Tag Archives: morality

No Room

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no room for certain disfavored Democrats in Pete Buttigieg’s Progressive-Democrat Party; he made that clear in Sunday night’s townhall hosted by Fox News.

A pro-life Democrat named Kristen Day asked Buttigieg whether he wanted the support of “people like me….”

First Buttigieg showed his courage by weasel-wording an evasive answer that in Day’s view completely ignored half her question.

I am pro-choice, and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision[.]

Day:

He didn’t answer the second part of my question, and the second part was: the Democratic platform contains language that basically says, “we don’t belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months, the government should pay for it.” In 1996 and several years after that there was language in the Democratic platform that said, “We understand that people have very differing views on this issue but we are a big tent party that includes everybody and therefore we welcome you—people like me—into the party so we can work on issues that we agree on.”

Buttigieg on being challenged over his evasiveness:

I support the position of my party—that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone, and I support the Roe v Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy there are very few restrictions and late in pregnancy there are very few exceptions.

Buttigieg paraphrased: “Screw you, lady. I’m pro-abortion, and that’s the end of it. Medical care needs to be available to everyone but the babies involved; aborting babies is perfectly fine medical care.”

Disagreements and Lies

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) and Bernie Sanders (I, VT) disagree with each other on whether Sanders ever told Warren that a woman could not win an election for President. That disagreement came to the fore in Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat primary debate, and became manifest in a post debate, still on the debate stage, spat between the two:

“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” Ms Warren said, according to audio released by CNN.
“What?” Mr Sanders responded.
“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she repeated.
“You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion,” Mr Sanders said.
Ms. Warren responded: “Anytime.”
“You called me a liar,” Mr Sanders said.

The WSJ asked in the article at the link,

Do you think this spat will influence voters as Democrats move forward to the primaries?

It certainly should influence voters in the general election. What the exchange demonstrates is that it isn’t possible to disagree with a member of the Progressive-Democratic Party. The one who disagrees must be a liar or must be calling the one with whom he disagrees a liar.

In Progressive-Democrats’ ideology, disagreements can’t possibly be differences of interpretation, and they certainly can’t ever be matters of saying that one or the other is mistaken.

No. The one is must be a liar or must be calling the other a liar. That’s a deliberate, consciously done effort to suppress dissent, to stifle disagreement. It’s an attack on free speech.

And it’s what we can expect, nationally, should a Progressive-Democrat occupy the White House.

Diversity Among Candidates

Posted on by
Reply

In an article reporting (now ex-) Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Cory Booker’s (D, NJ) withdrawal from Party’s primary campaign, The Wall Street Journal noted that Booker has, and continues to do so, decried the “lack of diversity” remaining among Party’s Presidential candidates.  Then the article’s author, Sabrina Siddiqui, asked the question

How could Democrats encourage more diversity in the presidential field?

To which I answer: any way that suits them.

Of course, the Progressive-Democrats should continue emphasizing ethnicity and race as the primary defining characteristics of a man and not the content of his character or the policies for which he argues.

Yeah. That’s the ticket.

Honorable Military Service

Posted on by
4

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and town mayor Pete Buttigieg has been making a big deal about his heroic service during his five-month tour in Afghanistan.

Greg Kelly and Katie Horgan, both ex-Marines with actual combat duty, had some thoughts about that in their Wall Street Journal op-ed.  So do I.  Kelly and Horgan noted,

He [Buttigieg] entered the military through a little-used shortcut: direct commission in the reserves.

Not even a 90-day wonder—a pomeranian prince.

Especially this:

Mr Buttigieg spent some five months in Afghanistan, where he writes that he remained less busy than he’d been at City Hall, with “more time for reflection and reading than I was used to back home.” He writes that he would take “a laptop and a cigar up to the roof at midnight to pick up a Wi-Fi signal and patch via Skype into a staff meeting at home.”

It’s a mark of the quality of Buttigieg’s “service” that he had less work to do even than that of being a small-town mayor.

Honorable officers, when they’re short of tasks, go looking for more things to do to advance the mission, they don’t head up to the roof top to moonlight on Skype or hide out somewhere recreationally reading.

Oh, and Bob Dole felt no need to lean on his military service, much less his actual wounds, in order to campaign for office. Neither did Phil Hart or Daniel Inouye.  But the unscathed rooftop pomeranian prince does.

What She Said

Posted on by
Reply

The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who died last Monday, had some thoughts on morals and society in her 1995 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Liberals and conservatives, radicals and socialists, disagreed about specific policies, but they were agreed on the principle that any measure of relief, for example (or charity, for that matter), had to justify itself by showing that it would promote the moral as well as the material well-being of the recipients….
… This principle stipulated that the condition of the “able-bodied pauper” (it did not apply to the sick, aged or children) be less “eligible”—that is, less desirable, less favorable—than the condition of the independent laborer. And “less-eligibility” meant not only that the pauper receive less by way of relief than the laborer did from his wages, but also that he receive it in such a way as to make pauperism less respectable than work—to “stigmatize” it….
In the past few decades we have deliberately divorced poor relief from moral principles, sanctions or incentives. This reflects in part the theory that society is responsible for all social problems and should therefore assume the task of solving them. …
The divorce of social policy from moral principles—the de-moralization of social policy—also reflects the spirit of relativism that is so pervasive in our time.

Absolutely, what she said. Now we’re at the start of a new year. It’s a good time to set about correcting that moral failure.

RTWT.