Dem
52
Ties
2
GOP
46
We had an item last week about the Trump administration taking steps to push Jimmy Kimmel's interview with would-be U.S. Senator James Talarico (D) from broadcast TV to the Internet. This is the second time this happened; Talarico's interview with Stephen Colbert was similarly pushed. And, by the way, each has been viewed about 10 million times on YouTube, which is a number far greater than the average audience for those programs. Streisand effect, anyone?
We concluded that piece last week with this remark:
We don't entirely understand why Talarico has become a white whale for Trump—far, far more so than, say, Sherrod Brown in Ohio or Roy Cooper in North Carolina or Jon Ossoff in Georgia. Maybe it is because a loss in Texas would be extra-embarrassing for Trump, given that it's such a red state, and given that Trump cut the more electable Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) off at the knees. Maybe it is because letting the Democrats get a foothold in Texas would be disastrous for the GOP. Maybe it is because Talarico is young and educated and well-liked by people, and so is everything Trump is not.
We probably should have tossed J.D. Vance in there, too, as he is also kind of obsessed.
We got some interesting responses from readers, answers to the question we implicitly proposed. Because the weekend posting was truncated, we weren't able to run them then, so we thought we'd share a selection now:
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: I wonder if part of why the GOP is so scared of Talarico is that he may appeal to younger evangelicals who don't care so much about LGBTQ issues and grew up with messages of acceptance and love from Veggie Tales and wore "WWJD" (what would Jesus do) bracelets.
A big part of Jesus's message is love of the other and caring for the downtrodden. The GOP version of Christianity seems to have completely broken from the "compassionate conservatism" that W. spoke of, and Talarico's message may resonate with a lot of those true believers in Jesus who are compassionate conservatives. If the evangelical voting bloc is split, even a little, it may lead to a tipping point where a greater number of evangelicals no longer automatically vote for the GOP.
D.P. in Georgetown, KY, writes: In response to "why Talarico has become a white whale for Trump," I think it is largely because James Talarico is a test of the biggest conceptual threat to Republican domination for much of the country. As someone of faith who has lived my whole life listening to how Christians simply cannot vote Democratic, I am thrilled to see a Democratic politician openly willing to challenge that presumption and not simply write off white evangelicals.
In 2015-16, when Donald Trump first announced his run for president, he was not embraced by most white Christians because of his significant moral shortcomings. It was only when he became the not-Hillary that they saw him as the champion against evil. If Talarico can lead just a few white Evangelical Christians to ask themselves, "Why isn't a moral, sincere, open-faith Democrat better than an immoral phony-faith Republican?," then the GOP has a real problem. This November, there will be scores of unqualified, corrupt candidates elected after 90% or more of the Evangelicals in that district vote for the (R) because they would never vote for the (D). A Talarico victory and the national platform that would come with it would set the path for Democrats to increase outreach to white churchgoers, and that would be a real threat.
J.R. in College Station, TX, writes: Trump fears James Talarico more than any other Democrat because he presents a direct challenge to the "Christian Nationalism" that underpins all of MAGA's "God is on our side" moral authority. Even those MAGA who are not religious at all cynically draw on the "Christian Nation" trope to justify their inherent greed, racism and misogyny. Talarico does not hesitate to present an alternative Christianity that shames the MAGA version.
Also pay attention to the Senate race in Kansas. Don't underestimate Adam Hamilton (D). He may be a long shot to win but certainly will do a lot better than previous Democratic candidates. If the Republicans are facing challenges in core red states like Texas and Kansas, that is an existential threat to their viability as a national party.
A.L in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I think it is simply that Talarico contradicts the Christian Nationalist message that far too many in the Republican Party are far too comfortable with. Someone who says what Talarico says undermines their basis of authority by pointing out the contradictions between their actions and the actual New Testament text. So they'll say or do anything they can think of to deflect away from the substance of his message by attacking the messenger and whatever illusionary bugaboos they can invent that aid that story.
This sermon of his illustrates the point well, and watching even just a few of its 19 minutes should get the point across:
K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, writes: I think I can suggest a possibility as to why the administration hates and fears Talarico so much.
Republicans have been the party of God, Jesus and Christianity for decades—since Ronald Reagan, and arguably before, when the Moral Majority lined up against Jimmy Carter during his presidency. Talarico is very eloquently and basically spelling out how the tenets, beliefs and values of Christianity do not line up at all with the policies of the administration or the politics of the GOP. "Christian" is a demographic they have done so well with for so long and they did not see someone like him coming to threaten their grip on it, so they are scared. He also looks pretty unflappable and not easily intimidated, from where I sit.
This is a very good point. If Talarico, and more broadly the Democrats, are able to break the Republican Party's near-monopoly on Jesus (particularly the Protestant/Evangelical version of Jesus), the GOP is in deep trouble.
We also had an item, earlier this week, about Talarico's clear move towards the middle on trans issues. And, in our fisking of the things Talarico said, particularly his backing down on the notion that God is nonbinary, we wrote this:
Truth be told, it's hard for us to wrap our mind around the notion that an all-powerful God would be constrained by something as human as a particular gender or a particular anatomical configuration. And note that, if you believe in the God of the New Testament, then he is capable of reproducing without benefit of penetrative sex. So, there's no proof that he needs to have a penis.
We are, for some reason, reminded of a famous scene from the movie Ghostbusters.
Anyhow, as a bonus, we present some readers' thoughts on the question of God's gender presentation:
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "And note that, if you believe in the God of the New Testament, then he is capable of reproducing without benefit of penetrative sex. So, there's no proof that he needs to have a penis."
Perhaps for the Father. But as regards the Holy Spirit, I offer Luke, chapter 1, verses 34-35:
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you..."
Truly, the holy seed must be potent to impregnate Mary without penetrative sex, but surely the Holy Spirit must still be equipped with something to aim with.
P.S. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I would like to dispute your crass speculation that a supernatural being like God does not have genitals. As this might be a matter of faith for some, or at least theological debate, I would like to present a short but reasoned argument for my convictions.
Luke 1:35 documents that the Holy Spirit is the aspect of God that visits Mary. The Holy Spirit is popularly depicted as a dove. Ergo, in the one well documented instance of divine procreation God does have genitals, but they are neither male nor female human genitals. God has a cloaca.
M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: The third of Maimonides' 13 principles of Jewish belief is that God has no physical body.
Therefore, God has no gender, as humans understand gender.
Therefore, They are non-binary.
J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: Um, yeah! God—the Judeo-Christian God—is totes non-binary! Jesus is male. God the Father is also referred to as el Shaddai—the Breasted One. Wisdom is female, and gets tied in directly to God's Spirit in the so-called Apocrypha, and in Aramaic—the language Jesus spoke—the Holy Spirit is female. In Greek it is neuter. And the Three are One. Can't really get more non-binary than that.
You don't get THAT kind of commentary in The New York Times, now do ya?
There actually is some new news in this race, as well. In short, various GOP entities have been opening their wallets to help Ken Paxton (R), whose ability to raise funds is about as strong as his ability to honor his marriage vows. A new, double-secret super PAC that is basically just the NRSC just tossed $32 million into the pot, to go with $10 million from Donald Trump's PAC, and nearly $54 million from the Senate Leadership Fund, Texas chapter, which is also basically just the NRSC. This is quite a bit of money; just shy of $100 million. That said, it cost Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) a bit over $100 million to win his Senate race last cycle, and that was with presidential coattails. It's estimated that this year's Senate race will cost each candidate something on the order of $200 million, so Paxton still has a ways to go.
One might wonder why the Republicans are suddenly ponying up. One possibility is that they have some reason to believe Talarico is newly vulnerable, and that spending money on Paxton is a much better bet than it was a month ago. Another possibility is that they are so scared of allowing Democrats to gain inroads in Texas that they'll do anything to keep that seat, even if it means putting other Senate seats at risk. But our guess is that the GOP knew that the Supreme Court would decide that political parties and their PACS count as "campaigns" for purposes of getting much cheaper TV ad prices, and when that decision came down, THEN the various Republican entities opened up the floodgates.
If the Republicans are going to be able to change the course of this election, they'll have to do it soon. Since July 1, Talarico has led in every poll of the race (15 of them), save one. And in that one solitary poll, Paxton led by one point, 47% to 46%. Also, see below. (Z)