In an attempt to win us over to their side, Dean calls us evil, intolerant
“You’re already upsetting Republicans here in Mississippi. Keep up the good work,” said Jackson Miss., Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. to DNC Chairman Howard Dean just before handing him the key to the city.
This was in an Associated Press story that began by praising Dean for touring historically Republican states and trying to convert them.
Dean was quoted as saying, “We will not concede the south,” and “The South will rise again and when it does it will have a D in its name.”
So in one paragraph we declare our determination to make Republican states into Democratic states, presumably by convincing them we are right and they are wrong, and a few paragraphs later we encourage Dean to continue upsetting the very Republicans he’s trying to win over. Clever strategy.
Say you and I were on a jury together. Say seven of us thought the guy was guilty and five were convinced he was innocent, so we argue. I am trying to convince you that he is guilty, and you are trying to convince me that he is innocent, so that one of us will get enough votes to settle the matter. Of course you already are at a disadvantage, because I already have two more votes on my side than you do. So you have to convince four of us to change our votes. How do you do it?
Isn’t it obvious? You call us evil, untrustworthy, intolerant and stupid. That’s bound to bring us over to your way of thinking immediately.
Dean said he wanted to reach out to people with values. This is part of a widespread, very wise but slightly too late attempt on Democrats’ part to establish that Republicans do not have the corner on morality. I’m not saying they’re all immoral. Only that this recent post-election “we have morals too” push is a day late and a dollar short.
He said the party has room for people with differing viewpoints on abortion, and that pro-life Democrats “care about kids after they’re born, not just before they’re born.” Aside from this being the one of the only times a liberal has used the words “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion,” this statement was otherwise nonsense so I won’t bother to address it.
“The way we’re going to win elections in this country is not to become Republican lite. The way we’re going to win elections in this country is to stand up for what we believe in” Dean said. “Now if only we knew what that was,” those standing closest thought they heard him mumble.
I wonder where he got information on how to win elections. Certainly not from his own party, which is particularly inept in that category.
In a previous speech in Kansas, Dean said the Democrats are in a battle of good and evil. He then felt the need to clarify (not unreasonably, for I’m sure there was confusion) that he was considering Democrats the “good” part of the equation.
On abortion he said it is not the issue. “The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.”
Statistically, there are far more pro-abortion men than women. The majority of women (many of whom have had abortions) support it far less than their male counterparts because they’re far more familiar with the serious emotional problems that accompany it. I will never get an abortion because I don’t believe in killing a living child, not because my pastor tells me not to. Being a Christian doesn’t make me incapable of making my own choices.
"Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue," Dean said. "I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant."
Also nonsense. I do think tolerance a virtue, but not the highest virtue. But that doesn’t matter because Democrats don’t actually want tolerance. They want people to be tolerant of them and their positions but when it comes to Christians, Republicans or anyone who disagrees with them, they fully support intolerance and discrimination.
I could list dozens of examples to back this point up, but since this is already getting too long I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do the research yourself.
6 Comments:
I couldn't agree with you more Kate. The current Democratic party and many of it's supporters have a one sided approach to politics. That party is sunk. It needs a complete turnover of it's old cronie leadership.
In regards to to "tolerance" I found a nifty quote on of the blogs that a semi-regularly check.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
G. K. Chesterton
I think that's about right.
Hmm... when HTML goes wrong...
I think I'll refrain from using it in the comments next time since Blogger won't record it properly. Sorry about that.
Actually I did close the tags. Blogger didn't parse it though. Somewhat irritating but survivable *smile*
Haha.
Anyways, it seems to me that the Dems are having themselves and nice little hissing fit. They want tolerance, but don't tolerant. This means that they know that they are in the minority and are the ones that need to be tolerated, otherwise they'll be tossed like a handgrenade with a missing pin.
Anyways, if they think that they'll be able to win the south by calling them evil and that the they (the south) will suddenly change their ways...more power to them.
So you don’t like being called evil or untrustworthy, well maybe others don't like being called weak, immoral, decadent and anti-family.
So what is your definition of morals? Are morals just going to Church, not whoring around, and voting republican because they censor bad things from your children. Or would you, as I do, say that morals are defined by how you treat people, freedom, equality, forgiveness, fairness, helping the poor and the weak instead of punishing them etc.?
Why are Christian "morals" the only thing that you define as morals?
And you brought up a good point, why don't Republicans care about people after they are born? Why do most of the people who call themselves pro-life support the death penalty? If you are so concerned about life, why don't you blog about that? I personally am for what ever keeps the line at the grocery store short, so euthanasia, abortion, capitol punishment are all fine by me but you as a pro lifer, should also be concerned about capitol punishment as well right? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite and we really couldn't be expected to take your pro-life stance seriously.
You also said "I will never get an abortion." Great, good for you, neither will I. I will never go to church either, but I won’t picket and protest people who do, nor will I try to make laws against them, especially ones that don't pertain to, or affect me personally.
I would love to see this list of examples of Democratic intolerance. Please, convince me that they are less tolerant that conservative Christian Republicans. I will take that challenge any day of the week.
You also seem to be under the presumption that the Democrats are this whimpering blip on the political radar and that they have no chance of ever wining another election. Remember the numbers when Clinton ran against Dole? Dole got, what, 10 states? The Democrats also won the 2000 election, but having your brother as Governor, and your Florida Campaign Chairman as Secretary of State, can see to it that you win anyway. And now to 2004, Kerry, a liberal from Massachusetts whose state had just legalized gay marriage, got 48% of the popular vote.
I'm not even a Democrat, why am I defending them so much? Maybe just because I am not a Republican either.
Post a Comment
<< Home