Peter's "intensity" makes headlines

My hat is off to Beth Reinhard. Just a few days after her big Blackberry scoop (see previous post), the Miami Herald political reporter -- and fellow Columbia Journalism School alum -- came back with a solid piece about Peter and what drives him. The portrait she painted was objective and detailed -- what people used to call "fair and balanced" before Fox News made the term a joke.

She pointed out that Peter has been "a loyal soldier in Democratic battles to protect Social Security and Medicare"; that he's won "top ratings from environmentalists, abortion-rights groups and unions"; that he's taken moderate positions on the budget deficit, welfare reform and illegal immigration; and that some of his Congressional votes have shown a little too much gratitude (in this blogger's opinion) to wealthy and corporate contributors.

She also used words like "brutal," "audacity," "aggressiveness" and even "lovely," nicely summarizing the qualities of the person I want in Bob Graham's Senate seat.

One of the things I like best about Peter, and which Beth touched on in her article, concerns his religious views. Peter is pretty strict about following the tenets of Judaism, but -- as Ron Reagan said of his father in front of Pres. Bush -- he doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.

Religion used to be a private matter in politics, and it ought to be again. When I hear politicians talk about God and faith and morals and values and all those other code words for self-righteousness, I just know there's a tawdry motel room and an underage prostitute waiting to be brought to light. In fact, I figure that the more a politician talks about religion, the tawdrier the room and the younger the prostitute.

Conversely, I have nothing but respect for people who feel their faith strongly -- without the need to tell everyone about it. That's one reason why Peter's my candidate.

It's also why I don't think I'll be physically able to watch the Republican convention.

Comments

[Sue]

I TOTALLY agree that religion is a personal thing. Our forefathers saw a reason for separation of church and state; they were very wise. No one should have anyone else's religious point of view forced on them. The way I see it, we all have a right to believe (or not) and don't need anyone else tellling us otherwise.

[Steve]

Thank you for your astute comment, Sue. You're right on the money.