Keeping up with the Kerry's

It's got to be tough to find new ways to criticize your opponent in a Presidential race that has 7 months plus to go yet, especially when virtually everyone on your staff is busy defending you against charges by a former aide, but Team Bush really needs to get more focussed.

Today, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Democratic candidate John Kerry's use of a Bible verse yesterday in his critique of our "present national leadership" was "beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack." (For a great commentary on this visit Pandagon.)

But Kerry used that same line three weeks ago in Mississippi, with no response or outrage from the Bush White House then:

Quoting James 2:14, Kerry, a Catholic, said, "We'll be tested to see how much we really remember the words of the Scripture, What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"

So was it OK by Team Bush for Kerry to use the line in Mississippi but not Missouri? Is morality really that regional? Or is it just that Mississippi isn't the battleground state Missouri is? Or were they simply too busy preparing their talking points on Clarke three weeks ago to care then? With all those millions to spend, you'd think they could be a bit more on top of things.

Comments

[dmbeaster]

It was a slow news day for the slime machine.

[bleh]

And wasn't it kind of over-the-top (I mean, more so than usual) to call a bit of scripture "beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse"?

For one thing, it was very much on point. And for another, since when do bible-thumping Republicans shy from using biblical scripture in politics?

This Clarke thing really must have them rattled...

[Slartibartfast]

Or, more likely, no one noticed it in time the first time to present the appearance of a timely response.

I don't think either party has anything resembling copyright protection on Scripture, though. I've always hated it when Republicans seem to go out of their way to produce a Bible quotations; now it looks as if I get to dislike Democrats for doing it, too.

[Slartibartfast]

And wasn't it kind of over-the-top (I mean, more so than usual) to call a bit of scripture "beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse"?

Yes, it was.

[sidereal]

If the Kerry campaign was any good, it'd publicly ask Schmidt (and by reference the Bush campaign) why the Bible is beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse.

Game, Set, ...

Man, politics is so easy and peurile.

[praktike]

sidereal nails it.

put out a press release with the screaming headline: "GOP calls Bible quotation "beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse!"

[bob mcmanus]

We have to nip this stuff in the bud, stop this outside the bounds of political discourse type quoting, or next thing you know they'll be quoting Walt Kelly and Bart Simpson.

[Slartibartfast]

As others have pointed out, the Scripture in question isn't exactly supportive of Kerry's point. James is talking about compassion, not government-sponsored welfare programs. Which are, unsurprisingly, totally impersonal. To me, mandatory contribution to income-redistribution programs doesn't count as compassion.

Still, the criticism was off the rails.

[Timmy]

I'm not sure who gave Kerry the line but it was miscontrued as it is pulled from a discussion where James is talking about Faith and Actions.

Roman Catholics (I happen to be of the Irish variety) are weak in their analysis of scripture (tend to focus on the dogmas and mysteries of our faith), notwithstanding when any politician speaks from a pulpit, especially when quoting scripture, Jame 3:11 comes to mind (which pretains to speech):

No spring of water pours out sweet water and bitter water from the same opening

Then you ask yourself why would the lad know that verse, well it always comes in handy when the good father asks, why did you walk out of Mass this morning during the sermon (my normal response when politics is spoken from the pulpit on either side of the ledger btw).