What?! No Kennedy memorial thread?

[Shapley]

The whole point of the liberal philosophy in this country is that there is too much money and power in too few hands. Making those who can afford to pay the cost for those who can't is simply an attempt to correct this error. Obama cares about those marginalized people; you can bet wealthy Republican Congressmen don't.

Au contraire! The Republican Party cares, but they believe the lot of the poor is best improved by improving the general conditions, rather than trying to improve individual circumstances. Oddly enough, it was President John F. Kennedy to whom is attributed the very Republican philosophy "A rising tide lifts all boats". But, alas, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.

Of course, when the Republicans apply this philosophy, it is known as 'trickle-down economics'. Same principle, different spokespersons.

President Kennedy cut taxes on the wealthy, so did President Clinton. The rising tide lifted us all. Too bad the current crop of Democrats want to build seawalls agains the tide.

[Shapley]

Obama has never claimed religious grounds as the foundation for UHC.

Actually, Mr. Obama invoked the Bible directly when we accused health care critics of "bearing false witness" against the health plan.

Does that sound more like the Republican Party or what?

Not the Party as a whole. Individual Republicans and Democrats may make such claims but, to the best of my knowledge, the Bible is not mentioned in the Party platform.

[Giant Communist Robot]

Obama has never claimed religious grounds as the foundation for UHC.

Actually, Mr. Obama invoked the Bible directly when we accused health care critics of "bearing false witness" against the health plan.

Does that sound more like the Republican Party or what?

Not the Party as a whole. Individual Republicans and Democrats may make such claims but, to the best of my knowledge, the Bible is not mentioned in the Party platform.

Using the phrase "bearing..." suggests a biblical origin, but the concept is not limited to the bible. So it is not a direct invocation. Quoting chapter and verse would be direct.



Maybe not the platform, and certainly not current, but what I was posting about was the lurch to the right by the Republican Party and the strenuous effort made to use the bible and religion as litmus tests for issues in the past. This is why we owe so much to Teddy. His cool-headed determination saved us from that fate.

[Shapley]

Maybe not the platform, and certainly not current, but what I was posting about was the lurch to the right by the Republican Party and the strenuous effort made to use the bible and religion as litmus tests for issues in the past. This is why we owe so much to Teddy. His cool-headed determination saved us from that fate.

We had six years in which the Republicans had total control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, as well as a sypathetic tilt on the Supreme Court. Even so, not one State imposed a mandatory religion, the Bible was not made mandatory reading in the schools, the teaching of Evolution was not outlawed, no official proclamation on the age of the Earth was issued, π was not declared to be equal to 3, and the Ten Commandments were not carved on the Capitol steps.

It was stated somewhere that Mr. Obama has used the word God more often in his speeches than President Bush did within any a comparable time frame. I can't verify that, and don't have the inclination to do so. He has mentioned God a number of times, but no one seems to care. Let a Republican mention the name of God, and it is a sign that he is a zealot.

Perhaps it's only if Mr. Obama refers to God as 'Allah' that the people will be concerned?

[Giant Communist Robot]

When I wrote "in the past" I didn't mean the Bush era, but rather the creepy coziness period Reagan had with the bible-thumping right.

[Giant Communist Robot]

It was stated somewhere that Mr. Obama has used the word God more often in his speeches than President Bush did within any a comparable time frame. I can't verify that, and don't have the inclination to do so. He has mentioned God a number of times, but no one seems to care. Let a Republican mention the name of God, and it is a sign that he is a zealot.

Maybe he's got something on his mind. And as for the Republicans, well, they certainly courted the zealots and now have that association.

[Shapley]

We do not speak ill of Ronaldus Maximus...

Why was it creepy? The 'religious right' had found themselves alienated from the Democratic Party due to a number of issues, not the least of which was their courting of the militant feminsts with their pro-abortion position. President Reagan, being himself a religious man, saw the Republican Party as a natural home for them. As citizens, the 'religious right' has as much right to voice their opinions, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government as those who do not espouse religion. If all that assembling and petitioning produces candidates who are favourable to their cause, then those candidates have the right to enter the public fray and seek election. If the number 'religious right' can generate more legitimate voters than their opponents, then their candidates have the right to assume office and legislate their platforms within the limitations imposed by the Constitution and the legal interpretations thereof. This is representative republicanism and there shouldn't be anything 'creepy' about it to anyone who believes in the rule of law.

[Shapley]

Maybe he's got something on his mind. And as for the Republicans, well, they certainly courted the zealots and now have that association.

I would think that would be phrased 'courted the religious zealots'. There are plenty of zealots on the left, as well...

On the other hand, did the Party court the 'zealots' or did the 'zealots' reshape the Party? The Republican Party comprises common people who elect their representatives, chairmen, delegates, and candidates for office. The Party is powerless to prevent a shift in the platform if it is voted upon by the majority. There is no 'smoke-filled room' in which "the Party" determines who will and who will not be on the dais, at least not in the broadest sense. There are pockets of 'power players' in any organization but they, too, can be ousted through popular action. The nice thing about our representative system is that this can rarely happen overnight. This is the manner in which "the Left" shifted the platform of the Democrats in the '60s, and it is the means through which the platform is determined every few years.