Good letter from Alterman's MSNBC blog today...

[exstatic]

This is in response to a letter from a Christian last week saying he'd jump ship on Bush when he had a reason.

Name: Jim Polewski
Hometown: Madison, WI
Mike in Boise: you ask for a reason to jump off the GOP ship, but you identify the two most obvious reasons yourself: the "incompetent-in-chief will pretend to care what I believe." Once a person recognizes that the President is incompetent, and a liar who "pretends to believe" there is no reason to stay on the ship. The GOP isn't willing to admit that the ship is on the wrong course, and isn't even willing to ask "the incompetent-in-chief" to look where's he going. (God forbid he use a map, or ask for directions.) The GOP is not willing to admit that its leader has not yet told the truth about any serious matter facing the Republic. What more reason could a person need? But, I have one: the GOP, in pretending to care what you believe, trashes everything the Christian church holds dear. Lip service to protecting the unborn weighs far more heavily than caring for the sick, the hungry, the cold, or even stewardship of this planet, all so that the rich, fat and happy can be more so. My vision of the Christian faith in action in this world is to work to see that those who have too little get enough before those who already have an abundance get more. Conveniently, that's also the Democratic ideal. The Republican ideal is to give bigger tax breaks to the rich. My Christian faith says faith without works is dead, and by our acts shall they know us. What acts of the Republican party can the Christian church point to with pride when judgment arrives? War on false pretense? Increases in hunger and illegitimate children, and decreases in the taxes paid by the most wealthy people on the planet? That doesn't seem very close to the Bea udes to me. Man is imperfect, and no human ins ution will ever meet the ideal of Christian faith; the best one can do is get as close to it as you can. Because I count myself a Christian, I'm a Democrat as the best available choice. Tell me, Mike, why is it that abortion and the manner of recognition of gay relationships are so much more important to you than competent government, just and honest government? I ask because I know that you are not alone; that large pluralities of the Evangelical branches of our common faith agree with you and hold me in contempt as a backslider or dupe of Satan. I don't understand why, and I don't understand why those two issues are the ones that drive your vote. I'd like to understand that. I understand that your reason is faith based, as is mine, and that we share at least the outlines of a common faith. What I don't know is the reasoning that leads you down your path.

[boutons_]

"My vision of the Christian faith in action in this world is to work to see that those who have too little get enough"

... atheist Socialist masquerading as "Christian"!

"why is it that abortion and the manner of recognition of gay relationships are so much more important to you than competent government, just and honest government?"

Those two issues are litmus issues that use the Bible as apretext to politicize non-religious prejudices against abortion and gays, to get out the red-state rural/southern/dumb /simplistic/backward vote for Repugs, who in fact don't give a about abortion or gays or culture of life (staring a phony phucking war? and are happy to have the Log Cabin/Gay Republicans work, give $$$ for Repug re-election), just as long as the Repugs get elected.

[RandomGuy]

The bible says a LOT about helping the poor. Go to any good online bible, and do a word search for "poor" and see what comes up. This is directly at odds with the GOP war ON the poor.

We used to have a "war on poverty", but that isn't as sexy as the "war on terror". You can't bomb poverty into surrendering. There aren't any cool tanks or missles to use on disease and abuse of children, so it gets ignored.

The christian fanatics in charge of the GOP have betrayed their faith with hate in their hearts, and a blind eye to the suffering of children under their noses. "Let's have a big fund-raiser to oppose gay marriage, but don't ask me for a dime for the children's shelter." That is the way it seems to me. I would love to have this prejudice dispelled, but I don't see it on Fox news, I guess there aren't any ratings in it. Unless of course, there is a story that can make liberals look bad, THEN it would be newsworthy.

[scott]

If Alterman weren't the liberal equivilent of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's child, this might be worth considering.

[exstatic]

It wasn't written by Alterman, just a letter to his blog. RIF.

[Trainwreck2100]

Those two issues are litmus issues that use the Bible as apretext to politicize non-religious prejudices against abortion and gays, to get out the red-state rural/southern/dumb /simplistic/backward vote for Repugs, who in fact don't give a about abortion or gays or culture of life (staring a phony phucking war? and are happy to have the Log Cabin/Gay Republicans work, give $$$ for Repug re-election), just as long as the Repugs get elected.

These two issues lost the dumbass Dems the vote. When will you get this; old people turn to God, old people=strongest turnout. But the Dems are too damn impatient to wait for a more tolerant generation to form. They want their now, and that's stupid.

[boutons_]

"lost the dumbass Dems the vote"

The Dems WON the 2000 pres popular vote by 600K votes, but were disenfranchised by the archaic electoral college ("we've always limped this way, so let's just continue limping this way, rather than not limp")

The DEMS LOST the 2004 pres popular vote by the slimmest margin ever against a sitting an in bent, and again it came to just one state, Ohio electoral votes. With no Repug war as a crutch, the Repugs get kicked out after one term.

The "don't change horses in mid-stream(mid-war)" tactic won, as the Repugs hurriedly (no other option but war, and the option was IMMEDIATE) started their phony Repug war.

gays and abortion will always be hot issues, the Repug party continues to be captured by the far-right religious nutcases, but those issues were easily overcome as electoral issues if the Dems, with the same platforms in 2000/2004, had fielded stronger candidates.

[DarkReign]

All bull aside, Republicans barely won twice. Split electoral votes based on % and there wouldnt be a Republican majority anywhere in the federal government.

Thats a fact, Jack.

[scott]

It wasn't written by Alterman, just a letter to his blog. RIF.

Guess what type of people send letters to him?

[exstatic]

All types, as I've seen. One of his more regular contributors is a (newly minted) LTC writing from Iraq, the former Major Bob. The guy that people were responding to was not a supporter of Alterman's views, yet mysteriously, his letter got published. I think you do him a dis-service with your comparisions, scott. He rips idiots, including the faculty of Harvard when the flap hit about their president resigning. It just happens that more of the idiots suffix their names with a (R) than otherwise.

[scott]

I've read plenty of his msnbc.com blog and I stand by my assessment of him. If you choose to hold him up as the bastion of objectivity, knock yourself out.

[exstatic]

You missed my point, scott. I liked the letter.

[Guru of Nothing]

You missed my point, scott. I liked the letter.

Concur.

[scott]

You missed my point, scott. I liked the letter.

I get your point - I was mearly stating that I give about as much creedance to people who write in to Alterman as I do the people who write in to Coulter.

But, I'm just one man.