Harry Potter Vs. The Democrats

NonParty Politics couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the the long awaited, movie, Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix, and the debate currently going on in American politics:
The wonderfully sardonic, condescending and controlling Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton, embodies every shameful ounce of Democratic obfuscation and denial when it comes to the war on terror. She contains elements of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, and John Edwards in her persistent and eager desire to reduce any hint of danger to mere misunderstanding or hyperbole, seeking to silence dissenters (Through the implementation of torturous quills, if necessary).

I agree. I mean, check out this exchange:
Dolores Umbridge: Your previous instruction in this subject has been disturbingly uneven. But you will be pleased to know from now on, you will be following a carefully structured, Ministry-approved course of defensive magic. Yes?

Hermione Granger: There’s nothing in here about using defensive spells.

Dolores Umbridge: Using spells? Ha ha! Well I can’t imagine why you would need to use spells in my classroom.

Ron Weasley: We’re not gonna use magic?

Dolores Umbridge: You will be learning about defensive spells in a secure, risk-free way.

Harry Potter: Well, what use is that? If we’re gonna be attacked it won’t be risk-free.

Dolores Umbridge: Students will raise their hands when they speak in my class.[pauses]

Dolores Umbridge: It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be sufficient to get you through your examinations, which after all, is what school is all about.

Harry Potter: And how is theory supposed to prepare us for what’s out there?

Dolores Umbridge: There is nothing out there, dear! Who do you imagine would want to attack children like yourself?

Harry Potter: I don’t know, maybe, Lord Voldemort!

In case some of you thicker readers missed the parallels, I thought it might be instructive to just change the names, and a few of the words, leaving the essence of the exchange intact.

Senator Reid: Your performance in Iraq has been disturbingly uneven. The war is lost. But you will be pleased to know, that Congress has voted to send you home by Sept. ’08 at the very latest, and from now on, we take a defensive posture, yes?

American Soldier: So we wait until they hit us again… and then we hit them back?

Senator Reid: Hit them back? Ha ha! Well I can’t imagine why we’d want to do that!

American Soldier: We’re not hitting them back if they hit us?

Senator Reid: You’ll be learning how to take a defensive posture, in a secure, risk free way! And you can be one of the first responders!

American Soldier: Well, what use is that? If we’re gonna be attacked it won’t be risk free.

Senator Reid: Does anyone else have a question? (pauses).

Senator Reid: It is the view of congress that a theoretical knowledge of a defensive approach to all (perceived) threats is all we really need in the world today. Which, after all, is what living in our global community is all about.

American Soldier: And how is theory supposed to protect us from the threats that are out there?

Senator Reid: There’s nothing out there dear! Bushco has exaggerated the threat. Who do you imagine would want to attack a nice soldier like yourself?

American Soldier: I don’t know…maybe Al Qaida!

Democrats Find Religion…


And whoda thunk it…just in time for another major election! I can’t figure out if the tone of this whole article from Time (in partnership with CNN) is meant to be sarcastic, or if the authors are actually playing it straight. It’s kinda hard to tell with howlers like this:

The Democrats are so fired up, you could call them the new Moral Majority.

Good one!

This time, however, the emphasis is as much on the majority as on the morality as they try to frame a message in terms of broadly shared values that don’t alarm members of minority religions or secular voters.

Good luck with that, Democrats. It will be fun watching you try.

In this campaign season, if Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards are any measure, there will be nothing unusual in Democrats’ talking about the God who guides them and the beliefs that sustain them. Clinton has hired Burns Strider, a congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who is assembling a faith steering group from major denominations and sends out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values. Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders and is about to embark on a 12-city poverty tour. In the past month alone, Obama’s campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discuss religious engagement in politics.

They’re all working overtime to figure out a way to capture that ever elusive “Religious Values” voter. You know, the type that the liberals make fun of when it’s not election season.

“We talk about ways people of faith have gone wrong in the past, (abortion?) what they have done right, (social justice?) and where they see it going in the future,” says his (Obama’s) faith-outreach adviser, Joshua DuBois.

Question: Faith Outreach Advisor?!

Speeches on everything from the budget to immigration to stem-cell research are carefully marinated in Scripture.

Are they fooling anybody?

… the Republican lock on Evangelicals may be breaking. The percentage of white Evangelicals who self-identify as Republicans has declined from roughly 50% in 2004 to about 44% this past February, according to Green. Now the number is closer to 40% as more Evangelicals choose to label themselves independents. “There is a loosening of the Republican coalition, particularly among people under 30,” Green says, “but it is not yet a movement toward the Democrats. It is a small but real change.”

The Democratic Party is rekindling its relationship with Catholics as well. For years, candidates dodged Catholics out of fear that abortion would dominate the discussion. Now Democratic leaders are pursuing alliances with the Roman Catholic Church on issues ranging from immigration to the minimum wage to Iraq.

Okay, here’s the key to raking in the Catholic vote, Dems. And I’m talking about the devout, church going Catholics, not the cafeteria variety that only go twice a year. You’ve already got a good portion of that vote. If you want to win the majority of the Serious Catholic vote you need to be good on the 5 non-negotiables: Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Homosexual Marriage.

Good luck with that!

Catholic voters, Democrats realize, are the loosest swing vote in the spiritual cosmos, especially as the church has become more outspoken in its opposition to the war in Iraq.

Huh, I hadn’t noticed that the church had become more outspoken in its opposition to the war. But that’s beside the point. The fact of the matter is, Catholics are allowed to make up their own minds on whether or not the Iraq war is just. It’s not a non negotiable issue. But it is considered a sin to vote for someone who doesn’t have a good record on the non-negotiables, when a better candidate is available. And there’s always a better candidate available when a Democrat is involved.

Anyway, after five pages, the authors,  Nancy Gibbs, and Michael Duffy can only assert, “The lessons Democrats have learned here is that they can engage [Evangelicals] on these issues,” says former DNC chairman David Wilhelm. “We haven’t won ’em over. But they are listening.”

Which means, they’re probably not going to win over any new religious voters, but we’re going to have to stock up on anti-nausea medicine watching them try.