Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Monday, March 22, 2010

A Confederacy of Grown-ups, Ctd

(Cross posted at Vim and Vinegar) Readers of my blog will recognize the title of this post, A Confederacy of Grown-ups. It's a title I've used a couple times in the past to highlight behavior on the part of our elected officials and others that border on childish petulance. In the current instance, the target of my consternation is one Senator John McCain who, in response to the passage of HCR, stated: "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

While I would like to include some pithy statement about the how it would be impossible for the Republicans in Congress to cooperate any less, I leave the response to Harry Reid, posted from Balloon Juice, who seems to have found something he must have forgotten he lost:
For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.
At a time when our economy is suffering and we’re fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country—not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.
I don't think I could find any better way to phrase it.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Pray for President Obama

I would suggest that those who don't particularly care for President Obama should pray for his safety as well. Like him or not, just like President Bush was, he is our President. This is why it concerns me that the "Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8" T-shirts have been made and sold.

The verse by itself ("May his days be few; may another seize his position.") seems somewhat benign, but the intent behind it is anything but. The entire psalm can be found at this link, but for those who aren't much for clicking links, an extended portion of the prayer reads:

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

I first heard about this prayer, known as an Imprecatory Prayer about 2 years ago. The context in which I first heard it was that it was being invoked by a Baptist Minister (a Reverend Drake) against Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). The reason was that he felt that AU was an enemy of God because AU "asked the IRS to probe the tax-exempt status of Drake's congregation. You see, generally, churches are tax-exempt, which carries with it the burden of not being able to campaign for political candidates. It turns out that Rev. Drake issued a statement endorsing Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate," (from my post linked above).

The problem then, as now, is that the concept of imprecatory prayer is being misapplied. The original intent for imprecatory prayers are to ask God to intervene against His enemies. There is no call in the prayer for enemies of individuals, and there's no evidence whatsoever that President Obama, himself a Christian, is an enemy of God.

While I can only speculate that the majority of people who would purchase this are members of the Religious Right, or the Right in general, it seems likely that these would be the individuals who came up with the idea of putting this clever little line on a t-shirt. This is interesting, because it wasn't too long ago that this group of individuals (the Right) had among their number people who openly called for sedition trials for those who opposed the President or his policies (see comments), or advocated sedition against the Democrats. I remember very clearly reading several comments on blogs that I followed where individuals were calling for sedition trials for anyone who opposed the Iraq war or other Bush policies. My question, then, is why would this type of act not be considered a form of sedition? Or do First Amendment rights only apply when it's a Republican or "Right" individual doing the talking? (FTR - I believe that the idea of protected speech is a good one, and don't advocate sedition charges, but think the hypocrisy is astounding.)

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this is that this type of inflammatory rhetoric by itself might seem shrewdly humorous, but the concern for me is that, much like what happened with Dr. Tiller's murderer or Charles Guiteau, all it takes is one person to determine that it was his calling to carry out this action to really wreak havoc, and I think that this lack of foresight by the makers of these shirts is appalling (and if that's their plausibly deniable intent, then its downright evil and nothing my God would ever approve of).

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

"Objectively Pro Rape"

That's the headline given to the Balloon Juice post where I found the link to this Think Progress article. The article discusses Senator Al Franken's bill amendment that was recently voted on: "Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR 'if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.'" This amendment stems in part from what Think Progress reports as a gang rape of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was "prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration."

The amendment passed Senate Vote by a vote of 68-30 with Senators Byrd (D) and Specter (D) not voting. The 30 nays?

NAYs ---30
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Apparently, for these Republicans, it's ok for contractors to go overseas and help in the fight to defend our constitution from the menace of those marauding insurgents that we created, but it would be ghastly to allow the employees of these agencies the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution...

Friday, March 13, 2009

Why the Republican Party is in Trouble

It's not because their platform, in and of itself is bad (small government, low taxes, state's rights, etc.). It's because there are so many in the party's authoritative positions that take all-or-nothing approaches to the party - you're either completely with us, or not at all. This exclusionary style would be bad enough, but then to try to connect that polarizing form of politics with religion is beyond the pale.

From the article linked above:
We believe to have 'fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness' for the sake of political expediency, or any other reason for that matter, is to offend a holy God, from whom the blessings bestowed upon this country flow.... For that reason, sir, the Grand Prairie Republican Club holds strong to our Christian heritage and will take no part in knowingly excepting [sic] or promoting any immorality (by attending or promoting your organization) that may hasten the death of the American Government.
Right. God will allow torture, murder, wars based on spurious intelligence, and the usurpation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But damnit, you'd better not let them gays be a part of this country!

Words fail.

Friday, March 09, 2007

That Darn MSM

They're attacking the Republicans again. This time, the report announces that Newt Gingrich, the man who led the charge against Clinton during his impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, was actually carrying on an extramarital affair at the time.

Except, wait - Newt admitted to the affair. So this wasn't undercover MSM work trying to discredit a prominent republican for daring to be republican. And hold on - he admitted to the affair to James Dobson, who, last I checked was nowhere near the MSM.

But here's the strange thing, so me. Dobson didn't vilify Gingrich for failing to obey the 10 commandments, at least, the Methodist version, which says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." That doesn't seem to be a very pro-family action.

I don't presume for a moment that Gingrich and Clinton are the only politicians who have had affairs. I find it interesting that the affair was such a big deal to this hypocrite, which now suggests that it was little more than political posturing, which is exactly what the Neocons are now pleading for the democrats to not do.

I don't like the democrats, and I would not vote for any of them, except maybe a Richardson/Obama ticket, but stuff like this makes me want to cast an opposition vote just to keep the republicans out of office. Still, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian again.