August 10, 2005

The Party of "I Don't Know What I'm Talking About"

The Democrats, once again, are attempting to talk morals. Since this is a subject with which they are not familiar, they should probably give up trying to convince people they have them. Unfortunately, for them, they just can't seem to give this particular bone up. And as long as they continue talking, we'll continue getting gems like the following from California Democrat Senator Jack Scott:

"I don't think God is either a Democrat or a Republican," said California state Sen. Jack Scott (search), a Democrat. "The moral values that I really care deeply about is justice for the poor and peacemaking and so that's the reason that I wouldn't call the Republican Party the party of religion."

Huh? Could someone translate this gibberish for me? I honestly don't remember being called the "party of religion" and even if we were, what would it have to do with peacemaking and justice for the poor? And is he saying that morals are equalivent to religion? Because if they are, then he's started one heck of a conflict for the "separation" crowd.

Last month, Democratic spiritual leaders gathered in Berkeley, Calif., to focus on resurrecting the American spiritual left. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is bringing God back into the Democratic fold by adding a page on the party's Senate Web site aimed at religious voters.

And again, Mr. Reid, I ask what happend to your "separation" mantra? Out of curiosity, and since Fox didn't provide a link to the specified page, I went to the DNC page and tried to find what they were talking about. The only mention of religion that I could find is a speech that Dean made to a Methodist church claiming how close they are in values. Of course he spends most of the speech demonizing Republicans and completly ignoring history. I was especially amused at this exerpt:

"The Republican leadership likes to talk about their connection with African Americans and their heritage as the party of Lincoln. This new stump is chock full of apology but light on true repentance...

"Like America, the Democratic Party has grown and evolved and our relationship with the African American community is a progressive movement...

The DNC has grown and evolved in their realationship with blacks? So does that mean that you've stopped lynching them and given up your battle against civil rights? Because historically, that's what the DNC has stood for. Heck, you're even being sued for reparations by people in the black community. But I suppose as long as you can pretend your past isn't there, then you can convince anyone you're on thier side.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Democrats want to convince people they have morals, then they need to take a very hard look at their policies. Stop murdering innocent babies and releasing hardend killers. That only proves you've got it backward. And my definition of morals doesn't include allowing anyone to do anything that they like no matter how depraved. Even if you aren't Christian, there are some things that civilized people should be able to agree are simply wrong.

Posted by: Drew at 08:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Would it be fair to call the democrats the party of Tissue?

Posted by: Brad at August 10, 2005 08:16 AM (6mUkl)

2 Democrats are the party with morals. Right. And I guess we have always been at war with Eastasia...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 10, 2005 08:34 AM (0yYS2)

3 I don't claim any religion as my own yet, I do share some of the same morals as the religious do. Common sense tells me certain things are right and wrong, not religion. For a party that spends so much time demonizing the religious they certainly are trying hard to convince others they are religious too. They got the wrong message in the last election. Frankly, I (and many others) never questioned their religiosity. I do have a problem with double standards and hypocrisy though. That's why I'm not a member of any political group either. Without taking a side in either argument, consider this: Many who are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty respond that those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are the same as them. They're not the same. By using this argument they conveniently ignore the reasoning behind each argument. Rather than defend their views, they attack back. It's like answering a question with a question. It's as if I call you an asshole and you respond with, "Oh yeah? So are you."

Posted by: Oyster at August 10, 2005 09:28 AM (fl6E1)

4 >>>Last month, Democratic spiritual leaders gathered in Berkeley, Calif., to focus on resurrecting the American spiritual left. Lookout! the Dems are trying to "impose their morality" on us.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2005 02:02 PM (8e/V4)

5 Amazing. You'll have to explain to me how the current Democratic Party should bear any responsibility for lynchings and segregation. How am I supposed to keep from using the word "lie" when you (purposefully?) neglect to include certain important facts... you know, like the fact that racist Southern Democrats left the party to join the Republicans after the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations gradually shifted policy in favor of Affrican Americans (Johnson not so gradually... and this statement should not be taken as an effort to diminish the role of liberal Republicans like Earl Warren). Again, while this blog should certainly not be held to the standards of a research journal (and I never implied such a thing), it should be held to basic standards of truth telling, use of evidence, and rationality. That is, if you care at all about your reputation.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 10, 2005 05:59 PM (REz6/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
20kb generated in CPU 0.0259, elapsed 0.1198 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1092 seconds, 241 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.