Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama TV Ad: Women Need to Know the Real Mitt Romney's Plans to Take Away Their Health Decisions (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're asking them to think rationally like (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Rogers, Creosote, Loose Fur

    you and they simply don't. They are driven by faith; not facts or science and they have infiltrated the Republican Party more severely than you want to believe, more so at the local and state levels. If you've seen any of Rachel Maddow's shows about the abortion issue like I diaried here and here you know how much they've accomplished since taking over state houses and governorships in 2010. Look at this graph of abortion legislation since 1985.

    Howard Fineman was on Hardball with Chris Matthews back in August and explained it better than I can. I wrote a diary about the appearance at the time.

    Howard Fineman: Chris, I'm not making a value judgment when I say this, but the Republican Party has become a faith based party. Starting with Ronald Reagan, there was a marriage between the Bible belt of the south, the fundamentalist Bible belt of the south.

    Chris Matthews: Literal interpretation?

    Howard Fineman: Literal interpretation. And Catholics elsewhere in the country who were becoming more conservative socially. They joined hands. And there are many good things that came from that, especially if you believe in the Republican Party and its success. But these people start from a fundamentally different point of view on questions such as abortion, on questions such as evolution, on questions such as climate change. They see, as John McCain belatedly said, "the hand of God in everything that happens." And they look to God first. They're legitimate concerns. For example, about genetic manipulation of the human species. Should we leave that to God, or do we as human beings take that on? There's a serious point underneath this. Okay, there is. But nobody in the modern Republican Party dares question the orthodoxy of a faith based Republican party at this point. That's what it is. It's a Bible-based Republican Party.

    As for why Democrats aren't pointing their fingers at Republicans and saying "they are trying to put religion in our government;" it's an extremely sensitive area. When Ted Kennedy was defending his Senate seat from Mitt Romney in 1994, he tried to make Romney's Mormon religion an issue in the campaign. It didn't work out well for him. Yet another diary I wrote quotes an article from 1994:
    We want to know our political candidates as whole men and women. We want to know where and how they grew up, where they went to school, what traditions and experiences formed them. Religion, or lack of it, is part of that formation. To deny religious values a place in politics would leave the leaven out of the lump. To use religion as a shorthand to distinguish Like Us from Not Like Us is reprehensible.

    Kennedy erred in making issue about Mitt Romney's religion by Ruth Walker, The Christian Science Monitor, 6 October 1994

    How do you point out that a candidate's religion informs who he/she in a way that is not good for all Americans without attacking the religion and then opening your side up for attack for judging another person's religion?

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

    by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We need politically active scientists/skeptics. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hungrycoyote, Creosote

      We need people willing to aggressively target and attack nonsensical religious justifications for social policy.  No social policy, ever should be justified by anything but scientific arguments.  Science is the same everywhere and for everyone, whether or not one belongs to a religion.

      Also, it might help to remove the tax-exempt status from religious organizations that insist upon injecting themselves into political discourse.  By doing so, their political speech is effectively being subsidized by the US government.

    •  Sometimes I think that talking about abortion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hungrycoyote

      is the only way fundamentalists can deal with the emotions aroused at some level by awareness of the profoundly mortal issue of global climate change.

      They can understand it only as the death of a cell and its 'potential.' Not of the totality of the world's people, animals, trees, ocean, and millennia of culture.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site