Burnt Orange Report

Van Os's comments on the clergy and thier prohibition as legislators strikes me as ... well it strikes me speechless. I don't really know how to respond to his assertions that he basically groups an entire field of citizens all together as the same because of thier initial appearance. It sounds a bit like he supports that type of discrimination. It sounds like he supports the original prohibition written into the Texas constitution. Dotted throughout the city of Austin are seminaries full of diverse minds and people who support, oppose, and don't know anything about Prop 2. To lump all those students together, to lump all thier graduates peers in the clergy together is discrimination. To assume they (clergy of every denomination and religion) all believe one way and are opposed to your line of thinking is pure lunacy. At one point I seriously supported Van Os for AG but I have to wonder about my own sanity now. In any case even if he is a bit crazy and likes to lump broad groups of people together he still is right when he says to oppose Prop 2. So go and vote, and VOTE NO ON PROP 2. He atleast got one thing right.

It never ceases to amaze me when intelligent people read the written word superficially and thus don't understand what they've read. Nowhere do I say that members of the clergy are assumed to be in favor of Proposition 2. My citation of the early Texas Constitutions is for the purpose of demonstrating that the principle of separation of church and state was strongly present. I do not say that clergy were disqualified from legislative service because they were bad, and neither did the framers of the early Constitutions. I do say that church and state should enjoy a wall of separation, and so did the framers. As for the relevance of that point to Proposition 2, does matthew_lt doubt that its leading proponents argue for its passage in the name of religion (theirs exclusively)? Does he doubt that the radical right argue to impose their particular, intolerant views onto public policy in the name of (exclusively their) religion?

Before I started reading this letter from a Democrat candidate running for Texas Attorney General, I hoped to find a reasoned, legal argument that cites specicic laws and court rulings that explain why Prop 2 shouldn't pass.

Instead, I read this:

"Greg Abbott, is campaigning on behalf of the passage of Proposition 2. So is the Ku Klux Klan."

I cringe when I see people make such implicit arguments about proponents of Prop 2, but I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, and ultimately the person is corrected, and it doesn't do much harm. But when a candidate for AG wants to make the same implicit assumptions, I do much more than cringe -- I, too, remain speechless.

How do Democrats enjoy being called baby-killers? Is that true? Is a verbal eye-for-an-eye policy really something that will help any cause you may believe in?

Vote against Prop 2 because it's bad public policy that invalidates any series of legal contracts set up by citizens of the state of Texas. Vote against Prop 2 because it aims to discriminate against a certain class of citizens. Vote against Prop 2, but not because you don't like the people who are for it. There's much, much better reasons to vote against Prop 2 than that.

David Van Os's "column" can be summed up in three words: Typical Liberal Drivel. If he's gonna associate the Attorney General with the KKK, then why don't we link him with MoveOn.org and Communist Party USA?

I don't know that I read it all that supperficially (the Van Os letter). But even if I did the point needs be made that the public, on a whole, reads everything very superficially. In a 24/7 news cycle the written word is over given a snippet of a moment for the average citizen to take in.

I guess what I'm getting at is that when you say, "Consistent with the values of the real Texas, I whole-heartedly support this principle ..." It sounds a lot like you suppurt all the previous points of the paragraph. I understand you don't support a prohibition on clergy as legislators and you have some great for the AGs office and Texas, but your letter doesn't read that way to me. It reads like an attack on clergy and religous people (atleast that portion does.)

I whole heartedly support you sir and I stand with you, your wife and others around the state in proclaiming, "We stand against making anybody a second-class citizen."

Reply to matthew_lt: You and I stand together. I am proud to be on your side. Never give up on the cause of truth and justice.

Reply to Phillip Martin and Trey: Excuse me, I was under the impression this was a political blog. I didn't realize some people viewed it as a symposium for literary critics. Or perhaps that some consultants and/or wannabe consultants used it as a forum to parade their omniscient wisdom - if so, 'tis a pity they so transparently reveal their pretentiousness. I have to admit, you do a pretty good job of ivory tower nitpicking at (presumably) allies. I hope you were also in the front lines in the fight to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights in opposition to Prop 2.

David Van Os:
You can link the Attorney General with the KKK, but you can't take criticism of your own post (one which I'm sure even inadvertently got voters mobilized to vote FOR Prop. 2)?
Linking a public official with an extremist group just because he supports the proposition is as insane as the as the existence of the extremist group. And I really hope that voters read your column. You need to be exposed for the far-left, out-of-touch demagogue that you are.
Maybe if you quit watching all the Michael Moore movies, you might at least catch a glimpse of reality.

And one more thing, David Van Os, if I find myself disappointed with Greg Abbott in 2006, I'll vote Libertarian before I even consider wasting my vote on you.