And have the potential of biting a 17-term congressman in the butt.

The Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha saga continues. He can’t seem to quit putting his foot in his mouth. The Democratic congressman first got in hot water last week by explaining “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”

Quite understandably, his constituents from Western PA didn’t think much of this description. Rep. Murtha tried to clarify his statement by explaining that the older folks weren’t really racist, just redneck.

That should have reassured those constituents in question. {{sarcasm button on}} Still, Murtha predicts an Obama win in Pennsylvania.

According to ABC news,

The 17-term Democratic congressman told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”
Murtha said it has taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to embracing a black presidential candidate, but that Obama should still win the state, though not in a runaway.

70 thoughts on “Racist and Redneck: Divisive Words Surface…

  1. TWINAD

    MH,

    I LOL’d at Robb’s comments, too! Best laugh I’d had since yesterday when I was listening to the Mike O’Meara show on my way home from work. They played a “Master Debater” game and both guys debating were hilarious!

  2. Moon-howler

    Mr. Mike has the biggest Obama sign in Manassas, I believe.

    Is that a regular feature of the show? (Master Debater)

  3. Red Dawn

    AWCheney,

    “Since we’re talking about how much we all love the major party candidates, did any of you hear about the debate tonight between the Independent candidates on the ballot? I understand that it’s happening in DC tonight at 9 P.M. and is supposed to be broadcast on C-SPAN. I also understand that McCain and Obama have been invited, but are not expected to show up.”

    I am watching and I REALLY like what Chuck Baldwin is saying.

  4. YOO HOO

    As much as I am a fan of Bob Wills and had no other hope to write in a Presidential candidate ( other than Ron Paul ), I have found my vote: Chuck Baldwin! I love Ron Paul but the reason why I love him is for his economic stance.
    Chuck for Prez, Ron for Sec of Treasurer

    song 🙂

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1mCQKuvzCM

    Red Dawn

  5. ShellyB

    I did’t see the debate. What was so great about Baldwin?

  6. Moon-howler

    Yea what was Chuck Baldwin’s claim to fame? Too late now. I voted. But I am still curious.

  7. TWINAD

    MH,

    I knew Mike O lived in Old Town, but I don’t know where, so can’t confirm the Obama signage size! But can confirm he will be devastated if McCain gets in.

    I had never heard the “Master Debater” game before, but it sounded like those guys were the winners of previously held debates and were deemed the “Master Debaters” and then got to face off. They really were cracking me up. I flip around alot on the ride home between 3 different stations…but it’s Junkies all the way in the morning with the occasional WTOP check in for reality check. Those certainly aren’t very fun any more!

  8. Red Dawn

    Chuck Bladwin seems like a no nonsense man. He spoke ofthe importance of protecting our nation and our constitutional rights which makes our nation. He talked about how we are lossing our civil liberties and he would go back and review all of the things that are endangering our rights such as The Patriot Act, etc He doesn’t agree with natinonalizing the banking system. He believes in religious freedom. Just about everything he said I agreeded with. He is not pro-choice, that was the only downfall.I am sure he doesn’t have a chance at all to win, who has really heard of him? Nader made good points too. I liked both of them over McCain and Obama. 🙂

  9. Moon-howler

    RD, well I guess I wouldn’t have voted for him with that last disclaimer in there. He talks aobut us lossing our civil liberties but wants to start controlling deeply personal decisions? He really doesn’t get it then.

  10. michael

    Robb, 23:18
    Your perspective of embracing diversity as the solution is idealistic… and likely not ever workable.
    You forget that you are going against basic human nature. It is a fundamental human trait to distrust and dislike anyone who you see as “not of your inner circle” of friends. That distrust is extended to any “group attributes” that are different than your group attributes.

    People cannot (at least the majority of people) and will not accept people into trusting relationships without the development of personal friendships. The choice of those friends is often based on similar individual attributes, cultures, interests and lifestyles.

    The choice of confort and discomfort, trust and distrust is by basic human nature based on identifying commonalities, and common perspectives, common areas of agreement and common ideologies.

    When the average human being meets or confronts people of different attributes, perspectives, philosophy or ideologies, they have conflict and dislike for each other.

    This human trait is highly observable in the comments of people toward each other on this blog, proving that human nature will not trust people with differences as much as it will trust people with similarities.

    I am telling you that rather than praise the differences, recognize the differences and encourage the differences (which creates an atmosphere and perspective of distrust, anger, dislike, and disagreement), people need to identify the similarities, common attributes and common ideologies that will enable them to accept each other as common human beings. Such Identification, and encouragement toward similarity in culture, ideology, language and law will create an environment of trust, friendship, comfort and commonality in language and understanding.

    To do otherwise historically and by all available evidence of social interaction, differences lead to war and conflict, similarities lead to peace and trust.

    You will not be able to change human nature to trust and desire similarity more than difference, even if you deeply idealize it.

  11. What Michael is saying is really no more than many of you around here have been preaching for quite some time…it’s the concept of finding common ground. Michael is right, whether it be amongst diverse people or in politics. Only in that common ground do people tend to feel comfortable enough to be able to pause and step back to objectively assess and appreciate each other’s differences.

  12. michael

    I really have a difficult time arguing with people about the abortion issue, mainly because brains are rarely if ever used in the debate, and emotions are almost always deeply ingrained by some repetitive religious or ideological drumbeat. (Humans become what they hear).

    The fundamental issue about abortion is whether of not it is explicitly prohibited in the bible. “thou shalt not kill” is the only reasonable reference, and that is old testament, not new covenant “law”. Fanatical religious conceptualization of ideologies, far beyond any explicit prohibition (as are so many other religious prohibitions way beyond actual scripture) is the primary reason for the “modern” focus of “christians” on anti-abortion sentiment. They have very little scripture to actually back this belief up, other than what their “pastor” interpreted for them. That “interpretation” becomes gospel, rather than the actual scripture becoming a religious guideline.

    Then there is the issue of “enforcement”. Whose place is it to “enforce” religious law?
    God and scripture will tell you “God is the enforcement of scripture”. Religious fanatics will tell you that there “pastor” is the enforcer of religious law, and that people should enforce religious law.

    The punishment happens not in this lifetime, but in death. People want to enforce that punishment now, kind of like trying a criminal without a legal judge, and enforceing law with a “posse”. Anti-abortion fanatics are “posse” members, oppressors of all men who do not believe like they do, believing that God is telling them to persecute others.

    Here is the fundamental issue to me. God’s law and scripture is between God and the “individual”, not the “individual” and the “state” or the “individual” and the “congregation”.

    On a secular argument level, it is about enforcing law on all individuals the same, but allowing a majority to vote on law enforcement of “beliefs” on “individuals” that are personal and different based on each individual circumstance. It is a matter of “rights of individuals” compared to “rights of states”. Democracy gives voting rights to “individuals” and executes laws on “individuals” and recognizes individual freedoms, individual choices and individual rights. To me the debate is about givng the “States” rights over “individuals” rights, and the right of the “State” governed by religious fanatics to have a right to enforce religious “beliefs” on all members of that state, regardless of what the “beliefs” of the individual are.
    Since we protect the “state” and prevent the state from passing any law that would “give preference to any religion”, we should prohibit the state from giving any preference to any “religious belief”, including the religious “belief” that “God does not support any abortion”.

    I personally believe that God does “support” abortion decisions made by individuals in consultation with him, based on the circumstances of each case and the best interest (God’s “interest” and desire for “general welfare” for each “individual”, and not for the general welfare or desire of each “state” or religious group “belief”.

    The problem with abortion is “life” has not been defined by God in the scripture, so “pastors” and “fanatics” are defining “life” for all individuals. They then desire to force those beliefs on everyone against their will. That is the hateful “obligation keeper” form of Christianity, and not the loving “liberator” form of Christianity, that cares for the welfare of all individuals according to their needs. Christ today would likely support the needs of the individual, not the needs of the “State” and would definately oppose Christian oppression and persecution, harmfully done in God’s name.

    In heaven, who do you think is going to be punished by God the most?

    The reason we have such a fanatical Republican party is because it is run by such fanatics that care more about “abortion” than they do about scripture, and the welfare of oppressed women, less than the welfare of unborn life forms. Only God defines what “life” is. Even viruses are living, should we never kill them also? That is the stupidity in the debate where people can’t use their brains to define life, but use their “emotions” and thier “pastor” to define “life”. I find it very interesting that “religious life” begins only after an individual accepts Christ, why would physical life creation and destruction (at any stage and in any form) be any different to God?

  13. michael

    I am pro-life too, and pro-individual. I believe it is the right of the individual to choose what to do about “life” conceived by them, and that choice will be supported by God in personal prayer or punished by God if at all (God says all sins but one are forgiven) if the message of individual prayer is not listened to.
    I am against fanatical, hateful Christians and for loving, caring Christians who believe that individual choice and decisions should be made by seeking God’s advice only.
    God may say, save the baby, or he may say save the woman. “You” as an oppressor do not know that desire of God for that case, and “you” as the oppressor are not the judge, jury and executioner.

  14. Red Dawn

    Michael,

    You have said so much that I agree with.

    Romans 3:23″ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

    We were all born with free will and a sinful nature. God does forgive and it is a personal relationship between the individual and God no matter the type of sin. HE is the one who knows the heart and intent. It is NOT for anyone else to decide. That is the difference between God’s law vs man’s (interpretation) law.

  15. Red Dawn

    OBVIOUSLY, I am not good at portraying my thoughts in a written form.
    I agree that we should have laws and they should be enforced and/or changed as humans evolve. I just think to make them based on A particular religious belief is wrong and the need for the preservation of religious freedom, The after life ( if one believes in it or not) will be dealt with then.
    Our constitutional rights need to be preserved as a NATION and COUNTRY. It just seems to me that the rights of We the people are being stripped away with out say and the we are losing our voice, our freedom and what will be considered pro-choice without the foundation of our nation? (freedom) 🙂

  16. Robb Pearson

    Michael, you stated:

    Robb, Your perspective of embracing diversity as the solution is idealistic . . . and likely not ever workable. You forget that you are going against basic human nature. It is a fundamental human trait to distrust and dislike anyone who you see as “not of your inner circle” of friends.

    Michael you couldn’t be more wrong (art thou a Calvanist by any chance?)

    My perspective of embracing diversity isn’t idealistic. It’s realistic. And it absolutely is workable. How do we know? Because there are abundant demonstrations of it everywhere. Such as in many religious communities, be they Christian or non-Christian (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unitarians, to point out two mutually disparate yet excellent examples). Many social communities in general, such as the one I grew up in in New Jersey. Etc., etc.

    The fact that embracing diversity works is due to nothing less than the power of human reason and its resultant creative choices to overcome what you refer to as “human nature” (the theory of which is an absolute farce, by the way).

    As to distrusting and disliking others “not of our kind”, it isn’t a “fundamental human trait”. To say so is a complete cop-out, and hence an excuse for you — and others who subscribe to your weak armchair sociological theory on diversity — to not try. It instead permits you to surrender.

    Oh ye of little faith.

    As for the comments on this blog … you must be joking. The comments and occasional sharp debate on this blog represent nothing more than the healthy (and centuries-old) American tradition of intense adversarial discourse. And when it gets out of hand, the moderators step in and — yes, you guessed it — appeal to human reason, and guess what . . . things eventually return to their usual peaceful tone.

    And perhaps that’s the greatest lesson here, Michael. This blog in itself is an example of diversity being embraced (i.e., diversity in opinion), and even celebrated (i.e., by the mere fact of this blog’s continued tolerance of differing viewpoints). And it works.

    As for an example of what you refer to as people encouraging “similarity in culture, ideology, language and law” go to the BVBL website. They tried it there (such as in NOT embracing differences, but instead encouraging likeness in opinion only). And the effects speak quite loudly for themselves.

    P.S. . . . Jesus of Nazareth would absolutely disagree with your approach, by the way.

  17. Robb Pearson

    Michael:

    You stated:

    “life” has not been defined by God in the scripture

    You’re kidding (again), right?

    For those (unlike myself) who believe that scripture (i.e., the Bible) is the inerrant and absolute revelation of “God”, there is actually some clear scriptural indicators for how “God” defines life, both inside and outside the womb.

    Let’s start with Genesis chapter 1. Without quoting verse by verse, basically when “God” created human life, He declared “it was very good”.

    Coming from “God”, that’s a pretty big endorsement for the value of human life. (And one could infer that by mere virtue of “God” so valuing human life, He would likewise equally value the nature and fruits of its reproduction, the process of which He created).

    As to the general value of a fetus . . .

    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; … My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. … your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

    Psalm 139:13-16

    As to the legal value of a fetus and the implications regarding abortion . . .

    If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.

    Exodus 21:22-23

    Again, these examples will be relevant and meaningful only to those who subscribe to the Bible as the ultimate source of truth and rule for living.

  18. TWINAD

    Robb,

    Thanks for addressing Michael’s comment that clearly illustrates why he has a distaste for others not like himself.

    Michael’s Quote: You forget that you are going against basic human nature. It is a fundamental human trait to distrust and dislike anyone who you see as “not of your inner circle” of friends. That distrust is extended to any “group attributes” that are different than your group attributes.

    Michael, that may be the way you feel, but don’t use the broad brush to paint me and all others as inherently unable to trust or like others “not of our kind”. Yuck.

  19. Moon-howler

    Well, well, well. Just when I thought I had heard it all regarding abortion. Let’s see if I can’t make it a bit more succinct. Opposed to abortion? Don’t have one.

    People just have to decide who they want making deeply personal decisions. Themselves or the government.

    We have been at war in 2 countries, have an economy that is on the precipice of disaster, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, people’s retirement funds up in smoke. and this country will elect a president based on some mumbo jumbo about abortion? Holy Cow.

    Did George Bush fix the abortion issue? NOOOOOO. Were there 6 years of a Republican house, senate and president? Yeeeesssssss. Well, why didn’t it happen? Because the American people want to keep their safety net.

    Carl Sagan article. Makes sense to me:
    http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

  20. chris c

    Racists come in many different colors and political parties,.

Comments are closed.