re: Trump Urges a Talarico, Paxton Debate

What church was Talarico a seminarian in?

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

James Talarico's Faith-Based Campaign Has a Faith Problem

The premise of James Talarico's (CIS) Senate campaign is elegant in its simplicity. Here, at last, is a Democrat who can speak the language of faith.

A former seminarian, soft-spoken, quoting Scripture on the floor of the Texas House. Time Magazine and a parade of national outlets have decided he is the answer to the party's long estrangement from religious voters, the man who will finally pry the Bible out of Republican hands.

The theory is that Texas is a Christian state, and that Texas has simply never met a Christian Democrat worth voting for.

It is a clever theory. It also rests on a mistake, and the mistake is worth examining carefully, because it reveals something important about how the people who run the Democratic Party understand the people they are trying to persuade.

The mistake is this. Talarico's campaign is not, in any sense his own constituents would recognize, faith-based. It is faith-themed. The distinction matters.

A faith-based candidacy proceeds from the content of a shared religion and applies it to public questions. A faith-themed candidacy borrows the vocabulary, the cadence, the imagery of religion while quietly emptying it of the things that make it that religion rather than some other one, or none at all.

To see the difference, you do not have to take my word for anything. You only have to read what the candidate has said, repeatedly, on camera, over a period of years.

Begin with the doctrine of God, which is where any account of Christianity must begin. In 2021, from the floor of the Texas House, Talarico declared that "God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between," and, more memorably, that "God is non-binary."

Pressed later, he explained that the line was "intentionally provocative" and that he had really meant only that God "cannot be defined by human categories." Set aside the walkback for a moment and notice the move itself, because you will see it again and again.

He says the startling thing first, harvests the applause of the people who like startling things, and reserves the careful theological gloss for the moment someone objects.

The trouble is that ordinary Christians, the ones in the pews in Lubbock and Tyler and Corpus Christi, were not raised on a God who "cannot be defined by human categories" in the sense Talarico means.

They were raised on a God who defined Himself, who said "I AM WHO AM," who is addressed throughout the Scriptures and by Christ Himself as Father. A man may believe otherwise. But he cannot believe otherwise and also claim to be giving voice to the faith those Christians actually hold.

Article from two weeks ago in the TX Tribune:

quote:

---

With just over three weeks left before early voting, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico on Thursday challenged his GOP opponent Ken Paxton to a debate moderated by Fox News’ Bret Baier.

“Texans deserve to make an informed choice in this really critical race, so I’m challenging Ken Paxton to a game on his own turf,” Talarico said during an interview at The Texas Tribune Festival. “He’s been running from accountability his whole life. It’s time to stop running.”

In July, Paxton’s campaign said, “of course we are going to debate James Talarico,” after Talarico announced he had accepted invitations from Texas media groups for three televised debates.

“We look forward to engaging with potential debate hosts,” Paxton senior adviser Nick Maddux said at the time. “Talarico is a serial liar who has spent his entire campaign shamelessly deceiving Texas voters about his radical record with[out] answering the hard questions.”

But Paxton had not committed to any debates as of Thursday. WFAA, whose debate invitation Talarico accepted, reported Tuesday that Paxton’s campaign had not responded to messages since Aug. 24 after communicating with station management “for weeks to organize a potential debate.”

On Sept. 2, Talarico accepted another debate invitation from CNN. In response, Maddux said, “no Texan wants to watch James Talarico and two of his fellow far-left activists posing as moderators spew left-wing talking points in a ‘debate,’ or what they would try to turn into a CCP-style struggle session.”

---

LINK

Is everybody here just memory holing the fact that Talarico offered/challenged Paxton to a debate, on Fox News no less? That was like 2 weeks ago.

Trump and his team know this, they’re challenging Paxton to get up off his arse and fight, not JT.

And truthfully Paxton should do it, he’s losing convincingly and is running out of options. Talarico would probably whoop his as but we’re getting close to the ‘got nothing to lose’ point for the Paxton camp.

quote:

---

Trump and his team know this, they’re challenging Paxton to get up off his arse and fight, not JT.

---

President Trump is right to try to get Paxton off his arse and at least pretend like he wants the job. It's bad enough he's a morally bankrupt POS, but at least give the voters something to vote for rather than just against.

quote:

---

And truthfully Paxton should do it, he’s losing convincingly and is running out of options.

---

I still have a tough time believing that. This has been Paxton's race to lose, in my unprofessional opinion, but he seems to be trying his best to do just that. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as they'd say.

So do I, personally, but the betting markets (and polls) are clear who is ahead. Given where they’re focusing campaign efforts, I’d argue the GOP sees this reality too.

I might put a sprinkle (on Paxton) on Kalshi, just out of principle. Like paying off a bad hand in poker that you know you’re behind, I just gotta see it.

The debate spin by POTUS is legendary.

I saw that Talarico's fundraiser with Robert Deniro also included Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Brown is such a sleaze. Birds of a feather POS.