Democrat National Convention: Day 4
NY Senator Chuck Schumer was just in the house. I went to get a photo of him and found myself sitting in on his conversation with the Daily Kos bloggers.
A few points.
Republican 527s will be aiming not at the presidential race but at senatorial races, which he said worries him. Of course.
Meanwhile there’s this, just out from Gallup…
HT for Gallup poll: LifeNews.com]
Aug.28, 2008 1:46 pm |
Industry watch, Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hey..do you think these conservative Democrats are learning something they don’t like about Obama ?
Hmmm… I wonder what THAT could be?
Thank you Jill, for getting the word out! Those conservative democrats are finally learning what kind of an individual Obama is!
Chuck Schumer is one of the safest Senators. He’s also one of the most intelligent and hard-working. In those departments he is in the same league as the Clintons and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) and former Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tx) and Congressman Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Newt Gingrich when he was Congressman. And he is never uninteresting when he is on Cspan.
Also the 527s are right to focus on the Senate. The Republicans’ ability to sustain filibusters in the Senate will be the limiting step on President Obama’s ability to accomplish anything legislatively.
In just the past two days, I have personally encountered two pro-life (but staunch Democrat) Catholics who are torn up about Democrat Party’s commitment to “reproductive rights”. Yes, I do believe Catholic Democrats may finally be seeing their party for what it truly is – “A Party of Death.” (Great book by Ramesh Ponnuru, by the way!)
Jill is either not reading the comments or being extremely immature by continuing to refer to the Democratic National Convention epithetically as the “Democrat” National Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
Ray,
I am sorry but the more you write about it, the more it makes me smile. :) It seems very important to you. Got it.
“”Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002.” – Hilary Clinton, March 2008
Thank you Ray, for giving us something very, very important to think about!
Valerie wrote:
Yes, I do believe Catholic Democrats may finally be seeing their party for what it truly is – “A Party of Death.” (Great book by Ramesh Ponnuru, by the way!)
Logic error. Ramesh’s book was very clear the the Party of Death (PoD) is not the Democratic Party. The PoD has members in both major political parties, although is is much stronger among the Dems….
Otherwise, I agree with you. I am very hopeful that Obama’s wide-open support for the right to kill children will cost him votes among Catholics and pro-life Democrats.
Ray: “Jill is either not reading the comments or being extremely immature by continuing to refer to the Democratic National Convention epithetically as the “Democrat” National Convention.”
Actually one suggestion, which I am almost positive is the case, for why some people call it the Democrat party is due to a slacking in grammar. A lot of people drop the ic off. Think about it. We call the Rebuplican Party members Republicans…certainly it would seem logicall to call the party of the Democrats the Democrat Party. Grammatically correct? Not technically. Epithetical? Not necessarily…and honestly, not likely.
RSD, did you vote for GWBush over Al Gore? If yes, why didn’t experience matter then?
Valerie, did you really think Ramesh Ponnuru’s book was great? I haven’t read it but I have read a lot of his internet writing including National Review and I’ve never seen anything other than propagation of the strict RTL line as typefied by Bill Kristol and Alan Keyes although Keyes is more open about his reliance on emotion and his connection with organized commercial Christianity. Ponnuru is reasonably articulate and reasonably well-informed but original he’s not.
“Republican” is both a noun and an adjective. “Democrat” is only a noun and “Democratic” is only an adjective. Republicans like Jill who refuse to use the adjectival form out of suffix-envy should instead invent a new noun-only form for “Republican” which I believe was originally an adjective. I’m sure I’m not the first person to think of calling Republicans “Republics”?
“Republican” is both a noun and an adjective. “Democrat” is only a noun and “Democratic” is only an adjective. Republicans like Jill who refuse to use the adjectival form out of suffix-envy should instead invent a new noun-only form for “Republican” which I believe was originally an adjective. I’m sure I’m not the first person to think of calling Republicans “Republics”?
Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2008 9:24 PM
……………
Repubs?
To Naaman – I believe it is you who has made an error in logic. I never said that Ponnuru’s book was about the Democrat Party. I said that the Democrats are, in fact, revealing themselves to be “A Party of Death.” As they say — if the shoe fits. . . .
To SoMG – Read the book.
“Actually one suggestion, which I am almost positive is the case, for why some people call it the Democrat party is due to a slacking in grammar. A lot of people drop the ic off. Think about it. We call the Rebuplican Party members Republicans…certainly it would seem logicall to call the party of the Democrats the Democrat Party. Grammatically correct? Not technically. Epithetical? Not necessarily…and honestly, not likely.”
That was my point, except you neatened it up.
SoMG: “Valerie, did you really think Ramesh Ponnuru’s book was great? I haven’t read it but I have read a lot of his internet writing including National Review and I’ve never seen anything other than propagation of the strict RTL line as typefied by Bill Kristol and Alan Keyes although Keyes is more open about his reliance on emotion and his connection with organized commercial Christianity.”
I HAVE read the book and can tell you that it steers clear of religious arguments such as ensoulment. It cites medical textbooks and then makes its case from there. It also deals with the ongoing push for euthanasia…
Did anyone hear Biden say “Democrat Convention” tonight. I think I did….
SoMG “”Republican” is both a noun and an adjective. “Democrat” is only a noun and “Democratic” is only an adjective. Republicans like Jill who refuse to use the adjectival form out of suffix-envy should instead invent a new noun-only form for “Republican” which I believe was originally an adjective. I’m sure I’m not the first person to think of calling Republicans “Republics”?”
I am not saying that they do it on purpose. I am saying it happens from a general degrading in grammar. Its really a non-issue. Our society is for the most part too lazy in grammar to even get the “insult.” To honestly think she means it to be a subtle jab is really pretty lame.
I HAVE read the book and can tell you that it steers clear of religious arguments such as ensoulment. It cites medical textbooks and then makes its case from there. It also deals with the ongoing push for euthanasia…
Posted by: bmmg39 at August 28, 2008 10:36 PM
………………………………..
Hmmm. Push for euthanasia? Afraid that someone is going to mistake you for being brain dead and permanently pull the plug on your IPod?
Sally,
Ipod? I dont think I get it.
Hmmm. Not really, Sally. Why don’t you just read the book? Here, you don’t even have to read the whole thing. Sneak into the library or bookstore and check out the Marjorie Nighbert story in Chapter 11. Nighbert, a stroke victim, required the use of a feeding tube but was NOT terminally ill.
“She had once told her brother, however, that she didn’t want a tube in the case of terminal illness, and he interpreted her remark to mean that she wouldn’t want a tube if she required one to stay alive. He had her tube removed. She was still capable of asking for food and water, however, and did.”
Well, guess what happened. A judge-appointed lawyer investigated, and concluded that Nighbert wasn’t competent to make the decision to accept food and water, she was removed from the feeding tube again, and died. See the Catch-22? The desire to “let go” is taken seriously, but the desire to “keep fighting” is dismissed as irrational and proof that the patient is not in her/his right mind, so they let the patient die either way.
Why don’t you do some study of Futile Care Theory, Sally, and see what this is all about? The “futilitarians” believe that doctors should be able to refuse medical treatment for a patient — even if the patient and his/her loved ones want it — if those doctors believe the patient’s “quality of life” don’t warrant it.
It’s one thing for people to have their own living will set out, stating that they don’t want one thing or another done for them. It’s quite another thing for people to decide, since THEY wouldn’t want to go on living in a certain condition, that no one ELSE would, either.
Sally,
Ipod? I dont think I get it.
Posted by: Oliver at August 29, 2008 12:05 AM
……………………..
That would be a satirical asersion on today’s youth in that it might be an expected remark to a preconceived notion of today’s children. Get it?
Hmmm. Not really, Sally. Why don’t you just read the book? Here, you don’t even have to read the whole thing. Sneak into the library or bookstore and check out the Marjorie Nighbert story in Chapter 11. Nighbert, a stroke victim, required the use of a feeding tube but was NOT terminally ill.
“She had once told her brother, however, that she didn’t want a tube in the case of terminal illness, and he interpreted her remark to mean that she wouldn’t want a tube if she required one to stay alive. He had her tube removed. She was still capable of asking for food and water, however, and did.”
Well, guess what happened. A judge-appointed lawyer investigated, and concluded that Nighbert wasn’t competent to make the decision to accept food and water, she was removed from the feeding tube again, and died. See the Catch-22? The desire to “let go” is taken seriously, but the desire to “keep fighting” is dismissed as irrational and proof that the patient is not in her/his right mind, so they let the patient die either way.
Why don’t you do some study of Futile Care Theory, Sally, and see what this is all about? The “futilitarians” believe that doctors should be able to refuse medical treatment for a patient — even if the patient and his/her loved ones want it — if those doctors believe the patient’s “quality of life” don’t warrant it.
It’s one thing for people to have their own living will set out, stating that they don’t want one thing or another done for them. It’s quite another thing for people to decide, since THEY wouldn’t want to go on living in a certain condition, that no one ELSE would, either.
Posted by: bmmg39 at August 29, 2008 12:14 AM
…………………………………
While you are reading RTL sites and working yourself into a lather over how unimportant you might be to have someone pull your plug out before you bring about world peace…….. siiiit ……
Why don’t you just do that before your brain becomes liquid?
Sally: “That would be a satirical asersion on today’s youth in that it might be an expected remark to a preconceived notion of today’s children. Get it?”
No actually. I still dont see how unplugging someone’s IPod is related to unplugging life support. Actually, now that I think about it, I dont see how that sentence has to do with unplugging someone’s IPod. “It” “might” be a preconcieved notion of today’s children??
The funny part is I almost understood the gist of her iPod post, while the one to me seems to have been typed while she was sleepwalking.
I get the “gist” of the IPod statement. She was trying to say he was dumb I think. I wanted to know what it meant, or why it was an insult. However, looking at her response to you, I am even more confused, so I guess you win bmmg.
Valerie and bmmg, I wish I had time to read everything I want to read. Based on Ponnuru’s articles and his reviews at amazon.com I don’t think I have time for his book.
I HAVE, however, read the full title. And the title specifically identifies Democrats as part of the Party of Death. Sorry, Naamen. Maybe you are right that the text of the book distinguishes Dems from the “PoD” but if it does then he’s trying to have it both ways. The full title of the book is
The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life.
Anyway, you who have read it please answer three questions: 1. Does RP support preventing abortion by means of violence like Paul Hill? How about by lesser violence like kidnapping the patient? By breaking the law in any way? If not, why not? Does he consider any of these questions? 2. Does RP consider the abortion-on-demand-is-justifiable-homicide-because-the-person-killed-is-inside-the-patient’s-body-and-engaged-in-bloodstream-to-bloodstream-exchange-against-her-will-and-is-getting-ready-to-inflict-L&D-on-her-against-her-will argument? What does he think of it? 3. Does RP favor criminalizing abortion patients like in the Philippines or just providers? What about self-aborters?
Well, a couple more questions: 4. Does RP consider the argument that withholding euthanasia from a patient who rationally wants it may be a violation of the patient’s freedom? Or does he just mention the argument and say “see–Party of Death!”? 5. Generally does he consider serious pro-choice arguments and say why he thinks they are wrong or does he just state them and say they are examples of the Ideology of the PoD? 6. Does he use the phrase “pro-abortion” to refer to pro-choice? Does he distinguish between the Party of Death and the Party of Freedom?