Why Democrats Are Better Than Republicans

[BPSCG]

Jimmy Carter smug alert:

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?'* Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society?** Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it?*** Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it?**** Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'****

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture ... then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.'"

Next time you hear him complain about how the "religious right" has a political agenda, keep in mind that this is what Jimmy Carter teaches in Sunday school. See Matthew 23:27-28

* Poisoning the well.
** False dilemma.
*** Poisoning the well.
**** And so on...

 

[Cleon]

Next time you hear him complain about how the "religious right" has a political agenda, that this is what Jimmy Carter teaches in Sunday school.

To my knowledge, nobody has complained that the religious right as a political agenda. The complaint is what that political agenda consists of.

 

[Manny]

You know, given the Bush administration's spending habits, there are many many Democrats who can complain about the size of the federal debt. Jimmy Carter is not one of them.

 

[Bob Klase]

And if Jimmy was a Republician then he'd have asked, 'Are you for defending your country, or do you want never-ending terrorist attacks'. 'Do you favor the governement taking your money and deciding where to spend it, or should it seek to rise all members of society'....etc, etc

All 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions.

 

[Snide]

And if Jimmy was a Republician then he'd have asked, 'Are you for defending your country, or do you want never-ending terrorist attacks'. 'Do you favor the governement taking your money and deciding where to spend it, or should it seek to rise all members of society'....etc, etc

All 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions.

I wouldn't say they were loaded questions, but rather they all were false dichotomies.

But I'll cut Jimmy some slack, as I would a Republican, because he said, "Then you should be a Democrat." In others, it doesn't necessarily follow that all Republicans are identifiable with the "B" options of each question. He's just saying, in his opinion, one who choses options "A" should join his party. (Of course we'd all choose option A over B each time, given only those two choices). I would be equally lax if Bush did a similar exercise and followed it with a "then you should be a Republican" remark. Perhaps it's only a small, subtle difference, but it's enough for me to say, "What's the big deal here?"

Oh, and I also don't know the context of the conversation...was it in some part tongue-in-cheek?

 

[Nancarrow]

A politician demonised the opposing party?

I don't believe you, BPSCG! You're just making it up!

 

[BPSCG]

And if Jimmy was a Republician then he'd have asked,

Ah, but Jimmy isn't a Republican, and I doubt you'll be able to find a Republican ex president who did ask that.

Carter, on the other hand, did ask what you properly referred to as...

'have you stopped beating your wife' questions.

I wouldn't say they were loaded questions, but rather they all were false dichotomies.

A politician demonised the opposing party?

I don't believe you, BPSCG! You're just making it up!

Remember this next time you hear someone say, "Well, he wasn't much of a president, but you can't say Jimmy Carter isn't our best ex-president..."

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Ah, but Jimmy isn't a Republican, and I doubt you'll be able to find a Republican ex president who did ask that.

Maybe. But it isn't because Republicans hold some sort of moral high ground in that respect. Rather, it is simply because every politician finds his own, unique, way of saying "The other guys are evil". Asking a series of "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions was just Carter's.

 

[BPSCG]

Maybe. But it isn't because Republicans hold some sort of moral high ground in that respect. Rather, it is simply because every politician finds his own, unique, way of saying "The other guys are evil". Asking a series of "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions was just Carter's.

Actually, ex-presidents have had a tradition of not commenting on politics after leaving office - a wise practice, IMHO. The last two Democratic ex-presidents seem to be trying to break that tradition. I don't remember Ford, Reagan, or Bush 41 commenting on any of their successors, or on any politics at all after leaving office. They certainly didn't paint their opponents with the kind of tar that Carter has been using. The Repubs may not have a "moral high ground", but Carter certainly has staked out the low ground with this comment.

 

[Snide]

Remember this next time you hear someone say, "Well, he wasn't much of a president, but you can't say Jimmy Carter isn't our best ex-president..."

So are you saying this account is proof that he isn't?

 

[BPSCG]

So are you saying this account is proof that he isn't?

I never knowingly try to prove a negative.

 

[Mark]

Things are getting so bad for the Republicans they are now attacking...Jimmy Carter! Who was elected 30 years ago!

I love it.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Things are getting so bad for the Republicans they are now attacking...Jimmy Carter! Who was elected 30 years ago!

I love it.

In fairness, when he made the comment he did, he opened himself up for attack. The same as any political commentator.

 

[DavidJames]

In fairness, when he made the comment he did, he opened himself up for attack. The same as any political commentator.

I don't think Mark is saying Carter isn't a candidate for criticism. I think it's more how pathetic are the Republican apologists that this is their tactic.

 

[Snide]

I never knowingly try to prove a negative.

Fair enough.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think Mark is saying Carter isn't a candidate for criticism. I think it's more how pathetic are the Republican apologists that this is their tactic.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Carter made a political statement. People comment on his comment. That's the way it's done.

 

[Mark]

I don't think Mark is saying Carter isn't a candidate for criticism. I think it's more how pathetic are the Republican apologists that this is their tactic.

Exactly. With everything going on, this is the best the Republicans can come up with?

 

[Mephisto]

Things are getting so bad for the Republicans they are now attacking...Jimmy Carter! Who was elected 30 years ago!

I love it.

Who else can they blame? They're in control of the government now and it's in an obvious shambles. New "issues" are being uncovered every day and not a single one shines a complimentary light on this adminstration. Bush's approval ratings have dropped even further today (at 36% - his lowest ever) and it's becoming more and more difficult to listen to the "patter" as they try to redirect our attention to the inadequacies of past Presidents.

 

[BPSCG]

inadequacies of past Presidents.

Correction: Inadequacies of current ex-presidents.

 

[Mark]

Correction: Inadequacies of current ex-presidents.

Which is far mnore important than a current president who has bankrupted the nation and is actively revoking key provisions in the U.S. Constitution.

No wonder Republicans have to complain about Jimmy Carter. What else are they going to do?