August 29, 2005
Bush's Swing Voters, Swing Away.
A new poll (WSJ ) proves that George Bush has lost every swing voter that he swung his direction in the 2004 election.
With 40% having a favorable opinion of Bush’s job performance and 58% having a negative opinion; George Bush has retained only one thing since his election: the die-hard Republicans he couldn’t lose if he shaved his head and joined a cult.
The swing voters of the 2004 have turned against Bush in a big way and will be hard pressed to return. Those voters are just another jilted spouse tired of the listening to constant lies. They've decided; enough is enough and walked away.
The 40-40-20 rule of national politics, where 40% will always vote Republican, 40% will always vote Democrat and the remaining 20% will always decide the election, is back and will be make for an interesting game in 2006 and 2008.
With so many Republicans solidly aligned with Bush, many of the Senators and Congressman up for re-election will have a hard time proving that Bush's policies are good for America. The poll numbers show that the Bush agenda isn't popular with America and anyone associated with supporting the 'stay the course' policy won't be re-elected. The Republicans have to, and probably will, start to change course.
I expect to see, in the near future, on the state and national levels, politicians stepping away from the Bush spotlight. In fact, I would expect only the true diehards, like Santorum, Delay and Frist, staying by Bush's side; everyone else will go back to the comfort of the rock from which they came and hope for the best.
This is not to say that the Democrats are looking for an easy win in 2006 and 2008. In fact, it's quite the contrary. It's probably because the base of the Democratic Party feels abandoned since so many tried, in vein, to align the party message to the Bush dogma. And because of it, they lost their own message.
For Bush, it is 'that' bad. With poll numbers currently lower than Nixon's were during the Watergate hearings, Bush can only plan for one thing: retirement.
Posted by john trevisani at August 29, 2005 09:12 AMAs one of those swing voters, i would not count Republicans out yet. I voted AGAINST the Democratic Party, not for Bush… and the Democrats have not changed their tune so at the moment my vote remains solidly in the Republican camp.
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 10:07 AMI think the american people closed the door after the cat got out.I knew that with opening coming up for the supreme court we needed anybody but Bush in office.I didn’t think he would be so bold with helping his oil buddies rape America but with politicians who knows what they will do in there last term in office.I hope all Americans start being more involved with politics.We need to bring accountability back in politics.That is the only way America can stay as great as we have been for so long. We have traded our rights for false securities from terrorism.The only way the terrorist can hurt us is by taking our liberites away which they have done a great job. I hope all the swing voters swing to the side of who will be the most effective at protecting our civil liberties and rights.
Posted by: randy at August 29, 2005 10:23 AMOHO, so ya voted Repuglican in order to avoid the Democrats? Well, Lessee—-under the Dems we had a surplus, a balanced budget, no war, lower gas prices, much friendlier relations with other countries, (Venezuela, for example), a booming stock market, …I guess you’d rather have a lying warmongering murdering crook with an ultra-right-wing-religious program pissing our money away (and running us into debt again), wiping his butt on our constitutional rights and killing thousands of people instead. WHAT ARE YOU, NUTS????
Posted by: capnmike at August 29, 2005 10:26 AMWhat definition do we apply to “swing voter”. Is this 20% inclusive of voters who remain unsure until some campaign issue strikes their fancy and they “swing” to that candidate. Or, is this 20% voters who predominantly favor a particular party but this time they “swing” to the other. (At least the majority of them).
If 40% vote Republican and 40% vote Democrat do not some of the remaining 20% vote for a third party candidate. Also, in this catagory, as Jo points out above are voters who simply vote “against” a candidate rather than “for” another.
Given public opinion at the moment I think that while a great many Bush supporters may reassess their party affiliation in upcoming elections, a strong factor in that decision will be who the Democratic candidate will be. In fact, a great deal will rest on who the Republican candidate will be.
While it is accurate to say that Bush has lost his swing voters, he is not the one who will be needing them. I don’t think that it is fair to say that the Rebublican party has lost swing voters.
Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 10:26 AMAll the horrors listed are nothing compared to the undermining of our constitution with activist judges etc taking away our rights and horning into our churches. Wars, budgets and foreign relations change a lot faster than our laws and constitution.
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 10:30 AMSteve Smith:
The 20% most certainly contain independent voters. But the fact is 40 on each side will vote for a dead dog before switching their vote. It’s the middle 20 that decides everything.
The swing voters are up for grabs now more than ever. The Democrats have their best shot at going after them. The Rebublicans have an uphill battle because of the “Guilt By Association”.
Posted by: john trevisani at August 29, 2005 10:36 AMWelcome, jt. That’s an interesting take, but I’m not sure you can translate dissatisfaction with President Bush into votes for Democrats in 2006 - and 2008 is way far out on the political horizon.
Frankly, I’m really hoping that President Bush will flip-flop to the Democrat’s position on everything, and not just the war on ter… um… the struggle against violent extremism, North Korea, and Iran.
If he comes to his senses on Iraq, energy, global warming, and fiscal responsibility we could be in real trouble. *snort!* Like that’s going to happen. :)
john trevisani,
Even though I am a right wing conservative, I agree that probably too much damage control would be necessary to accomplish much for the Republicans.
It may very well be time for a change in the majority. There is nothing wrong with looking at things with a different set of eyes.
To be honest, if the Democrats can’t get it done now, with almost every executive action being examined, criticized and found wanting, they probably will have only there selves to blame.
Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 10:50 AMI think its time we made our politicans take a polygraph test.Then maybe we would know what their intention are before they take office.That would add a little excitment to the debates huh.The American public needs to get more involved with politics swing or no swing.
Posted by: Randy at August 29, 2005 11:08 AMEncouraging stats for 2006, jt! 2008 seems a bit far off to me. It will give dems. time to treat what ales them, which is not simply Bushco’s polluting and misrepresenting liberal ideals. Howard Dean has put forth some very interesting strategic ideas. It is my hope that the voting public will pay attention so the next time the “cat” races for the door, it won’t be let out. Although, it is going to be a different rat…I mean…cat. There may be no end in sight to the American occupation of Iraq, but thank God, there will be an end to current White House occupation and that is definitely a good starting point.
Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 11:16 AM“All the horrors listed are nothing compared to the undermining of our constitution with activist judges etc taking away our rights and horning into our churches.” ok you lost me
Horning into your churches? The only activist justice that seems intent on horning into church is Justice Thomas who seems to think that states could have an official religion. But then again I’m sure you don’t consider him an activist judge.
Posted by: vague at August 29, 2005 11:25 AMJo:
I would be interested in what the things are that you mention below?
All the horrors listed are nothing compared to the undermining of our constitution with activist judges etc taking away our rights and horning into our churches.
What rights do you mean, and “horning into our churches” how?
Posted by: womanmarine at August 29, 2005 11:27 AMSenate seats that expire in 2007 are as follows :
Democrats 17 seats
Republicans 15 seats
Independents 1 seat
Currently the Senate distribution of seats is :
Democrats 44 seats
Republicans 55 seats
Independents 1 seat
To achieve a Senate majority beginning in 2007 the Democrats will have to win back the 17 seats they now hold that are expiring and 11 of the 15 seats that the Republicans now hold that are expiring.
Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 11:32 AMAs a swing voter, President Bush has lost my vote. I may have voted for him before, but NEVER AGAIN!
I will NOT be voting for Bush on ’08 no matter what happens from here on in. In fact, no one I know is planning on voting for Bush ever again. Not even Republicans! ;-)
The Democrats are very bad at politics these days. They should be focusing on the Republican party itself (especially with midterms comming up), as well as trying to gain support for themselves. Instead, they focus on a second-term president, who’s not planning on running again for any office.
Funny, I see plenty of articles posted here about the president loosing support, but I never see any about the Republican party loosing support, or the Democrats gaining support.
I wonder how many Republican party supporters and voters will be of the opinion that they don’t want to go out on a bad note.
For example if you are a coach running a practice session there is a tactic to “always finish on a good one”. You don’t let the team finish practice unless they have success with the final drill.
As a Republican I may be of the opinion in 2008 that we have done such a poor job in the previous years that I know we can do better. Let’s not go out with our tail between our legs.
We may be more willing to elect another Republican to prove that we can do a good job than elect a Democrat to do a better job and have that party take credit.
So, while there may be dis-enchantment with Bush and this administration, we may opt/try to hold the White House.
Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 11:50 AMSteve Smith-
Your math is off. 44+11=55. We’d only need to get 11 seats won if we were trying to get a majority of your size. The real number required to get a majority is 7: 44+7=51. Your error is subtracting one number from another, rather than using the difference between them and fifty.
You just dont get it….in ohio in one county alone, bush got 93.000.00 more votes than were registered voters.. Diebold has been hacking votes for republicans since 2000 and dems cant win ..until we insist on paper ballots….Doesnt matter what dems, do diebold has to be stopped…Republicans are in complete power in ohio and wont investigate…Tell sen.s, tell rep., tell madia we deserve an honest election…we want paper ballots..republicans are afraid of an honest election..
Posted by: pal at August 29, 2005 11:59 AMPolitical dissatisfaction is running rampant in today’s climate. The poll numbers suggest that both parties should feel worried. Both Democrat and Republican poll numbers have dipped dramatically, so there’s no clear winner there.
The Democrats have the advantage though. With Bush forcing an unpopular agenda onto an unwilling American public, the Democrats should refocus their strategy and message and then execute that strategy; they cannot waste any opportunity.
When Bush is promoting privatization of Social Security, the Democrats should be right behind him, showing that the pubic wholeheartedly disagrees with that policy. When Bush is out promoting his “Stay the Course Tour of 2005”, the Democrats should be right behind him showing how unpopular the war is and promote their own “Let’s Get Out Now Tour”.
….”As a swing voter, President Bush has lost my vote. I may have voted for him before, but NEVER AGAIN!
I will NOT be voting for Bush on ?08 no matter what happens from here on in. In fact, no one I know is planning on voting for Bush ever again. Not even Republicans! ;-)”…..
Good one Travelers! Not to burst your bubble or mine but there is a “bad Bush risin”. (“I see trouble on the way”—In Florida— ;-)” “Read my lips! No NEW BUSHES!!”
Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 12:24 PMJohn—
Political dissatisfaction is running rampant in today’s climate. The poll numbers suggest that both parties should feel worried. Both Democrat and Republican poll numbers have dipped dramatically, so there’s no clear winner there!
Sure you are right! But if I may interject just one note of caution….People of America…Learn from Minnesota!!! ;-)!
Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 12:29 PMI’m facinated by the comment from Jo, when he/she stated, “All the horrors listed are nothing compared to the undermining of our constitution with activist judges….”
The truth is that we have judges that are ensuring equal rights for various americans, which the radical religious right opposes due to their interpretations of scripture (often out of context). I recall these same type religious radicals opposing integration and allowing blacks the right to vote…as usual due to biblical inpretation. People like this “Jo” person surely saw the judges of the sixties as radical too.
God bless those judges then and now!
Finally, religious radicals should take a good look at Iraq. Seperation of church and state is all I hear from Mr. Bush’s mouth… until it comes to the US where his story changes, the lines are blurred, and the Reblican’s scream “radical judges.” Just a bit of an oxymoron to me.
Ron
In the end these radicals, and most likely this “Jo” person, don’t see that their way of thinking parallels the clerics of Iraq who put a hammer on anyone
Posted by: Ron at August 29, 2005 12:39 PMStephen Daugherty,
Thank you for correcting my error. You are of course correct, my math used the mistaken assumption that the numbers would have to be reversed when the majority does kick in at 51.
Posted by: stevfe smith at August 29, 2005 12:42 PMTo be honest, if the Democrats can’t get it done now, with almost every executive action being examined, criticized and found wanting, they probably will have only there selves to blame
They realize perceptions change from one year to the next. Those who resist the temptation to pile on are playing it smart. The average politician may not be as smart as the average Watchblogger but they are certainly better at politics.
Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 29, 2005 12:45 PMNot to burst your bubble or mine but there is a “bad Bush risin”. (“I see trouble on the way”—In Florida— ;-)” “Read my lips! No NEW BUSHES!!”
Could be… Have you noticed how Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. have been so close lately? If they are supporting each other, and if they play their cards right, both families could dominate the White House for years to come.
Posted by: TheTraveler at August 29, 2005 12:54 PM“….Could be… Have you noticed how Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. have been so close lately? If they are supporting each other, and if they play their cards right, both families could dominate the White House for years to come.
Yikes! don’t go there. I am a major Bill Clinton supporter. I think Bush Jr. has thrown them together to serve his own agenda. When I see Clinton and Bush Sr. in commericals together, it reminds me of a photoclip I saw years ago of then prez. Bush Sr. with the President of Syria, Assad Sr. (now dead). They did not look chummy—no matter what the headlines read.
Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 01:23 PM2008 speculation already, I love it.
It’s true that the Republicans are likely to have an uphill battle, but it all depends on who they put on the ticket vs. the Dems.
It’s shaping up to be an interesting fight on both sides. The presumptive nominees would seem to be George Allen and Hillary Clinton. This would be sure to be a well-matched fight. Two party strongholds who are inching ever closer to the center while keeping their base happy.
The most likely Republican candidate to win nationally would be Giuliani, but his scandals and liberal social positions could seriously hurt his ability to recruit the base. Ultimately, he scares me…. but I think he could be brought down.
For the Democrats, Hillary might be the most capable, but she is also a divisive personality (though a lot of it is unwarranted). But still, do we really want a President who can’t bridge the divide between the parties?
To me, it’s not about beating Republicans, it’s about moving the country forward. And that will take a uniter. The best candidates, in my estimation, are Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Both have the demeanor to garner popularity. Both have had success at working both sides of the aisle. In terms of the electoral college votes (which we CANNOT be dumb enough to overlook during primary season again), both will help carry some red states with weight. Bayh would carry Indiana and probably tip the scales Blue for Iowa and Ohio. Warner would probably wrangle in Virginia and maybe another red state in the area. I don’t see either of these guys losing if the country remains turned off by the Republican party. Either of them would offer an acceptable enough alternative to the moderate Repubs.
Now if the Democratic party cannot get its act together and nominate an ELECTABLE candidate, it deserves to lose. Hillary might be the “face” of the party right now and might have the money behind her, but she stands a good chance of losing. She will bring the disaffected Repblican voters to the polls. Bayh or Warner will keep them at home.
So I’m going on the record right now calling for a Bayh/Obama ticket in ‘08. Campaign theme: “Bringing LEADERSHIP back to the White House” and use the “Midwestern Values” theme to cover the values gap.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 29, 2005 01:34 PMSorry to burst your bubble TheTraveler but unless something happens…..Bush can’t run in ‘08. Jeb might but I don’t think he has the…..ummmm….balls to. Laura….what a laugh. The killer Bush!? No…..don’t think so! Barb or Jenna are too young and certainly too stupid, even with their bough degrees. Lardbutt barb……Yeeesh, NOWAY! Sr…..”no new taxes” Bush…..another lying Bush. Don’t think so!
Who HAVE the lying GOP have in the wings?????
Sorry to burst your bubble TheTraveler but unless something happens…
Please burst it! I was thinking with the Clintons and the Bushes working together it would be easy for Jeb to run after Hillary has her term(s). But I’m not supporting it!
I don’t want to see either family to run again. Neither was very popular. Clinton never won the popular vote and Bush squeaked by in the popular vote and the Electoral College. The country is in desperate need of a realigning election and that means new (and preferably independent) candidates.
Qatwoman!
Too funny! We can only hope and pray (oh, and vote too).
Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 02:05 PMRon:
The truth is that we have judges that are ensuring equal rights for various americans, which the radical religious right opposes due to their interpretations of scripture (often out of context).
You have your interpretation, we have had ours for millenia. You have every right to believe or not believe as you choose.
we have judges that are ensuring equal rights for various americans
“Various” Americans, yes; but at the expense of others. Various Americans as in you and your friends. Sort of like “various” Muslim sects.
If it is wrong for me to force the teaching of creationism (which i do not believe anyway)…
then it is also wrong for you to force the teaching the teaching that the evolution fairy just waved her magic wand and *poof*;
If it is wrong for me to force your child to be taught that life begins at conception..
then it is also just as wrong for you to force the teaching of my child that life does not start at conception but sometime after the third month your mysterious evolution fairy magically enters the womb to once again wave her magic wand and *poof* life;
If it is wrong for me to force your child to be taught that all human life is to be respected and safe-guarded…
then it is just as wrong for you to force my child to be taught that some lives can and should be disposed of or used with or without their consent. (uethenasia of elderly/terminal today although next year the handicapped and developmentally disabled may also be included in the left’s roster of ‘unsatisfactory’ existance; the democratic party’s program of stem cell research;
If it is wrong for me to force the Christiain teaching of prayer and fasting, seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you…
then it is also just as wrong for you to force the teaching of my child that she cannot pray or even study if she is hungry (elemntary level Maslow’s theory lesson plans);
While i agree it is wrong to deny homosexuals the civil benefits afforded by our civil government to other couples and families, it is also wrong for the liberal left democrats to force the teaching of Christian children that their beliefs are wrong and homosexual behavior is not a sin.
It is wrong for Christians to include in civil law religious definitions. It is also wrong for the civil government to legislate regulations concerning religious sacraments ceremonies or beliefs. Marriage is a Church sacramanet as acknowledged by the orginal legal requirment that a priest perform the ceremony. It was wrong then for the state to intrude into Church affairs and the Democratic response today merely compounds the problem. A little like affirmative action but more drastic. Rather it would be the equivalent of legislating all blacks be granted ten white slaves today for the sins of our ancestors. My solution would be that the civil benefits should be proscribed for civil partnerships and registered/entered into civilly without the inclusion/licensing of religious clergy and religious Sacraments including marriage should be defined, performed and proscribed by religion. We are all free (or not so free anymore) to believe and practice our religion as we choose.
i further believe it is wrong to teach children this is a nation governed by of and for the people while unelected activist judges subvert the government and its legislation forcing the personal views on the people.
This is the Democratic Party subverting our representative republic of by and for the people into an oligarchy of progressive elitists;
This is the Democratic Party redefining our constitution, redfining the separation of Church and state as control of the churches by the state;
This is the Democratic Party forcing their personal beliefs views and values on the citizens;
This is the Democratic Party establishing secular humanism as the official religion of the United States.
Finally, religious radicals should take a good look at Iraq.i am aware of the clerics in the Middle East, are you? You think fundamentalist protestants are unreasonable when you persecute them? Even with their corruption of the humilty and meekness of Christ’s teachings a quick glance around the globe will show they are pussycats in comparison.
Turn about:
In the end these liberals, and most likely this “Ron” person, don’t see that their way of thinking parallels the clerics of Iraq who put a hammer on anyone.
John:
Although I hope you are right, I don’t personally see that Democrats can take control in 2006. Republicans are now securely in control in all branches of government (including, by the way the courts, where only 2 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Democratic appointees and Republican appointees hold a clear majority on all circuit courts except the sixth (tied) and the ninth (probably why it is such a lightning rod for Republicans)).
Whatever you may say about DeLay, Abramoff, Scanlon or their scandal-tainted money, they have raised so many millions for Republicans in Congress that it will be impossible for Democrats to raise even half of what Republicans in Congress already have in the bank. Tainted or not, it will give them the ammunition they need to drown out any attempt to discuss issues with their usual flood of personal attacks, distortions and just having a much louder megaphone.
Things look a little rosier in the Senate, but not that much since next year Democrats have as many Senate seats up as Republicans and Republicans still have more money (and less reeking of scandal or bought elections than their colleagues in the House).
I’m a liberal (and especially in the Senate, I see where 2008 could be a huge year for Democrats) but right now our side just has no power to do anything. I wish we did, but the fact is, we don’t. I just hope that Bush et al don’t destroy our country, especially internationally, to the extent that the damage is irreparable.
Posted by: Eli Blake at August 29, 2005 04:50 PMThis is a serious question not linked to politics, femanism, etc.
I have long felt that it would be appropriate to have a woman president. There are sevral who I can think of who might be considered a serious candidate one day but, right now there is a potentially serious candidate (according to many) and that is Hillary Clinton.
My question relates to world opinion and our ineraction at the international level if we have a woman president. There are a great many countries around the world, some very powerful countries in fact that still envision and in fact treat women in a subnserviant role. Women still fight for rights in many countries and, thank goodness they are gaining ground.
With a woman president do we run the risk of sending a message of defiance, of weakness and/or disrespect for some other countries. Or, is the message positive in that we have the courage of our convictions in electing a woman.
Any thoughts on this.?
Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 05:18 PMJo’s comments are so incredibly disturbing, and it is clear that as long as people feel like Jo does, then no matter what the Republicans do as long as they yell how Christians are being victimized, and that America is going to Hell because of abortion and homosexuality, they will get the votes of people like Jo. No amount of lying, putting our environment into jeopardy, alienating the entire world, placing corporation profits over the needs of millions of Americans, declaring war on pretexts that turn out to be lies, subverting the very Constitution this country was based on —none of that matters to them.
Their only focus is on how much Christianity is suffering under the present form of government! That because some people want the right to have a legal, safe abortion, that we are TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN that life begins after three months. If people want the freedom to believe differently, to act differently, we’re TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN??? That very use of words tells me that when Americans value their freedom to not practice the same religion of Christianity, they are in fact TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN to be immoral.
And I gather jo doesn’t get the inherent hypocrisy of American Christians thinking the present draft of the Iraqi Constitution is unacceptable, based on the fact that Islam is the principle behind all laws for their government. I gather jo just doesn’t see how blatantly funny that is.
Posted by: Chris at August 29, 2005 07:20 PMChris,
Do you see how ironic it is that you demand the right to believe as you choose AND the right to deny that same right to Christians while at the same time professing this to be equality?
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 09:19 PMChris,
After re-reading your post (to grampa) i realize (or think i do) that you think it is just you living your life that effects my children. While yes, this is true to some extent, it is definitely NOT what i meant, i am referring to the sex public school curriculum. The humanist values are and have been taught for decades in our public schools… hence we get christians like the radical right exhibiting humanist morals.
No longer are they offering a second cloak or going a second mile without complaint nor are they any longer turning their other cheek. Now we have christians acting like humanists and humanists yelling for Christian values of mercy and compassion.
It’s tough, but i think the politically correct cliche is, “what goes around, comes around.”
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 10:44 PMThat’ll learn me for not looking before hitting post…
i started to list all the different subjects in which humanist values in conflict with christian values are taught. i had to pull mine from PE, literature and science in the 2nd, 4th and 8th grades for just the Maslow’s heirarchy of needs cross curriculae lessons.
While i did not pull them from sex ed, i did have to reprimand the eldest for her lack of humility in debating the teacher. The youngest, as is the norm, learned vicariously that lesson.
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 10:50 PMAre you somehow saying that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is corrupting our school children?
That was about all I could understand from your posts. Sorry, not much of them made sense.
Chris,
Sorry, i should be in bed but am fighting it.
And no, it did not corrupt my kids because i taught it to them myself rather than having the teachers use the over-simplified lesson plans that reduced it to the point of the children taking away that it is impossible for them to study or pray or do anything if they are hungry or thirsty. (this goes directly against the Christian teaching of seeking God first, and practice of prayer and fasting)
i’m gonna call it a night now. Hope you have a pleasant eveing.
jo
Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 11:12 PMDear Jo and Chris,
When I moved from Southern Missouri to attend college in Philadelphia I was very Republican and very conservative largely due to my upbringing. While attending college I was exposed to different ways of thinking, and I have learned that what truly has made me a better citizen is the same thing that has made America great and powerful: our historic ability of respecting logical debate with the goal of exchanging ideas which ultimately changes oneself. Over the years this understanding has given me the ability to grow from my initial way of thinking, to something more logical given my intellectual pliability.
Jo, I would love to respond but given your fanatic responses I have no doubt I?d be wasting my time given what you have written.
Chris, as much as I agree with your points, your undermining your logics as your heart is getting in the way of your head. (At least you seem to be using your head as compared to you know who).
Kind Regards, and long live God and Separation of Church and State,
Ron
Hey Jo, feeling the effects of the kool-aid, are you?
Joe and people like her believe judges are activist only if they inetrfere with nothing more than a fundamentalist cult’s attempt to cram their perverted representation of Christianity on an America that rejected their crap when this country was founded and continues to do so 230 years later.
Posted by: dtom321 at August 30, 2005 12:28 AMRon,
Please do not give up on me so quickly. Help me to understand. What particular in my responses do you find fanatical?
dtom:
Sorry, i don’t care for kool-aid. Also sorry that i appear to be causing static or something with your psychic mind-reading talents. i am not Roman Catholic nor am i Evangelical Protestant.
While i admit that i perceive only in the DNC the organized willful tactic of judicical activism, the Republicans are not innocent of individual and disparate corruptions in their use and misuse of the legal system and political power. i disagree totally with the congressional interference in the Schiavo case despite my position against euthenasia. i also applauded the Texas democrats for fleeing across state borders during the sad redistricting fiasco and i would fully support the indictment of DeLay. While these cases and others on the GOP side infuriate me, they do not in my opinion threaten the framework of our government as do the organized efforts of the left. Scattered individual violations are easily identified and put down precisely because they are individualistic.
A reading of my responses yesterday should have shown that while i am against gay marriage, i am not for the banning of gay marriage. My opinions are not any more important than those of others and their freewill to choose should not be denied. i do not want the radical right defining a Sacrament in my Church anymore than i want the progressive humanists to do so. i do not want fundamentalist protestants or roman catholics co-opting public school curriculae anymore than i want the current secular humanist program taught to my children. If we can call for Saudi Arabia to remove the hate-filled messages in their school curriculum, we should also be able to remove the anti-christian bias from ours. The hatefulness of the radical right’s message is so loud it is easily ignored.. not so easy is it to ignore the hateful message of humanists when the state tests to make sure they ‘got it’. i agree with Ron, long live seperation of Church and State.
i do find it odd that within 24 hours on these boards i have been called an anti-christian radical and a fundamentalist christian radical. Perhaps it is thinking for one’s self that makes a person a fanatic.
jo
Posted by: jo at August 30, 2005 06:25 AMI very rarely speak in these forums. Mostly, I listen. I identify my self as a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I have a daughter that makes Jo sound liberal. When we talk we have vicious fights.
Mostly, what I want to say is that when people feel threatened they fight back like cornered animals.
The religious right is fighting back because they see science disproving so many of their beliefs. I have heard some of these people tell me that we have never traveled in space. My daughter tells me carbon-dating is wrong because it says people have been here longer than the bible states. I know a geologist born in Kentucky who was essentially divorced from his father because he believed in the precepts of geology which shows a very long timeline for the earth.
My point is that nothing that is said or proven will be believed by the religious right because they have blinders on. A bumper sticker down here says “The Bible said it, I believe it.” And they do.
Further, on the progressive side, I and many other women become wild with anger because we believe the religious right is trying to take our hard earned rights away. I am an environmentalist, and I see the Republicans trying to destroy the earth with pollution.
Primarily, because they are big business and MBA’s are taught in their curriculum that the only reason for an organization to exist is to maximise shareholder wealth.
My final point is this if we do not find a way to coexist we risk destroying this country and the earth. I personally do not see much hope. The crevasse is too wide.
Take care.
Posted by: Cassandra Cartwright at August 30, 2005 09:53 AM
Cassandra Cartright,
Your post is very interesting and informative. Even as a right wing conservative I can appreciate the points that you have made. My only point in response is that not everyone on the religious right has blinders on and not all are trying to take rights away from anyone.
In terme of the environment, I personally think that if everything was status quo I would be all for leaving a pristine environment. If the energy and/or fuel source is masked by the environment then we need to see it’s ugly face.
Posted by: steve smith at August 30, 2005 11:08 AMCassandra — well said, I hope you speak more often.
Ron — yea, my heart gets in the way sometimes. I’ve just never been more frustrated with the direction of this country since the GOP took over, and the Christian Right took over the GOP. I sometimes feel just plain irrational about it. :(
Cassandra,
Thank you so much for speaking. i join Chris in hoping you will speak more often.
You are right that it is natural fallen human nature to fight back. Christianity however, teaches that we are endure persecution with patient humility. When i lash out, i am not being like Christ at all but am acting on and revealing the evil within my own heart. Please call me on this whenever you see it. (Unfortunately you will probably see it often as i am not very Christ-like.)
Historically Christianity did not teach a totally literal interpretation of Scripture as the radical right groups of today. Take heart, there are far more christians who are not of the radical right bent— they are just the most vocal. Like you, i don’t speak out often. i am not an activist of either side. Like you i find the times ominous. While it took decades and suffering to work through to a better society today than when the nation began; each gain was under the framework of the law… except for during the war between the states. In today’s coordinated efforts of the left to dismantle this legal framework i see us turning down this same path of civil war, which i doubt will be as ‘tidy’ as that first. (the right’s scattered judicial assaults are impotent distractions easily put down) And so i have come to speak out toward resolving our conflicts while there is yet time. i do not know how to explain and it seems no one is able to ‘follow me train of thought’. i am brought to tears realizing this American generation has no clue where they are heading or what is in store for them and our children down this violent path.
Also like you i am concerned for the environment and the corruption big business has had on our government at all levels. Regretfully, my alarm at the left’s tactics pulled my presidential vote from Nader to Bush in my weak attempt to preserve what our forebears have left us. Side note: if big business is able to worm their way into our government replete with checks and balances, how much easier it must be for them to control this new group of protestants. Compared to the highly guarded government, i picture big business conductor manipulating his baton with televangelists first chairs of an obedient right wing symphony.
As for women’s rights, any attacks on these are easily shut down with Proverbs chapter 31: the ideal wife… is a self employed business woman. ;)
Steve,
It is not an ugly energy/fuel source face we see, but the ugly face of greed which is shutting down the most promising ventures into alternative renewable fuel so the wealthy can wantonly waste said precious fuel in their pleasurable polluting of our national parks with recreational vehicles of all sorts tearing up the land and scattering the wildlife with the sound/noise/air/water etc pollution.
2Ti 3:3-4
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Steve, please understand that i am responding to you in this way only to exhort you as a representative of the right, not to condemn or judge. Jesus lead by example, not by coersion or legislation. Perhaps if i am able to repent, i will not be the only one that benefits but others seeing my struggle will be encouraged to also take up their struggle… which is not mine to name; but the LORD’s alone.
Maybe you will not be offended and willing to receive an example from one of your Christian brethren of the east (such as those in Palestine, Iraq, Russia, Greece, etc) who have a little experience with persecution.
jo
*
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Enemies have driven me into Your embrace more than friends have. Friends have bound me to earth, enemies have loosed me from earth and have demolished all my aspirations in the world.
Enemies have made me a stranger in worldy realms and an extraneous inhabitant of the world.
Just as a hunted animal finds safer shelter than an unhunted animal does, so have I, persecuted by enemies, found safe sanctuary, having esconced myself beneath Your tabernacle, where neither friends nor enemies can slay my soul. Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
They, rather than I, have confessed my sins before the world.
They have punished me whenever I have hesitated to punish myself.
They have tormented me whenever I have tried to flee torments.
They have scolded me whever I have flattered myself.
They have spat upon me whenever I have filled myself with arrogance.
Whenever I have made myself wise they have called me foolish.
Whenever I have made myself mighty they have mocked me as though I were a dwarf.
Truly, enemies have cut me loose from the world and have stretched out my hands to the hem of your garment.
Bless my enemies, Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Bless and multiply them; multiply them and make them even more bitterly against me,
so that my fleeing to You may have no return;
so that all hope in men may be scattered like cobwebs;
so that absolute serenity may begin to reign in my soul;
so that my heart may become the grave of my two evil twins: arrogance and anger.
Enemies have taught me to know what hardly anyone knows, that a person has no enemies in the world except himself.
One hates his enemies only when when he fails to realize that they are not enemies, but cruel friends.
It is difficult for me to say who has done me more good and who has done me more evil in the world: friends or enemies.
Therefore bless, O Lord, both my friends and my enemies.
A slave curses enemies, for he does not understand. But a son blesses them, for he understands.
For a son knows that his enemies cannot touch his life. Therefore he freely steps among them and prays to God for them. Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
-Prayers by the Lake by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic (who was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp for speaking out against the Nazis)
Jo,
I have no idea what your post refers to. I simply said earlier that I believed in maintaining the environment until/unless we needed a fuel or energy source that was buried beneath.
You seem to have provided a divinity school dissertation.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 11:21 AMSteve,
Sorry, i should not have preached. Please forgive me.
Concerning the environment, what electric cars were manufactured have been crushed, the dealerships of the seventies have vanished, hurdles and hoops are set for today’s hybrids the oil interests have grudgingly let slip through…
and there is a current bill in congress to open the natural parks to recreational use of off road vehicles go-carts whatever.. those toys not available to the poor family who has scraped together enough for one family vacation for their children. No, this is for the selfish pleasure of the wealthy who do not want to spoil their manicured lawns and golf courses but have plenty of fuel to waste tearing up the public lands our forbears have left us.
Posted by: jo at August 31, 2005 11:46 AMOH MY GOSH!!! Quoting scripture is totally over the top. Jo, please please please please please do not visit this web site again. Don’t get me wrong, I am very christian, but there is a time and a place for everything. You are totally inappropriate here.
Chris, nice response. Hopefully we can exchange ideas in the future.
Kind Regards,
Ron
Ron:
On whose authority do you judge and dismiss me?
Posted by: jo at September 1, 2005 04:55 PM
