(Guest blogged by jaime)
Last month, the Democratic National Convention in Boston proudly boasted minority delegates that exceded 40 percent of the total count. The Republicans boast “the most diverse delegation in their history to the Republican National Convention”. The GOP points out with fancy facts, figures, and graphs how much more diverse they are than their counterparts.
Percentage Increase Of Ethnically Diverse Delegates between the 2000-2004 National Conventions
What many would miss in this graph is not how much less yellow there is than blue, but the fact that the Seventy actually represents the percentage increase in minorities. The actual numbers tell a vastly different story.
Now recent statistics show us minorities make up thirty percent of the American populace. The Republican party’s leaps and bounds are old news to the rest of us. We learned from the 2000 Convention that they are willing to go through extraordinary lengthe to hid who they are and whose dog wags whose tail. The tactic of herding up every minority they could find and position them oh so slyly in front of network camera banks highlight their lack of shame.
In contrast the 2004 Democratic National Convention, whatever else you want to say about it, reflected not only what America is, but what it will be. It may have crafted a message of “unity” and “hope” that seemed disengenuous to some, but it was unafraid to hide its true character with such liberal progressive voices as Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton taking the platform in or near prime time.
Now the Republicans would have the electorate believe that THEY are the face of moderation trotting out such GOP all-stars as John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Ah-nuld himself.
The conservative christian base is now ticked off because the purse strings that put Bush in power are no longer welcome. The Republicans are taking great care to hide it’s true nature. Uninvited Pat Robertson told reporters:
Ah-nuld and Guiliani are both decidedly liberal on social issues, yet their Prime Time speaking slots they posses are designed to fool the undecided as to who really pulls the GOP strings. When Representative Jim Kolbe spoke in their 2000 Convention many in the audience bowed their heads, turned their backs and walked out.
Whether Bush is certain his base will follow lockstep or the “mushy middle” will be shocked and awed by his convention smoke and mirrors, all of us on the left know that the face of the Republican Party is less Guiliani and more Robertson. The platform, which will include, Anti-gay amendments to the Constitution, Pro-Choice rollbacks, Blurring of Separation of Church and State, Pro gun laws, Anti-Environmental bills, and the quelching of requested Stem-Cell research funding are the antithesis of the positions of main stream America. But with a little help from his friends Bush may fool some of the people all of the time and…wait…all of them some of the people time…can’t get fooled again.
Ed told me about some of the nice comments that you guys made after I signed off this blog. Thanks! The blog has been extremely boring after I left and conspiracy theories have abounded – like “Bush knew about 911 before 911 yet we will never know.”
I’d like to make a few comments while I am here:
I am not a fan of Pat Robertson. Most of those TV evangelists are teaching counterfeit Christianity, especially the Name and Claim It, Word of Faith, Seed of Faith. Kingdom Now, and Dominion Theology preachers. They represent a small group of Christians. I am glad Pat will not be speaking.
> Anti-gay amendments to the Constitution, Pro-Choice rollbacks, Blurring of Separation of Church and State, Pro gun laws, Anti-Environmental bills, and the quelching of requested Stem-Cell research funding
Thank you California Supreme Court for annulling 4,000 fake marriages and the people’s voice of Missouri! Some of the things mentioned above are the mainstream of America – sorry guys, and ladies – you are on the losing side!
If Kerry came out today and was pro-life, pro-guns (Wow! Like the 2nd amendment?), and was exactly like Bush, you guys would still vote for him because he is Anyone But Bush. You guys may regret saying that one day, especially if it becomes Anyone But Kerry.
Johanna, you are right, Bush will win! Go ahead and make a bet! And by a wide margin! I bet Brad in 2000 and won. You guys also thought that 2002 was going to be good for the Dems, but it wasn’t.
Kimber writes “I was putting together a thoughtful and well written response to Paul’s biblical battle”
I have been reading the Bible since I was five and could out read anyone in my elementary school when it came to Shakespeare. Go ahead and respond!
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” (the guy walks off with a bag of ears).
Johnhp – you still have no clue what I said or mean. You said “I am sorry if you think so little of the faith that you don’t think its principles are good for us all” and “you reject real Christianity.” Giving is only a part of Christianity. I bet I financially out give you and any two other folks combined who make comments on this blog. Liberals typically want to tax everyone so that the government can feed people and do other social things, yet average common liberals hardly give of their own money. It’s funny about the Hollywood liberals, they preach to use about energy consumption and alternative fuels while their limo drivers run their cars for 4-5 hours during the Academy Awards. We call them hypocrites! Again, you and I disagree on the role of government. Maybe faith-based organizations could do a better job in taking care of the poor. Give all of us more of our money back and we would all have more money to help.
I’d like to see some of your articles and the liberal religious groups you have written for. I bet it would be interesting reading. Thanks for letting us know you are a leftist/socialist! Instead of talking about education to increase wages (companies want lower wages), why don’t you also promote real tax cuts for everybody?
See you guys again in November! But I want to leave you with one of my favorite Arkansas jokes and a favorite poem –
What is the difference between a catfish and an Arkansas beauty queen?
One has whiskers and stinks…the other you eat with fries and hushpuppies.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I’m schizophrenic
And so am I
Paul they will only read what they want so I expect to see a few jokes about you being schizophrenic.
The bulk of Paul’s post will speak for itself, of course. He is the biggest "giver" and very modest about it. So there ya go.
But on this one comment you lied about:
"I bet Brad in 2000 and won. You guys also thought that 2002 was going to be good for the Dems, but it wasn’t."
You didn’t win in 2000. Sorry.
As for 2002, I’m not sure who "you guys" refer to. I know it wasn’t me or any other "liberal" that I know of. But whatever you need to say to support what you wish to believe, I’ll leave up to you.
P.S. Good post, Jaime!
Remember the fake "stink" that was made when Hilary wasn’t "allowed" to speak at the DNC? Where’s the same stink about Lott and Delay et al being left off the calendar? Only to be quietly included, as I recall, a week or so later. Undoubtedly in off-off hour slots, of course.
The RNC: Not what they’d like you to believe they are.
I won $80 from you in 2000 when I bet you that Bush would be the next president. You wanted me to up the bet to $1000, but I told you that I didn’t want to take all of your money.
The Democrats had the best chance in years to take back the Senate in 2002 and they lost more seats. They thought they didn’t get their message out in 2002, but it got out – especially the disasterous Wellstone funeral/pep rally.
You have short-term memory loss.
> He is the biggest "giver" and very modest about it.
I only brought it up to prove a point – johnhp will not take the challenge.
"I won $80 from you in 2000 when I bet you that Bush would be the next president."
Uh, no…but nice try! The bet was on who would win the election! And obviously, Bush didn’t win it! Thus, you didn’t get the money.
The rest of the 2002 stuff you’re on about is full bore Rush-speak. You’ve convinced yourself that I, we or anybody actually said any of that, or was of the opinion you ascribe to us.
More on that notion in a new blog item (hopefully) shortly.
Paul,
Where to begin?
"I bet I financially out give you and any two other folks combined who make comments on this blog."
You certainly know more about real Christianity than me. i haven’t gotten the bragging down pat like you. Thanks for putting me in my place. My suggestion: there is a difference between "reading the Bible" and "understanding the Bible."
As for the republican national convention Jerry "we probably deserved 9-11 oops i probably didn’t say that at the right time" Falwell is delivering their opening prEyer. You know the party that prEys together…
As for what i have written and delivered to various organizations, some of which are not religious in nature, perhaps i can oofer you one thought from one area that i study. One of my favorite areas of study is Trinitarian theology, more properly, oikonomia. i like to affirm LaCugna’s difference between a soteriological discourse about God and a philosophical discourse about God. Given this difference and apreference for the former, i have argued (as have such protestant lumenaries as Barth and Catholics like Ellecuria, Sobrino, etc) that our talk about God needs a different conceptual network, or at the very least a different "order of enunciation" (as Guattari argues for philosophy and psychoanalysis). One place this could begin is with Trinitarian Theology. Classical trinitarianism distinguishes between the "ousia" and "persona" proper to each of the Trinity. The ousia being wholly shared, the persona being distinction. Often this idea leads to what has classically been called subordinationism (the idea that God "the Father" is in some sense "closer to" or "more" God than the Son or the Pneuma). This type of thinking leads theologiansto make all sorts of stupid statements and some really dumb trends within contemporary theology have resulted (such as, for instance, the turn to phenomenology to aid in the response to the critiques of religion from the 19th century). The road to this solution, and i mention this for historical accuracy, was initiated by the work of Bruno Bauer. i mention Bauer because he really understood the theological meaning of the development of philosophy as oikonomia after Kant. Several others also picked up on this such as Marx (irony of ironies; though it should not be shocking since Bauer and Marx were friends) and later Nietzsche, Overbeck and Barth. The solution is really quite simple: the persona fully shares the ousia AS its distinction from the other persona. This gets rid of subordinationism and the whole Greek ontology that Goes with it.It is an interesting academic problem but it has real world implications. it places at the center of faith not some active nomination "I bet I financially out give you and any two other folks combined who make comments on this blog" but the sort of "expressionism" that Jesus really calls for: doing the will of the Father. So when people are shocked at being invited into the city of God "when did we do all that to you" Jesus reply makes sense "when you did it for these you did it to me." There is an anonymity in giving that is the center of faith and builds to the city of God. This is why Paul tells us the greatest of these is love and the Johannine epistles take as their central motif love in deed and not words. And certainly Paul, John and the Epistles would abhor bragging about what one has given.
By the way, the stuff you are talking about in terms of taxes? If you look at the blueprints for this type of taxation scheme from the 80s anmd look at the results you will see that it benefits the wealthy. And i don’t mean proprtionally to the taxes they pay. During the 1980s both pre and after tax income FELL for the lowest 60% of American taxpayers. During the 1990s after the Clinton tax increase which apparently destroyed the nation as we know it, preand after tax income ioncreased for ALL tax brackets. In fact the lowest quentile saw their pre tax income rise by a touch more than 9% while their after tax income rose by 11%. This beat the stuffing out of the Reagan years during which they saw their income fall by 4.25% and after tax 4.62%. At the same time pretax income on the wealthiest Americans under Reagan rose by 24.7% and after tax by 28.62%. A rising tide lifts all yachts.
BTW, you, actually whomever that little rhymo originated with, has confused schizophrenia for multiple personality disorder. They are not the same thing.
Lots of fancy text and research about the Trinity and I agree with you. I can make it a lot simpler though. God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three – not one bit of subordination there. Jesus said one must come to him as a little child, a child-like faith. I am not sure if any child would get that God=Jesus=Holy Spirit from your text. Salvation comes from “hearing and reading of the Word.”
Back to my “I give more than you” point. Typically, average liberals want tax hikes and do not give personally. I can say that with full confidence. In my conservative church of 6,000 people on the weekends, 60% only give $100 a month. Usually, 20% of the people give 80% of the money while 80% of the people give 20% of the money. A United Way representative told me that their biggest givers are Christians who also give to their church. In order for the United Way to continue to get substantial donations from its contributors, they had to distance themselves from controversial groups like #1 abortion providers Planned Parenthood and to back off “not giving support” for the Boy Scouts because they would not let homosexuals be scout leaders. Two things here – The Boy Scouts are a private organization and they can discriminate, and I think in some states, and possibly in California, Planned Childlessness has dropped funding the Boy Scouts. I have had these conservations with United Way. I remember when Western Union and one other large bank dropped funding for the Boy Scouts and people took there money out of the banks. The banks reinstated the funding. Money talks!
The rhyme is funny because traditionally, although incorrectly, schizophrenia meant "split mind" or "split personality," meaning 2 instead of multiple personalities.
…Brad commented on 8/13/2004 @ 1:18pm PT…
"I won $80 from you in 2000 when I bet you that Bush would be the next president."
Uh, no…but nice try! The bet was on who would win the election! And obviously, Bush didn’t win it! Thus, you didn’t get the money.
Paul writes "Bush is the 43rd president and I cashed your $80 check." Thanks!
"Typically, average liberals want tax hikes and do not give personally."
Where in Jesus’ Domain do you come up with crap like that? Is your mind simply that full of Rightwing Garbage that you can’t tell truth from fiction at all anymore???
As to the Boy Scouts, if they’re a "private organization" then they can use "private" buildings for their meetings instead of public schools and subsidies.
But that won’t likely get through your head either I’m afraid, so full of Propogandic Claptrap as it is.
Paul,
You obviously do not understand at all. the "=" to normal people means an identification. if the persona are distinct and discrete they are not identical . Jesus is neither the Father nor the Spirit. What you are championing with your "=" is modalism; that is the idea that the distinction and difference of the personae are illusory. Yes come to the faith as a child, not an idiot.
As for your remarks on money. Apparently you missed the sarcasm about your prideful remarks on giving.