Republican Obstructionists

From Bob via Taranto:

Seems to me one of the less talked about casualties of Biden's sneering, mocking demeanor is the credibility of the notion that the reason things haven't been getting done is because the 'Republicans are unwilling to work with the Democrats.' Biden destroys the illusion that the Democrats can be conversed with reasonably, respectfully and in good faith.

UPDATE: Harry Reid isn't interested in working with anybody with whom he disagrees. But it is the GOP that is obstructionist.

"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."

Mr. Reid flatly ruled out following Mr. Romney's agenda, saying he and his colleagues have already voted down many of those proposals, including House Republicans' budget, written by Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.

UPDATE: Oops.  After the election that kept him in the majority, Harry Reid is all about getting things done, cooperation and compromise.

VP Debate: Who's Religious Interpretation is Omniscient

Last night during the debate the second to the last question put to the candidates asked how their Catholic religion informed their views on abortion. Two things struck me as I listened. First, both men say that Catholicism informs their views. Both said that the church doctrine says life begins at conception. Biden said that he would not let church doctrine override a woman’s ability to choose and Ryan said that he would not let church doctrine interfere with exceptions of rape, incest and health of the mother. Looks like total agreement so far. So the only things I can see that may differentiate the two are their thoughts about late-term abortions and who pays for it. If I understand it correctly, the GOP position is that late-term abortions should be discouraged or prevented and that taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill. Is this the crazy, snake-hair, arm-waving, clothes rending, maniacal, Tea bagging, woman-hating, misogynistic, Big Bird slaying, wacko policy that is to be resisted at all costs?

One wonders in our current climate that if the same religious doctrine informs both of them and they conclude different things about whether we should do in the womb what would never be done outside the womb as well as different notions about who should pay for this activity, does that mean one or the other is a liar? Also, Biden said:

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.

This thinking obviously ends somewhere. I doubt that Biden would make the same comment in support of Peter Singer’s idea that a newborn should not be considered a person until 30 days after delivery and therefore ‘aborting’ or killing disabled babies within 30 days of birth would be a moral good. Would Biden in that case refuse to impose his views, religious or otherwise, on peoples of other faiths? I should think not.

BTW, it is a curiosity that a) the left is not so interested in “choice” when it comes to reforming the education of children via vouchers, reforming healthcare, reforming health insurance, reforming MediCare, reforming Social Security, voting for unions with secret ballots, etc., and b) as Prager notes,

The human fetus has no worth except for what the mother says it has. If she thinks it is worthwhile, it's infinitely precious. If she doesn't, it is infinitely worthless. It is a very odd moral scheme. It applies nowhere else in life, where one individual determines the complete worth of something else. We don't even allow that for dogs. We don't say dog owners determine the worth of dogs. But human fetus owners determine the worth of a fetus. It is a fascinating development in the degradation of our value system.

So, of course Biden and the left would impose their views if post birth canal abortions were proposed. (Although, as Ryan noted, "The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations." This might cause one to seek clarification from Biden and the left on the post birth canal abortion issue.) By confronting the Singer dilemma we see that both Democrats and Republicans are willing to impose their notion of morality on others via legislation. (This is the old “We’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we are just haggling over price” gambit.) In the case of abortion, we are just publicly discussing when that imposition will happen and where legislative lines will be drawn. For Dems to pretend that they aren’t drawing lines, imposing their moral will and legislating morality is self-delusional. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent on that than the left. Which brings us to the second observation.

Biden noted that his Catholic faith “has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.” We know by his statements and policy preferences that this means the state should take from some and give to others in the name of compassion. Why is it that he does not feel the same restraint for this imposition of religious charity on “devout Christians and Muslims and Jews” - as well as the groups he left out, including atheists - as he does for abortion? Where is the wall of separation that is lauded by those on the left? Why is it acceptable to impose this aspect of his religion on others while imposing restrictions on actively extinguishing the life of a human is not acceptable? (If you think that assessment is overwrought, he said that he accepts the notion that “life begins at conception” - I did not put those words in his mouth. If he really believes that life begins at conception, then at the very least he thinks that abortion is the ending of nascent human life.) Is Mr. Biden really arguing that the state should be the charity arm of the Catholic church?

So Biden and the left are pro-choice on extinguishing nascent human life (and, incidentally, for teacher's unions to invest heavily in Bain and other risky Wall Street schemes) but not pro-choice on how you can educate your children, health insurance, medical care, end of life decisions, Social Security, etc. He is consistent on one thing though: who it is that will pay for all of this.

This is an election that involves larger themes: the size and nature of government; limited powers v statism; individualism v collectivism; liberty v egalitarianism; the locus of charity; E pluibus unum v multiculturalism. Those concepts and choices are fairly clear. Unfortunately, most of the conversation is focused on personal character assassination and the tit-for-tat of dueling experts.

Coming Out

The Blaze reports that Stacey Dash has Tweeted that she will vote for Romney. Of course this is not how a dignified black woman should act.

This stuff inevitably devolves into name calling of the black person that dares to reveal conservative thoughts. They must be of questionable character if they share the 'white man' thinking of the Founding Fathers that includes limited government, morality by religiosity, E pluribus unum and liberty. One side thinks skin color (aka, genetics) determines how a person should think about government and economics. One side thinks if you don't think like them, you are an Uncle Tom or a traitor to your race. What it is about dark pigmentation that means there is some genetic predisposition of the cranial cellular matter that suggests it is more racially consistent to believe in leftist ideas rather than conservative ideas is somewhat bewildering – or, said another way, raaaaaacist. These are the ramblings of the KKK. To say one must vote or think according race is literally – and not in the way that Vice President Biden uses the word literally – racist.

That blacks of today consent to the idea that there is some appropriate or race-centric way of thinking is astonishing. If whites spoke words such as these, they would properly be dismissed as racists. But I guess the right doesn't need to be as overtly racist as the left because they sneakily toot those racist dog whistles – that, oh by the way, only the left can hear.

Believing that genetics dictate ideology is why the left can say that Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas and others are not only not 'black leaders', but are sellouts. (Oddly, only angry, aggrieved blacks, gays, women, etc. can be 'leaders'.) One is not true to his race if he does not think as the left thinks. How stupid $#!% like this can be said out loud in this day an age boggles the mind. Surely they must then also believe that genetics dictate who is Catholic, prefers Chevrolets and thinks children should be spanked.

Furthermore, this sort of thinking is not only racist tribalism, it is a lie. How so, you ask? Ask anyone who says that you must vote for Barack Obama because he is black whether they will uncritically and publicly support Clarence Thomas because he is black. Of course they won't. They don't want you to support just any black; you must support a black person of the left.

Have you ever seen media types who get thrills in their leg for Obama have similar feelings for Thomas and sing from the rooftops how great it is that a black man rose to such a high station in life and what that may say about the country in which it happened? In contradistinction, commentators on the right are critical or supportive of people no matter what their race based on their ideas. Herman Cain is an ideological friend because of shared ideas and values, not because his DNA says he has relatives from a certain part of the world. Al Sharpton isn't disagreed with because of his skin color, but because conservatives disagree with his ideology. Again, a simple test can demonstrate whether these claims are true. Would conservatives all of a sudden love the policies of the last four years if Joe Biden were the president? Of course not. But the left thinks it is purely racism that animates the right's disagreements with President Obama.

People on the right aren't interested in the color of your skin, they are interested in your values. If you share values, skin color is of no consequence. Ever been in a church that isn't preaching black separatist, er, liberation theology? Blacks and whites arm-in-arm in support of shared values, not shared skin color. The left is obsessed with race, gender and class. The right is interested in values.

The day that these balkanized, aggrieved groups begin to feel that America is likely the best – not perfect, but a damn sight better than most – place on the planet for blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, Muslims, immigrants, illegal immigrants, etc. to live, is the day the individuals in these groups might reconsider their voter registration. That coupled with realizing that those who are not politically like them really aren't the stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical SOBs that the left says they are, is the day they stop voting for leftists – or at least consider the discussion coming from the other side of the aisle. Isn't attacking the humanity and character of those who aren't like you a form of bigotry?

This woman might wilt under the scathing pressure of these mean, bullying and unkind attacks on her character and humanity. It is hard to withstand the fire hose of enmity that seeks to take out any black that strays too far from the plantation. I hope she can channel Rosa Parks and stand firm.

UPDATE:  Good for her.

So True

See the original at PlanetThornburn.

One wonders what happened to the land that Lincoln envisioned that was a government of the people, by the people, for the people...