OK, get over the shock of actually talking about religion. Religion has entered politics, that is a done deal. In many ways, religion and politics both talk about building community. Let go of the "hands-off religion" rule, to look at how similar our religious differences is to our political differences (or don't read the article). While the religious world is far bigger, this discussion will just focus on the recent movie suggestions that Jesus might be just a guy.
One of the strongest differences between progressives and conservations is the reaction to the suggestion of recent movies the Jesus might be just a guy, outstanding by his life and by his teachings. Another variation is that Jesus is the son of God, in the same sense that all humans are children of God.
For progressives, the idea if Jesus might just a guy was interesting and not at all challenging to faith. In fact if Jesus - as an ordinary guy - could do such great things, then it meant that all of us could do more in what we do. It meant the teachings and life examples of Jesus were even more to be studied, emulated and revered.
So I was quite surprised to find out how upsetting the very idea of "Jesus might be just a guy" was to conservatives. The reaction is intense anger and denial. Indeed the idea can not even be discussed. What is so threatening about this idea?
I think that "power" is the essence of the conservative's beliefs. So the important essence of believing in Jesus requires the deity power, not how Jesus lived or what Jesus taught. Indeed as I asked questions at "Jesus" stands in conservative gatherings, they did not engage in discussions of key passages of the bible and in some cases, did not even recognize them. "Jesus" was a marketing tool, where one simply invoked the name and was saved. The essence of this religion seems to be "what the religion can do for me!" It is not a do-it-yourself kind of religion.
Happy belated Independence Day, everyone -- hope you enjoyed some fireworks and/or summer fair food with your families, and are enjoying the beautiful weather today.
Big E and I will be working on some new features for the site over the next couple of days, so if you see something that looks messed up, let us know.
Are the Republicans having an internal war and cleaning house? And if so what does that mean for Pawlenty? Is Pawlenty or Romney, the chosen one, by the Cheney-Rove-like insider team?
First let's remind you all that Republicans do not play by laws, rules or moral codes. See video, after the fold, for reports on how far Republicans have gone in braking laws and morals to deal with Democrats. Republicans violate even the most sacred of protection vows by outing people in secret intelligence, Valerie_Plame, simply for political gain. Torturing innocent people to gain false confessions is in the Republican playbook. So why would Republicans play by any rules inside the Republican party? The current process looks more like a Mafia-run power grab with political death instead of physical death.
Isn't it just totally suspicious how many Republican political front runners are all falling by the wayside, right now in this time when political news is least covered and noticed by the American public?
Alaskan governor Sarah Palin resigns. The Brad Blog is citing Alaskan reporter Shannyn Moore that the reasons may involve federal indictments. It seems that housing materials for Sarah Palin's personal house remodel came from the same source as the publically paid for Wasilla sports stadium.
South Carolina Mark Sanford goes AWOL on being governor for four days without even leaving the lieutenant governor in charge, facing possible impeachment.
According to Tarr, the South Carolina constitution gives "unusually broad" removal powers to the legislature. Not only can the legislature impeach a governor for "serious crimes or serious misconduct in office," it can also remove a governor in a process called "address" for any "willful neglect of duty" or "other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground of impeachment."
The TwoPutter did a nice post Here about how Laura Brod outright lies about Canadian wait times in order to scare people away from demanding good health care at a reasonable cost. Commenter EricF brought up a good question. We know that, despite Larua Brod's lie, Canadian wait times are reasonable. What about U.S. wait times? We know that, according to both the World Health Organization and the National Center for Health Statistics, our health care delivery is almost the worst in the modern world, and it costs two or three times as much, but at least we don't have to wait, right?
Never to be confused with a real outlet of journalism, Fox News already has their talking points in place with regard to Al Franken: emphasize his "high unfavorables." Of course, the poll they cite, duly repeated by Politico, was a national poll, which often doesn't turn out well for congressional leaders.
Can someone remind me of the last time we were supposed to care about a national poll about a junior Senator who hasn't even been sworn in for his first term yet? Or better yet, when was the last time a poll like that actually mattered?
Still, good to see Fox News is on the ball with their attack strategy.
Two trends are really changing the way politics will happen in next couple of years. Video is now the language of communication. Now "talking back" is even done in video, as this sample video shows.
This effect counters the endless-repeat lies done by mainstream media. In fact, "getting it" and knowing the lies is a major factor in the youth universe. One of the political cartoons was making a joke about seeing two shadows. A very smart teenager asked me why that was supposed to be funny. I told her that the famous man-on-the-moon photo has two shadows when there was only one light source. A single light source can only create a single shadow, so many people believe that landing on the moon was faked. She was thoughtful and not at all fazed by the idea that a common belief could be totally wrong. I think she could go places in myth busting that I have not imagined. The point of all of this, is that one has to be able to consider the possibility to investigate, which I find that older people are unable to do, while young people do consider possibilities with ease.
Coleman is not that popular. He's run for statewide office three times, losing twice, and winning only after his opponent, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), died in a plane crash and was replaced on the ballot by former Vice President Walter Mondale. Coleman's clever and delicate 11th-hour campaign against Mondale was impressive, but it still only netted him 49.5 percent of the vote in a very good Republican year. The last Minnesota poll, conducted in April by the Star-Tribune, gave him a 17-point net negative favorable rating. And for much of 2007 and 2008, he was considered the heavy favorite for re-election, considering Al Franken's long record of potentially controversial jokes, a strange tax issue (he failed to pay taxes on speaking fees in different states) and his difficulty uniting the Democratic base. (After Franken locked up the Democratic nomination at a state convention, he drew a bitter primary challenger who attacked him for his "record of pornography and degradation of women and minorities" and drew 30 percent of the primary vote.)
Add this to Coleman's ongoing legal problems and considerable debt and it's really quite strange that reporters handicap his chances for a comeback in an election only 16 months away.
Tough to disagree, really. Where would Coleman find a base in the Republican primary electorate? Social conservatives aren't his biggest fans, and they're more likely to go for a Brod or a Bachmann anyway. Establishment party-line types are more likely to support a Seifert or a Hann. Low-tax-at-all-costs corporate types might support Coleman, but are they enough to get through a potentially crowded primary?
(Mark My Words has some valid concerns about the Obama Administration's foot-dragging on equal rights -- hopefully this can be a positive dialog focused on pushing the right kind of action. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
"After Monday's meeting, I am persuaded that President Obama is committed to working with our community to advance the visions and hopes of our entire country. I know that he has heard the message of frustration from our community about lack of meaningful action and the damage inflicted by missteps of the last few months. I am grateful for such a unique opportunity to present these issues to him, and I hope the messages we all brought to the White House resonate with the administration. I look forward to more rapid progress on change for the better."
And I'm curious on why you feel persuaded that President Obama is committed to anything related to our GLBT Community.
Going back to my rural roots, Tom Rukavina is a Ventura-like candidate who could do surprisingly well if he ever got organized. While I am always second-guessing whether a candidate will do what he or she says, I never, ever doubt Tom Rukavina. His courage and honesty should appeal to any progressive. Tom wears his heart and his soul wide open. With this wide open populist approach, Tom Rukavina frequently captures the media stories. This is a talent that would be critical in a governor's race. Even his opponents are entertained!
Tom Rukavina is a DFL House Representative from Virginia. This is an area with wide open spaces and many bars, a drinking culture. So it will probably not surprise you to find out that Tom Rukavina was driving erratically and was therefore cited for a fourth-degree DUI in 2004. Tom Rukavina cooperated with the Sheriff. In the next election, Tom Rukavina won by a higher percentage than before.
Minnesota Brown described Tom this way:
State Rep. Tom Rukavina is one of the great characters of the Iron Range. I mean great in that he personifies our unusual culture rather well and that his heart is usually in the right place, too.
(Minnesota Brown)
Tom Rukavina can champion surprising populist causes. Tom championed into law the requirement that alcohol be available to all legal-age buyers at the new TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota or that no alcohol at all be available. Previously, the U of M's plan was just to offer alcohol in the premium seats.
"There was an overwhelming feeling in the Legislature that what the Board of Regents did was elitist," Rukavina said. "If you can afford to sit in the premium seats, you can drink chardonnay, and if you sit in the cheap seats, you get water or pop ... We didn't think that was right."
(Uwire)
I stood up and cheered to this one!
While Tom Rukavina has not formally declared, he spoke in the time sent aside for gubernatorial candidates at a Minnesota DFL central committee meeting. Could this guy catch fire? Tell me what you think!
As for what lines of argument Seifert might take with state Republican caucus-goers, to show that he's the better candidate: "I think my appeal is that I'm electable and that -- you know, the bottom line is, I love Norm as a person and as a public servant, but he lost to Al Franken, for goodness' sake."
I asked Seifert about a thought experiment I'd been doing, putting myself in the shoes of a Minnesota Republican activist -- that I would think "we was robbed" in the 2008 Senate race, and a Coleman candidacy for Governor would immediately be an appealing way to put things right again.
"It never should have been close, there never should have been a recount," Seifert responded. "So most people in the party, I think, are looking at the analysis and saying, we should have never had 42% against Al Franken. It should never have been close to start with. And that's with all due respect to Sen. Coleman, but it never should have been close."
A couple of threads to suss out here -- Seifert is going against the official party line of "Franken stole the race!" and admitting that, while extremely close, the race was ultimately won fair and square by Senator-elect Franken. But he's also providing us a preview of the kind of bloodletting that's going to happen in the GOP endorsement process -- and with so many candidates, there's a strong possibility of a primary as well, especially if big names like Coleman and Bachmann jump into the race.
Sen.-elect Franken himself has made the point that a lot of people voted against him. 58%, in fact. Of course, 58% (plus 300-some-odd votes, of course) voted against Coleman as well. The difference now between the two is that one is theoretically considering whether to run statewide just two years after nearly six in ten Minnesotans voted against him.
The Avista Capital Partners-owned Star Tribune still cannot abide the thought of former senator Norm Coleman out of politics. After all, they invested significant time, effort and copy inches pushing his campaign and then propping it up after it was clear he was going to lose. Mike Kaszuba, seeming to follow company orders, ignored several key facts in writing his analysis of Norm's political future.
The biggest mystery, now that Democrat Al Franken is heading to the U.S. Senate, is how soon Republican Norm Coleman will let Minnesotans know whether he wants to be their governor.
Kaszuba glosses over Norm's legal troubles, ignoring three of the four problems Norm faces. He doesn't even note what Norm is in trouble for:
But Coleman would face potential roadblocks. The FBI is still investigating his relationship with Nasser Kazeminy, a major political donor accused in lawsuits of funneling payments to Coleman through a business where Coleman's wife worked.
Maybe the Strib is too short-handed right now to assign someone who knows the political history of Norm. Maybe they're on vacation. At any rate, Kaszuba ignores three other probable corruption investigations:
Kazeminy bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of designer clothing for Norm.
Norm got a below market rate for his apartment in Washington, DC from a political ally and the guy who received millions in business from Coleman's campaign and senatorial office.
Norm's landlord's company may have paid Norm's utility bills.
In all four cases, Kaszuba fails to mention Norm's legal problem ... he didn't report these gifts. If Norm is indicted, if Norm spends time in prison, it will be for not reporting these gifts.
And there's one more problem with Kaszuba's analysis ...
(Editor's note: TwoPuttTommy is on vacation; this post was originally published on May 27th, 2008 at MnBlue. While TPT discusses then-Party Chairman Ron Carey, Current Party Chairman Tony Sutton was Party Treasurer.)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
"And we anticipate filing some amendments..."
...is an exact quote from a July 20th, 2007 letter from the Republican Party of Minnesota to the Federal Elections Commission.
"SOME" amendments?
How about SEVENTY amendments!!!
One for each month of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the months of January through November of 2007.
Is that "some"?
Ladies and Gentlemen, under Ron Carey's "stewardship" in leadership roles, the RepubliCan Party of Minnesota has been paying fines to the FEC, going back to 2001 and a fine of $16,000. Since 2002, the FEC has repeatedly and continually asked for clarification of those monthly reports because, well, they simply don't add up nor make sense.
And since Ron Carey began criticizing Al Franken's bookkeeping problems, demanding Franken answer questions, republiCon Ron began ducking questions and re-filing amended monthly reports to the FEC for a period covering almost SIX YEARS. And who knows? There may be even more amended returns coming up. After all, what's republiCon Ron gonna say about the latest batch of amended returns - "Well, sure, we've amended a bunch of previously amended reports, but THIS time, we got 'em "right"!!!"
Hey - if they didn't get 'em "right" the first time, nor the second, why would anyone believe republiCon Ron got 'em "right", this time?
Think about that - since 2002, the Republican Party of Minnesota has not gotten a single month's report done correctly. Not a single one.
How's THAT, for a track record?
Now, one thing to remember, is this: the whole time republiCon Ron was in front of a microphone, piously criticizing Franken's paperwork, he KNEW that those seventy amendments to the previously amended reports were going to be filed.
He KNEW.
Yet he hypocritically ripped Franken anyway.
Why?
Unfortunately, that's a question that can't be asked, because although republiCon Ron is fond of demanding Franken answer questions, answering questions isn't something Ron likes to do, himself.
