I searched Meetup for Northfield-area groups who support the various presidential candidates but couldn’t find any.
Are there any organized gatherings yet?
If you know of any, attach a comment with the info.
1/31 update: I’ve removed Edwards and Giuliani from the blog post title since they dropped out this week.
2/9 update: I’ve removed Romney from the blog post title since he dropped out this week.
4/17: I’ve removed Huckabee and Paul from the blog post title
6/3: I’ve removed Clinton from the blog post title
Interesting stuff about Monica Lewinsky, *Bill* Clinton, and the cognitive/moral abilities of 20-somethings. But perhaps we’ve strayed a little from the ostensible thread of this discussion.
Here’s something completely different …
In reference to the Clinton/Obama race, we keep hearing that, when either one is anointed, quite substantial percentages of the other’s supporters will refuse to vote for the other. Does anyone in this group feel that way? If so, why, and would you then back McCain, or just sit it out? If not, why not?
I’ll go first, in a spirit of full disclosure. I have a favorite between Hil and Barry, and I might pout a bit if I don’t get my way. But I’ll vote for either one long before McCain, who for me is right out. (If by some miracle Jesse Ventura ended up opposing McCain I might reconsider.)
I’ve backed a lot of losers in my day, but in the end I’ve gotta vote for the candidate who comes closest to reflecting my views on how government should be run. So I’m used to voting for people who’ve ticked me off in the campaigning process -- because you’ve gotta go with the best candidate available, and not voting is just, umm, not wise.
I’m happy Obama is winning with a majority of votes and delegates. I’dve been fine with Clinton as the nominee if she had won the nomination process with a majority of votes and delegates. The possibility that superdelegates might overturn the votes of the people was disturbing, to say the least. But mercifully, we have been spared that crisis.
Didn’t the DemoRats promise to get us out of the war in 2006? Gee, it’s 2008 and counting, counting dead and wounded. The Media has forgotten about the war now. The R word party is no better. Write me in, I can do more than that! Don’t send cookies, send some one to get our boys home now. We did what we could to help the Iraqi people to get free, now, let’s get our own house in order.
Paul Z: Thanks for getting us back on track. Sure, I’d vote for Hillary (without much excitement) over McCain. (When you sad Hill or Barry, I realized I’ve not yet made the leap from Barack to Barry, so I wondered: Goldwater? Manilow? White?). I think the news media loves to find voters who claim they would vote McCain, or not vote at all, but I don’t know how much of that will play out on election day, and how much of it is the media stirring up a distraction.
On a different note, we still are not talking much about the major issues. What are the major issues (besides Iraq, which Bright was good to bring up)? Is there consensus on the major issues, if not on what to do about them?
On a different note, William S. said (back in #140), “I don’t think we have to worry about getting all the negative information on either candidate’s personal and political life, past and present, that we could possibly want to hear. Whatever is omitted by the ‘mainstream media’, will be more than compensated for by the ‘new’ media.”
I disagree. I think part of what we see playing itself out is that there are different rules for different candidates and parties. And I’m quite serious about the claim that it matters, that General Electric is both in the business of the defense industry and the media.
There are areas of blackout: We see this in the recent New York Times article about the retired so-called military “consultants/analysists” who were receiving talking points from the Pentagon, in apparent violation of US laws against targetting our own citizens with propaganda. The mainstream media has ignored this story, and I think they do not because it’s not newsworthy, and not merely because it discredits them, but because they have too many links to the military-industrial complex.
Here’s Bill Fletcher, Jr., of The Black Commentator, on Wright-gate:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/276/276_think_aw_icarus_obama_left.html
Did anyone else catch the speeches tonight?
No one will be able to claim that there are no differences between the two (or, in some minds, three) candidates in the race.
Yes, I watched/heard the two speeches on CNN. As a Hillary supporter (who also likes Obama just fine) I’m disappointed that Hillary didn’t concede gracefully last night, when the mathematics became overwhelming. It’s understandable, perhaps, that Hillary wants a little downtime before doing anything spectacular, but let’s hope the drama ends soon. As in opera, 5 or 6 acts is just too long.
The difference *in style* between Hillary and Obama was indeed striking. If this is what you mean, Patrick, by differences between the candidates, then I agree. But we’ve known about style differences all along, so I don’t think last night’s speeches told us anything new about *substantive* differences between the two candidates, which I continue to feel have been small. And (not that it matters any more) I still think Hillary’s position on health care was smarter and tougher than Obama’s.
While I’m on about moot points, I may as well add that the rap (to which you allude, Patrick) about Hillary actually being Bill-and-Hillary has been misguided from the start. Sure, Bill would have been an influential First Spouse, but IMO that would have been more good than bad. Like him or not, Bill Clinton knows his way around Washington, and that would have been an advantage in actually enacting policies.
Paul Z said
As a fellow mathematician (applied though I may be) I have learned that many people do not believe the mathematics that rule their lives. Every time I try to explain a simple descriptive mathematical concept like supply and demand I get lots of “but I don’t want the world to behave that way!” push-back. Gee, I don’t want F=m1*m2*G/r^2 either, but don’t be expecting me to step off a cliff just because I don’t want to believe that particular equation.
But I have digressed. Clinton may be getting advice that says “the ongoing turmoil serves the party well, we’ll tell you when to concede“. Of course, the advisability of that strategy is a hotly debated question amongst politicians and their handlers; is the “bad” press of within-party competition better than the no press of being the presumptive nominee? I don’t have the numbers, so I’ll defer to the parties choice on this one, but I’ll bet that this far out the damage is small and the gain not much smaller.
I really liked Clinton in the beginning, but her credibility crumbled over time, revealing naked ambition and a case of narcissism that in the end was downright scary.
I think Clinton should have been gracious and should have offered to do whatever Obama needs to win and leave it at that. Of course she would be a top contender for VP, but forcing the issue was just wrong. I think he should choose someone else and after he wins, he should appoint her to the Supreme Court as soon as there’s an opening. She’d be out of politics -- and his hair -- forever, and she could make the conservatives in the court miserable instead of her own party. Now that would be sweet justice.
I wasn’t referring to Bill at all, but yes, I was alluding mostly to the tenor of each of the three speeches last night -- Barack’s, Hillary’s, and McCain’s.
I’m never one to be all that enthusiastic about McCain (being a liberal and all), but I found Hillary’s speech last night pretty shocking.
I’ve backed a lot of primary losers in my days, and they’ve always been gracious in defeat. Also, I’ve always sucked it up and adopted the next-best candidate as my own. If she would’ve won the primaries, I’m quite certain that Obama’s speech would’ve been much more gracious.
I can’t help avoid the suspicion that her goal is to sabotage Obama, in order to set up a run for herself in 2012. Considering that I once proudly supported the campaign of Bill Clinton, she now makes me feel quite sad and ashamed.
Anne wrote,
he should appoint her to the Supreme Court as soon as there’s an opening. She’d be out of politics -- and his hair -- forever
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Obama has a strong background and interest in law (Harvard Law Review editor and all that), and was reported to quite enjoy a suggestion that he might someday be appointed to the high court himself.
It would, however, be quite entertaining to see them both on the bench together many years from now.
Good point, Patrick. I think by then the politics between them would be over and they could get along. Maybe by then she’d be Chief Justice and he could work for her.:-)
I am so relieved, now that the frontrunner has been publicly identified. I should have gone to see Obama’s speech in person, just for the memory.
I was dismayed that an important DFL personality, Koryne Horbel, came up with the idea of a petition signed by disgruntled persons who would now vote for McCain. It hasn’t had as much media play as I expected, though.
There’s a very interesting article on how the Obama campaign put together its win over on the Washington Post.
SLOGGING TO VICTORY: Strategy Was Based On Winning Delegates, Not Battlegrounds
Personally, I hope he’s equally shrewd in dissecting the general election. The Democratic Party has had a long tradition of allowing itself to be outmaneuvered by Republican campaigners. See Florida 2000, for the best example.
Although I was never a huge supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I realize part of that is due to the fact that any woman looks wrong in the element
of the old boys’ world of politics or business.
Women Unite! Let’s get our own world, no wars, no pseudo wars, and no
movie wars.
All we need now is a big space ship and a another blue planet.
My brother called me yesterday when he heard Obama was coming to St. Paul and offered to meet me, so I went. A few impressions:
1. It was very moving to wait in line and hear the stories of others waiting in line, and why they were Obama supporters. The line snaked around many city blocks. I was surprised to see a number of people I knew, a few from Northfield.
2. Various individuals and groups went down the line, some selling buttons and T-shirts, many of these African-American. Some of the T-Shirts were very African in coloring (colors we associate with African flags or Kwanza: Green, yellow, black). One T-Shirt design was gold, with gold sun-rays emanating from behind Barack’s face. It looked ancient Egyptian.
3. One group was offering to help with voter registration for out-of-towners, recently moved to St. Paul. My immediate response was to yell to the crowd that they were Republican plants, that they would not be registered, and that they would be put on mailing lists to be bombarded with McCain literature, and that people can register at their voting place. Something was just not right about these four guys. I wish I’d taken pictures.
4. The police told us we might not get in (considering how many blocks away we were), but could get in position to view from the jumbotrons. We got in.
5. The staduim was filled except for a few seats way up high, some of the reserved suites, and a few other seats — more on that later (they might have stopped letting people in once Obama started talking). We had a friend whose son-in-law had tickets to a suite, so we had a good view.
6. It was interesting to see how staged things were:
- A limited number of people were allowed on the main floor, some of whom shook hands with Barak and Michelle at the end.
- At one end of the hockey rink, the press was set up with cameras on a stage, and behind that stage there were tables for the press to write their stories. Because the stage for the cameras was so high, there were many seats behind the press stage that had a very obstructed view, and they were not seating people in the lower seats in that area.
- Opposite the main press camera stage, behind the podium, campaign organizers gave many signs to supporters so they could be a more — visually effective? — backdrop.
7. But the crowd was very electric. I had ear plugs when I went there to hear Clapton, and the crowd was just as loud: deafening. After Hillary spoke of her many accomplishments (and, I’m glad, stressed the importance of counting every vote), Barak was very humble and conciliatory. His remarks were intelligent and showed that he and his speachwriters are familiar with Lincoln’s speaches, among other famous American texts.
It was good. I might add more comments later. In line, some of us felt that it was as important that we were there, and backed our committments with our feet and actions, as it was that we get inside. Once inside, I was only disappointed that he spoke of health “insurance” for all, not single-payer. We’ll have to work on him.
I envy you, Paul, for hearing Obama in person Tuesday night. This came in an email and I like it very much.
This is our time. As Senator Obama said:
“If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. “
Republicans might think they are facing a perfect political storm: A deeply unpopular president, a faltering economy and an opposing candidate who seems to be teflon coated.
But McCain will highlight his much heralded independent streak and distance himself from Bush; the economy seems to be improving; and republicans can do what Hillary would not (could not) do in the primaries- make the “L” word stick. And he, or his proxies, will play the race card.
Obama is a very attractive candidate. He is a gifted orator who inspires his listeners with his core message. But republicans are going to resurrect some version of the ‘Where’s the Beef?’ line with regard to ‘Change’, and ‘Reaching across the Aisle’ and ‘No Red States, No Blue States’. Just how does he plan to accomplish these nebulous, if very appealing, ideas? Hillary began to ask these same questions and gained traction by doing so…but it was too late. (Forget reaching across the aisle for her…just give her democratic majorities and she’d ram her agenda down the republicans’ throats). Hopefully, Obama can continue to deflect these questions through sheer charisma, but I’m inclined to think that some of the independents he needs to get elected will begin to demand some answers.
Defusing the ‘too liberal’ tag might be easier than some people think. He doesn’t have much of a record to run on, which could be a good thing. And I think the country is ready for a dose of economic populism. He needs to tailor his message (and his policies) to a middle class that is by no means down and out, and is still essentially optimistic, but nevertheless feels less well off than they did in the past. Americans who started with few advantages, who work hard, pay their mortgages and have hope for the future. Americans like him.
But most importantly he has to address the racial issues that continue to dog his campaign. Many voters are afraid that he shares the views of Wright and Pfleger. Most Americans despise racism no matter who promotes it. He needs to renounce the divisive racist baggage of black liberation theology and erase any doubt that he really wants to move into a non-racial future.
I think Obama is a great candidate. He has shown the ability to adapt, I hope he continues to do so.
The Wall Street Journal had a simple summary of the candidates’ policy differences in today’s edition:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-launch08.html?project=STAKES08
Great article. I like getting the whole pie at one meal.
I am sorry to see Obama back off on the peace initiative already, though I thought he might…like the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a whole lot of hoo ha coming out of the golden tongue senator’s mouth.
As for health care, the problem that I have seen in the health care system over the last ten years is still fear of being sued by patients, lack of health care professionals by quality, and a lack of health care professionals by quantity. Also, there is a lot of dishonestly going on from several ends.
I don’t mean to diss the profession overall. It is a difficult area to work in
over time and do well in it. Lord knows I’d last about a week as a intensive care nurse. No, I take that back, maybe a minute. I faint, and keep fainting. Can’t help it. Same for police and fire, these people are not human.
And I mean that in the best way possible.
Another impression from seeing Obama in St. Paul: He had a very well-prepared speech, but what was interesting is that his speech really didn’t anticipate the enthusiasm of the crowd that would interrupt it. And while there was interest in some of the issues —
health care, economy, global warming and environment, Iraq, etc. —
the most enthusiastic responses from the crowd had to do with their sympathy with Obama when he talked about changing things from what Bush has done with America to its own citizens and in the eyes of the world.
So more than any single issue, it seems that people are really fed up with the whole Bush phenomenon. At least, judging by the reaction of the crowd, that seemed to be the case at the Xcel center.
But it was interesting that Obama, who is often considered so good in many ways at giving speeches, did not anticipate the anti-Bush enthusiasm.
I was suprised the other day that even my cousin, an enthusiastic and very spiritual Christian who usually votes conservative, spoke of the Bush disaster. Something’s up when even conservative Christians are noticing that the self-described conservative Christian emperor has no clothes.
Paul- One thing to remember about us Chrisitans is that our hope is not in any political party or person. Neither party is God’s chosen. Our hope is in God. If He can use even the vilest tyrants, like Nebbuchanezar or Ceasar, to further his Kingdom, he can use any Democrat that comes along. I’m in this life for the long term. I have preferences that run more along Biblical moral lines, but if Obama or Hillary is elected, God’s purposes will still be carried out for His people in our nation. I am not particularly concerned about this next election. I’m not going to be passive in who I support, but my world will not crumble around me if that person is not elected. There is something stirring toward this country, because of what we have done over the last 40 years, and it will be accomplished no matter who is elected.
John, the kind of faith that believes God’s will triumphs regardless of the decisions of the “princes of this world” is admirable and, in the end, I think true.
My complaint is that too many Christians didn’t heed Matt. 10:16: “See, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves.”
Too many people who describe themselves as Christian didn’t heed this at all, thinking that in voting for Bush, they were being sent as sheep voting for sheep, and not verry cunning at all — and therefore perhaps not innocent, but complicit in the disaster that followed, it would seem.
One needs to go back and read a bunch of source material from about 1650 -1800, philosophers in general but religious writers also, to see how new the idea was that “man” could have some control over “his” world, and not just be a victim /puppet of some higher force, whether religion or monarchy.
The fact that it was basically this awakening that caused the whole Age of Enlightenment to sweep the western world and its thinking , from religion, to science, to mercantilism, and on through every discipline, makes it very difficult to now even entertain the idea that man is not the creator of his own destiny.
Who desires it to be otherwise? I cannot see the value of a life with a predestined outcome.
Having taken class from Ian Barbour on the merging of Science, Ethics and Religion, and having listened carefully to all the opposing views expressed, I would say that all agreed (or all who spoke in that class) that our planet and all its inhabitants, acting in harmony … as best as we can define that as we become more and more knowledgable as a species … is in the best interest of all life as we know it.
That’s what my mother meant went she spoke to us of the crucial importance of “NOT breaking the Circle”. A bit of wisdom from Seneca elders (for the most part women, in that strongly matriarchal governance society).
John George said:
Is there ever a time he is disappointed in us? Or are we all pawns in the game of life? Vote your conscience. And who are His people? You? Me?
Think about it. Do you think God gave us free will? Why create us at all, if there is no free will?
Side note: What I don’t get is how people use “faith” to justify horrible action.
Perhaps, religion isn’t the same as faith, and both of those should probably be separate from power/ politics in this country. Yes?
Anyway, independents, if you have convictions that seem to be different from either D or R, better choose one of them or your vote helps to elect the one that you really don’t like.
We’ll probably have to choose between one of the Keating 5 or Obama.
Hillary tried hard, but at the end, I thought the message was lost in persona and even statements warning of racism (which meant more supporters for her since there was racism). It makes me mad we can’t be a nation who looks at candidate, instead of “woman” or “black” and etc.
I like Obama because of what he says, does, and intends to do.
I believe that we are all in a dream, dreamed by the Master Dreamer of all time and space and that the Master Dreamer experiences part of his/her existence on this physical plane through us, through our free will choices, which are infinite as the dream is infinite and that all the things we do are part of that Circle and within that Circle is place of our medicine, meaning strength and power, and the medicine is given and created by the Master Doctor who dreams us.
I believe that the Power of the Universe, the Intelligence, is infinite and with my measly little pea brain, I can never know if there is a Plan or if there is no Plan, or if I know anything at all, I am surprized by it and should be grateful because I didn’t originate any idea at all, really.
I believe that Obama is the new Jimmy Carter…full of idealism and hope but with no solid practical working plan. He’ll make a great ex-President though.
Hmm, Carter was set up by Bush, perhaps. Or did we come to some agreement re: the Iran Contra Affair? Perhaps none of us can “recall” what happened.
Bright, you might enjoy Plato’s idea about the fire and the shadow on the wall. I think that was Plato. But even Plato thought we had the power to act on our own, instead of suggesting some Master who lives through us.
I think God doesn’t want to live through me. He might want me to do better, sometimes. He might want me to act a certain way-- but live through me? He’s probably better off being His own entity.
Anyway, storms tonight. I lived in Omaha a few years, and Yikes! Those were tornados!
Hey, I commented that the October Surprise Conspiracy is just an allegation, not proven as truth. Wiki resource. Here’s the comment, again, since I don’t see it.
Holly- I won’t go into a whole disertation in this thread about the basis of my faith. You can read that in Griff’s other thread about the churches and the cognitive revolution. We are not puppets being wielded by an uncaring supernatural entity. I do believe there is a providential will of God, and that is what I was refering to. I am simply saying that I must follow my convictions in this election and not be driven along by the other winds blowing.
Kiffi- If the Age of Enlightenment was was such a good thing, why do we see the same evil traits in mankind today that have been there since recorded history began? Why is there still poverty, greed, murder, theivery, subjugation of women, racism, and every other ill of mankind through the ages? It would appear to me that us becoming gods hasn’t really had any universal benefit to people as a whole. Perhaps it has more to do with our misunderstanding of God and lack of personal revelation of and relationship with Him?
Back to the thread, I still will not vote for a party that has taken a medical procedure and redefined it as “choice” to give it human rights that can be imposed on the whole society. Nor will I vote for a party that has taken a moral issue, given it minority rights, and forced it upon society as a whole to be superior to the values of the majority of that society.
As far as any wisdom in our envolvement in the Middle East, I do not trust anyone who would try to replace Israel with an Arab state. History will prove our choice we made a few years ago in our involvement in Iraq. I suspect there is a judgement that is like a two edged sword here. It has cut our opponent, but the other edge is pointed back at us. That is why I believe this coming election is small change in the whole scheme of things. In fact, I believe it will take an act of God to redeem us out of the mess we are in. And that is my hope, not the election.
Hmm, on that note, I guess I’ll go back to lurking, instead of posting. I don’t have a good reply to those thoughts.
Holly, I don’t think I meant to infer that we are being used like puppets by a Master.
Johnny G, I don’t think the US Presidents hold any quiet power around the world now anyway, without the use of force. They don’t seem to be able to engender any respect from anyone.
Obama is playing an old vaudeville scam. Be neutral and let people read into you whatever they want to see. McCain is playing the hero card. Not sure how far that will get him with people so tired of war. Let us pray.
Bright: So I misunderstood your puppet idea. Okay, sorry about that. Obama playing the vaud scam? C’mon. He’s got integrity.
Kiffi, good idea to read the philosophers. Sometimes I find I’m short on attention span or time.
Holly: I agree with your side note: “What I don’t get is how people use ‘faith’ to justify horrible action.”
Kiffi: I’m an enlightenment fan, but when I agree with John George that God’s will wins in the end, I don’t intend this statement to have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of predestination (for my part, anyway — I can’t speak for John). I tend to think that people who have the most problems with the idea of God (or get tangled in the logic of predestination) are the folks who are having trouble with the too-literal, anthropomorphized ideas (and I have problems with that stuff too).
Bright: Every great or poor president in US history was, once, a first-time president. Some surrounded themselves with incompetent and corrupt pals. Some surrounded themselves with wise and relatively good advisors. Lincoln is now famous for having picked a remarkably diverse, but smart cabinet. Presidents don’t really rule alone.
Obama could be a great president, or not. He seems to be able to listen and learn from others and his own mistakes, and to make the best of even difficult challenges. He can inspire, and perhaps he’s already a better uniter than our current occupant-divider. Obama also had enough savy to pick folks to help with his campaign who knew how to get the needed delegates. There seems to be a lot of promise there, on a number of levels. He wasn’t my first pick, but I’m not writing him off yet.
I think a lot is being attributed to Obama, making it seem like accomplishing ordinary things makes him a deity like figure. I listen and learn from my mistakes all the time.
) I inspire people, though maybe not around here. 
And Obama won over Hillary by just a few percent. He’s no landslide guy.
He’s like Joel Osteen, the ever popular preacher from Houston, TX with 7 million tv followers… a buttery accent and rhythm, easy to listen to, talks about everyday positive generalities and his family life, kinda cute, tall, and somewhat humble. Anybody likes a guy like that. But I am still waiting to hear what he has done to make him presidential.
So what, he found some people to look at all that’s gone before and count up some states and apply a smathering of strategy. Could have gone either way. Don’t mean to be argumentative, just would like to elicit some clarification from Obama supporters.
Holly, I think we are not like Plato’s fire and shadow, God is the fire, the fuel, the burnt up oxygen, the shadow, the wall and the earth, etc, etc, etc. We are God, as manifested on this physical plane.
John George,
Re some parts of your posting #179, which I’m not sure I understand:
You wrote:
I still will not vote for a party that has taken a medical procedure and redefined it as “choice” to give it human rights that can be imposed on the whole society.
Is this about abortion? And how can “rights” be “imposed” on a society?
And then you wrote:
Nor will I vote for a party that has taken a moral issue, given it minority rights, and forced it upon society as a whole to be superior to the values of the majority of that society.
Is this about gay marriage? And should “moral issues” be decided by “majority”?
Does either party embody the “right” moral values?
I just have one more thing to say here,
John, re: your post #179 … I must have missed the national plebiscite ( 1 person =1 vote) on abortion rights and GLBT rights. And I think that is correcting something stated as fact; not a sarcastic remark, on my part.
Holly- You don’t have to respond to my comments in post 179, and please don’t go hide in the woodwork. You have just as much right to express your viewpoints as anyone here. Understanding one another doesn’t necessarily infer agreement on all points.
Bright- I agree that our presidents don’t have much “quiet” power around the world. That thought could produce much speculation and discussion. Perhaps a different thread sometime.
Paul F.- You and I agree on the predestination thing, and you expressed it well.
Paul Z.- question 1- yes. Question 2- part of my taxes are used to pay for these abortions, and I have no say over that. Question 3- yes. Question 4- no. When looking through history, it is usually a minority that will actually embrace God’s laws when faced with death. Question 5- right now, when comparing the platforms of the major parties, there is only one that seems to represent my convictions. I believe there is coming an unfortunate time in this country when neither party will be willing to represent them.
Kiffi- I’m not sure I understand your comment, but that is ok. We don’t usually agree on much of anything, anyway, and you don’t have to explain it further.
Goodness, John, now I am going to backtrack on my quiet power statement…maybe they do have it and it’s so quiet, we never know for years and years, if then.
See, that’s where they get us. If things don’t happen because of diplomacy and such, we never know about what might have happened. Gheesh. This is why I loathe politics…twisting, winding paths of lies, deciets and hooo haa, just to name some of the things that go on in the name of security. It just makes a body feel insecure, iykwim.
It’s also why I like politics, it’s a big puzzle, and I like puzzles.
John : I know you didn’t want an explanation , but…
There are possibly many things our taxes pay for that we as individuals do not support… Wars , for just one big fat example.
You feel your taxes may help pay for abortions, and that is an affront to you. I understand that; but we are a country that lives under the rule of law. It may not always work for us, in totality. But we must live by those rules if we are not to deny the agreed-to, and law-supported , rights of the people.
If we are affronted by the laws of a civil gov’t, we have two choices: live with them and work for change, or isolate ourselves and live according to whatever “voice” guides us.
John,
Re #179 again, you wrote (in reference to gay marriage):
… Nor will I vote for a party that has taken a moral issue, given it minority rights, and forced it upon society as a whole to be superior to the values of the majority of that society.
The last part above is why I asked whether you think moral issues should be left to the majority. You said no to this, but I’m having trouble squaring it with what you wrote above, where you seem to be dissing the Democrats (or some Democrats, anyway) for *not* going along with the majority. Is that really your beef on this issue?
Everybody has the perfect right, of course, to vote on any grounds: abstract principles, divine instruction, moral imperatives, chicken entrails … you name it. If you (and others) bring religious motives to the voting booth, that’s fine, but I don’t understand how you can also both repudiate and invoke the majority-should-rule principle.
Majority rule without the rule of law is a lynch mob. The Constitution is specifically set up to protect the rights of minorities (in a voting sense) against the simple tyranny of the ballot box. Remember, a majority voted (in effect) for the death-camps in Europe in the 1930′s and 1940′s. Of course, that does not prevent us from grousing endlessly about which rights are protected and how to protect them. And sometimes (as when we amended it to permit an income tax) we do so at great risk to the Republic. I just hope (slowly we drift back to the topic) that the media will fire the pollsters and start hiring the pundits. At least they rail about the issues.
John and Paul Z: I think it’s OK for John and others to agree with the majority on some moral issues, and to disagree on others. Our moral reasoning is not based exclusively on majority opinion, although sometimes that opinion may seem to support some of our stances.
Bruce: I’m not sure that you’re correct in saying that, “in effect,” Europe “voted for” the death camps, unless you mean that even in dictatorships, those who have been intimidated and made fearful “vote” by failing to oppose a dictatorship that would set up a death camp. In fact, governments that violate constitutional rights and set up death camps or Guantanamos usually tend to be working against the will of the majority, and the mobs that follow the dictators often tend to be a powerful minority, usually the ones with guns and official sanctions from the dictator.
John G, if you have these litmus tests of why you would not vote Democrat, you may be aware that there are Democrats who are pro-life (MN’s longest serving US Rep. is a member of “Democrats for life,” as is Patty Fritz). You may also be aware that many Democrats feel the same about other issues: they could not vote for a Republican because of the many things Republicans have done, including support of preemptive war, torture, illegal wiretapping, etc.
If you use these litmus tests to dismiss every candidate of a particular party, you quickly find you have no one to vote for, and then the future of the country is decided by those others who show up to vote.
Paul F.- In your first paragraph in post 192, you stated my reasoning very well. Thank you.
As far as litmus tests, as I have stated in another thread, I try to make my decisions obut issues as to how they align with my understanding of Biblical principles. Do I understand them all? Heavens no! That is why I keep pressing into God. It is another reason I am involved in this blog. I don’t want to surround myself with people who just agree with me. I like to be challenged in my thinking, and I like to challenge others. It always takes me back to the standard I align things with, and in processing the challenges, helps me find greater understanding of what I believe in and why. I believe there are greater levels of revelation of God’s word that I can come into.
As far as how we vote, we are each accountable to vote along the lines of our convictions. The apostle Paul stated it best in Romans 14- “Let every man be convinced in his own mind.” As far as running out of candidates to vote for, I expect I will at some point in time. I hope that I will have wisdom as to what to do at that time. I would rather stand before God and answer to how I aligned with His word than have to answer for how I aligned with the majority.
Paul F and John G:
Paul F wrote:
John and Paul Z: I think it’s OK for John and others to agree with the majority on some moral issues, and to disagree on others. Our moral reasoning is not based exclusively on majority opinion, although sometimes that opinion may seem to support some of our stances.
Of course it’s OK for a person to agree with the majority sometimes but not always.
My question for John is something else: It makes good sense to me — though I suspect you (John) and I disagree on the substance — for anyone to disagree with any person or party on gay marriage, and if the issue is important enough, to make it a voting deal-breaker.
What stumps me, John, is not your conclusion (opposition to gay marriage) but its logic and political implications: In #179 you say you can’t vote for a party that claims its view to be superior to that of a majority, while in #187 you praise the courage of those who take minority views. With such ground rules it seems to me the Dems can’t win for losing.
Paul Z.- Ah! Thanks for clarifying your question. You are correct in your assesment of my statements. I did not make it clear what I was reacting to. When I’m doing one of these posts, I try to go back and edit it for clarity and quality. If I don’t like the way I stated something, I will delete it. Sometimes, I lose track of my direction when I do this, and I certainly did.
At this point in time, there appears to be a majority of the populace that does not support gay marriage. It is this majority that I feel aligns with my convictions. It is this majority that I feel is being forced into subjection by the minority, and not by legislative process so much as by legal caveate. This will probably change at some point in the future, and my convictions will be a minority. That is the statement I deleted because I didn’t like the way I had stated it. I then didn’t restate it, although it was still in my thought process for the post. Thanks for sticking in there. Does it make sense, now?
Kiffi- I missed your post 189 until just now. Thanks for restating that. I agree with you on this 100% (Note- the sun will come up in the west tomorrow- Ha! Ha!). What a great country we live in that we can be free to work with a government system and not have to go into hiding to do it. Bruce M.’s comment in 191 is just that. We refer to our form of government as a democracy, but it isn’t in that purest sense, and it is a good thing. We are a republic, and as such, do enjoy the rule of law, yet we have the freedom to amend those laws. The question we always have to answer is what code or reason we use to support these amendments.
John, I’m not hiding, just listening.
Let’s all remember the big number one reason for government, and that is…
can you guess?
Okay, no takers. Government is here to protect us from foreign invaders.
That’s the first and only reason people who came here within the last few hundred years ever established a government. It’s just too hard to win if
individual households have to defend themselves against an invading army.
Tell me if I am wrong about this. Please.
Bright- I think that establishuing a standing army is one function that falls under government auspices. The government itself does not do the fighting. As we see government functioning (I use that term loosely) today, it basically takes care of all the public business that cannot be efficiently administrated by individuals. But then, again, isn’t government efficiency an oxymoron?
I believe the founding fathers of our country saw the need to establish a central government to provide unity and cohesiveness to the nation. We people need an authority over us to keep civil order in society.
Bright, do you really mean to say in #198 that government was established in America only to protect against foreign invasion? Then why did they bother with all that other tiresome stuff in the Constitution? The Pilgrims were anarchists? I don’t think so.
John, your little jabs at government bumbling (efficient government as an oxymoron, etc.) may be amusing, but I wonder how deeply you, and others, really believe this stuff. Sure, every big bureaucracy sometimes does some things inefficiently or foolishly, and you don’t get any bigger than the feds. But the now-so-popular idea that government — and, by extension, g-men and g-women — are by default wrong, wasteful, harmful, incompetent, etc. strikes me as a canard. (I don’t say this is your view, John … I’m asking.)
Like other simplistic narratives, this one serves a particular political agenda. A special beneficiary in this case is the no-taxes-ever contingent: If indeed government can’t do anything right, then why support it? I expect to continue hearing this riff, ad nauseam, from the Republican side in the pending campaign.