Governing through Reason
Democratic Convention: Day 1
Today kicks off the Democrats’ response to last week’s Republican National Convention. Charlotte, North Carolina, is the host city, a choice made when it seemed possible for President Barack Obama to carry the state. But the 2012 Tar Heels’ political climate is not as friendly to the Democrats as their 2008 counterparts, and Obama won the state’s electoral votes by a mere 0.33 percent four years ago.
Nonetheless, the venue has long been set, and so the Democrats will be delivering their take on the politics of the day from Charlotte.
Governor Lincoln Chafee
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have been reluctant to release a detailed schedule of events. We do know that First Lady Michelle Obama will deliver a speech tonight, as will independent Governor (and former Republican Senator) Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
Chafee’s DW-NOMINATE score of –0.055 made him the most fiscally liberal Republican Senator during his four terms, and the Republican Party hardliners’ label of RINO (Republican In Name Only), coupled with his 2006 loss to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, led him to ultimately abandon the Party altogether.
Former President Jimmy Carter will address the delegates via video.
Actor Kal Penn, best known for his roles in the Harold & Kumar movies and on the television series House, will be speaking tonight as well. He had left House to work in the Obama administration for a while.
Mayor Julián Castro
Tonight’s keynote speaker is San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro. The 37-year-old is the identical twin of Texas State Representative Joaquín Castro, who will be introducing him. Their parents were both political activists. Both major political parties are heavily courting the Latino vote, and it is clear that Castro’s Latino roots influenced the decision to give him a speaking role. Castro has developed a reputation as a serious contender for the Presidency in 2016, and his position as the keynote speaker on opening night reflects that; eight years ago, that role was filled by Barack Obama, who was making his first Senate run at the time. His speech will be watched closely by many tonight.
Here’s tonight’s schedule:
5:00 PM EDT
This is the relatively weak hour, filled with a lot of low-level pomp and circumstance. But there are two speakers of note:
- Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Weston, FL) at the beginning of the hour, and
- Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Mechanicsville, MD), who will finish the hour
6:00 PM EDT
- Representative Barbara Lee (D-Oakland, CA)
- Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Retired)
- Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory A. Booker
- North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue
- Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry
- Representative Charles Gonzalez (D-San Antonio, TX)
- Representative Nydia M. Velázquez (D-Brookyn, NY)
- Illinois Governor Pat Quinn
- Cincinnati, Ohio, firefighter Doug Stern
- Former Virginia Governor and current Senate candidate Tim Kaine
7:00 PM EDT
- Charlotte, North Carolina, Mayor Anthony R. Foxx
- Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
- Former President Jimmy Carter (as a video)
- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
- House Candidate Joe Kennedy, III
- Former Representative Robert Wexler (D-Boca Raton, FL)
8:00 PM EDT
- Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mayor R. T. Rybak
- Representative Jared Polis (D-Boulder, CO)
- National Abortion Rights Action League President Nancy Keenan
- House Candidate Tammy Duckworth
- Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee
- Representative James E. Clyburn (D-Columbia, SC)
- Representative Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles, CA)
9:00 PM EDT
- Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
- Kal Penn
- Craig Robinson and Maya Soetoro-ng (Michelle Obama’s brother and Barack Obama’s sister)
- Lilly Ledbetter
- Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
10:00 PM EDT
- Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley
- House Candidate Joaquin Castro
- San Antonio, Texas, Mayor Julián Castro
- First Lady Michelle Obama
As with last week, we’ll be here for the festivities. PBS will start coverage at 8:00 PM EDT, and C-SPAN will probably start closer to 2:00 PM EDT. You can watch the C-SPAN coverage online. Join us in the comments. What do you think will happen tonight?
Related articles
- Chafee will speak at Obama’s convention (wpri.com)
- What to watch for at the DNC this week (cbsnews.com)
- Convention Spotlight Beckons San Antonio Mayor (nytimes.com)
- Democrats gather in Charlotte hoping to build momentum (stltoday.com)
-
#202 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
-
#203 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Then can you provide the quote you objected to, in context, so we are all on exactly the same page? That would make the conversation a lot more clear.”
“Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport,” Strickland said. “It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps. In Matthew, chapter 6, verse 21, the scriptures teach us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. My friends, any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America.”
-
#204 written by rgbact 8 months ago
I’m cool with Dems quoting the Bible to justify rich people bashing. I’ve said before,Jesus wouldn’t have been a huge fan of capitalism. That said, I don’t remember an actual GOP politician quoting the Bible to justify pro-life or anti gay marriage. I could be wrong and maybe its common. To me its irrelevant since I don’t consider my pro-life or anti-gay marriage beliefs to come from the Bible. They come from basic logic.
-
Thanks for the quote, Mule.
I see it much as someone might quote Shakespeare or Teddy Roosevelt or maybe Gandhi. YMMV. Strickland certainly wasn’t proposing any changes to law, or restriction of anyone’s rights. Nor was it a prescriptive or proscriptive message, but only an expression of a value. Nor was it a misuse of the quote in question, that is, an alteration of its meaning.
If I understand your objection — if someone like Strickland would object to Republicans using the Bible to make their case, then he shouldn’t use the Bible to make his. I don’t know if Strickland is on record as objecting to Republican use of the Bible. I think, in order to have a case against Strickland, you’d have to show that he has objected to Republican use of the Bible.
Turning it around, of course, someone who supports Republican use of the Bible to make homophobic points or to advise putting limits on women’s health care, has no call to object to Strickland’s use of the Bible to make the case that one’s values are revealed by how one uses one’s wealth.
On a larger point — If someone else objects to Republican use of the Bible in political arguments, shouldn’t that person also object to the way Strickland used the Bible? I understand the argument, but I think it misses the point of the original objections.
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with someone who acts out of a sense of faith. A lot of the civil rights movement was motivated by faith, and supported by Biblical injunction to love thy neighbor. Much of the opposition to slavery was done on the basis of Christian love and charity (“Amazing Grace” was written by a former slave owner to describe the sudden realization of the horrors of slavery).
I do, however, object to the use of the Bible (or any religious work) for the purpose of restricting others’ rights or spreading intolerance. I also object to the dishonest claim of helplessness in the face of scripture, as if the speaker is unavoidably bound by it — while then ignoring all the parts of the Bible that the speaker doesn’t like. I object to using the Bible as a weapon to force others to do what you want them to do.
Strickland wasn’t trying to use the Bible to force anyone to do (or to not-do) anything. He certainly wasn’t using it to restrict anyone’s rights, or to spread any form of hatred. His point would have been the same with or without the biblical quote — unlike, say, the opponents of same-sex marriage, who don’t have any argument whatever without their misquoting of scripture. Strickland used the biblical reference as a literary and poetic illustration of the point he was making, not as rationalization and excuse for imposing his will on others.
I’m perfectly happy if you disagree with any or all of this. Feel free. My own opposition isn’t that people use the Bible as part of their arguments. It is the way they use it as an attempt to control others. It’s the difference between using a chisel as one of many tools in the process of carving a sculpture — or using it to poke out someone’s eye, and then claiming the chisel did it.
-
Mule,
I would really love it if somebody – ANYBODY – else would chime in on this back-and-forth between DC and myself.
Sorry…I’ve been away this morning. This week has been pretty busy for me, aside from the Convention.
I’m opposed to the use of scripture as justification for a position, but I don’t mind the use of stories from the Bible as allegory. In that regard, it’s like referring to a movie or novel or Shakespeare…the goal is to draw upon something in common between the speaker and the listener, as a form of conceptual shorthand. Which was Strickland doing in this case? I interpreted it as allegory.
-
Mule,
A good article that hits on some of the things we’ve argued about here.
I have numerous issues with that article. From the article:
And, second, about two-thirds of Romney’s income had already been taxed at the corporate level.
No, it hadn’t. This is an old chestnut that Republicans bring up on a regular basis. Money does not get taxed. The tax is on the flow of money. In electrical terms, taxes are resistance, and resistance (tax) applies to amperage (the flow of money), not voltage (stored money). Romney’s income wasn’t Romney’s income until it flowed from Bain Capital to Mitt Romney. Bain was taxed, not on the money, but on the flow of the money from wherever they got it into Bain’s accounts.
To argue that money should be taxed only once would mean that the only taxes that could be collected would be collected on newly-created money. Imagine combining that philosophy with a currency tied to a fixed commodity. The result would be no taxes on anything, ever. I’m sure there are people who would rejoice over that, but I’m not among them. Perhaps Michael Tanner is.
Democrats were quick to dismiss [donating money to charity] as substantively different from and less important than paying taxes
Perhaps some were, but that didn’t appear to be the mainstream view from what I saw. Substantively different, yes. Less important? Not so much. But, really, if the only reason he paid so little in tax was that he donated most of his income to charity, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it. I’m uncomfortable with the tithing in Romney’s case, because the Church of LDS is pretty unyielding about it, making that form of charity remarkably similar to the type against which Penn Jillette railed.
Responding to a poll showing that most Americans were far more likely to rely on family, personal savings, or other forms of aid than on government, the Obama administration hastened to put out word that “given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want you to know about the benefits that could help you,” according to USA.gov’s “government made easy” website.
And there’s something wrong with this? Look, if people choose not to make use of the assistance, that’s fine. But if the reason that they don’t make use of the assistance is either lack of awareness or architectural barriers (e.g., making a person register for it online when they don’t have access to a computer), then it needs to be fixed. Tanner assumes that the issue Obama has is with people who choose not to participate. There’s no evidence to support his assumption.
studies suggest that private charity is more effective and more efficient than government programs
And other studies suggest the opposite. So what?
To modern liberalism, anything truly important must be done by government
Nope. To modern liberalism, some truly important things must be done by government. But not the only truly important things. He’s building a caricature there.
It is reflected in a belief that government jobs are especially ennobling, while people who work in the private sector are necessarily “greedy” and “corrupt.” Just listen to how President Obama refers to government workers versus how he talks about private business. Remember Julia, the Obama campaign’s sad vision of a composite American, who can’t do anything, from going to school to starting a business to buying her own birth control, without the government’s help.
More caricature. The underlying issue is that businesses necessarily chase profits, and that chase doesn’t always align with the needs of the nation. The shorter a company’s time horizon, the less likely that they align. There’s nothing inherently evil about that, but it does mean that we need a force to combat those instances where they are out of alignment.
It is government, the president believes, that makes all else possible. That is why the president repeatedly expresses concern over cutbacks in government spending, while observing that “the private sector is doing just fine.”
Absolutely, patently false. He said that “the private sector is doing just fine”, while expressing concern over cutbacks in government spending, because the unemployment rate would be an entire percentage point lower if we didn’t have the government cutbacks. Private-sector employment has been rising at a pretty good clip. No, it’s not a boom, but it’s moderately healthy. Public-sector employment is dropping almost as fast as private-sector is rising, though, and that’s what makes the overall employment picture look so bad. That is the context for Obama’s statement.
And, incidentally, government does make all else possible. Even a libertarian such as yourself has said as much. The question isn’t the nice binary one Tanner presents. Rather, it’s a question of which government functions make the rest possible. But such a nuanced discussion gets in the way of his simple caveman argument, “government bad”.
-
#208 written by WA7th 8 months ago
I didn’t see it, so don’t have an opinion as to Strickland’s intent, but the statement “any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America” is a strong enough statement that people of all types could possibly agree with without his backing it up with a Bible verse.
Not that I think there’s anything wrong with it or think he’s stretching the context of the verse too far, but rather I think he’s limiting his audience by appearing to pander to one group or to slight those that were already a lost cause to begin with. By bringing that verse into it, he could present himself needlessly as bringing a holier-than-thou attitude of “Oh, so you call yourself Christians, do you?” into a strictly patriotic argument. Why even go there?
-
Mule,
Look, here’s the deal. Either Mitt Romney is doing illegal things with his wealth – and is consequently trampling on the rights of others in the process – or he isn’t.
I disagree. Legality is secondary. Joseph Kennedy and Preston Bush made their money legally, but in a horrifically unethical way. What they did was made illegal, post facto, which meant that they weren’t criminally liable for their actions. But I wouldn’t expect you to argue that, because what they did was legal, that it means what they did was right, or that we should argue that what they did was acceptable or noble. Am I wrong in my expectations?
-
-
#213 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“I’m cool with Dems quoting the Bible to justify rich people bashing. I’ve said before,Jesus wouldn’t have been a huge fan of capitalism.”
It’s my understanding Jesus was (or is) opposed to things like greed, obsession over material wealth, etc. That’s not confined to capitalism (which is merely an order to how markets run) and can be found in socialist economies, mixed economices, etc. Yes, capitalism can be used for evil/greed/etc., but weighing in on how markets should operate wasn’t really part of the gospel message, just how/what people should believe and act.
“Strickland certainly wasn’t proposing any changes to law, or restriction of anyone’s rights.”
I realize that, but moralizing with that kind of platform sends a very distinct message…
“If I understand your objection…”
You’re definitely getting much closer, and I agree it would only be fair to Strickland to isolate his reaction to conservatives/Republicans and their use of scripture to make similar points from a different worldview. If he is fine with it, then it’s consistent. I can’t judge him by the disgust of fellow left-wingers, although I know that’s a reaction many on the left have towards conservatives when they do that, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
“On a larger point – If someone else objects to Republican use of the Bible in political arguments, shouldn’t that person also object to the way Strickland used the Bible? I understand the argument, but I think it misses the point of the original objections.”
I don’t think it “misses the point” quite like you think it does, but I’ll accept it as major progress that you seem to at least “understand the argument.”
“I do, however, object to the use of the Bible (or any religious work) for the purpose of restricting others’ rights or spreading intolerance. I also object to the dishonest claim of helplessness in the face of scripture, as if the speaker is unavoidably bound by it — while then ignoring all the parts of the Bible that the speaker doesn’t like. I object to using the Bible as a weapon to force others to do what you want them to do.”
I object to those things to but liberals/progressives come off as a bit short-sighted and hypocritical when they constantly make such a fuss about keeping religious discussions out of politics but then pull out a scripture from time to time when it just so happens to fit into whatever agenda they’re trying to push. Look, greed is bad (or sin, if you will). And so are a number of other things. But if you want the discussion to stay away from religion and only what’s legal as defined by our secular rights, just be consistent. Put it this way, what if a Republican speaker had gotten up and used scripture to throw around a bunch of “shame on yous” towards Democratic women who support freedom of choice, even if he wasn’t arguing for a change in the law or any infringement on their rights? I’m sure many on the left would’ve been disgusted by the display. And again, just because the speaker was dragging religion into politics, even if it wasn’t an argument for a change in the law.
“Strickland wasn’t trying to use the Bible to force anyone to do (or to not-do) anything. He certainly wasn’t using it to restrict anyone’s rights, or to spread any form of hatred.”
Maybe he wasn’t trying to spread “hatred” but he was sure playing up to the politics of envy/jealousy in his diatribe.
“It is the way they use it as an attempt to control others”
Ahh, but here’s the subtlety of what Strickland did. While he didn’t openly argue for any change in the law or anything else like that, he openly disparaged Romney’s management of his own wealth, giving the impression he’d like to control how Romney manages his wealth if given the chance.
“I’m opposed to the use of scripture as justification for a position, but I don’t mind the use of stories from the Bible as allegory.”
I think it’s hilarious that every time a progressive/liberal uses scripture it’s spun such that it’s defensible, appropriate, contextual, etc. but when a conservative does it, it’s somehow always inappropriate, out of context, and consequently indefensible.
Hence my suggestion for lefties to just play by the rules they tried to push initially and have been trying to push all along. Just keep any talk of religion to yourselves.
-
-
Mule,
Maybe he wasn’t trying to spread “hatred” but he was sure playing up to the politics of envy/jealousy in his diatribe.
No, I don’t think so. I know that it is a popular right-wing meme just now to caricature objections to Republican tax policy as being “politics of envy/jealousy”. But that straw man betrays ignorance or intentional misdirection. Are you interested in learning what the objection to Republican tax policy really is about?
-
Mule,
I think it’s hilarious that every time a progressive/liberal uses scripture it’s spun such that it’s defensible, appropriate, contextual, etc. but when a conservative does it, it’s somehow always inappropriate, out of context, and consequently indefensible.
I think it’s remarkable how certain you are that every time a progressive/liberal uses scripture it’s OK, while every time a conservative does it, it’s not.
I do believe that it’s important to consider who is doing it, but that’s not a liberal/conservative sort of thing. Mike Huckabee has made it clear that he believes scripture should drive both public policy and law, so when he starts quoting scripture it has a lot of dangerous context within it. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney; if he were to quote scripture, I’d find it far less meanacing. It’s the broader context that matters.
I don’t know enough about Strickland to be able to tell whether he believes that scripture should drive public policy and law. If I find that he does, I’m not going to be as charitable in my reading of his use of scripture in his speech.
-
#218 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
”
Exactly. There is a key difference between,
“The Bible tells us that…”
and
“We’re inviting God’s judgment upon our nation when we fail to follow the Bible, which tells us that…”
Yeah, and just about the only difference is one is more verbose than the other.
Look, whether or not you actually articulate words like “We’re inviting God’s judgement” or “God doesn’t approve of this” or anything else like it, if you’re using a public platform, quoting scripture, and offering a clear rebuke of someone as Strickland did, you’re staking out the same moral position.
I’m glad you brought it up, because honestly, putting it all in context and taking another look, there are a lot of similarities to what Strickland said to what Dan Cathy said.
-
#219 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“I think it’s remarkable how certain you are that every time a progressive/liberal uses scripture it’s OK, while every time a conservative does it, it’s not.”
The certainty isn’t that every time a liberal uses scripture it’s okay and when a conservative does, it’s not. The certainty is that it’s always spun to look favorable for liberals and unfavorable for conservatives.
-
WA7th,
the statement “any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America” is a strong enough statement that people of all types could possibly agree with without his backing it up with a Bible verse.
Indeed. I’m not suggesting that Strickland’s use of scripture was necessary.
I think he’s limiting his audience by appearing to pander to one group or to slight those that were already a lost cause to begin with.
Most likely. In that regard, it was probably counterproductive for him to include it.
-
Ahh, but here’s the subtlety of what Strickland did. While he didn’t
openly argue for any change in the law or anything else like that, he
openly disparaged Romney’s management of his own wealth, giving the
impression he’d like to control how Romney manages his wealth if given
the chance.That’s another completely false characterization. The point has got nothing to do with trying to influence how Romney chooses to manage his wealth. It has to do with not wanting someone who manages his wealth that way to be President.
But if you want the discussion to stay away from religion and only
what’s legal as defined by our secular rights, just be consistent.I believe I normally do. I usually go into discussions of the Bible and how it relates to political matters only when someone else does. There may be exceptions — no one’s perfect — but I don’t often use the Bible either sa rationalization or as illustrative allegory, unless someone I’m debating with does it first.
If you have an argument with Strickland, then please do take it up with him. As Michael did, I found Strickland’s reference to be poetic allegory more than anything else. YMMV, and you’re welcome to your opinion.
I get that you wanted liberals to object to Strickland’s use of the Bible. (Actually, I think you didn’t want them to, so that you could make the argument you’re actually making.) But your argument shows that you don’t really understand what the liberal objection is to the conservative use of the Bible. Are you interested in finding out?
-
#222 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“No, I don’t think so. I know that it is a popular right-wing meme just now to caricature objections to Republican tax policy as being “politics of envy/jealousy”. But that straw man betrays ignorance or intentional misdirection. Are you interested in learning what the objection to Republican tax policy really is about?”
I would believe you (and other progressives) if not for the messaging and the — as you guys like to call them — dog-whistles that are used. Look, if Strickland and other Dems want to make a case against Republican tax policy, then lay out a cogent and mathematical argument for what that policy would look like, how it would generate more revenue and reduce our debt burden, and do all those wonderful things without harming the poor and middle class. Going off on semi-neurotic rants about “beach houses in the Caymans” and “bank accounts in Switzerland” and make specific references to individual wealth metrics. That’s not necessary to debate tax policy. That’s a tactic to draw specific disparities in people’s affluence and ignite jealousy and rage.
-
#223 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
-
-
#225 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Are you interested in finding out?”
If I see one more iteration of this condescending and off-putting question from you, I’m going to unload a shit frenzy on your ass.
It’s espcially galling when it takes anywhere from 50 to 100 posts to finally get you to have a remote clue about the point I’m making and understanding it in a meaningful enough way for us to have dialogue.
-
If I see one more iteration of this condescending and off-putting
question from you, I’m going to unload a shit frenzy on your ass.You have just described how I feel about you nearly all the time. I manage to contain myself most days, because I know that underneath your condescension and ill manners there is actually an intelligent person.
By the way, I understood your objection from the beginning. I was hoping to provide for you a clue as to why your concerns were off-base, and predicated on a misunderstanding of why others object to conservative use of the Bible. I see you’re apparently not open to learning. That’s okay. I’ll let you have the last word, and I’ll move on. Thanks for the discussion.
-
#227 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“So, Mule, by your answer in #222, I gather that you don’t actually what to know what the liberal objection is that conservatives intentionally mischaracterize as “politics of envy”. Is that correct?”
All I’m asking is that you (in general, not you specifically) make your case in an objective, mathematical, and logical fashion, not with emotional appeal by quoting scripture or making snide remarks about specific individual wealth metrics (such as mansions, beach houses, yachts, etc.). Just talk policy and we’re fine. Continue with your rants about what one person (or a group of people) has, and I’ll take you less than seriously and assume it’s more about envy than establishing sound tax policy.
And keep in mind that I’ve argued for more aggressive tax rates on higher incomes than almost anyone else here, so it’s not like I’m defending low taxes on the wealthy. But I’m making my case for what’s the best use of the federal tax code, not through emotional appeals on what some people have and what some don’t.
-
#228 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“I see you’re apparently not open to learning.”
No, what I’m opposed to is spin and bullshit. I know that falls under the guise of “teachable material” for you, but sorry, I’m not interested.
“That’s okay. I’ll let you have the last word, and I’ll move on. Thanks for the discussion.”
Yeah, I think this one’s been beaten down. We’ve made our ponts. Time to move on.
-
#229 written by shortchain 8 months ago
Of course, when Mule requested ANYBODY to chime in, he didn’t mean me, but, what his argument boils down to is that only religious people should be allowed to point out that some religious person is not obeying the tenets of their own religion. People without the particular religion of the person in question are forbidden from pointing out hypocrisy, for example, or inconsistency (choosing to notice Deuteronomy, but ignoring the New Testament would be a case in point).
I freely admit that this position seems illogical to me. Just because a person hasn’t been initiated into the mysteries of the faith (or, as is more likely, has dropped out of believing in the faith with experience), that doesn’t mean a person is incapable of noticing and pointing out inconsistencies or hypocrisy.
In fact, this would seem to me, if accepted, to be a form of censorship.
-
#230 written by Rose 8 months ago
Coming late to the discussion, here is a bit of Mormon info. Every active Mormon meets with their Bishop annualy. This interview determnes whether their Temple Recommend card is renewed for the next year. Without this card, they cannot enter a temple under any circumstances, and I suspect they would not be supported by the church. Among the questions asked is “Have you been honest in your dealings with your fellow men?” I can think of several examples (selling a doped-up horse, “stretching” the truth about business dealings, etc), where I can’t see how Mitt could have said yes.
-
#231 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Of course, when Mule requested ANYBODY to chime in, he didn’t mean me, but, what his argument boils down to is that only religious people should be allowed to point out that some religious person is not obeying the tenets of their own religion. People without the particular religion of the person in question are forbidden from pointing out hypocrisy, for example, or inconsistency (choosing to notice Deuteronomy, but ignoring the New Testament would be a case in point).”
No, that’s not really what my argument is. I actually fall mostly in line with the progressive stance on this; that being that religion — and religious talk — should be kept out of politics, regardless of what you believe.
-
-
Mule,
Going off on semi-neurotic rants about “beach houses in the Caymans” and “bank accounts in Switzerland” and make specific references to individual wealth metrics. That’s not necessary to debate tax policy.
Goes to motive, your honor. The point here is that Romney has a vested interest in supporting tax policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. By itself, it’s not enough to “convict”, but when coupled with the evidence that he supports a tax policy that would reduce his tax rate to under one percent, and claims that the tax policy change would be revenue-neutral…it paints a picture.
-
#234 written by shortchain 8 months ago
Mule,
I’d like religion to be kept out of politics as well, but I don’t see it happening. Right now there’s a right-wing storm going on because there is no mention of “God” in the Democratic platform.And when was the last time an avowed atheist was elected to any office higher than dog-catcher?
Since religion cannot be kept out of politics, perhaps the best we can hope for is to keep politics out of religion — and even that seems a stretch, these days.
-
#235 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“I’d like religion to be kept out of politics as well, but I don’t see it happening. Right now there’s a right-wing storm going on because there is no mention of “God” in the Democratic platform.”
I saw that.…and the comments from Paul Ryan. Very self-serving, holier-than-thou, and unproductive. That’s precisely the pompous “look at me” attitude that Christ preached against. He told the Phariseesnot to go out and “pray loudly in the streets” and put on such a ridiculous display of their faith. Congressman Ryan and others would do well to take a second look at that passage.
“And when was the last time an avowed atheist was elected to any office higher than dog-catcher?”
Pete Stark? Although outside of him, it’s admittedly thin.
“Since religion cannot be kept out of politics, perhaps the best we can hope for is to keep politics out of religion — and even that seems a stretch, these days.”
Whatever works, because mixing the two does both a disservice.
-
#236 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Goes to motive, your honor. The point here is that Romney has a vested interest in supporting tax policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.”
I didn’t say they weren’t indicative of a conflict of interest and examples that the man is exorbitantly wealthy and may be better served doing something else besides being President; all I’m saying is that going off on a tangent on specific things like beach houses and Swiss accounts at the expense of having a debate over what a sound, fiscally-responsible tax code undermines the discussion.…and, in a subtle way, promotes the politics of envy. Look, we know Romney is absurdly rich and all that entails. Rather than make light of it, just put forth your plan and why it would be good for the country and shut up about the trivial details.
-
Mule,
The point is that the beach house and foreign accounts are indicative of the degree of wealth one needs to have to benefit from his proposed tax policy. I don’t doubt that there are some people who will respond to it from a perspective of envy, but it’s really hard to explain the motive without such illustrations. -
-
#239 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“The point is that the beach house and foreign accounts are indicative of the degree of wealth one needs to have to benefit from his proposed tax policy. I don’t doubt that there are some people who will respond to it from a perspective of envy, but it’s really hard to explain the motive without such illustrations.”
They can illustrate it however they like, but it doesn’t play well with people like myself. It comes off as unserious, partisan gotcha nonsense trying to pit one group against another. Maybe that plays well to the base, but that’s about it. I haven’t gotten the impression that anybody outside of the core left-wing (who you don’t need to win over anyway) was all that impressed.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Then can you provide the quote you objected to, in context, so we are all on exactly the same page? That would make the conversation a lot more clear.