'I'd rather focus on the reasons why they should in fact look at the virtues of the position they seem to consistently vote against'
The Republican party is conservative and predominatly Christian ( or Judeo-Christian) value based.
It does not have to sacrifice its principles and values to go after a section of the population ( secular jews) who have enough reasons to vote GOP but dont do so because they are liberal. It is a fruitless exercise and party's resources can be used better.
'If Abe Foxman wants to pounce on some piddling inference that requires a magnifying glass of atomic proportions to read anti-semitism into, that is one thing. This is quite different. '
Inferring anti-semitism in this particular Harris comment is infact a overstretch and even Abe Foxman could not stretch his imagination like that one would think.
'It has provided more ammunition than should be available to discredit this candidate. Just as significantly, I cannot see how this should be considered a comment that bears well upon Christians.'
It only provides ammunition if people let it to be, a Liberal would be outraged just at the prospect of seeing a Republican run for office, i dont think that kind of ammunition should be a concern. Christians would not be concerned about what the secular crowd thinks about them. Rational thinking people would not really be offended by her comments.
I'm not sure if you could misunderstood me any more than you apparently have. I didn't say anything about the GOP having to reach out to non-GOPers. I'm pointing to non-GOPers finding more and more reason to consider voting GOP. I'm not suggesting that the GOP change what it is.
If Harris' remarks are indicative of what the GOP is, then perhaps I misunderstood it myself. I certainly hadn't thought that non-Christians should be considered legislators who would be, by default, sin-enacting legislators...in essence, of course.
And I didn't say there was anything anti-semitic about the remarks, anyway...are you serious? I guess I was correct in my first post. Reading comprehension would be helpful here. What I was saying was that I've seen the likes of Foxman get worked up over this or that issue or statement that I personally would consider far less controversial. People like that look for anti-semitism under rocks.
Why give them anything else to complain about? If it was a point that could not be made any other way, that's different. For Pete's sake, it isn't that hard to remember "Judeo-Christian values." Or is it?
And Christians may not be concerned about what secular people think of them, but a candidate in a state like Florida who issues comments like this would seem to not care about what Jews think of them as a candidate. Which is a different story, even if you disagree. And I say that's not a good thing.
I guess I'm more optimistic than some in thinking that Jews who vote Democrat might be increasingly willing to look at the reasons to vote GOP. Seeing these remarks, and some of the defenses of those remarks on the threads involving this issue today, I'm disappointed to see how little some seem to care. I think if you can change someone's mind without diluting your values, it's a good thing. And the point she was trying to make could've easily been made with different words that would not have diluted her message. Unless, of course, she actually believes that there is no Jew willing to offer a non-sinful approach towards legislation.
I don't see any reason to think she believes that, which is why her remarks are counterproductive in my view.