enemies, no? ;-)

    ....

    No, that's not a typo.

    Parent

    Half of the south has concerns about Obama's (none / 0) (#35)
    by Farmboy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:13:16 PM EST
    Muslim faith, and how that affects the country.

    Parent
    And nothing will satisfy them that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    Obama is who he says he is - I mean, can you think of anything that would make those people say, "Oh, okay, I guess he's a Christian after all?"

    I can't.

    At some point, I imagine their skepticism only increases the more he tries to prove he is who he says he is - he doth protest too much.

    And if you don't think this is being used to the advantage of the conservative Christian agenda, you're not paying attention.  

    So, what does he do?  "I wasn't elected to be a religious leader, I was elected to be the leader of the government.  Every person's faith - or lack of it - is no one's business but that person's.  No one's closing churches or forcing people to pray or telling people what they can think or believe, which means we are upholding the tenets of the Constitution, which is a job I took an oath to do."

    And then stop engaging on their terms and go about leading the country.

    Parent

    If (self-proclaimed) christians (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    didn't have such a sordid history in the 20th century of lining up with the powers of brutal oppression - in the Czar's Russia, Franco's Spain and Hitler's Germany, for starters - I'm sure there'd exist much less of a jaundiced toward the Church amongst those on the traditional Left..

    By their fruits shall you know them.. And, contrary to the belifs of too many American conservative Christians, by "fruits" he didn't mean people's stock portfolios..

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    I'm breaking my "Lenten promise" of not posting on political blogs but since this is about religion maybe it won't be a big break.

    Too bad Obama didn't listen to many of us here at TL who said you can't deal with zealots. The radical fundamentalism that has been spawned by the right is not something you can "unite" with unless you somehow think you can "bridge the divide" with "The Taliban" in Afghanistan too.

    The thing that the right doesn't realize is how damaging they have been to Christianity. Religion and politics don't mix mostly because it damages religion.

    That being said I know a whole lot of really ticked off women because of this whole thing. It hurts the GOP a whole lot but hey, no one said they were smart.

    This is a new-to-me form of (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    Lenten self-denial.  

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    It just came into my mind a few weeks ago!

    Parent
    You'll be a happier person for it, (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    I'm sure.  But, like denying yourself chocolate or alcohol, to what greater good?  I do remember the Lenten self-denial banks.  Can't remember to which good cause the money was purportedly sent.  

    Parent
    My favorite Lent "give up" (none / 0) (#88)
    by DFLer on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    was when my mother gave up potatoes for Lent.

    Parent
    Thank you Ga6th (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    The religious attack heretofore sponsored by the Right is a loser this time around...not their typical wedge issue of the past.  IMO, the President's positioning on the matter of religion will reap rewards for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the Republican overreach. A bridge or an overreach into  most people"s lives too far.  Wedge issues are one thing; but, this overreach into the middle, the suburbs, and into most women's way of living defies description.  Under such circumstances, Obama merely needs to do what he is doing...point out the Repubs' War on Women from time to time --& the DNC and all related interest groups will spell it out all the way to November--as the Repubs dig themselves in deeper & deeper.

    To get involved in an overt skirmish with Christianity--or more accurately, some of those haters who call themselves Christians out there and know nothing of which they speak--would have been counterproductive for the President, methinks.  Though it took me a long time not to get entangled in religious debate (most of the time, that is), arguing about religious beliefs OR appearing to question others beliefs tends to be a losing argument for the very reason that that the discussion can only turn deeply emotional...and the voices raise, the words fly.  For that reason I believe that President Obama's diplomatic handling of matters "religious" has been wise.  It may not have been the confronation with the hypocrites & haters that I would have liked...but it has been wise, steady overall.

    I understand your Lenten promise, because--in observing Lent--I'm trying to be less angry at detractors and less jump-conclusions judgmental  these days.  Given that I'm a practicing Catholic and considering the recent conservative political tact of the conservative bloc of American Bishops this go-round, it is hard & then some. Yoiks!  Even with my "determination" to focus on the faith and not several strident members of the Church hierarchy, the grrr thoughts creep up on me even in church.   There is a reason why it is best to not mix religion & politics...for all sides, for everyone  I agree!

    Parent

    What passes as... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    the "left" hating on religion is really the "left" hating on religion being foisted upon them in the secular realm.  No non-believer I know cares about what believers do in their home or church...it's what they wanna do in the statehouse that gets our guard up and sharp heathen tongues blazing.

     

    I really do think that, at present, (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    many left-leaners bunch all Christians into the "religious zealot" catagory, and this is incorrect generalization.  

    Parent
    It is limited thinking... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:08:16 AM EST
    Many of them do forget that there are other religions, too...

    Parent
    You just hate freedom of religion (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    Admit it. ;-)

    "Thou shalt foist" is the 0th Commandment. You didn't know they count from zero?

    Parent

    I remember at about the same time (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Obama was also suggesting that only someone who could clap in rhythm to the gospel choir should try and talk about religion.  He was suggesting all others were somehow phony.  Of course that was him already running for President.

    Was he using his "religious" I'm-one- (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    of-you voice?

    Parent
    Obama can find the rhythm? (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    And clap to it?  I've seen him dance.  I don't believe it. :)

    Parent
    The problem the left has is they constantly (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    talk about Christians as if they are stupid because they believe in God.   If not in general terms than when they talk about outwardly vocal conservative Christians like Sarah Palin, or Tim Tebow etc...

    If they would not make it so personal and mock their intelligence they wouldn't turn so many of us off.

    The right has similar issues when it comes to environmentalists and Muslims but nothing to me is as clear and succinct as the comments that I consistently read on this blog and on the left in general when it comes to believers in Christ.

    It's as if we have to hide our beliefs in the closet because only a moron would base a political decision on their actual faith.   I mean many of our clergy and our religious leaders lean left but that's ok as long as they don't challenge the dogma of the left in practice when it goes against the basic belief system of our paticular faith.   See abortion etc...

    I will be the first to admit that I often struggle with my faith and I would never judge anyone who does not share in it because it is exactly that.  A leap of faith.   I and 90 + % of Christians don't believe you're going to hell if you don't go to Church every Sunday because we realize that our faith like so many values and beliefs no matter how much people try to convince themselves are simply the way we deal with the reality of life.  That's why people turn to God in the first place, because they are completely flawed and life is hard.   The belief in something greater than yourself makes life easier.  Be it a deity or a cause.   We all need something to fall back on.

    I agree with the President on this one.  The left has a bad history of dealing with Christians and until they fix it they will consistently loose this part of the voting public for no other reason than people of my ilk don't like to hear how stupid we are.

    BS (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    No one talks about "Christians" until "Christians" decide to tell everyone what to do.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    As if you never do?

    As if the left doesn't try to exert their values on society?

    Is the left the only side allowed to influence society and government?

    What I'm saying is the left routinely tries to paint Outwardly Christian people as stupid.  See Palin, Santorum, Tebow etc....

    Some are stupid but it's not because their Christian.

    This is not playing the victim card it is pointing out a nasty habit of the left.    

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    The President you are agreeing with is criticizing the Radical Right for using religion to divide. Is that what you are agreeing with?

    For some reason I doubt it.

    Parent

    Now, now... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    Bludgeoning is bad taste eh... ;-)

    Parent
    Crucifying ? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:26:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Crucifying is ok (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    I'm good with crucifying. I want them all to go to the heaven of their choice. And I want them all to write me into their wills.

    Parent
    This is in a nutshell what (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:05:44 PM EST
    is the single most important force in Republican politics.

     Being called stupid and having their religion mocked.....That is the common belief system of most Republicans....

    It is about cultural resentment.....which is really shorthand for saying that Republicans need and want the goverment to validate their cultural/religious views....

    Parent

    Liberal elitists (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    "Liberal" elitists do have a tendency to call people stupid if they don't agree with whatever the elitists decide.

    And of course, that tendency is anything but liberal.

    Parent

    And also shorthand for constant victim-hood. (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:00:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I only have a (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    I only have a problem with your religious beliefs when you think they should be mine!  And right now, the right wing is forcing their religious beliefs down women's throats, not to mention into other body parts.

    You Republicans stay out of my private life, and you can have all the religion you want.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#92)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    The president opened this can of worms and no Catholic women is barred from getting any form of birth control she wants.

    Catholic institutions would just like to not have the government force them to buy it for her.

    Who is forcing their beliefs on who here?

    Parent

    The accommodation (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:04:17 PM EST
    Does not require the Church to offer insurance coverage for contraception at it's hospitals.  In addition to exempting a religious institution from the requirement as to it's direct facility staff, the compromise then put forth by the President applies to the insurers only at the hospitals.  The point of contention today--for all practical purposes--concerns whether the insurer obligation comes into play in those instances wherebthe Church may choose to self-insure.  The better argument is that such a choice would render that situation a business decision (as opposed to spiritual), thus making state laws covering insurers as well as federal ACA provisions applicable.

    My point: while the earlier provision might have provoked colorable argument about religious freedom, the clear exemption for the Church & it's associated hospitals takes away that argument as the onus falls on the business entity insurer. Even the political hay that some might try to make of it doesn't go very far nor climb very high.

    Parent

    "Christians" does NOT equal ... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    I agree with the President on this one.  The left has a bad history of dealing with Christians and until they fix it they will consistently loose this part of the voting public for no other reason than people of my ilk don't like to hear how stupid we are.

    ... Christian conservatives/fundamentalists.  It's pretty funny how wingers tend to substitute the term "Christians" when the segment of the population they're talking about is really just fundamentalist/conservative Christians.  83% of the US population is "Christian".  If, as you claim, Democrats consistently lose this part of the voting public by any significant margin, they wouldn't win a single election ...

    ... ever.

    To be clearer - people of "your ilk" do not speak for (or represent) "Christians".

    Parent

    I might be a Christian (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:48:15 PM EST
    I think there is a chance that some Jewish guy named Jesus lived in the Middle East, and he was a very decent guy who preached to others that they should try love and giving first when life was failing in areas.  And he was such a good guy that he had 11 or 12 twelve really good friends who would do anything in the world for him.  Okay, 11 friends who would do anything in the world for him because he was such a great guy.  12 might be asking for too much in that department.

    I believe that if he existed that he was the son of God, because I am a daughter of God if there is a God.  I think Romans might have killed him because they liked to kill people with leadership skills that they couldn't convert. And I believe that his friends missed him so much that they thought they saw his apparition for days afterwards.  I thought our old dog scratched on the door to be let in the day after he died once.  I heard it while I was on the phone, I went to the door and opened it without realizing, then I cried because he was a good dog.

    I think is possible that his mom may have told people that no man had touched her either, she didn't know how she became pregnant but there was this dreamlike state that occurred and this angelic person was in it.

    I don't know if I have enough bases covered though.  I might be a Christian or I might not be a Christian.  My neighbors will tell you though that I scare them, and I have Satanic books in my bookcase :)

    Parent

    Or.... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:43:10 PM EST
    Some self designators of the new religion went into a library and picked, from thousands of volumes, certain fables for their new book that was meant to be a guide for life.

    Then at some point, people with agendas decided it should be read, to the mass illiterate, and used to justify the very acts it clearly condones.

    And now we find ourselves with a large portion of the population taking 2000+ year old translated text as historical fact.  And people selectively using quotes to validate their ugliness, while ignoring the entire theme of love and compassion for all man/woman kind.

    For example, most Christians ignore the easiest of easy lists, the 10 commandments.  We work on Sundays, we commit adultery, we take the lords name in vain, we lie, and most importantly capitalism would not exist w/o coveting.  None of which are actually illegal.  

    Half the commandments are not illegal and one is the foundation of our economic structure.

    Yet all these idiots can focus on is one tiny mention of 'laying with man' and a term not even found in the bible, abortion.  It's pathetic and the most obvious example of how Christians are full of sh1t, or at least they one who have fixated on stuff it doesn't actually say while ignoring the clearly defined high tenants.

    One more thing, the god nor jesus didn't write one word of of it.  Men with agendas from the bronze age did.

    Parent

    You are scary (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    You have a bookcase and books, which implies that you - gasp - read and try to learn, which implies - gasp - that you don't think you already know everything there is to know.

    Eeek.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what qualifies me as a Satanist (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    here in this neighborhood. I have only heard that I am one.  I think it is the Tibetan Book of the Dead that has done this to me.  It does sound scary and human baby sacrifice alterrific.  When we lived in Colorado though, one of my other neighbors said the same thing about me but I know what book did it to me then.  It was Anne Rice's 'Memnoch the Devil', which is oddly sort of pro-Catholic in a woman priest kind of way.  And nothing I've typed makes a lick of sense to Satanists or Catholics :)

    Parent
    You question. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    Bad girl. Bad.

    Do your parents know you're a questioner? Now go have a seat in the shaming room. A republican evangelical legislator with be with you in a moment...

    Parent

    And what's worse is (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:23:59 PM EST
    You have more than ONE book.

    I don't even know if I should even listen to you any more.  ;-)

    Parent

    In honor of Mitt Romey, you should take a (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:08:43 PM EST
    look at the LDS belief on the virgin birth.

    Parent
    I am a Episcopalian (none / 0) (#93)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    By the way and I find it offensive when some on the left mock certain Christians for their beliefs.

    What your point does make me take time to reflect on is do I take the same offense when they mock other religions?

    I will work on that.

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:48:01 PM EST
    Now, back to my original point.  How can you claim that "The left has a bad history of dealing with Christians and until they fix it they will consistently loose this part of the voting public"?  Christians (all Christians) are 85% of the voters.  If Democrats, as you claim, have a "bad history" and "consistently lose" 85% of the voting block by any significant margin, how is it they get elected?

    Your claim is ridiculous.

    Parent

    Perfect voicing of the persecution complex (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    I'm not saying the Christian right is stupid, but there sure is ample evidence that they loooove to play the victim.

    Parent
    Big Assumption (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    ...that the left is godless.

    I believe in god, and I don't need to use it to make the right look ridiculously stupid, they do just fine all on their own without god.

    Don't blame me because the right is stupid, or at least their present day spokesmen/women are stupid. Perry, Palin, and Bachmann, seriously Presidential material ?  Add in this never ending crucifiction complex and every debate, every interview, they, not we, bring Jesus to the table.

    The right also ignores that what, 90% (not sure of the exact number) of the left considers themselves Christians.  The problem is the right just takes the st1t too far and themselves way too serious.  Instead of just fessing up to their constant and rigorous bigotry, they try and justify this idiotic and hurtful beliefs with Jesus and to the un-deluded, its truly pathetic.

    When half of Mississippi and Alabama republicans think Obama is Muslim, trust me, no religion or belief is responsible for that amount of pure, and rejoiced stupidity.  Yet they are the same ones to cry the loudest that their religion should dictate policy.

    I think your real problem is the dumbest and loudest idiots toss out jesus to justify their shortcomings.

    Parent

    Not my assumption (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    And not everyone on the left does it but to me it is pretty obvious that taking shots at Christians has become a everyday part of our political discourse and I do agree with the president that some on the right sometimes push their faith too much.

    Parent
    Don't Wiggle Out of Your Words (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:14:41 AM EST
    The problem the left has is they constantly talk about Christians as if they are stupid because they believe in God.

    Your words making the assumption that the left is godless.  It makes no sense considering a strong majority, around 90% believe in god.

    Which of course proves my point, that you specifically don't think people on the left believe in god.  

    You wrote it and now you are saying it's not your assumption.

    The problem is the right seems to think their interpretation of Christianity is the only one that counts.  I can't possibly believe in god if I think evolution is reality or that the earth is around 5 billion years old.  That apparently means I don't believe in god.

    So who really is discriminating against who here ?

    Parent

    What's obvious is that it is getting (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    harder and harder to maintain the wall between religion and government because perpetuating the myth that liberals and those on the left reject God only serves those who want to break down that wall and impose their version/interpretation of religion on all of us.

    Pushing back against that onslaught isn't "taking shots" at Christians, it's standing up for my right not to have someone else's religious beliefs control my everyday life.  Framing the pushback as "taking shots" or "hating" only helps legitimize what is increasingly becoming a Crusades-like mission to transform our secular government into one that is ruled by religious law.

    I'm not telling anyone what to believe or where to worship or how to live their lives - so why is rejecting others' intrusions into my personal business considered a form of hatred or disdain or elitism?  Because making people like me the bad guys for wanting to keep religion out of government helps keep the other side energized and focused on using the government to achieve religious goals.

    As it happens, I am a person of faith, so I know quite well that my liberal place on the political spectrum does not include hating or disdaining anyone else's religious choices and beliefs - and I know there are a lot of other people like me, who believe - or not - and have that same live-and-let-live philosophy.  Religion is - or should be - personal, but when people who call themselves Christians decide that our secular government should really be carrying out their beliefs, rest assured that I will have something to say about it.  Not about the beliefs - let's be clear about that - but about the imposition of them on others.

    The left does not hate religion; it hates having its presence in our daily lives being controlled by others, which by extension controls and overrides our own beliefs.  I don't reject the beliefs of others, but having mine considered not good enough, or me not worthy of being allowed to make my own decisions about personal matters, feels more like hate and disdain and elitism to me, but what do I know?

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    I wish I could put my thoughts into words as well as you do.

    Parent
    this is still a Christian country (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:26:16 PM EST
    and the rest of us are just living in it.

    "It's as if we have to hide our beliefs in the closet because only a moron would base a political decision on their actual faith."

    When was the last time you saw any politician hide their beliefs out of fear of political repurcussion?  They trumpet it as loud and as often as they can.

    15% of this country identifies as not religious.  I have a hard time seeing them as the political power brokers.  You say 90+% of Christians don't think I'm going to hell just for my lack of church.  The same applies for 90+% of that 15% that doesn't think you're stupid because you do.  But your 10% is a lot more numerous and louder than mine.  People of my ilk don't like to hear about how we are immoral slutty baby killers that are going to hell either.  And if 10% of my "ilk" called you a bad name, I apologize.  But it strikes me that more than 10% of your "ilk" is trying to legislate my vagina.  So I have a hard time mustering up much outrage about your hurt feelings.

    Parent

    American conservative christians (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    have, historically, ALSO had a similar consistently condemnatory attitude toward organized groups of christians who ask 'the followers of Christ' to walk their talk: ie, Quakers, Liberation Theologions, the Catholic Worker Movement, MLK (though conservatives would like THAT history to be buried..along with King..)

    This meme that the Left is across-the-board anti-christian is at least as much lurid, right-wing, base-rallying-spin as it is grounded in any historical reality..

    Parent

    Life is hard, it is hard for all of us (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:04:28 PM EST
    How you deal with that does not make you special. In a healthy society you are not more beautiful or a unique snowflake.  You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile.  You get to have what gets you by, now respect that everyone else gets to have what gets them by too as long as it isn't hurting you inside your aura, outside your aura is the world and you don't own that.  If your aura gets too big we may end up having to send you to a nicely padded place.  We would at this time do this whether we are Christians or not, so let us all try to preserve that humanistic commonality.  Life is hard.

    Parent
    His position and speech (none / 0) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    were not at all ridiculous.  They assumed semi-rational actors on the other side and in the time since 2006 the right has moved further right and become more irrational and extremist.  But that won't last forever or even, IMHO, for very much longer.

    The pendulum will sway back and when it does, the idea of triangulation and outreach will be completely relevant. In addition, the high road (which is what I'd prefer the triangulation tactic be called) is going to pay dividends in this election and the reasonableness that was blasted by many, is what has many reluctant moderates and independents leaning towards Obama and the dems this fall.

    So when we judge whether the tactic worked or not, we have to take into account not just the battles that Obama was destined to lose anyway (The Deal, Stimulus, etc.) but also how his tone his tone throughout the presidency is going to reverse the 2010 election trend.

    If dems retain the senate and retake seats in the House or hold their ground, some measure of that success should be attributed to the appearance by dems of being the party willing to work towards compromise.  That's being discounted here.

    If he had (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    paid any attention to the 90's he would not have thought this for one minute. He thought that his "awesomeness" would solve all the problems of the partisan divide and the problems in the 90's were due to Bill Clinton and not the GOP.

    Was Obama deaf to what Bush/Cheney did for 8 years? He was either clueless or politically inept when it came to this type of thing.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    Actually, I think the problem is narcissistic personality disorder....

    Parent
    I don't think he was clueless (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    maybe politically inept.  I think that his biggest problem is arrogance. I remember he said that the difference between the midterms of 96 and 2010 would be that in 2010 the party would have him in the white house.  My my that worked out great.  

    Parent
    If you were insentient before 2006 (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    I get how you would have that idea. But anyone conscious from 1980 onward had no reason to believe rational actors on the far right religious fundamentalist wing of the GOP.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    that the American people want someone to try to bring the parties together even if it means that not every single objective is accomplished.  In addition, let's keep it real. Democrats had a super majority for about six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken's swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy's death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk's swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.  The rest of this time he was faced with an opposition which was against him.

    The american people wanted him to reach out to the other side and it was worth the attempt. The idea that Obama should have spit fire to his opponents from day 1 flies contrary to common sense and what a material portion of his supporters wanted him to do.

    He was elected with a message of bipartisanship.  His mandate was to try bipartisanship. He tried as much for much of the first 3 years of his presidency (and when he didn't he rammed through the biggest healthcare reform in decades and a massive stimulus).

    The idea that Obama should have been started from day one throwing daggers at the GOP runs contrary to everything he campaigned on.  

    So you might disagree with his tactics, but he was basically doing what he was elected to do.  He gave it a shot.  It didn't work and now he's moved on.  

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    That is just wrong.

    Parent
    people wanted him to reach out to the other side (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    Horsepucky. I mean horsesh*t.

    The other side wanted him to reach out to the other side. So they could get what they wanted out of the sucker before chopping his arm off with a hatchet.

    Parent

    the American people could not care less (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    about reaching out to the other side.  They say they do, but they don't.  When they put the democrats in charge of everything it is because they want the democrats to act like democrats.  When the democrats failed to do that, they fired the democrats. That's it in a nut shell.
    And please stop trying to sell us Obomneycare. No one on either side is happy with it.  It was weak and gutless and fell way short of what was needed.  With the majorities Democrats held at the time taking the public option off the table was nothing more than a favor to big healthcare companies.  

    Parent
    There is a (none / 0) (#26)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    material difference between the right of the 80s and 90s and the right of today.

    I think it is easy to pretend that they are the same monster but they are not.

    Parent

    Same monster, just using different (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    weapons against a black president with a "funny" name, as he puts it. They are pretending he is a Muslim because it is convenient. And here, yes, I will call their rank and file stupid for believing it.

    Parent
    In Jim Lehrer's "Tension City," he (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    noted Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain "John" during the debates but Mr. McCain never called Mr. Obama "Barack."  Surprising, given the knee-jerk reaction to that "funny" name.  

    Parent
    What did he call Obama, "that guy"? (none / 0) (#53)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    or "that man" or something?

    One thing that Game Change did not do was highlight McCain's ineptitude (while he still came off smelling as an incredible hypocrite and reckless cowboy for picking Palin in the first place).

    Parent

    Lehrer, as moderator/questioner, (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    was trying to get the candidates to look and and talk directly to each other.  Obama finally complied but McCain kept looking at the camera and Lehrer.  I don't remember what Lehrer stated McCain used to address Sen. Obama.  Just not "Barack."

    Parent
    I tend to think McCain just didn't (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    trust himself to pronounce the name right so stayed away from it altogether.


    Parent
    We know, we know ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    Obama has it sooooooooo much harder with today's Right than the Right of the 80's and 90's.  Worst ... right ... e-vah!

    Pffffttt.

    BTW - You remember the "Right of the 80's and 90's" so well.  How old were you in the 80's and 90's?

    Parent

    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    Were any of us around in the 40s? If not, does that mean that we can't comment on the mood at the time or the political environment?

    Bottom line: I think there is a difference between our opposition today and the opposition as little as a decade ago.  This is in part because the demographic trends have made the parties demonstrably more polarized.  The number of swing districts has demonstrably decreased and thus the number of representatives and senators with flexibility to accept the other parties proposals has decreased. That's just fact.  We can subjectively  argue about whether you believe the party is worse now or better.

    But we can OBJECTIVELY examine the congressional districts and states to see if the elected representatives come from more partisan or mixed districts and then track how that influences voting.

    It's fine if people want to believe that things have been this way since the 80s and that this is no different.  Just give me a demonstrable metric on which you are basing that opinion.
    That's an objective test.  The objective test says that republicans are more partisan right now than they have been since early last century.

    Parent

    Your link merely proves ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    ... that there are fewer swing districts.  Your logical leap that this somehow proves that the Right is worse today than in the 80's or 90's is laughable.

    Irrelevant.  Were any of us around in the 40s? If not, does that mean that we can't comment on the mood at the time or the political environment?

    Entirely relevant.  Your want others to accept your opinion of the Right in the 80's/90's, despite the fact that your opinion is based solely on what you read after-the-fact or learned on the playground.

    Sorry ... some of us were there firsthand.

    Parent

    You see, that's your problem (none / 0) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:32:35 PM EST
     "....the American people want someone to try to bring the parties together even if it means that not every single objective is accomplished.

    You're greedy,

    99% wouldn't be enough for you.

    ABG logic wins again.

    Parent

    Republicans ARE more partisan now (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    Since Obama has taken over their traditional Overton Window territory by moving farther right than George Bush ever could have gotten away with, Republicans have had no choice but to go right over the right edge batsh*t crazy to still be able to paint Obama as left of them.

    And he, and you, want to "reach out" to them? I know, I know, batsh*t crazy bipartisanship works, dammit!

    GOP Rep. introduces bill to trigger Obama's impeachment

    So does Karma, and it's been around a bit longer.

    The cognitive dissonance among many Obama supporters now as they try to claim Obama is "better" must be getting very nearly unbearable.

    The two party system is what it is - a two faced monster that oscillates back and forth promising promises to half the people while screwing the other half, and then reversing that with every change in party affiliation of the president - yet many people still have a hard time seeing that it is that whole two party scam that is the problem they need to be fighting against than the "other" party.

    When a salesman tries to tell you that you should buy his product and the best reason he can give you is that the other guys product is crap, he may be right about the other guys product, but it also means that salesman is deluding himself and hasn't got anything to sell you that's worth the you buying from him.

    But keep pitching. PT Barnum probably missed a few, so you might get lucky once in blue moon.

    At least you've got 20% of Republicans on your side now. I told you a month ago that Obama is a Shoe-in for 2012 Re-election, so what are you worried about?

    Parent

    Yes, some of us were around (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    I was "around in the 1940s" for nearly six whole months!  So was TL, who has almost the same birthday.

    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:18:05 PM EST


    Parent
    i was around for (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    all but 2.5 weeks of that entire year, kicking @ss & taking names - during the 2.5 weeks i was not around, i was busy getting ready to be around, so i think my absence can be excused

    Parent
    meant to say (none / 0) (#84)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    i was here for all but 2.5 weeks of the last year of the 1940s . . . so i just made it into that decade

    Parent
    Hmmmm. That puts you in (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    an entirely different light!  One of those dreaded BBs.  

    Parent
    A reminder-- (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by the capstan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    Were any of us around in the 40s? I was; and the 30's too (after FDR came along.)  I remember Watergate also: I think that was a pretty low point for the republicans, as it happens.

    Parent
    oh come one already (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:24:53 PM EST
    are the republicans spending 70 million dollars investigating Obama trying to find anything they can pin on him and interrupting every day of his presidency with legal harassment designed to make sure he could do nothing, no matter how badly the country is damaged?  
    No, that is not happening.  But you know what?  With all that Clinton was still a stronger president.  

    Parent
    I'm not bringing everything else into it (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:04:57 PM EST
    I am speaking only of the religious right aspects, since that is what the topic is about. I'm not even talking about legislation, so the Senate is meaningless.

    I'm saying there was no reason in 2006 to believe that the far right wing religious fundamentalists had any intention of trying to close any divides in the nation. None.

    Parent

    Dems never had a super-majority... (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    let alone a majority, because of the Blue Dogs. While there were 60 Dems, there never was a governing majority of true Dems in either House to make progress (aided by Obama's lack of will to see through a progressive agenda). Hence, the Democrats took the blame in the 2010 elections when it was really mostly the fault of the Blue Dogs in Congress.

    While in some respects it's preferable to have a Blue Dog so that the leadership and committees are in the correct hands, it's nice when the blame for Congress' dysfunction is appropriately directed at the Neanderthal party rather than the Neanderthals in disguise.

    (I apologize if any Neanderthals were offended by my remarks. It was not my intent.)

    Parent

    Bull (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    The apologists keep saying that - Obama couldn't really get what he wanted done because he didn't truly have a supermajority.  The part of the argument they conveniently leave out, however (besides the fact that, yes, he actually DID, and had he put forth actual good policies that could have been sold, he would have gotten them through), that he had an ENORMOUS amount of political capital and goodwill - even from a large number of Republicans. The apologists would have made the same argument if he had 80 votes in the Senate.

    The argument about the Blue Dogs is specious as well. While this is from the Club for Growth in 2010 (not a popular group around here, I realize), these numbers can be easily verified if you want to track each member's vote individually by bill at Congress.org - this just was a nice summary:

    Of particular note is the precipitous drop in 2007 when the Democrats retook control of the House for the first time since the Blue Dogs' founding. It was then that the Blue Dogs' influence ought to have been optimal. The Coalition's membership was larger than the Democrats' overall majority of 15 seats in the 110th Congress and 40 seats for most of the 111th. The Blue Dogs could have - and should have - been a moderating influence on Speaker Pelosi's economic agenda and President Obama's gargantuan spending increases.

    No such luck.

    On the biggest, defining votes since the Democrats took the House, the Blue Dogs have voted almost in lock-step with their party leaders.

    BILL                      BLUE DOG SUPPORT
    Fannie & Freddie Bailout      100%
    TARP                             63%
    2009 Stimulus                   91%
    Cash for Clunkers               85%
    2009 Obama Budget              74%
    Auto Bailout                     73%
    ObamaCare                       54%

    And with one leader in particular the Blue Dogs are more like lap dogs. Of the 62 votes cast by Speaker Pelosi during the current 111th Congress on economic issues, the Blue Dogs voted with her 80 percent of the time. Only two - Reps. Bobby Bright (AL-02) and Gene Taylor (MS-04) - have voted with Speaker Pelosi less than half the time, while three have voted with her every time.

    So please - enough with the "Obama's hands were tied from the beginning" argument.

    Parent

    It's not either/or (none / 0) (#59)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    Obama failed by hiring Geithner/Summers and Emmanuel, and coming into a negotiation having made grand concessions, but if you don't think Lieberman, Bayh, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Jim Cooper, Colin Peterson, Ike Skelton, John Salazar, or any of those jerks didn't undermine or wouldn't have undermined Obama/Hillary/FDR in those first two years, you're wrong.

    There's plenty of blame to go around....

    Parent

    That may be true (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    But to argue that he couldn't get things done becausr he only had a supermajority is just wrong.

    He didn't push for things and had fluid positions on many - if you were a conservative Democrat in a red district / state, would you stick your neck out for someone who flailed like a fish on every issue from the get-go?

    Parent

    I'm not even sure he had a "majority" (none / 0) (#63)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    for progressive "100 days" type legislation. In any event, we'll never know for sure because Obama didn't even try. But had Obama tried I'd put my money on the Blue Dogs for derailing anything. I suppose had Obama appropriately set the goal posts on our end we'd be better off now, but considering everything, as pathetic as it was, barely passed, I'm not sure how much different things would be right now.

    The point about the nuclear option is interesting, but I doubt the Blue Dogs would have gone for that either had that been attempted. I think a dozen or more Dem senators would have leapt at the chance to be part of the "gang of 18" to undercut the nuclear option too.

    Parent

    They will never use the nuclear option (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    Neither party will because they know things are cyclical, and one day both will have their turn again at being in the minority. It will never go away.

    Parent
    Dems never had a super-majority... (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    let alone a majority, because of the Blue Dogs. While there were 60 Dems, there never was a governing majority of true Dems in either House to make progress (aided by Obama's lack of will to see through a progressive agenda). Hence, the Democrats took the blame in the 2010 elections when it was really mostly the fault of the Blue Dogs in Congress.

    While in some respects it's preferable to have a Blue Dog so that the leadership and committees are in the correct hands, it's nice when the blame for Congress' dysfunction is appropriately directed at the Neanderthal party rather than the Neanderthals in disguise.

    (I apologize if any Neanderthals were offended by my remarks. It was not my intent.)

    Parent

    I swear I only hit post once... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by magster on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:52:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Your point bears repeating, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    but I think we need to remember that reconciliation was an option in many instances, requiring only a senate majority.  Indeed, after  much trying and crying, that procedure was finally needed to pass the  the Affordable Health Care Act.  

    Parent
    Oh, come on, ABG...this is just (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    a festival of wishful and magical thinking that does nothing except keep the other side in the game and  pressing hard toward their goals; would that someone, anyone, on "our" side had that kind of tenacity and focus.

    Instead of taking the high road against the current Republican field, against the Catholic Bishops and everyone else who longs for a day when their religion controls what the rest of us can do, we ought to be fighting for the principles that underpin whatever's left of this democracy.  But, we're not, because Obama's terrified of irrational people calling him unreasonable - as if they get to set the standard for what "reasonable" is.  And we let that happen.

    I cannot tell you how sick I am of the idea that compromise is some sort of - pardon the religious reference - Holy Grail for Democrats; it's not - it's how the right gets Dems to keep moving right - because they never, ever, move to the left.

    As for "tone," maybe someday when Dems learn to say "bless your heart" in the kindest, most genteel way, even as they relentlessly play hardball working toward their goals, it will have the kind of relevance and meaning I can get behind, but for now, all it means is that we are politely and calmly allowing ourselves to be completely and thoroughly screwed.

    Glad that's working for you...


    Parent

    Theres no reelection money (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    in moving to the left. And you can thank the completely effed priorities of the major shareholders, and the 19th century paradigms still promulagated at the economics and business schools for that.

    Parent
    No there isn't (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    He have to make do with the votes there are in moving to the left, instead...

    Parent
    And campaign for those votes (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    and against the REAL power in this country how? With a populist, town-to-town, whistle stop tour?

    Also, imo, it's primarily an illusion that political leaders like Obama have that much power these days to begin with..The systemic pathology here goes much deeper than the ineffectualness of any careerist Obamaas or Hillarys or Joe Bidens..

    Parent

    How? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    By moving to the left. The rest will follow.

    Parent
    If it were that simple (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    you'd probably still be in the country, no?

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:28:19 PM EST
    if it had been moving to the left all these years.

    If there were a few wall streeters facing criminal charges, geithner was in prison, there were no troops in the middle east, bush and cheney were in prison, there was a single payer plan being rammed down the throats of the country while the "insurance health" industry was being regulated heavily, there was a no seniors left behind policy in place, and a few other things I've not named here were happening, re-electing a president would cost maybe 5 bucks while the rest of the needed publicity would be free on the news, and the gop would be extinct in the midst of nearly full employment.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:27:41 PM EST
    your guy sucks they all suck, right.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:25:48 PM EST


    Parent
    You don't like (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    the obviously reality-based assumption at least semi-rationality from the Santorums or Boehners of the world, or passing judgment on the effectiveness of past action based on something as proven reliable as wishful tea-leaf reading predictions of the future?

    Me neither.

    Parent

    Yes, and Pope Benedict XVI (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    seems to be trying to re-orchestrate  Andrew Lloyd Webber's rock opera, Jesus Christ Superstar, into Jesus Christ Superpac, by wadding deep into US campaign politics.   Once again, in his speech to US Bishops (March 9) he called on them to beef up teaching about the evils of premarital sex and cohabitation and denounced the "powerful" gay marriage lobby in America.

    And, the Catholic bishops do not need too much reminding, what with their contraception theology foisted upon their affiliated enterprises and as a part of their hospital mergers. Intemperate speech, such as Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, likening  gay pride marchers  to the KKK, is more inclined to draw ire than awe.

    It would be so satisfying (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    if women and gay men got together and marched on the Vatican asking the Pope to mind his own business and leave America alone.  Maybe we could send him a copy of the constitution in extra big letters for easy reading.
    Maybe we can all meet where ever the red beanie boys congregate and give them a copy and invite them to stick to preaching to those who show up to mass.
    Talk about the interference of foreign powers.

    Parent
    Sometimes I think that the (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 07:55:13 AM EST
    Catholic bishops and Evangelical preachers believe that Jeebus wrote the Constitution.  

    Parent
    Religion And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment