View Full Version : Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!
please please please please please have the nominee be Romney.
he seems to actually be wanting to FIX things. understanding all sides and getting things done.
Santorum is the same old "family value" bs that uses gays getting married as a red herring to everything else that matters. why is gay, which is like 10 percent of the population, the big issue?
c'mon, jobs, economy, healthcare, wars, those are the issues.
i can handle romney. he seems normal.
i can't handle another bush type social issues president.
ugh.
Man, I AGREE!!! I'm independent and if Romney gets the Republican nomination, I would watch the elections and then decide Romney/Obama by election day.
If by some fluke, Santorum gets the nomination, I'm buyin' those Obama 2012 bumper stickers the next day.
“One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - Santorum, father of eight.
I agree Heydude. Whether or not I agree with the morality of these issues, it just doesn't belong among the duties of a president. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? I have to say that I respect Romney for keeping religion out of his campaign.
The fact that some people in this country regard Santorum as a serious candidate makes me sad.
If he somehow were to get the Republican nomination, and somehow get into the White House, I'd say to anyone of reproductive age (or gay, or Muslim, or female.....):
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
If he somehow were to get the Republican nomination, and somehow get into the White House, I'd say to anyone of reproductive age (or gay, or Muslim, or female.....):
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Methinks this would assure a Congressional D sweep.
flowerseverywhere
2-15-12, 10:07pm
an interesting part of his campaign is Reverend O'Neal Dozier who he has named as an honorary chairman for the Florida Santorum campaign
"Dozier holds several controversial views, including that homosexuality is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.” from cnn
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/santorum-co-chair-homosexuality-makes-god-want-to-vomit/?iref=allsearch
Really? are you serious? I live in a gay marriage state and since legalization there has not been one peep on the news of any negative effect on anyone. Leave people alone as long as they are law abiding citizens of age what they do consensually behind closed doors is not the governments business.
And it is a crime this day and age to withhold birth control from women. If you don't want to take it don't. Next thing you know we'll have to give up bluejeans and have to wear dresses that go below our knees. And walk ten paces behind the men. Women have fought long and hard for the right to vote, hold public office, get equal education and wages and still have a lot of catching up to do. Access to reliable birth control has given many women the control over their lives they would never have without it.
Wildflower
2-15-12, 10:13pm
Yes! Definitely! Romney is the preferable Republican candidate for Prez!
of those on the list - those top three guys - i have to say i like romney best.
would i vote for him? probably not. but of those three, i like him best.
loosechickens
2-15-12, 11:00pm
well, sadly, bae, for some reason, a majority of Republicans at the moment, being polled, prefer Santorum. One hopes that many of them are just "low information voters", because I'd hate to think that most conservatives would hold the views that Santorum does. Honestly, no snark at all, I can see where it would be truly embarassing at present to be a conservative/Republican and have to choose among the candidates that have been put forward.
One would have to hate President Obama a LOT (and/or be really misinformed about what he has actually done or not done, since he's far closer to an Eisenhower type Republican than any kind of "socialist"), to be willing to actually go into a voting booth and vote for Rick Santorum. My heart goes out to thinking conservatives and Republicans, truly.
Santorum really does represent the "new American Taliban" wing of the party, for sure.
I do think when the Romney attack machine turns its big guns onto Santorum, there will be plenty of material to blast him with, but even if that is successful, so many Republicans seem to be left cold by Romney, that it's hard to see that "hatred of Obama" will send more than a minority of them to the polls through rain, snow, sleet and hail to vote against him, if Romney is their eventual candidate. Voters really need more than dislike of the oppostition to get them working for, volunteering for and going out to vote for a candidate. And Romney is just seen as a "cold fish", by many, I'm afraid, however competent and qualified he might be. Just does not connect with people, most of whom vote more with their emotions than with their rational minds, no matter what party they are.
It's a huge mess. There have to be far better candidates on the Republican side than you are getting to choose from. Lots of them.
I'm planning to vote for President Obama. But if Romney were to be the candidate and somehow won, I wouldn't be desperately afraid for the country. But with Santorum, very, very scary.
fidgiegirl
2-15-12, 11:04pm
Romney kind of reminds me of Kerry, though. Not the guy that everyone is fired up about, but kind of the best of a spread of not-so-exciting, or even weirdo, choices.
Now I hope I won't regret ever piping up on the politics thread. :)
loosechickens
2-15-12, 11:26pm
honestly, the comparison with Kerry is not that far off, although they hold different views on issues, I'm sure. Both seemed to be ultrawealthy people with little actual connection with ordinary people, somehow living in a bubble of privilege to the point where they just could not do anything other than try to "appear" like they understood.
perhaps it's not fair, and most people running for President are wealthy people, it's just that SOME of them seem able to connect with and have empathy for and understanding of ordinary people. Kerry just could not connect, and neither can Romney.
Romney TRIES, and the harder he tries, the more phony he looks. Honestly, I think he'd do better if he just was who he is, and didn't try to reflect what he THINKS people think he should be, because he's incapable of hitting the right notes, and just comes off looking like a higher class aluminum siding salesman. And people react to that phony "regular guy" stuff, and not well.
I know what the polls say, but still don't quite have a handle on who is really supporting Mr. Santorum. The information I hear just doesn't quite jibe with what I see going on around me. Very curious.
iris lily
2-16-12, 12:13am
Santorum surprised me at the last debate I watched, surprised me in the positive. He spoke out strongly against the North American Defense act while Mitt Romney spoke in its favor; Santorum also supported something else--can't remember what--and it was good. I've always said Not Santorum but now I'm not so sure. But I still voted for Romney in our state's primary. Santorum wasn't on the ballot anyway.
ApatheticNoMore
2-16-12, 12:26am
I like Paul for obvious reasons, not because I'm an unqualified libertarian, but because I'm a civil libertarian (and against the wars). This election was the Republicans to lose (Obama is not that popular) and somehow they will manage to.
I'm not going to be scared. I can't in a million years imagine voting for Santorum. But I've been through fear, fear is NDAA, that's the bottom falling out for me. I can't possibly summon up much more fear than I already have for my country and the world (and I'm scared - that's the price you pay for being high information). There are pleny of reasons to lose sleep at night, but Santorum, he's more laughable and pathetic than anything. I do consider this whole election a symptom of deep decay. But I think there are many others who recognize the same.
ApatheticNoMore
2-16-12, 12:32am
Santorum surprised me at the last debate I watched, surprised me in the positive. He spoke out strongly against the North American Defense act while Mitt Romney spoke in its favor; Santorum also supported something else--can't remember what--and it was good. I've always said Not Santorum but now I'm not so sure. But I still voted for Romney in our state's primary. Santorum wasn't on the ballot anyway
I want to be surprised, I really do. It's just that how trustable would being positively surprised by Santorum be, when the guy is so ....
It matters not a whit what I think anyway, not just because I hate anyone who can win, and not just because few seem to share my outlook. But also because I'm in California. It really really doesn't matter how this state votes on primaries when we finally get to vote in um .... JUNE!!!!
I know what the polls say, but still don't quite have a handle on who is really supporting Mr. Santorum. The information I hear just doesn't quite jibe with what I see going on around me. Very curious.
Just like "anyone but Obama", there's a huge "anyone but Romney" contingent. Santorum's rise, I think, are a lot of voters who thought Newt might fill that role.
You may be right about the 'anybody but Romney' folks, creaker. Newt, Inc. certainly isn't done yet. Who knows, they might be the ones giving Santorum a push right now so Romney has to fight a two front war. It's not as outlandish as it sounds and hey, who doesn't love a good political conspiracy theory?
Rick "man on dog" Santorum vs. Mitt "dog on roof" Romney, as some wag characterized it.
"Senator Sanctimonius," as I like to think of him, has been named the dumbest man in Congress and one of the three least ethical senators two years in a row.
If I were a Republican, I'd be longing for a brokered convention, Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. If pushed to the wall, I'd go with Ron Paul, only for his anti-war stance. But I'm an Independent who--for the most part--is satisfied with President Obama.
Gingerella72
2-16-12, 12:08pm
I'm planning to vote for President Obama. But if Romney were to be the candidate and somehow won, I wouldn't be desperately afraid for the country. But with Santorum, very, very scary.
I'm registered republican, something I'm actually embarrassed about and keep meaning to change but keep putting it off because I don't want to go down to the courthouse (lazy, I know).
I fully intend on voting for Obama again.....but when my state's primary comes around I will use my still-republican status to vote for Romney, or Paul if he's on the ballot, for the sole purpose of taking a vote away from Santorum.
I don't actually believe Santorum has a snowball's chance in hell in really being elected president, but just the thought of it makes me cringe. A Santorum presidency would set the country, along with civil and equal rights, backwards 100 years.
My mother was a registered Republican for years before Ronald Reagan pushed her over the edge. She loved to vote in primaries. :)
But I'm an Independent who--for the most part--is satisfied with President Obama.
Me, too. Except for that last part.
ApatheticNoMore
2-16-12, 1:24pm
Oh I'm independent too, I'm not registered with any party. I'm saying I'm considering doing so to vote for Paul, although I know ultimately it will make little difference (in any sense probably, but even less so with the primary so late in this state). Why? Because I'm not satisfied with Obama.
People talk about being afraid if Santorum wins but what does that even mean? What concretely should I fear? Wars? Oh my, I'm not safe from them with any candidate (except Paul perhaps - why I support him). Environmental catastrophe? That's the whole GOP that doesn't take those issues seriously (including Paul) and Obama while at least giving lip service and being as usual on the right side rhetorically, hasn't exactly been great on these issues either. Birth control being outlawed? Well possibly, but again the probability of that .... The further cultural and intellectual degradation of the nation with worse and worse candidates in charge? Well yes. But Obama and his propaganda is in some ways leading to that as well though by less direct routes.
I've been a registered Independent ever since I moved here 25 years ago. Before that, I voted for (a few) Republicans on a regular basis. Since I've been here, I can only remember voting for one. As others have pointed out, today's GOP is nothing like yesterday's.
As far as Mitt Romney is concerned, Rachel Maddow showed an interesting chart last night illustrating that the more voters see of him, the lower his poll numbers sink. I find that interesting because my initial response to him was instant and visceral revulsion. The dog story just bore out my instincts.
Maybe I've had a little too much exposure to David Icke or V http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_10.gif , but I half expect him to reach up some day and reveal the reptilian beneath his cleverly crafted person costume. Or maybe he just brings me instantly back to all the smug mid-level managers who liked to look down their noses at us corporate serfs when they deigned to stroll through our workplace.
Oh I'm independent too, I'm not registered with any party. I'm saying I'm considering doing so to vote for Paul, although I know ultimately it will make little difference (in any sense probably, but even less so with the primary so late in this state). Why? Because I'm not satisfied with Obama.
People talk about being afraid if Santorum wins but what does that even mean? What concretely should I fear? Wars? Oh my, I'm not safe from them with any candidate (except Paul perhaps - why I support him). Environmental catastrophe? That's the whole GOP that doesn't take those issues seriously (including Paul) and Obama while at least giving lip service and being as usual on the right side rhetorically, hasn't exactly been great on these issues either. Birth control being outlawed? Well possibly, but again the probability of that .... The further cultural and intellectual degradation of the nation with worse and worse candidates in charge? Well yes. But Obama and his propaganda is in some ways leading to that as well though by less direct routes.
Emphasis mine. The Supreme Court is very nearly a perfect arm of conservative Republicanism now. Can you imagine the judges Santorum would nominate?
I'm also independent, voted for Obama, and overall happy with the elements that have come out of his administration. I'm more frustrated that people won't negotiate with him (or democrats). Yes, this is my opinion of what has happened over the last several years.
I also voted for Bush back when, because I felt he would be a better candidate than Gore and Kerry. But, I was not happy with many elements of the bush administration not the least of which includes: Gitmo, the Bush Doctrine, the Patriot Act, the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone realize that we actually had a balanced budget before he came into office? and the tax cuts were not that great, really, and partly lead to the deficit), the war in Iraq, and several other things.
But, hey, there it is. We all make mistakes. lol
I guess you could say that for all of this chatter about "smaller government" and "efficient government" and "less federal involvement!" we actually got the opposite from the Bush administration. which is why I'm not buying "the party line" anymore.
I do not believe that Republicans want these things. I believe that they want big government, lots of war, and a theocracy to be developed in regards to rule of law. This is what I see and hear in most of their arguments.
I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.
Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.
So I vote for that. because that's what i believe in.
I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.
Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.
Those are pretty much, verbatim, the basic principles of the Tea Party, a movement which most Democrats hold in contempt, oddly enough.
Yes, except that The Tea Party has been co-opted by the GOP, and particularly theocons, and without them has little power.
And yes, I liked the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the GOP, when it was an independent, libertarian movement.
Unless the GOP completely turns around on it's neocon/theocon agenda and back to the original conservative values of the party (which the tea party identifies), then the Tea Party within the GOP is effectively meaningless.
In my experience, Tea Partiers don't feel co-opted. They're more like Jessica Rabbit, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
I guess you could say that for all of this chatter about "smaller government" and "efficient government" and "less federal involvement!" we actually got the opposite from the Bush administration. which is why I'm not buying "the party line" anymore.
I do not believe that Republicans want these things. I believe that they want big government, lots of war, and a theocracy to be developed in regards to rule of law. This is what I see and hear in most of their arguments.
I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.
Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.
So I vote for that. because that's what i believe in.
I wasn't thrilled with the Republican's under Bush (Medicare increase and expanding Federal govt). Having said that, the President's recent budget proposal (which will go nowhere), calls for increased govt, taxes and little if any deficit reduction. I don't think the President is in any way for smaller govt.
I know that many do feel that way, btu I also know many libertarians from the original movement who DO feel that way. Many people coming to the tea party are late comers, to be honest. My family, for example, who are die-hard neocons. No, they are not traditional conservatives. They are neocons.
The neocon agenda is not the same as the Tea Party. The Tea Party was a mix of the traditional GOP (or values of the GOP in the 1960s) and libertarians. Now, it is a mix of old-school GOPers, Neocons who fancy themselves old-school, and Theocons, who -- in my opinion -- have no concept of the constitution.
So, some people are glad for the party affiliation, but a lot of people are not at all glad for it. A lot of people are feeling that they are no longer being heard -- because the Neocon and Theocon agendas have been foisted up as Tea Party agendas in the GOP rhetoric.
Also, it's no surprise that Democrats don't like the Tea Party. They didn't like -- and never have liked -- that particular agenda. They also didn't like the GOP of the 1960s, so why would they suddenly like them now?
The reality is this. If i'm looking at results, and not rhetoric, here is what I see:
1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget (Clinton accomplished this prior to the Bush Tax Cuts; Obama has tried to do this throughout his term) -- this is fiscally responsible;
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.
This is just to give a few examples. You know the phrase, right? "Actions speak louder than words."
If there is a party that is doing what I want -- i.e., going for a balanced budget -- then heck, that sounds fiscally responsible. If there is a party looking for diplomacy over bush doctrine, then that sounds like a good party to go with.
I'm just saying that I don't feel that Republicans are living up to the values of the Tea Party that they keep espousing -- and I have no evidence of that from Regan onward. Really and truly.
Now, if the actual Tea Party agenda becomes the ACTUAL values of the GOP and then the ACTUAL GOP administration acts in accordance to those values, I'm game.
But I just don't see it happening.
(Gould; Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How Neocons and Theocons have Ruined the GOP -- I think that's the full title anyway).
1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.
You're not from around here, are you? ;)
I lived in CA, AR, and PA. I'm from "around here" the US.
My parents are life-long republicans whose parents were also republicans. My sister and BIL are republicans. My parents and sister/BIL are Neocons. Neocons are open about their war machine/empire dreams, the entitlements that they value as "compassionate conservatives," but are seem to be in denial about the big government that goes along with it. And of course, all without raising taxes, and cutting taxes on wealthier people -- which of course creates a deficit because they want to earn less for the government and spend more on their two primary policies (empire/compassion).
Simply, I look at the information available to me and evaluate that information. How I evaluate it and how another does is going to be different. There are multiple ways of valuing certain elements, and through that valuing, inferring in certain ways that creates multiple logical outcomes.
This is simply what I see.
And, my whole family swears that they are "all about the Tea Party" and that I am "diametrically opposed" to their ideology.
If only they would get their heads out of their own sand. They are obviously Neocons, and not at all interested in the actual Tea-Party stances. This is my experience of many neo-Tea Partiers. They THINK that they agree, but when you bring up Ron Paul -- for example -- or ANY of his ideas, they disavow them as not at all in alignment with the Tea Party.
It makes me want to hit my head against the wall. the Neocon agenda is not the Tea Party, and it can't be. They are what is "diametrically opposed."
Anyway, enough ranting. LOL
The latest Obama budget calls for increased taxes and spending as well as a $1 trillion plus deficit. I'm not sure how that jives with points 1 & 2.
IMO, spending needs to shrink before we start talking about increasing taxes. Once we get spending under control (ie no longer borrowing to fund current spending), then we can talk about increasing taxes.
It's the height of fiscal irresponsibility to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes until we are left with the lowest rates in decades and wage war after war to deplete the revenues we have left--and then to bleat about deficit spending? All hail Grover Norquist ("I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."). I think all of us want fiscally responsible governance; we just have different views of what that is.
1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget (Clinton accomplished this prior to the Bush Tax Cuts; Obama has tried to do this throughout his term) -- this is fiscally responsible;
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.
I'm also having a hard time with #1 & 2. I don't exactly view President Bush as a war monger and don't support entering into new conflicts myself, but will grant you that there are a lot of Dems working on diplomacy. As for the other two points, I just don't see it. It is debatable what measures would make government run efficiently, but usually that comes to mean shrinking it and that is not part of the Democratic agenda I hear about. Regarding fiscal responsibility, actions really do speak louder than words and the budget that hit the table a couple days ago speaks volumes. It's quite a ways from being balanced. To be fair I don't think its logical to try to tame the beast in one year, but I was hoping for something a little more proactive and a little less based on political posturing from our President.
My vote goes to Jane v2.0 for best use of the word "bleat" I've read in a long time.
And I always enjoy the peculiar "blind spot" conservatives have for the fact that it's a combination of the Bush-era tax cuts, massive increases in military spending, two fresh new wars, and gutting of financial regulatory agencies that were largely responsible for dumping us into this cesspool we're in. Spend a trillion on jobs or on developing a domestic renewable energy program and they'd have apoplexy. Spending a trillion on a pair of useless wars is apparently okay, and never gets mentioned.
But what's a trillion dollars between friends?
Like the man says, "Pack your chutes, people. No one's flying this ****ing plane."
Please, look up what the Bush doctrine is. It is part of the party's platform.
And, of course it *is* debatable to determine 1 and 2. When I look at the weight of evidence, what I see is that -- in general, this is the situation. BUT, I can see how others would not, because at the nitty-gritty, it gets to be about how we are valuing certain elements -- whether or not those elements are more or less relevant, what those elements mean in the "big picture" and how relevant they are in that picture. This is often what leads to debate, anyway.
I'm just calling it as I see it.
It's the height of fiscal irresponsibility to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes until we are left with the lowest rates in decades and wage war after war to deplete the revenues we have left--and then to bleat about deficit spending? All hail Grover Norquist ("I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."). I think all of us want fiscally responsible governance; we just have different views of what that is.
Actually, I think height of fiscal irresponsibility would be to increase taxes, increase spending and still end up with a trillion dollar deficit.
Both parties have proven they are completely unable to control spending. Right now, I think the democrats are worse than the republicans in that regard.
I disagree.
1. Neocon agenda is about expanding democracy which has numerous forms -- largely managed by government (= big government and more spending);
2. Neocon agenda includes 'compassionate conservative' ideologies, which means keeping entitlements -- big government, more spending;
3. Neocon agenda includes cutting taxes and cutting taxes and cutting taxes -- which decreases revenue and creates overspending.
Current democrat agenda (from what I can tell)
1. Focus on international diplomacy, decreasing these military/whatever aspects of government, and being more of a 'team player' internationally -- this means a more efficient government, and smaller in certain areas of government. Yes, still exists, but has less expense).
2. Focus on entitlements/etc for citizens, possibly expanding these aspects (big government plus some more spending) -- yet in the last democratic presidential term, Clinton, welfare reform was also passed which was a combination of both Republican and Democrat ideologies;
3. Looks to increase taxes to increase revenue to cover deficit as well as new spending -- increasing revenue to cover costs.
The budget was balanced under Clinton (this is where the "surplus" came from, remember?). Clinton was a democrat, who also worked with many republicans during his terms. One of the reasons is because he cut taxes for the lower income earners while increasing the taxes on the top 1.2%. And, hey, it worked.
But, I agree with the idea that both want "big government" (i.e., what i read when you say they can't control spending).
I just think that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats because they are disingenuous about it. "We don't want big government, btu here is our big government."
I agree Zoebird. And really, it's who they want to spend it on. The republicans seem to want to spend on war mongering and shifting (through tax breaks) to the top, whereas the democrats seem to want to spend on We the People.
In the end, we must admit it takes a lot of money to run a huge, modern, progressive country, it just takes a lot of revenue. Trying to run a 21st century country on a 20th century budget just doesn't work. We need to trim, obviously, and streamline, like Obama has started doing in examining every regulation and eliminating the inefficient ones. He is also looking at departments and consolidating some and proposing elimination of others. It is a slow process, painfully slow, but then that is the way of careful, thoughtful people who don't want to make the mistake of throwing out the baby.
This has been a terrible economy but it would have happened no matter who was elected as the stage was set under the last administration. But things are getting better, slowly but surely. Of course everyone says it's too slow, but considering where we were when he took office, it ain't bad. Frankly I'm glad we have an adult in office, for a change, who takes it slowly and steady instead of just throwing a bunch of expensive spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. The Bush tax cut were spaghetti that didn't stick, and it's time they expire.
I'm glad he helped the auto industry (Romney said let them die!) cause now it's thriving and getting stronger every day. And here is an industry that literally reaches into every city and town. If that had died, we would be in far worse condition than we are now. Think of the steel industry. Once a big industry like that dies, it's almost impossible to revive it. Obama did a wonderful job, is doing a good job.
His new budget doesn't have a lot of cuts, but now is not the time to strangle the economy, just when it's creeping back. We need to get strong, then deal with the deficit. Jobs are the number one priority, (not job 1 as defined by Mitch McConnell). But you will hear the republicans talk about cuts cuts cuts, cause they don't really want the economy to get strong. They don't want us to come back, at least not yet, not until THEY have taken office. They want to use jobs as their campaign slogan, but in reality...not so much. I guarantee you if by some chance they were to gain the office, the deficit would drop to the bottom of the list like a rock. And we'd gear up for war with Iran.
But, back to the OP, this election cycle is actually more interesting than I thought it would be. I thought it would be boring with Romney as the de facto nominee. And where is Gingrich? Why is he so quiet? I'm just sorry Bachmann and Perry dropped out. Oh and The Donald! This freak train just keeps rolling!
I agree there was a balanced budget when Clinton was President. If I recall correctly, there was a republican house and senate during the majority of that time.
To me, Split ='s compromise and better governance.
Obama is not Clinton and I believe the kind of reforms that happened under Clinton (I mean the positive things), will not happen under Obama. His budget is evidence of that (to me).
It's funny how people can look at the same evidence and see different things. Many times both have good points. That's one of the reasons I believe the govt worked with Clinton as President and Republicans having control of Congress.
A big part of the reason the budget balanced under Clinton was the collapse of the Soviet Union prior to his election. We can debate the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the arms race, but it was that build up that broke the Soviet Union and paved the way for the US to be the lone super power. I am not defending those Reagan policies, they are simply a matter of history now. What is not really debatable is that the US economy made huge strides following the end of the SU and that money that had previously been allotted for the arms race then became available for other budget items. Overall I think Clinton had a lot of good policies, but we need to remember he was also the beneficiary of perfect timing set up by his predecessor's policies and technological advances that were going to come about regardless of who was in the oval office. What we need to be doing now is setting our next President up for that kind of success regardless of his/her party affiliation. To sit here and continually argue that one party or the other is on track to do that is, by this time in our discussions, pointless. Simply put, they both suck. I think either Dems or Reps would willingly drive this country straight into the toilet without a second thought and it really pisses me off. It should piss all of you off, too. Tea anyone?
Ronald Reagan & the arms race did not break up the SU. That history is far more complex.
Every President comes into a set of circumstances & context woven by all his or her predecessors, and by world history. Obama got the Bush deficits, for example.
The current R's are a lot of buffoons, and I hope Santorum gets the nod. It would assure a massive D landslide.
Ronald Reagan & the arms race did not break up the SU. That history is far more complex.
Yes it is. Gorbachev began the process of initiating reforms which had the backing of a new group of democracy minded technocrats and Reagan's incessant voice on the world stage helped give them power and legitimacy. All together, it created a perfect storm for reform which may have not been possible lacking one of the ingredients.
The current R's are a lot of buffoons.....
Nice.
Nice.
And it's sad, really, because I do not believe that the current contenders represent the solid center of the R party. Where are the smart thinkers, those with a global understanding, sane fiscal policies, and 2st century social understandings? Where is the center? This party has been hijacked by extremists. Even my father (the 84 year old retired attorney, lifelong R until Bush the Second) commented that the current crop is insane. And this is a man who, having been abandoned by the party he worked hard for all his adult life, will be very hard to win back.
I'm to the point of just tuning out when I hear people start off with Republicans this or Democrats that. I know what comes next is most likely a spewing of the party line as spoon fed by their particular choice of media outlets and I just don't have time for that. The truth is the base of party politics is constantly shifting. Anyone dyed in the wool of one party is probably going to be disappointed if they stay there long enough. It isn't so far fetched to think that socially moderate Republicans could join forces with fiscally conservative Democrats to reshape one party or the other (probably the Democratic). The socially conservative segment of the Republican party would then be free to move forward with their priorities. In essence the dividing line would shift to the right, but along social lines because there should be less descension in the ranks regarding fiscal issues. The only ones who would be left out in the cold would be the left wing of the current Democratic party. You gotta believe that a centrist party would appeal to alot of us who are independents as well as the more moderate base of either party. With that large a voter pool to draw from its hard for me to picture any other scenario coming into play.
ApatheticNoMore
2-17-12, 1:18pm
To sit here and continually argue that one party or the other is on track to do that is, by this time in our discussions, pointless. Simply put, they both suck. I think either Dems or Reps would willingly drive this country straight into the toilet without a second thought and it really pisses me off. It should piss all of you off, too.
+1000. By this time in our discussions indeed, at this point in our history, in this era which we live through if we have the wherewithall to live in the present, to keep arguing which party is worse is blind (and deaf and dumb). No party is better (although a few individual politicians may still be ok - again the minority). I often think many people don't live in the present and keep remembering Korzybski's (Science and Sanity) suggestion that things like say the term U.S. (or IMO the term Democrat or Republican) should have little subscripts of what era we are talking about. Because while such and such might have been true in the 1950s or the 1970s or something ...
In the year 2011-2012 they (with bipartisanship) passed infinite detention on New Years eve. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!!! I mean that action so much as screams how little they care about you off the rooftoops IMO. To keep pretending there is some good guy who supposedly cares immensely about you, about ordinary people and their economic situations etc. etc. who is likely to get the Presidency is just whatever.
The argument on who is better on the budget could go either way. I would argue HISTORICALLY it has been Dems. Dems budgets are more balanced historically (Clinton versus Bush, Carter versus Reagan). But with Obama we are dealing with a whole new thing. So someone looking at the Obama administration and saying Dems are bad at balancing budgets well ok yes Obama is a disaster at this, that this happens with the full consent and even urging (on the tax cuts) of a Republican congress is also true. I don't buy that it's not Obama's fault and that big bad Republicans made him do it (geez folks do we need to raise Eric Berne from the dead to analyze this level of game playing?), but I do buy that Republicans are not for balanced budgets either when they push this stuff. They are not blameless.
I'm not actually making an argument for fatalism (although maybe I kinda am), I'm not saying to give up on fighting to say keep entitlements just because the people in power (with a few exceptions on the lower levels) don't care about you (although I have been tempted). But really overwhelming people power is the only thing that has any potential to effect anything (unless your rich enough to buy yourself a politician I guess). I'm not saying don't write letters. I'm not saying don't protest. I'm not EVEN saying don't vote. I'm just saying know your enemy, or more accurately know what you are dealing with. A political class that repeals several admentments to the Bill of Rights during the holidays, you most basic rights gone and the media blacks it out, will get us in another war (already happening IMO), will watch passively as the middle class gets wiped out (arguably already happening), will watch your economic prospects go down the drain and they won't care, will repeal more of the entitlement's we though we've paid into (Medicare and Social Security are already on the table per Obama's budget deals - watch them get cut in his second term), will even (and I hope not but I can't rule it out) crash the currency of the U.S. dollar itself and wipe out all your savings. And then it's game over for us all, at least for the economy as we know it (not all bad since this economy is not sustainable but ....).
Tea anyone?
Occupy Wall Street! :)
It isn't so far fetched to think that socially moderate Republicans could join forces with fiscally conservative Democrats to reshape one party or the other
And a party like that, Gregg, whoever it reshapes, is my dream. I celebrate every time that happens on any level (national, state, local, community) If it sold newspapers and TV ad space, there might be hope that it could one day happen on a grand scale. I'll be hoping!
Well... I really can't say anything about Santorum as I may just get too "emotional" - and of course, being a female who is so helpless and frail - both physically and emotionally - I will need a man, who will be overcome with a heroic desire to protect me from the dangers in this world
:devil:
swoon, swoon, faint...
For serious, for serious. It would be great to have a moderate party. :)
And you can't really put your head between your knees to keep from fainting--you don't want to dislodge that Bayer aspirin. (see Foster Friess) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-ROFL.gif
Well, the Tea Party supporter in my household is very much a Republican and it is silly to not give that movement credit within the party.
He's been fiscally conservative since the beginning and I remember dragging him to the Democratic caucus in Iowa back in the day before we were married, when I was a Democrat and he was P-U-S-S-Y Whipped, and his was the lone voice in that room about balancing the budget. The Dems were polite and gave him a brief hearing and then turned to the important business of the day, making their platform which included only spending.
Since those days I've come to See the Light.
And you can't really put your head between your knees to keep from fainting--you don't want to dislodge that Bayer aspirin. (see Foster Friess) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-ROFL.gif
Well, in "The World According To Santorum" nothing can go between my knees unless it's to procreate :-)! Which of course, as a woman, is my only purpose in this life.
I have no qualms with the tea party or traditional conservatives.
I have qualms with neocons and theocons. big, ole qualms.
Yes, except that The Tea Party has been co-opted by the GOP, and particularly theocons, and without them has little power.
And yes, I liked the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the GOP, when it was an independent, libertarian movement.
Unless the GOP completely turns around on it's neocon/theocon agenda and back to the original conservative values of the party (which the tea party identifies), then the Tea Party within the GOP is effectively meaningless.
The TP was born co opted:
Exhibit A:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-beliefs-predict-a-tea-partier/2011/08/12/gIQAHyl8KJ_blog.html
Exhibit B:
Americans for Propsperity
Exhbit C:
Endless promotion of TP events by Fox News
I could go on, but I always recognized the TP as an attempt by the GOP to re-brand and re-galvanize its base.
I agree there was a balanced budget when Clinton was President. If I recall correctly, there was a republican house and senate during the majority of that time.
To me, Split ='s compromise and better governance.
Obama is not Clinton and I believe the kind of reforms that happened under Clinton (I mean the positive things), will not happen under Obama. His budget is evidence of that (to me).
It's funny how people can look at the same evidence and see different things. Many times both have good points. That's one of the reasons I believe the govt worked with Clinton as President and Republicans having control of Congress.
Right. Like that whole impeachment thing...
Nice.
As if you haven't called President Obama as bad if not worse.
The first evidence you provide is an opinion piece that asserts that "Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes." Then goes on to describe them as "Today, they are X."
It might also be noted that in several other articles (cited in wikipedia and others on a google search) indicated that pre Koch brothers involvement, the members of the tea party followed broad demographics, but supported Ron Paul (and Rand Paul) as the primary person's and ideologies they support.
Once it was then co-opted by the GOP -- which was shortly after it's initial creation -- then it took on the neocon/theocon bents that we see today.
There is now debate as to whether or not many of the early members were libertarian, though I know many libertarians claimed the movement prior to the Koch brothers involvement, but have since revised their positions back into libertarianism and away from the tea party.
Ive been aware of and in contact with people who were part of the movement before it started to get $$$ and play on Fox news, through the libertarian friends and their common news/chat channels. I was excited by the prospect, but notice once it was taken over, it left the ideology behind that I supported (among my libertarian friends as well).
The Occupy movement really piqued my interest -- as well as that of my libertarian friends -- because it seemed to be a movement that 1. took root; 2. called into question many aspects of recent laws regarding rights of assembly and speech (as it unfolded); and 3. was focusing on grass roots, independent development of rule (something libertarians like in general), and several other elements of interest. Of course, libertarians were cautious to overtly support the movement, since there was a very large "casting" of the movement as "decidedly liberal." And, in one aspect at least, it was -- any voice could speak up and be heard. anarchists, libertarians, communists, democrats, independents, pretty much anyone -- seriously. that is, at least, within the very definition of freedom of speech.
of course, the occupy movement has not yet been co-opted, but it is also -- apparently -- shifting focus as well. Moving into educational rounds and direct-actions in local elements. it's interesting to watch this development. And, it's interesting because the numbers are slowing down. The People's COmmunity Center (a socialist organization here that provides all kinds of services at very low cost, buty ou have to be a 'member' and being a member means dues and association with a socialist organization) has offered free use of their space for Occupy-related meetings and educational trainings that they are doing, as well as a launch point for social/political action. Meetings have dwindled in size -- we started out with a good 55-60 people, and are now experiencing about 10-15 at the weekly brown-bag lunches (which are between 12 and 3 so that people can come over their own lunch hour. I go between 2 and 3 -- usually it's just me and the organizers at that time).
So, interesting.
As if you haven't called President Obama as bad if not worse.
No, I don't believe I have. Perhaps you could provide an example?
iris lily
2-19-12, 12:11am
As if you haven't called President Obama as bad if not worse.
He really hasn't.
As if you haven't called President Obama as bad if not worse.
As a mod in this forum it's my job to try to keep an eye on such things. I could not think of a single example of that behavior and a quick, totally random search also yielded no results. Rosebud, in an effort to help improve the civility of this forum can you privately supply me with the example(s) I missed so they can be addressed?
If anyone has questions regarding the established rules of conduct please click HERE (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette) to read the Forum Etiquette page.
No, I don't believe I have. Perhaps you could provide an example?
Sounds like you need a Truth Team!
Sounds like you need a Truth Team!
Nah, I have no need to re-write my history. Claims made by others can either stand on their merits or fade away, as no propaganda team can change the facts.
I don't like any of the candidates whether Republican or Democrat, but speaking as a Pennsylvania resident, I would not vote for Santorum. He talks a good game, but doesn't think the rules apply to him. (For those who don't know, he was once a Pennsylvania senator and had the most resounding defeat in our history in his bid for re-election.)
"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday denied questioning President Obama's Christian faith but said the president has an environmental belief "that elevates the Earth above man." "
(From a random newsfeed that showed up on Refdesk.) I guess I'd have to elevate the earth above man, too. Without it we're living with Newt on the moon.
I don't like any of the candidates whether Republican or Democrat, but speaking as a Pennsylvania resident, I would not vote for Santorum. He talks a good game, but doesn't think the rules apply to him. (For those who don't know, he was once a Pennsylvania senator and had the most resounding defeat in our history in his bid for re-election.)
Not true. Although losing by 17 points is nothing to shout about. He is not the biggest loser in either US or Penn history.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/is-santorum-the-biggest-senate-loser/
Not true. Although losing by 17 points is nothing to shout about. He is not the biggest loser in either US or Penn history.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/is-santorum-the-biggest-senate-loser/
I took her comment to mean most resounding in PA history, since she was specifically referring to her and Santorum's Pennsylvanianess in her comment. To be fair, she was also wrong in that regard. According to the list link in your link, PA Senator Joseph Guffey lost by a 2% larger margin in 1946. Santorum only had the second largest senate defeat in PA history.
But once you're in that range does it really matter much? Just as no one remembers electing President Guffey in the 50's I will be truly surprised if 70 years from now people are referring to President Santorum's administration.
I took her comment to mean most resounding in PA history, since she was specifically referring to her and Santorum's Pennsylvanianess in her comment. To be fair, she was also wrong in that regard. According to the list link in your link, PA Senator Joseph Guffey lost by a 2% larger margin in 1946. Santorum only had the second largest senate defeat in PA history.
But once you're in that range does it really matter much? Just as no one remembers electing President Guffey in the 50's I will be truly surprised if 70 years from now people are referring to President Santorum's administration.
Stranger things have happened. As Santorum likes pointing out, Lincoln's electoral record wasn't all that successful.
Stranger things have happened. As Santorum likes pointing out, Lincoln's electoral record wasn't all that successful.
Yes, but Senator Santorum you're no Abe Lincoln. (Bensten in '16!)
Speaking of which incident--is it just me, or is Dan Quayle looking better all the time?
No kidding. If the worst thing about a candidate was that they can't spell potato maybe they're not really that bad...
My favorite Quaylism: "The future will be better tomorrow." So true. So true.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.asp
I always liked "What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." or...
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe." or the always classic...
"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."
It wasn't really that long ago that our country still had a sense of humour [sic].
It wasn't really that long ago that our country still had a sense of humour [sic].
I wouldn't worry. Our current President maintains the same high standard:
"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010
"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009
"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
"The thing about the internet is, it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't."
Abe Lincoln
http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/21/santorum-satan-bad-vote-for-me/#more-433548
Matt Drudge has a new report out about a Rick Santorum speech from 2008 at Ave Maria University.
Here’s what the Republican frontrunner said:
Satan has his sights on the United States of America! … Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition …. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.
File this one under WTF. Santorum’s attack on Satan is an ill-advised, horribly misguided attempt to play on his religiosity yet again – and yet again, he has painted himself into the “religious nut” corner. The vast majority of Americans are religious and believe in the evil of Satan, but they also find such talk alienating when its speaker is now a candidate a mainstream political campaign. Santorum may win the anti-Beelzebub vote, but he isn’t likely to influence Americans who are more concerned about the economy and foreign policy.
Santorum’s peculiar language is also a major problem for him. Conservatives largely agree with him that American culture is oversexed. But his rhetorical flourish here, in which he suggests that Satan is using “sensuality” to attack America, comes off as fringe and, as Mitt Romney might put it, zany.
Conservatives can win on social issues. The polls prove it. But they cannot win if they paint social issues as a battle between the forces of Satan and the forces of God, rather than as an attempt to create a better life for all Americans by following the lessons of traditional morality learned over the course of thousands of years of world history. Santorum is actually giving social conservatism a bad name with nonsense like this.
Santorum may win the anti-Beelzebub vote, but he isn’t likely to influence Americans who are more concerned about the economy and foreign policy.
I think that pretty much sums it up. I am not a Santorum supporter for many reasons, but will give him the benefit of the doubt when trying to determine if he was speaking metaphorically or literally regarding Satan. I don't think the notion that there are forces in the world who's goals are to cause harm to America is off base. To claim that the "Father of Lies" is literally behind it would be out there, but an anti-American movement certainly does exist. After watching some of this seasons new sitcoms with my teenage DD I have to agree that our society is oversexed. It seems the laugh track can't be qued-up without at least some heavy sexual innuendo. And sitcoms are one of the milder creative products coming out of the US. Regarding Mr. Santorum's actual campaign? It's the economy, stupid.
I think that pretty much sums it up. I am not a Santorum supporter for many reasons, but will give him the benefit of the doubt when trying to determine if he was speaking metaphorically or literally regarding Satan. I don't think the notion that there are forces in the world who's goals are to cause harm to America is off base. To claim that the "Father of Lies" is literally behind it would be out there, but an anti-American movement certainly does exist. After watching some of this seasons new sitcoms with my teenage DD I have to agree that our society is oversexed. It seems the laugh track can't be qued-up without at least some heavy sexual innuendo. And sitcoms are one of the milder creative products coming out of the US. Regarding Mr. Santorum's actual campaign? It's the economy, stupid.
I think you're right there. Few minds are going to be changed by positions on social issues at this point. Santorum can say he believes, for instance, that marraige should be between a man and a woman. Few people that disagree with that are likely to have voted for him otherwise. Obama can say the same thing. Few of his supporters will desert him over that position because they don't believe he will act on his convictions.
From a partisan point of view, I'd prefer a focus on the economy and foreign policy, where I think the Obama people are more vulnerable. I think they realize that better than the Republican campaigns apparently do, which is why they chose to pick that fight over health insurance with the Catholic institutions. The more time wasted on culture war kerfuffles, the less time they'll need to spend defending their record.
Speaking of Catholic, it seems the Church is increasingly becoming a major player in how we run our government, what with the Supreme Court, Rick Santorum, distribution of federal monies, et al. So how does the Pope's recent pronouncement that health care is an inalienable human right fit in? (Repeating myself: not to mention the Church's stand on war, poverty, etc.)
loosechickens
2-23-12, 9:15pm
not to mention the Pope and the U.N. on climate change.......one has to wonder about folks like Rick Santorum who are so quick to jump onto his Church's stand regarding contraceptives and/or gay marriage, (all the sex stuff), while cheerfully ignoring all the stuff on health care, the environment, care for the poor, climate change, etc.....you know, all that stuff that Jesus might have been concerned about.....
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104646.htm
Jesus did not care about any of that stuff. He only cared about getting souls into heaven by way of tithing and looked forward to the development of gospel music. DUH.
That said, i think the reason my family likes santorum is because he is catholic, nto because he's got great ideas about governance.
Speaking of Catholic, it seems the Church is increasingly becoming a major player in how we run our government
The Know Nothings were saying the same thing in the 19th century, and we still don't have inquisitors on our doorsteps. I don't see anything particularly sinister about Churches trying to influence policy; any more than I do about Planned Parenthood, the Heritage Foundation or the Sierra Club trying to do the same thing.
If you look at a Church as a group of people brought together by similar values and beliefs it makes perfect sense that they would try to influence policy at whatever level correlates to their group's scope. The Catholic Church, being the largest organizations in the world (if not THE largest) is naturally going to try to exert influence at all levels. They've been a major player in western civilization for centuries. No reason that would change now.
That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.
But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)
I think the notion of keeping church and state separate is designed mostly to keep the state out of the church, not necessarily the other way around. Any large group can influence policy simply because they have a lot of votes. In the case of the Catholic Church they have a LOT of votes.
As for hypocrisy, human nature might be the simplest and best explanation. The Pope is essentially a political appointee. The participants in a Papal Conclave wouldn't just draw a name out of a hat, the candidates need to have long and distinguished careers moving up the ladder. I can't imagine the process is entirely different than advancing to very high ranks in the US military. Anyway, the leaders of the Catholic Church are immensely powerful men. It makes sense that they would have similar characteristics to people drawn to very powerful positions in government or finance or other captains of industry.
catherine
2-24-12, 12:04pm
That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.
But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)
Good one, Jane!
I think the notion of keeping church and state separate is designed mostly to keep the state out of the church, not necessarily the other way around. Any large group can influence policy simply because they have a lot of votes. In the case of the Catholic Church they have a LOT of votes.
As for hypocrisy, human nature might be the simplest and best explanation. The Pope is essentially a political appointee. The participants in a Papal Conclave wouldn't just draw a name out of a hat, the candidates need to have long and distinguished careers moving up the ladder. I can't imagine the process is entirely different than advancing to very high ranks in the US military. Anyway, the leaders of the Catholic Church are immensely powerful men. It makes sense that they would have similar characteristics to people drawn to very powerful positions in government or finance or other captains of industry.
But my point was that the Vatican sets Catholic policy, which I thought was to be adhered to by its followers--and Catholic politicians in this country--at least those on the right--seem to be pointedly flouting it, with a few exceptions like birth control, which even the Church has loosened up on somewhat. (See the position on condoms and AIDS. Pope Benedict in 2010)
And right-wing politicians calling themselves Christians are likewise flouting Jesus Christ's core teachings as laid out in Matthew by elevating the powerful and scorning the poor, IMO.
Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." NIV
But my point was that the Vatican sets Catholic policy, which I thought was to be adhered to by its followers--
It's more complicated than that. Different sorts of "policy" are due different levels of compliance.
That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.
But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)
So you object both to candidates’ opinions being informed by Catholic doctrine, and to candidates’ opinions being insufficiently orthodox? I have been a Catholic my entire life; and while I have encountered much good, have yet to meet perfection. If anything short of that mark disqualifies a candidate on a hypocrisy basis, we will have trouble keeping the government staffed.
Look at our current President, for instance. The champion of public campaign finance who becomes the first major party candidate to reject it. The man who sees fit to lecture the Supreme Court about Citizens United in his State of the Union address, but steers contributors toward favorably disposed super PACs.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-12, 2:49pm
Yes well, it is quite possible that their concern isn't any of these issues but positioning themselves in the elections. What politicians wanting to win? How shocking ;). Now how or why anyone decided cultural issues were the issues to run on I'm not sure. I mean you've got to do some kind of brand differentation, but that as a marketing move ... hmm ... don't know about that marketing there.
Maybe we should be glad, it could be worse, they could be running on being more militaristic than Obama etc. (they are to some degree but ...). It could of course be much better, but I suppose that is too much to expect.
Now how or why anyone decided cultural issues were the issues to run on I'm not sure. I mean you've got to do some kind of brand differentation, but that as a marketing move ... hmm ... don't know about that marketing there.
I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?
I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?
I think you're right. We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future if the GOP doesn't wise up. Who's advising these guys? Where's Karl Rove when we need him?
We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future ...
Spot on, that's exactly what the current ruckus has appeared to be to me.
Just keep bouncing between race-baiting, church-baiting, and class-baiting, and we'll have a ball-game...
I'm sick of it all. Which may be the intended effect, to keep people from even caring any more.
I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?
:confused: What cave have you been living in? :laff:
God, guns and gays! The 3 G's of the GOP!
Not running on cultural issues?? Let's see, Obama is an American hating/baby killing/terrorist loving/socialist/commie/Stalinist/fascist/pinko Nigerian who wants America to fail so he can bring in his European style dictatorship complete with an army of anti-American commie liberals who will steal your kids, rip your head off and s--t down your neck. Oh, and he's a Muslim too!
Naw, republicans don't try to fear monger with phony cultural issues. It's all Stephanopoulos' fault! :laff::laff::laff:
Well Hello Peggy. I'm pleased to see you come out and participate with each of my posts. :~)
Your list is interesting from an Ed Schultz, propagandizing sort of perspective, but I'm wondering which candidate campaigned on any one of those things?
Spot on, that's exactly what the current ruckus has appeared to be to me.
Just keep bouncing between race-baiting, church-baiting, and class-baiting, and we'll have a ball-game...
I'm sick of it all. Which may be the intended effect, to keep people from even caring any more.
If that is the intended result I have to admit "they" get a little closer to success with each election cycle.
According to the writings around church/state -- the earliest forms -- was to keep the state from promoting a single religion along the lines of the "church of england." It was to promote religious freedom, so that people of any religion could practice free of state persecution for not participating in the state-sanctioned religion.
The problem with many of the ideas from many of these groups is that they are promoting that the country was founded on "christianity" (which is clearly not the case), and therefore that the "Laws of God" (as seen and understood by neo-fundamentalist christians, largely, and other christians secondarily) are what should govern the nation.
This is in direct opposition not only to the documents of the government itself, but to the history of the writers and their position on why there isn't a state-religion (or why there is a division between church and state).
Not running on cultural issues?? Let's see, Obama is an American hating/baby killing/terrorist loving/socialist/commie/Stalinist/fascist/pinko Nigerian who wants America to fail so he can bring in his European style dictatorship complete with an army of anti-American commie liberals who will steal your kids, rip your head off and s--t down your neck. Oh, and he's a Muslim too!
Peggy (!), you've been holding out on us. DNC approve that strategy?
The Know Nothings were saying the same thing in the 19th century, and we still don't have inquisitors on our doorsteps. I don't see anything particularly sinister about Churches trying to influence policy; any more than I do about Planned Parenthood, the Heritage Foundation or the Sierra Club trying to do the same thing.
OH I don't know. I think the laws in several states requiring an invasive unnecessary procedure before an abortion is a pretty strong inquisitor at a very private doorstep.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_20033700?source=most_viewed
There is something very sinister about churches influencing public policy. How exactly do you think the Taliban came about? The people who think it's no big deal that the churches are influencing policy are the very same people who screech about a Muslim community center going up in NY (not at ground zero, as it turns out) or fear monger about Sharia law or go on and on about some congressman taking the oath on the Koran. Once we let religion dictate law, then we must let EVERY religion dictate law.
It never ceases to amaze me at the inability of some to think beyond their noses. It's like prayer in school. I guarantee you every single person who promotes prayer in school is laboring under the impression that it will be THEIR prayer that is said!
Gregg stated he though separation of church and state was more to keep state out of church. Maybe, but I think it's more to keep your church out of State. Your religion should not influence public policy any more than Jewish should, or Muslim should, or snake handlers, or jehovah witness, or any religion. And any one with two grey cells to rub together should be able to see it not only protects me from your religion, but it protects you from your neighbors religion.
I don't want to bow to mecca, I don't want to wear magic underwear, and I don't want your church in my privates!
And while were talking about it, I think it's past time to talk about this special tax exempt status churches get. I don't think 'religions' are special, by virtue of their beliefs, or anything else, and i don't think they deserve this blanket special status. To me, that is establishment of religion. Let each church file for non profit status and stand on individual merit.
Well Hello Peggy. I'm pleased to see you come out and participate with each of my posts. :~)
Your list is interesting from an Ed Schultz, propagandizing sort of perspective, but I'm wondering which candidate campaigned on any one of those things?
Oh Alan. You make such....silly statements! How can I resist!
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2012/02/21/gingrich-obama-most-dangerous-president-american-history
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/gingrich-obama-is-dangerous-defeating-him-a-duty-of-national-security/
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/gingrich-obama-hates-it-when-poor-kids-work-fox-news-wsj-gop-debate
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-obama-doesnt-think-work-good
and one of my personal favorites, Obama as the evil indoctronator into SECULAR life by promoting more kids go to...wait for it...college! Evil I tell you...EVIL!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/rick-santorum-obama-muslim-brotherhood_n_1296276.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-obama-trying-to-crush-the-traditional-judeo-christian-values-of-america/2012/02/22/gIQAUZdzTR_blog.html
I could go on and on and on....
I think you're right. We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future if the GOP doesn't wise up. Who's advising these guys? Where's Karl Rove when we need him?
I couldn't agree more with both of you. I know Rove detested Rick Perry (Mr. "Prayerapalooza"), and I can't believe he likes Rick Santorum much better. I don't think anyone would be church-baiting without all the over-the-top pronouncements about banning contraception and "man on dog," and mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking a legal medical procedure. I can tell you this isn't playing well with women.
I can tell you this isn't playing well with women.
Men either.
It's more complicated than that. Different sorts of "policy" are due different levels of compliance.
But surely openly, publicly refuting long-accepted doctrine like serving the poor, rejecting materialism, ending capital punishment, and avoiding war while seemingly being obsessed with other peoples' sexual and reproductive lives has to cast them as smorgasbord Catholics at best. And creepy hypocrites at worst.
So you object both to candidates’ opinions being informed by Catholic doctrine, and to candidates’ opinions being insufficiently orthodox? I have been a Catholic my entire life; and while I have encountered much good, have yet to meet perfection. If anything short of that mark disqualifies a candidate on a hypocrisy basis, we will have trouble keeping the government staffed.
Look at our current President, for instance. The champion of public campaign finance who becomes the first major party candidate to reject it. The man who sees fit to lecture the Supreme Court about Citizens United in his State of the Union address, but steers contributors toward favorably disposed super PACs.
We need campaign reform desperately, that's for sure.
I believe one's faith should be private and that an individual who seeks public office and takes an oath to serve the public and the Constitution should refrain from trying to impose his/her dogma on the rest of us. If they uphold that principle, their personal philosophical inconsistencies should be moot.
Surely the issue of Catholic "doctrine" and how it is followed is more complex than your post makes it out to be.
I believe member Tradd here just became or is becoming a catechist, and could explain the fine print.
I believe one's faith should be private and that an individual who seeks public office and takes an oath to serve the public and the Constitution should refrain from trying to impose his/her dogma on the rest of us. If they uphold that principle, their personal philosophical inconsistencies should be moot.
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?
chanterelle
2-24-12, 6:20pm
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?
Interesting question...I guess we must define both moral and ethical and just how they can overide the rights and beliefs of the general population in all its diversity.
New York's former governer, Mario Cuomo, did not believe that it was ethical, or even legal, for his moral beliefs as a Catholic regarding birth control/ abortion et al could usurp the rights and beliefs of the overall population of the state.
He was duly vilified by the church....calling for him to be excommunicated blah blah blah....everything short of demading him to be burned as a witch.
He was an elected official looking to the secular rights of his constituents, not the moral teachings of his own particualr belief system and cosmology.
His morals/ethics colored his personal actions and he did not attempt to force belief into law.
The interesting thing to me is the beliefs themselves, and not so much whether a fellow developed his beliefs through pure reason, or by talking to his favorite sky god, or by reading the pattern in his morning breakfast cereal.
And I think that's the best place to develop an honest discussion, by focusing on the details of the beliefs/policy, and not trotting out the religion card.
chanterelle
2-24-12, 6:35pm
"And I think that's the best place to develop an honest discussion, by focusing on the details of the beliefs/policy, and not trotting out the religion card.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the problem [as I see it] in this country, is that beliefs tend to get confused with notions of singular right, power and an increasingly vexing sense of infallability. It has me very worried.
Chanterelle beat me to it.
But as long as Candidate X is ranting about "radical secular ideology," and decrying the decline of judeo-Christian values, the religion card is in play.
chanterelle
2-24-12, 6:46pm
Chanterelle beat me to it.
But as long as Candidate X is ranting about "radical secular ideology," and decrying the decline of judeo-Christian values, the religion card is in play.
Yes. It is in play as a distraction from what is really going on.
About a million years ago, I did a brief stint as "the lovely assistant" for a magician. All my flitting, smiling and posing were specificly designed to take attention away from what the magician, the main act, was actually doing before his great reveal. I see this as the function of a great deal of ranting that is taking place in the public sphere lately.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-12, 7:56pm
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?
technically I think they are required to carry out whatever the law is, so that a governor is required to carry out the death penalty even if they don't believe in it (some put up a some fight though).
technically I think they are required to carry out whatever the law is, so that a governor is required to carry out the death penalty even if they don't believe in it (some put up a some fight though).
Governors in most states I am aware of have the powers of pardon, reprieve, and commutation of sentence.
Gov. Toney Anaya in New Mexico commuted all outstanding death sentences in the state, for instance. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois stayed all executions for years, and then finally commuted > 150 death sentences to life sentences.
I suppose we could just elect robot overlords to mercilessly carry out rules and make policy, might not be the sort of place most of us would enjoy living though :-)
Uh oh--the robot card. :cool:
(Cue Mitt)
technically I think they are required to carry out whatever the law is, so that a governor is required to carry out the death penalty even if they don't believe in it (some put up a some fight though).
This is true. And the laws of America are moral, because you don't need religion for morals. Bae is right in that, if i read him correctly. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, but are they shared morals of the nation. Do we all hold these morals sacred.
We, as a nation, decided, for instance, that old people shouldn't have to worry about starving, being homeless without medical care, so we as a nation decided to implement SS and medicare. Sure, there were those who balked. There are always some who balk at everything. But on the whole, we knew this to be the right and moral thing to do. Same with welfare, and unemployment. I know some don't see these as moral programs, but they are. I'm not religious, but I am familiar with most mainstream religions, and I think all preach taking care of those less fortunate. And I think you'll find most atheist liberal, where the moral platform is the same.
We, as a nation, decided that abortion should be legal. Sure, some are dead set against this (and i can appreciate that...for another thread) but the majority of Americans want to keep it legal. Not legal with a rusty knife, but legal. A candidate like Santorum, who is sanctimoniously in your face about very private things, and even not so private (birth control) is very off putting and jarring, to say the least. He's talking about devils and morals and how women SHOULD behave...and this guy is running for President! You want to know what the Taliban would look like in a modern, 21st century nation? He's right there, running for President. A religious moralist running for the highest office in the world. Just because he represents your religion doesn't make him any less dangerous. I believe bae said it best. I can't believe anyone is considering this guy for President.
Morals are not the result of religion. No religion owns them. Morals are the result of evolution into thinking, cooperative societies. In order to be successful, societies needed to develop certain codes of ethics, or morals. I know many fundamentalist wouldn't admit it, but every successful society, whether christian, Jewish, pagan, whatever, share basically the same morals. Didn't come from a bible, or sky god, but from the evolution of man. And because they come from man, are constantly changing. The amoral behaviour of showing your ankles changed to knees, then to something else.
So, in a long winded way, to answer bae's question, yes, we expect our politicians to be guided by their morals. But, as fellow Americans, we also expect to mostly share those morals. A Taliban leader couldn't possibly expect to lead us, as well as even Santorum would shock them. Santorum doesn't share the majority of America's morals, which are not amoral as some would say. I think our morals are pretty well intact, thank you, and find most Americans very generous and kind and compassionate. Women enjoying sex is not amoral, in my opinion, and the pill, and yes abortion, has done more to advance our society than many other modern advances.
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?
Of course, so long as following those personal moral/ethical guidelines do not function at cross purposes to the constitution, relevant law, and personal liberty.
well, amoral means actually "outside of morality." and it could be argued that sex is inherently amoral, but that context creates the morality. And context includes not just specific definitions (eg, sex within marriage is moral, sex outside of marriage is moral -- as this holds ideas around marriange and what nto), but really the broader ideas that a person can decide within their context whether having sex is appropriate, can take precautions to care for themselves and others in the process (ie, birth control, barriers to prevent disease), and can determine the moral constructs of that relationship.
All of this moralizing -- or i suppose you could say "moral relativism" -- is individual and *private* and not subject to law under the constitution.
This is true. And the laws of America are moral, because you don't need religion for morals. Bae is right in that, if i read him correctly. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, but are they shared morals of the nation. Do we all hold these morals sacred.
We, as a nation, decided, for instance, that old people shouldn't have to worry about starving, being homeless without medical care, so we as a nation decided to implement SS and medicare. Sure, there were those who balked. There are always some who balk at everything. But on the whole, we knew this to be the right and moral thing to do. Same with welfare, and unemployment. I know some don't see these as moral programs, but they are. I'm not religious, but I am familiar with most mainstream religions, and I think all preach taking care of those less fortunate. And I think you'll find most atheist liberal, where the moral platform is the same.
We, as a nation, decided that abortion should be legal. Sure, some are dead set against this (and i can appreciate that...for another thread) but the majority of Americans want to keep it legal. Not legal with a rusty knife, but legal. A candidate like Santorum, who is sanctimoniously in your face about very private things, and even not so private (birth control) is very off putting and jarring, to say the least. He's talking about devils and morals and how women SHOULD behave...and this guy is running for President! You want to know what the Taliban would look like in a modern, 21st century nation? He's right there, running for President. A religious moralist running for the highest office in the world. Just because he represents your religion doesn't make him any less dangerous. I believe bae said it best. I can't believe anyone is considering this guy for President.
Morals are not the result of religion. No religion owns them. Morals are the result of evolution into thinking, cooperative societies. In order to be successful, societies needed to develop certain codes of ethics, or morals. I know many fundamentalist wouldn't admit it, but every successful society, whether christian, Jewish, pagan, whatever, share basically the same morals. Didn't come from a bible, or sky god, but from the evolution of man. And because they come from man, are constantly changing. The amoral behaviour of showing your ankles changed to knees, then to something else.
So, in a long winded way, to answer bae's question, yes, we expect our politicians to be guided by their morals. But, as fellow Americans, we also expect to mostly share those morals. A Taliban leader couldn't possibly expect to lead us, as well as even Santorum would shock them. Santorum doesn't share the majority of America's morals, which are not amoral as some would say. I think our morals are pretty well intact, thank you, and find most Americans very generous and kind and compassionate. Women enjoying sex is not amoral, in my opinion, and the pill, and yes abortion, has done more to advance our society than many other modern advances.
So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?
So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?
That's the problem with a "morality as consensus" or pure democracy model. Tyranny of the majority at best, a pure mobocracy at worst.
Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.
That's the problem with a "morality as consensus" or pure democracy model. Tyranny of the majority at best, a pure mobocracy at worst.
Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.
Yes. The founders talked about rights when they wanted to limit the power of government over the individual. Now a big slice of the political class talks about rights when they want to expand the power of government over the individual. If they manage to convert the Constitution from a restraining order to a shopping list, something special will have departed from the world.
And how exactly does our constitution protect us from majority rule? That's pretty much how laws are voted in, isn't it? Up or down? A majority of the votes? isn't that how we do things here? Or maybe you think only the landed ruling class should make the laws, and set the rules. Surely even you can concede that laws can't be written to please everyone. So how do you propose we do it?
Yes, morals change, and we change with them. This isn't 1776, as it turns out, and we don't own slaves (which was not questioned in a moral context by those 'oh so moral founding fathers') And we don't consider women second class citizens who can't vote, own property, or worry their pretty little heads about important stuff. We evolved, as a society, into the realization that treating others like that was immoral, so we changed, and our morals and laws reflected that.
We share certain morals as a nation, and yes, our laws evolve to reflect those shared morals. We cannot write law to reflect that which only a few hold as 'the moral thing to do', and the rest of us find to be a bunch of hooey.
"So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?"
and what if we decided dogs could marry 13 year old girls.....or little boys should have one ear cut off...
The voters won't overturn Row V Wade because the voters want to keep it legal! And safe. Nor would they vote to overturn the Civil rights act or the first amendment. This argument is totally bogus, and an attempt at distraction. This isn't a slippery slope scenario, and majority rule certainly isn't a slippery slope. Even the Supreme Court runs on majority rule! How can anyone argue against majority rule? How exactly would you do it?
I guess a person who doesn't understand the nature of morality wouldn't understand this. Morality isn't a religious thing. it isn't a talking snake, magic apple sort of thing. It is wholly and completely of the evolution of man. Once it was ok to kill your neighbor for his food, this is what animals do, without remorse. Now we know that to be immoral and our laws reflect that. Is that the tyranny of majority Alan? That we don't let you go out and kill your neighbor for his food? Or steal his food? Do you wish to own slaves? We impose that tyranny on you as well. We don't let you own slaves, as much as you may want to.
I know the republicans like to sound smart and knowing when they keep saying over and over how our country has lost it's morals and THEY will take it back. They never used to say exactly to WHAT they want to take it back to. Now we know. Rick (don't google me) Santorum has stated what he will take us back to if he is elected and it's not looking so good for women. A majority of Americans (damn that majority rule!) have/will reject that vision and thankfully that is still how we elect our President (unless the supreme court and governor-brothers interfere)
ApatheticNoMore
2-26-12, 11:55am
Let's talk about pure democracy because that like applied in ancient greece or something (and hey it probably applies to an OWS general assembly). But what we have going on in the U.S. is something else entirely ....
In essence: I REALLY don't think most of the policies we are getting actually spring from vast bottom up demand. I just don't see that AT ALL. What we have in the U.S. is not entirely able to be summed up in a word (although there are so many choice ones that apply to some degree).
Basically as far as the higher positions of power go you have candidates picked by an elite (the super PACs and so on - it doesn't even require some "shadowy" elite when you have that kind of money sloshing around) and rubber stamped by the electorate (assuming the voting is legit which hey is an assumption).
The theoretical benefit of democracy is it gives the people some say in their government (which is kinda better than an entirely unaccounatable government). It's a release valve, it's a guard against some layer of power abuse, it may not perfectly protect minority rights, but it at least protects majority rights (in theory anyway). Which again is better than an elite that rules in a way that is opposed to the vast majority. Tyranny of the majority, as flawed as it may be, is still better for most people (by definition) than tyranny of the elite. So it's one step up.
And so the theory is not all bad. I could imagine the type of society or situation it would work in (better on a small scale probably, and better in a multi-party parlimentary system, and likely incompatable with the level of propaganda and media sellout in U.S. society, not to mention the ignorance and apathy and not to mention, and this is huge, completely incompatable with the money in politics!). But in practice current U.S. democracy seems to be used just to lend credibility to whatever government we happen to get. If conditions ever reach a point where a release valve is desperately needed, there isn't going to be one. They (the lawmakers) are making sure of that (by ever more totalitarian law).
Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.
Yea the civil liberties carnage mostly started under Bush W, grossly accelerated under Obama. Although things have been messed up in various ways for a long time, but after 9-11 IS when loss of rights didn't just happen via secret CIA plots or something but burst right out in the open. Still if people think economics is more important when voting than NDAA, well .... in the long run they will get neither! (neither economic prosperity nor civil liberties). In a world where the official law is anyone can be locked away without trial for anything, what power do people really think they have to have economic or any other grievances addressed, no matter how bad things get? Economics as the number one issue? That's short sighted. Not because economics doesn't matter, IT DOES, but because what kind of economy do you really think you are going to get in a police state? Not one that serves most people, I'd bet! Environment should also trump economics. What kind of economy do you think you are going to have in a trashed planet when all the basic natural resources which underlie the economy are destroyed?
Thanks for helping to make my point ANM. Those are the kinds of things that happen when government oversteps it's constitutional limitations.
Oh, and if you think that our liberties started disappearing under GWB, your memory may not be long enough. Consider mass internments of American Indians and Japanese Americans or the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Perhaps a bit before your time, but clear examples of the federal government overstepping it's authority under the guise of "majority rule".
Peggy, consider the idea that if constitutional principles had been uniformly applied at our founding, your examples would never have been an issue. They were an issue because people felt that their personal beliefs trumped reason, logic and fair play. When you use "morality" as a valid basis of governance, you absolutely are setting yourself up for laws that result in despicable outcomes.
I believe that a perfect form of federal governance would be limited to one basic tenet. Your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins.
And how exactly does our constitution protect us from majority rule?
The Bill of Rights was a good start.
The Bill of Rights was a good start.
It's still majority rule. it has to be. When we vote on something, the only logical outcome is, what the majority votes for is what we have. Well, now that corporations are people (admittedly with a ton of money and power no individual has) it is becoming the golden rule. The one with the gold, rules! Which is kind of how strict constitutionalists seem to want it. They really don't want the unwashed masses to have a voice.
I guess I don't understand your argument/objection to majority rule. How exactly do you propose we make laws, decide policy, etc..? See, when some elected official proposes something completely against our SHARED MORALITY, like invasive ultrasounds before abortions, then the MAJORITY rises up and says I Don't Think So, that official backs down, realizing the MAJORITY of their voting populous doesn't want that. Do some think that procedure is just fine and dandy? Sure, Santorum for one, but the majority said no, so it won't happen. Just as the majority wouldn't allow the reversal of row v wade, or the first amendment, etc..
ApatheticNoMore
2-26-12, 7:18pm
See, when some elected official proposes something completely against our SHARED MORALITY, like invasive ultrasounds before abortions, then the MAJORITY rises up and says I Don't Think So, that official backs down, realizing the MAJORITY of their voting populous doesn't want that.
counting on the American majority to rise up seems very weak protection against anything though perhaps all we have (see at bottom I do think it IS all we have!). So yes, *ideally* that is what would happen ... but I don't know in reality I don't see it.
[I sometimes wonder whether this country has ANY shared morality beyond making money - yea that's a cynical quip even for a cynic :)]
It's still majority rule. it has to be. When we vote on something, the only logical outcome is, what the majority votes for is what we have. Well, now that corporations are people (admittedly with a ton of money and power no individual has) it is becoming the golden rule. The one with the gold, rules! Which is kind of how strict constitutionalists seem to want it. They really don't want the unwashed masses to have a voice.
I guess I don't understand your argument/objection to majority rule. How exactly do you propose we make laws, decide policy, etc..? See, when some elected official proposes something completely against our SHARED MORALITY, like invasive ultrasounds before abortions, then the MAJORITY rises up and says I Don't Think So, that official backs down, realizing the MAJORITY of their voting populous doesn't want that. Do some think that procedure is just fine and dandy? Sure, Santorum for one, but the majority said no, so it won't happen. Just as the majority wouldn't allow the reversal of row v wade, or the first amendment, etc..
It's not an objection to majority rule so much as the instant yielding to transient political passions in the limits it puts on what the majority, through its elected representatives has the right to rule on (all that "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be abridged" stuff). This is what progressives complain about as outmoded when they get thwarted. Sure, ultimately a large enough majority can eliminate a given freedom by amending the Constitution, as they did with Prohibition; but it takes time and trouble enough to slow the process down and allow a bit more rational thinking.
There's no such thing as shared morality. We aren't ants. There are many competing moral visions, spiritual, secular and ideological that need to be balanced against one another. The framers understood that, and provided a political operating system that both mitigated against foolish changes driven by some temporary zeitgeist, and in limiting the power of government to rule at all in certain areas.
counting on the American majority to rise up seems very weak protection against anything though perhaps all we have (see at bottom I do think it IS all we have!). So yes, *ideally* that is what would happen ... but I don't know in reality I don't see it.
[I sometimes wonder whether this country has ANY shared morality beyond making money - yea that's a cynical quip even for a cynic :)]
That is kind of cynical! ;) But it does work, eventually. Sometimes it takes a while, like civil rights, women's rights, but it does work. It's what we have.
This is what I mean by our shared morality directing our actions. Morality isn't an external thing possessed by man from the beginning of time. It's only through the evolution of man have we developed morality, and each society chooses the level of their morality. Even the basic morality of 'don't kill your neighbor for his stuff', something all men the world over share, was once ok. Might makes right. But we, thankfully have evolved from that.
Maybe it's arrogant, I don't think so, but most of the world, certainly the civilized world, recognizes the Taliban morality as faulty morality, but it's their morality. And they believe just as strongly in stoning a woman that shows her knees in public, as Santorum believes in the immorality of birth control. But just as a Taliban leader couldn't lead here, Santorum can't lead here because we, Americans, decided/know that birth control isn't immoral, and in fact helps to curb the number of abortions, which no one is really for, but we do want it kept legal. So the majority does rule. And it will work, cause we won't let Santorum outlaw birth control or abortions. Congress really doesn't live in a bubble, and the only thing that tops their greed for donors (and pandering to them) is their fear that the majority will rise up and kick their butts out.
This is why those statesmen who proposed the invasive ultra sound have backed down, quickly. This is why gay marriage is coming on, state by state. This is why we have/are pulling out of Iraq. Public (the majority) pressure.
Don't be discouraged, it does work. Sometimes slow, but it does work. Of course for those who think that invasive ultra sound is a good idea, and that gays should stay locked in a closet, or women shouldn't use birth control, or vote even, it's not working. I'm sure to those people we have lost our morals. But those people are in the minority, and despite the wishes of some, we don't let the minority make policy, thank goodness. But also, for those people, we share the belief that people have free will. No one is going to make them use birth control, or have an abortion.
To tell you the truth, I get a little tired of people saying we have lost our morals/way. Especially when they use it as a political hook and are referring to universal health care or something like that. No one ever asks them to give an example of our lost morals, and if they do try to expand on it, they bring up something like taxes or something equally goofy. We are a very moral nation, as it turns out. We are kind and generous, and offer the best freedoms in the world. We won't make you use birth control if you don't want to, or limit the size of your family, we won't make you stand and pray to one god at public meetings, and you have the freedom to succeed wildly, (or fail spectacularly). And it's because we don't have a small ruling class that decides our fate against the wishes of the majority. Sometimes it seem that way, but the correction comes, eventually.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.