Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The argument of your article could not be more wrong. That 3% or one state of Ohio which gave Bush the election can and likely will go to the Democratic Candidate in 2008 if Iraq is draining American blood and tax payer dollars, the dropping dollar continues to increase inflationary pressures and the national debt approaches 8, 9 or 10 Trillion dollars and investors begin refusing to float our debt any further unless we are willing to bankrupt the tax payers by offering exorbident interest rates on our debt to maintain investors.

If there are more Terrorist attacks in the US, Bush’s promise to keep us safe should be good for 3 percent of the votes, and if deficits go down at the expense of young children, our seniors, our infrastructure, or the working middle class, a percent or more votes will be moving left again.

There was nothing decisive about this election. Many, many millions of Americans decided to give Bush another 4 years to make good on the war, the economy, and deficits, saving social security and Medicare. If Bush makes good, then something decisive may happen. If he doesn’t make good, not even McCain could run and win on a Republican ticket. Folks are giving the Republicans the chance to finish what they started and see if their plans will benefit Americans at large. If just a few percent are disappointed, there will be no Republican President in 2008.

And if a number of these agenda items go south, look for the Senate to return to Democrats as well. So, for all American’s sake, let us hope that Bush and his Republican Congress can and will make good on the issues that got them elected.

Rove is a bright guy, but, not even he is going to be able to make moral values supplant a failed Iraq mission, or a tanking economy. So, you Pickett’s Charge decisive argument simply doesn’t wash. The margin of winning was just too close for any such analogy to hold up.

I gotta say, I dont agree with either of these predictions.

To Mr. Matel- imagine if instead of John Kerry, Bush’s opponent was Bill Clinton- do you really not think that Clinton would have been able to change the minds of 1.5% of the Bush voters using (1) his amazing ability to pander (he would have come out STRONGLY against gay marriage); (2) his natural charisma. Note, that all that he would need to do is change the minds of slighly more than 1.5% of Bush voters…

To David- I think this election showed that your analysis is pretty flawed. As you pointed out time after time in the run up to the election, you thought the Republicans’s control over the government for the last 4 years was so disasterous that Bush would be sent packing to his ranch. Well it did not happen, despite the majority of the American people thinking the country is going in the wrong direction, and only half of the country approving of the president’s job.

So what gives? John Kerry is a leftist, far to the left of most American voters, and many decided (probably rightly) that even though Bush was not good, Kerry would likely be worse. Did you see Kerry’s negatives in the polls leading up to the election? they were attrocious. So in the next presidential election, if the Democrats pick another candidate like Kerry-Dukakis-McGovern, they will lose again. EVEN IF Bush’s second term goes poorly…

Interestingly, even if Bush’s administrative does a good job in the second term, the Republican candidate can still lose. Presidential politics is often one of personality and “slip ups”, so we cant know until we know… if you get my drift.

umm kids….

we are all getting a little ahead of ourselves…

lets relax….take a deep breath……

give bush his 4 years….

we’ll see how it goes…

and for the rest of us pretentious dems…the meeting in the coffeehouse, (pick one) happens at dawn…..

let no one see you…lest they report to the brotherhood…..

(i hear we’ll be reading books! tell no one!)

Misha, your argument discounts the backdrop of the 2004 election with that which may be the backdrop in 2008 as postulated. Voters did not make their decisions in a vacuum on the 2nd, the economy was growing, and the glass was half full on Iraq.

Do your really believe if that backdrop is more negative in 2008 that it won’t influence swing voters and moderates and cemtrists?

As for my predictions, you are right, 3.5 million Americans in the country, and a few thousand in Ohio were willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding Iraq and jobs and the economy. I though that 3.5 million or more would have swung the other way. I did not anticipate the significant boost of the morality crowd nor how the gay marriage issue would detract from the Kerry vote.

I would bet however, the DNC drops the gay issue in 2006 and 08, as even the gay community today is debating whether they shot themselves in the foot this election. The political landscape could remain close to what is this month in ‘06 and ‘08, or it could change significantly one way or the other. One thing is for sure, many more voters will be paying attention in the next election cycle as evidenced by the increased turnout.

While the republicans have gained control of the government for now, the events of the next 12 months will show us how easily they can lose their false claims. If the democrats are intellegent as they think they are than the next session of Congress should be fun.

A felony investigation in the White House
The 9/11 CIA Report
National Security Bill (What happened to that)
No plan to catch OBL
Iraq
Iran with China backing the country now (I dare Bush to attack China)
And the list of Domestic and Economic issues that is still to be addressed.

Not unless Bush moves to the left of center and levels with the American People will the country about the true danger we face both Domestic and aboard will the Belt Line leave him alone.

P.S. Jack, It was over a hill that Lee would of won at Gettysburg. Although I can’t recall the name of the exact hill, the entire union army’s ammo was just on the other side of a hill from confederate troops. FYI

Henry, China is not backing Iran, it is opposing putting the Iranian situation before the UN Security Council, as btw, so has Russia. There is a chess game being played here, and Bush had best not let Rumsfeld have his way in dismantling the Cold War machinery entirely, since it appears, Russia and China perceive a potentially very real weakness opening up in the Bush administration as it focuses on small, highly mobile response teams and have committed to no Draft.

BTW, J. Anthony, just to set the record straight, Kerry also garnered the largest vote total ever!!!!!
What does that say. NADA! Population grew and a larger percentage of voters turned out. Bush still won by only 3.5 million votes in a country of 294 million people. Now that is perspective. Enjoy the win, such as it was. That kind of slim margin can be easily reversed if Republicans don’t perform as promised. And Bush has made some pretty big promises, like cut the deficit in half without changing his foreign policy. We’ll see.

We’ve been moving to the right for the last twelve years, Jack. What do we have to benefit from becoming the left wing of the Republican party? It’s a pathetic place to be. I mean, you may be proud to be a Republican, but I’m not!

I’m glad you’re reaching out, but just understand that many Democrats are happier than ever to be Democrats, proud to have stood up to Bush, and come so close to defeating him. We were one state away, with a candidate who might have won re-election in a heartbeat had we not stood up for our values.

It may look bad for us now, but we’ve been on the outside before.

What made Howard Dean valuable to us is that he once again made us recognize that we had a constituency and that our long period of centrification and conservatism had damaged the party’s ability to appeal to it’s base. You may see the election as a rejection of Democrat values, but step back and think for a moment what just happened.

We nearly won running a fairly liberal candidate. We nearly won getting out the vote on a fairly liberal philosophy. This election, if we don’t get too indulgent in our own self pity over the loss, could become the turning point for our party’s fortunes, because it proved that Democrats could be competitive with a popular Republican president standing up for our own values. It’d be a waste to shift to the right. It’d be cowardly. If anything, you won because we aren’t yet as bold and fervent in our advocacy for our position as your people are. It’s a good thing we have such a bad president to motivate us now. A shift that might have taken a generation, could take just a decade because of Bush.

I don’t think we can ever go conservative enough to capture your base. You’ll always outdo us. I think we are well advised as a party not to move to the right, but instead to start making the case for our true Democratic and Liberal values. It’s time we define ourselves, instead of letting ourselves be defined, and with all due respect, I turn your offer down.

From my previous post:

We were one state away, with a candidate who might have won re-election in a heartbeat had we not stood up for our values.

I should clarify:

We were one state away, against a candidate [Bush] who might have won re-election in a heartbeat had we not stood up for our values.

David,
Thanks for the info. I’m half asleep and just read the headline.

Stephen & Jake,
If Kerry would of promised not to raise taxes to pay for Bush’s war on Iraq than we all would be talking a different tune. Although i lost the link to the survey, check out how many people making above $55,000.00/yr voted for Bush. Yet you won’t here that from the conservative news outlets, they are still trying to sell the idea that the love of money is a moral issue.

Good night.

George Bush now has the ability to move on his agenda of victory in Iraq, tort reform, reform of Social Security and ownership society.

Victory in Iraq isn’t an agenda, it’s a wish. By all accounts his proposed “reform” requires pulling at least a trillion dollars out of a hat.

Just as before the election, Bush’s biggest opponent isn’t the Democratic Party. It’s REALITY.

BTW Henry Schlatman: Lee never gained Little Round Top, then the last offensive at Gettysburg was Pickett’s Charge. And many would argue that the outcome of the battle and War were already decided by that point.

Hey Jack. Didn’t you just post this same article earlier in the day? No matter how many times you post it, I still completely disagree with the premise and conclusion.

Glad the post got so much discussion already on a Sunday morning.

I chose an analogy to Gettysburg was precisely because it was so close and could have gone either way on several occassions – like this election. And like this election, both sides were there in force. A further analogy was that George Meade was not the brightest bulb but still managed the victory. Of course, historical analogies are tricky and subject to a lot of interpretation.

The Democrats made this election out to be an epic struggle. On the pages of this blog, I tried on several occasions to say that this was not the most important election of my lifetime and was energetically countered. If the election had gone the other way by the same percentages, you can bet the Democrats and the media would trumpet it as an epoch making event. They did this in the 1992 election where Clinton won with only 44% of the vote.

I also believe that the Republicans have an opportunity to change the political landscape in the next four years with some of the things I mentioned in the earlier post. The Democrats are losing the intellectual battle. Maybe the conservative ideas won’t work, but they are new and thought out. I don’t hear much new from the Democrats. I understand that this statement will provoke outrage in some people. I don’t mean it as a polemic. I would truly appreciate – maybe in a separate posting - someone explaining the new liberal ideas on poverty, race relations, social security or legal reform.

Let’s pretend.
Count the number of states. Count the number of counties. Don’t just look at blue state, red state and the popular vote. People are too hung up on that to figure out where the ‘divide’ really is.

Putting Supreme Court Judges in place that will follow the law is the best way to go for everyone. Activist judges on either side need to be removed.

It was mentioned in another post how the gay issue was being pushed too hard. That they were premature in believing that people were ready to accept gay marriage.
Civil Unions would have been a better way to go. Since that is not enough and they want all or nothing, will nothing be what they get?

Though I believe there will be a marriage protection act allowing civil unions.
Gay people will not be thrown in jail.
The problem here is that one side is NOT considering the other sides feelings at all.

The people of Arizona sent a strong message to our government about illegals. They are fed up. They want something done. They want to protect their OWN border along Mexico.
Neither side of our government is willing to take strong action against the porous border.
People fighting for the rights of illegals have really got me ticked. I, like a lot of other citizens, have family that goes back to the Mayflower, family that came into this country legally.
There is a long waiting list for Mexicans to come here. 10 years?
The way to fix that problem is in Mexico. The Mexican government has to work on their own problems and make their people proud and make them have a reason to stay in their own country.
As long as they have a government that encourages their citizens to cross the border for a better life, we are screwed.
Is this why people come from all over the world to live in the U.S.A. ? America - the land of opportunity. If more countries around the world would become ‘lands of opportunity’ there wouldn’t be such a long waiting list to get in here.
Maybe Iraq will become ‘The Land of Opportunity’ in the Middle East. We can only hope right now.

We are the country with the big heart and the money to help everyone?
Come here and get free medical care? Have a baby and it automatically becomes a U.S. Citizen? Then you can become one easier?
Just how can we possibly continue to do that?
We have people of our own that need help.

The divide? There are so many things that both sides agree on. Healthcare. Social Security. Homeland Security.
It is not the issues. It is the way to fix them.

One side thinks the government needs to put more money into the problems. The other side wants to go to the root cause, not glaze things over like has been done for so long.

Social Security - wouldn’t it be easy enough to leave the 7% deduction there and just let younger people add another 1% or 2% to their own retirement? What is so hard about that?

Health Care - go to the root of the problem. Cost. Get rid of the things that add unnecessary costs and prices go down.

Homeland Security - close the border. Too bad if the Mexicans can’t hop the fence anymore. Wait in line. Crack down on the businesses and people who hire illegals.

Education - Use National Standards. Find the problem areas and let the local districts figure out how to fix their problem. If they need more money - give it to them. Make all schools equal on the academic level.

Just think about it. The divide is mostly on the way to accomplish things. Not the actual problems that need to be fixed.

What the Democrats should do depends on the story you’re telling. If you believe the Iraq invasion was a justified action, then the election signifies the defeat, and it’s time for the Democrats to lay down their arms. If you believe that the war was not right, then the conflict isn’t resolved, because it was never about the election for you. It was about the deception and the destruction Bush’s foreign policy has caused, and will bring on us and the world. In which case, the issue that motivated you still stands. The conflict between you and your government continues.

Why should Democrats go home, if they have not been given a satisfactory outcome?

I’d have to disagree with the Civil War analogy, too. More than anything else, Lee needed to keep his army intact. Disengaging and marching in the direction of a Union city would have been the better move, enticing the inferior leadership of Meade to follow, onto a different battlefield of Lee’s choosing, with JEB Stuart available to reconnoiterfr the Rebs.
That analogy could be applied towards the Democrats very effectively- keep the force intact, select a goal of their own choosing, march upon it, and draw the Republicans into a battleground of the Dems choosing.
(I have to say, comaring the Democrats with the Army of Virginia makes me a little uncomfortable, though! I’m related to Lee, but I don’t like what he chose to fought for, nor do I want for the Democrats to end like Lee’s army!).
Moving right along… Like, Meade, I expect the Republicans will make a mistake. Why? I really don’t like the implications of this, but I do believe Bush won by opposing gay marriage. The Republicans got out the fundamentalist, rural vote. The problem, and the potential for a mistake, follows from that- Bush & Rove owe the religious right, big time, and paying up could be a very, very unpleasant experience from a political point of view.
I don’t think tax reform will matter. If Bush attempted to institute a flat tax, I’d have great respect for that. I may not agree, but I would respect the effort. However, I don’t think that’s what will happen. Grover Norquist dropped a hint about tax reform involing the abolition of the ‘death tax.’ Most people don’t understand that one. It’s just a Bush pay-off to the wealthy; for the rich it involves very large sums; but for most people, it doesn’t even apply.
And more likely, tax reform is a code word for “COME & GET IT!!! SOOOOO-EEEEEE!!! Or kind of like that movie, ‘The Birds,’ only instead of seagulss & crows & ravens & vultures, it will be lobbyists landing on the telephone wires to stare down at the hapless legislators…
Social security reform? Talk about choosing an advantageous battlefield!
I’m a Deaniac- recovering- and there are some points where I’d disagree with other Democrats in respect to Kerry. But like the presidential election, that’s water under the bridge. It was a very, very close election. I see no need to chase the pendulum to the right. We can wait for it to come back to the center. I see no need to renew a Gettysburg assault from the right. Maintain force integrity, withdraw in a direction that threatens the ‘enemy’s’ weakness, march with a purpose, and select the battlefield of our choosing.

Don

You should be proud of your ancestor. He fought for his family and his home and when he lost he became a good citizen and encouraged his men to do the same. His decision saved the United States years of guerilla war. The American civil war is unique in history because of the wisdom and compassion on both sides in April 1865. Robert E. Lee was a necessary part of that equation. No individual human being is without flaws, sometimes really big ones. I can think of nobody in history who did anything great that didn’t have some monumental failings. We can admire their strengths and honor their accomplishments without accepting everything about them.

Back to the main subject.

Religious conservatives were important in this election, but they traditionally vote Republican. They were out in greater numbers this time, but President Bush improved his standing in 45/50 states and most major subgroups of the population. He improved among Hispanics. He got a majority (55%) of married women and Catholics (52%). Both of these groups went for Gore in the last election. He even did slightly better among blacks. This was a very broad based victory.

The Democrats defined this election as a giant test. They gave the best they could and couldn’t prevail.

Democrats are looking to blame this on Karl Rove’s genius. Soon they will begin to blame John Kerry’s incompetence. Democrats can win again. Maybe Republicans will mess up completely. But the best way to ensure victory is for Democrats to rethink their message. The times they are a changing. Policies from and rhetoric from the 1960s don’t work anymore.

NONE of us know how any of the issues fought over in this election will play out in future elections.

Each of the key issues that dominated this race will have a VERY different look by 2006—and 2008 is anybody’s guess.

As a Republican, I greatly feared that if Kerry was elected at the outset of what may very well be a strong economic recovery, he would repeat Clinton’s success in taking credit for it and be almost impossible to beat later on.

But now, if the recovery extends—and most importantly the jobs picture continues to improve—then an essentially Republican state like Ohio will likely be off the table for Democrats in the future. A Republican candidate could concievably be able to run on Bush’s economic record in 08. I don’t only think this is possible but highly likely considering current trends.

Iraq, too, will have a VERY different face by 08 and even in 06. If Iraq is stabilized, holding elections and largely minding its own security, Republican candidates will be in a very strong position to run on that success.

The Iraq war was always a long-term proposition anyway, and from a political point of view, Republicans can now breath a big sigh of relief.
We now have the time to prove our case for the wisdom of the Iraq policy. Even further set-backs in Iraq will have plenty of time to be remedied.

and hey…you got to screw over gay people…so you got that goin for you….

yeah everything’s comin up roses…..

I don’t think it’s really sunk in how different the blue-red electoral topography now is from previous elections.

With the exception of a small handful of places like NH and Ohio (which trended Democratic in this election because of the transient issue of job losses), Republicans made huge inroads in many of the previously strong blue states and only failed to carry many of them by very slim margins.

While losing the popular vote in 2000 by a half million, the Republican candidate won this time by 3.5 million—a four million swing.

Democrats now face a huge uphill battle across the entire South while they’ll have to struggle to hold onto such places they could previously take for granted like Michican, Wisconsin, Minnesota and even New Jersey. Bush even made serious inroads in California.

It will be interesting to see how Democrats try to remedy this situation.

On the bright side for Democrats, maybe they only lost so much ground this time around because of temporary personal support for Bush on security matters in the blue states(in the same way Bush lost ground for possibly temporary job losses in as small group of red states). If that’s true, then personal support for Bush may not translate into support for future Republican candidates.

On the pages of this blog, I tried on several occasions to say that this was not the most important election of my lifetime and was energetically countered.

I still think it was. Only time will tell, and I hope I’m wrong.

screwed over gay people????

Why is it that gay people don’t understand how the straight people feel?
They think you are trying to screw them over.
Do you care? No.
I can imagine gay people don’t like being told that the way they feel is wrong, or that they should accept something just because someone else told them to.

Telling the other, in any relationship, that their feelings are wrong never works. It just causes deeper problems.

Try telling your husband, partner, wife, friend, that the way they FEEL is wrong and see where you get.
Now try it with a total stranger.

The interesting part to me is the Democratic response to their losing this election. The general response has not been “We need to change our strategies or our message.”

The general response has been that they somehow got cheated out of what was their birthright. It sounds suspiciously like a losing high school football team that blames the refs for not calling a better game.

On the gay marriage issue, the voters spoke loudly. Every single measure was voted down. Yet the “left” is saying this is unfair. They fail to realize that their position is unpopular.

One group in favor of gay marriage said they will now take it to the courts. This is the height of hypocrisy, though. Since when do we seek to change to democratic process of voting by heading to the courts?

This election was supposed to hinge on the number of voters, or perhaps to be a referendum on George Bush. Well, more voters came out than have in a long time, and Bush was voted in by both the popular and electoral votes.

Democrats should learn from this that their message is not convincing. They suffer too much from listening to their own kind—that is, they get so much agreement because they are not listening to differing opinions.

Republicans need to stand firm on their principles, which have been approved. But they also need to be careful not to pompously and assiduously abuse this privilege. They should not cater to the losing side in an attempt to befriend the losers, yet shouldnt gloat over victory. Hopefully, Republicans will look to work with Democrats on certain issues where they can all agree—-improving education, economic prosperity etc.

I hope the GOP does reach across the aisle on a number of key issues. As Eric said a few articles down, most of us agree on the issues, it’s the approach that we have disagreement on. My big issues that I think must be addressed soon are:

Social Security
Healthcare
Tax Code
Energy Policy

Getting agreement on approach to these issues will be tough, but I hope the Democrats see that they can not continue to put forward socialistic solutions if they want support from other than the population centers.

And there is one of the big rubs of the Democratic Party. Their group-think comes from the fact that most come from large cities. Socialistic approaches are more palatable in the cities, because people are more accustomed to giving up personal liberties for the sake of the common good. But people have been migrated to the suburbs and now to the x-burbs for years, mainly as an escape of the necessary socialism and its higher costs. You should see how many “snowbirds” we have in my area, buying mini-farms and fixing up turn of the century homes.

I’d like to see true bi-partisan participation in developing the solutions to my list of concerns. But our government is set-up to be terribly inefficient, and it takes a true crisis to get any meaningful reform on most issues (that’s a good thing). If either party feels that doing nothing is still an acceptable strategy, then we’ll be arguing these same issues four years from now.

jbod —

On the gay marriage issue, the voters spoke loudly. Every single measure was voted down. Yet the “left” is saying this is unfair. They fail to realize that their position is unpopular.

Democracy or not, “popular” and “fair” are not the same thing. Segregation laws were mighty popular amongst those who weren’t negatively affected by them but no one today would say that made them “fair.”

bugcrazy:

the point is….gay people DO understand how straight people feel….

i have friends that are gay couples who clearly love eachother as much as i love my wife…

yet i’m somehow supposed to tell them that their relationship is somehow less valid, less true?

they have been together longer than i have been married, and they are monogamous, faithful, responsible couple, who just happen to be gay…

where as i know quite a few straight couples, or should i say some of them are still couples, 1 couple is an “open relationship” whatever the hell that is, 3 of my best friends are divorces, 1 of them is now on his 4th marriage…..

hmmm…seems to me us straights are having more problems than my gay friends…

luckily, republicans pushed through a law telling them that they are not important.

wrap a piece of dogshit in bacon, it’s still dogshit.

wrap gay marriage in the sanctity of marriage, its still hatred of gay people….

you may not “like” gay marriage, but two guys or two girls who can get together and stay together and be a responsible couple,
1. in no way affects your marriage, and if it does, then your marriage is built on a very weak foundation. never have i had an arguement with my wife and said “oh our marriage is in trouble because of the gays”

and 2. who cares what anyone else does in their household? do my straight neighbors have any influence over my life, exept when they blow their leaves into my yard? no.

i dont like my tax dollars going to nuclear bomb development….do i have a choice? no. do i suck it up and deal with it as part of being an american taxpayer, yes.

Alejo:

My point was to show that despite putting the measures in front of the people for a democratic vote, some people are thinking it is unfair. And by unfair, I don’t mean the measure, but rather the process.

These people seem to think that they are correct, and therefore the people should vote in accordance with THEIR thinking. This is arrogant and repugnant. It is also incredibly foolish. They don’t see that what they are espousing is a kind of fascism, in which voting doesnt matter. What matters is that they get their way. They forget that the principles of democracy revolve around the voting system, not the more autocratic manner of simply demanding laws or the manner of simply misusing the judiciary to get your way.

Alejo, there are different ways to view the ISSUE, but there shouldnt be such sour grapes at the outcome of voting.

joebag:

consider how the right would be reacting if gay-marriage had passed and been forced on each state….

sour grapes….and pitchforks and torches….

jbod —

I see your point and agree with you to an extent, but as this thing unfolds I’m beginning to wonder if all issues should be held up for a vote. There are guarantees in our Constitution that we should never take away even if it’s currently the majority’s opinion that we should. (I think that sentiment is actually a conservative one.)

As for the vote, you won’t hear me saying it was unfair. As far as I know there’s no reason to believe Bush didn’t get re-elected fair and square.

Let’s be careful about throwing around words like “fascistic” though. You are talking from a party that appears to want to enforce its religious views on the rest of the country, a party that has used every political, rhetorical, and psychological method at its disposal to marginalize its opponents — which it actually needs for a balanced system.

rob:

I cannot speak for others—-I can only speak for myself. Had the gay marriage initiatives passed, I would have accepted them. This is not to say that I would have been happy, nor that I wouldn’t have worked to get them changed. But…voting is the manner in which we make such decisions in our country, and I would be loathe to change that aspect of our country.

Alejo:

I used the word “fascist” on purpose, precisely because I don’t think those people have any idea of what they are really calling for. They simply see an end to a means, and justify it. They don’t realize that in doing so, THEY create a fascist type of thought process. Its unintentional, and I believe them to be ignorant of its existence, yet it is still there.

Additionally, I don’t see the right trying to force its religious views on others at all. Perhaps I am blind to that, so maybe you can show examples. Let’s avoid abortion for two reasons, since it isnt really a religious view so much as a view about whether a fetus is a life or not, and more importantly because the discussion tends to derail all others.

I see somewhat the opposite in a story on the wires today. A Cobb County Georgia case is debating whether a sticker can be placed on science textbooks proclaiming that evolution is a theory, rather than a fact.

To do so would simply promote the study of alternative theories, and not necessarily limit the teaching of evolution. Yet many are against it. Yet in the name of tolerance…..oops I forgot. Tolerance is only needed for those ideas you believe in already….lol

Alejo-

You are talking from a party that appears to want to enforce its religious views on the rest of the country

I just can’t let that go. What gives you this appearance?

If I have a position, and it is based upon my religious beliefs, does it appear I’m trying to enforce my views on others?

Curious minds want to know….

jbod —

I know what you’re saying, although I wouldn’t have worded it that way. There is a danger in anyone’s presuming that they’re always right, and there’s no doubt that some Democrats are guilty of that sin.

Okay, abortion is off the table — how about gay marriage? The institution of marriage is essentially a religious rite, and Bush is now pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to bar certain citizens from celebrating that rite. Perhaps I am too liberal (or maybe too conservative, I’m not sure which) in that I feel the Constitution should NEVER be amended to restrict rights. That was never its purpose.

As for the sticker — can you link to an article on that? Just based on what you’ve said, I don’t think a warning sticker on a textbook is appropriate. In science class children should be taught what the word “theory” means and that evolutionary theory is in fact that. There’s no need to put a disclaimer on teaching a theory in science class. As for the study of alternative theories, what others are there but creationism and evolution?

George —

If I have a position, and it is based upon my religious beliefs, does it appear I’m trying to enforce my views on others?

It does if you (or your representative) pass legislation that makes your religious beliefs law. You are entitled to whatever religious view you desire, as am I.

I’ve brought this up before, so I’ll just note it, then give it a rest. This story came up again today, and will likely keep coming up, so you might take note as it re-occurs.
A grandmother demonstrated on tv how the Florida vote could be hacked in 90 seconds. Dick Morris is shaking his head on FOX and calling the Florida results ‘foul play,’ based on the remarkable divergence between exit polls and results. There are some wild statistical anomolies for the rural Florida vote, and the only common denominator seems to be the Opti-Scan voting machines, whose results are tabulated in just one central PC. If you want to see the data, just ask, it’s available.
I know, I know, sour grapes on my part. Fix an election? Bah! There’s no way anyone could ever hack a Windows PC, right?

On impact of gay marriage issue on Presidential election, consider what happened here in Oregon. Kerry took the state by a decent margin (51-47), but measure 36 (No Gay Marriage) passed by a larger margin (57-43). So in this case the people who “got to screw over gay people” were the Kerry supporters. The “in your face” strategy started last summer in places like San Francisco and Portland of making gay marriage an election year issue, may have generated a result (not the one that was intended I am sure), but it was hardly a definitive factor on the outcome of the Presidential election.

Alejo-

Thanks for the response. I guess I would say that most of our current criminal code could not make it past your religious test. Murder, manslaughter, and property theft as examples are all based upon Christian values and teachings.

As I have written here before, my opposition to gay marriage is not based upon religious beliefs. I do respect anyone who opposes gay marriage based upon their religious beliefs, just as I respect anyone who supports gay marriage based upon, if not a religious basis, their own moral values. I don’t feel anyone is trying to impose their values onto me in these debates rather that their values are derived at from different sources.

George Bush’s support for a Constitutional Amendment, in my opinion, does not constitute him trying to impose his religion upon anyone. And as President, his opinion on an Amendment is only slightly more important than say a Susan Sarandon anyway.

Alejo:

Google on “Cobb County Georgia and evolution” and you should find stories about this thing.

As far as the Constitution, I think Bush is using it to prevent judges from hijacking the will of the people. Forget about the issue of gay marriage, and look only at how the judicial system has been used.

A “thing” is desired by a minority of people who cannot garner the vote. They go to sympathetic judges who say they can have this “thing”. There is the possibility of other people having this “thing” as well, even though it is not specifically allowed. One way to prevent this from happening is to create a Constitutional Amendment to prevent it in all areas of the country. If not, one judge could create the allowance for all people, thereby going against the will of the people.

George:

Thanks for the response. I guess I would say that most of our current criminal code could not make it past your religious test. Murder, manslaughter, and property theft as examples are all based upon Christian values and teachings.

And also Hindu values, Muslim value, Jewish values, and atheist values. Christians don’t have a corner on morality. There are plenty of Christian teachings that make perfect sense from a societal standpoint: Thou shalt not commit adultery, because then we won’t know who’s responsible for raising the children, for instance. If you can, please tell me how allowing gays to be married is detrimental to society, because as far as I’m concerned that’s the only way to justify the argument. What is your opposition?

And as President, his opinion on an Amendment is only slightly more important than say a Susan Sarandon anyway.

You’re kidding, right? The president’s stated opinion and intent holds “slightly” more importance to the American people than an actress’s?

jbod:

Interesting decision. As I said, I think a disclaimer sticker is unnecessary — like putting a sitcker on math books that “i” is an imaginary number — but teaching other theories of origin seems like a balanced approach. Strange, though, that no other specific theories were mentioned. (Let’s not forget that creationism isn’t a theory as far as science is concerned. There’s no evidence, other than the Bible, for it.)

I’m not sure I understand the rest of your argument. Why are we talking about a “thing” instead of gay marriage? And are you saying the will of the people is what’s right, always?

Alejo-

I really do not wish to debate gay marriage again as it has been discussed here many times. My opposition is based upon putting our families first which I feel, in times of conflict between the two, trumps the rights of the individual. I’m sure you might find that somewhat socialistic, and that’s why I think the whole issue a predominately State/Local one (where surprisingly I am more acceptable to socialistic ideas). I ask you to check the archives on this one though, as I’ve stated my views before.

And to your second question, does the President of the United States have a significant influence on this subject? Yes, the President can set the agenda, but so can others who have a microphone to the masses. In our purposefully inefficient form of government a President can not just call for a Constitutional Amendment and then just make it so. He needs a little help from both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the State Legislatures. The Republicans are nowhere near that super majority. He might be able to appoint Supreme Court or Circuit Court judges to evade the legislative process some would argue, but there are checks on that power as well. And imagine the outrage from people on the right if they tried that one.

In the end a President can be a cheerleader, and indeed a powerful one, but others in Hollywood, in editorial rooms, and maybe one day blogsphere can have just as much of an impact. Therefore his opinion is really just his opinion, and he can not force his religious views on anyone. I’m sure you especially.

I hope that helps.

George —

I’ve read most of the posts on this site and haven’t seen your argument against gay marriage. Doesn’t much matter, though, since if you think gay people make less adequate parents than straight people there’s no point in discussion anyway.

I’m aware of what it takes to pass an amendment to the Constitution. I’m also aware that what the President of the United States says carries more weight with most people — particularly people who vote — than any celebrity does. Obviously Bush can’t pass an amendment singlehandedly. I don’t want to get into the “the president has no power, we can’t blame him for anything that happens during his administration” argument any more than you want to re-explain your reasons for opposing gay marriage.

Alejo-

I thank you for describing exactly how “I think” without any knowledge of fact.

George —

I said “if” because I don’t know how you think. If you could be more specific about which column you posted your previous comments I would know what you think. I’m afraid I don’t have time to sift through every single post on every single topic to see what you do think.

Alejo-

Again, this particular blog is about politics and less about the specific cultural issues, but if we must then here is something I previously wrote on one of the many columns on this subject:

The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of purposes: procreation, fidelity, sacrament, mutual support and companionship, mutual society and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition
-Rev. Tex Sample
United Methodist Preacher.

From a religious view I generally agree with this statement and also do not see the “gay marriage is a sin” verse in the Bible. Paul says that even marriage is a distraction from a relationship with God, so to me all sexually related subjects are just another sign of our human imperfections.

But, if given a vote (I haven’t yet) I would vote against same sex marriages for my State or community. My personal reasons are based not in religion, an interest to exclude anyone or of hate for anyone, or in determining that a gay person can’t perform the duties required by marriage. My reasons are in desiring my community to reflect the ideals that I hold dear.

One of those is that the nuclear, traditional family is the best environment for a child to be raised. Study after study shows that to be true, and I would vote in my children’s best interest based upon that information. And that’s about it.

On the purely political side, I am for the repeal of the Clinton Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that the Federal Government should have to recognize any marriage or legal arrangement as sanctioned by a State. However, there should be no requirement that another State recognize a marriage or legal arrangement sanctioned by another State unless they so desire.

George —

First, thank you for being more specific.

Again, this particular blog is about politics and less about the specific cultural issues, but if we must then here is something I previously wrote on one of the many columns on this subject:

Seeing as how specific cultural issues are what form and drive politics I think it’s perfectly appropriate to talk about them. They are what tends to divide as well as unite us.

One of those is that the nuclear, traditional family is the best environment for a child to be raised. Study after study shows that to be true, and I would vote in my children’s best interest based upon that information. And that’s about it.

Isn’t this what you got upset with me for thinking you thought? I don’t get it.

I’ve seen some of those studies too. I wish that the traditional nuclear family still existed. Since it doesn’t — not really — shall we make it illegal for single people to have children? Or make it illegal for parents to get divorced?

And what do you mean by “your” children’s best interest? Even if gay marriage were legal it would have no effect whatsoever on how your children were raised.

There is no doubt that gay marriage was brought up as a wedge issue in this election and the matter won’t be resolved anytime soon. Nevertheless it is here and discussion-worthy.

Alejo:

I used a generic “thing” so as not to distract from my point…obviously that did not work especially well.

My point was to show that under our Constitution, voting is how we make decisions. I don’t want a small minority of strong willed people (activist judges) to make far reaching decisions, especially AFTER the populace has voted against those decisions. We vote for a reason—-if the will of the people can simply be overturned by the decisions of a few, then why even bother to vote.

My thoughts on the “gay marriage” issue focus on a bigger picture. Right now, there is a restriction on who can get married—that is, only a man and a woman can be legally married. Two men or two women cannot be married.

The issue is not gay marriage, but rather restrictions on marriage. Allow me to ask you: Do you think there should be any restrictions on marriage? That to me is the greater question.

jbod —

My point was to show that under our Constitution, voting is how we make decisions. I don’t want a small minority of strong willed people (activist judges) to make far reaching decisions, especially AFTER the populace has voted against those decisions. We vote for a reason—-if the will of the people can simply be overturned by the decisions of a few, then why even bother to vote.

I see your point on this. I’m still struggling with this personally because I think there are some things and some rights that should never be infringed even if people would vote to do so, given the opportunity. Of course the DOMA already exists, so I see your point there too.

By “restrictions on marriage,” are you asking if I think a man should be allowed to marry a fencepost? Well, I’m probably not the right person to ask because I don’t personally believe in the institution of marriage. However, I think everyone should be treated equally under the law, and telling someone they can never be married because they can’t fall in love with someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory.

I guess in the end it comes down to this for me: If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, do it. If you want to marry a fencepost, you’re nuts but harmless. If you want to marry another man, fine, do it. If you want to marry a sheep — well, the sheep probably wouldn’t be so much into it if it had the power to speak.

Does that answer your question? Probably not. I think our viewpoints are probably (as often happens) far too divergent to meet.

Alejo-

That’s because I do not think that “gay people make less adequate parents than straight people.” That is an inference that you are drawing based upon my assertion that the traditional nuclear family is what is in the best interest of our children. Those are two completely different statements.

I gave you my personal opinion as to how I would vote if I were asked to vote. There are other subjects, besides gay marriage, that I would also vote on based upon my view that it is our responsibility as adults to do what is best for our children. Does my support of child tax credits mean I’m against single people?

Again, I’m not the one who is putting this issue before voters. In fact, it was gay activitism that pushed this issue to the forefront, and is now reaking the consequences of pushing too far. Many people I know (anicdotal, but I live in the Red State South) don’t necessarily oppose gay marriage but do oppose the tactics of getting judges and administrators to dictate to the electorate.

George —

That’s because I do not think that “gay people make less adequate parents than straight people.” That is an inference that you are drawing based upon my assertion that the traditional nuclear family is what is in the best interest of our children. Those are two completely different statements.

No, it’s an inference I’m drawing based on the fact that you support passing an Amendment to the Constitution to make sure of “the best interest of our children.” You can split that hair any way you want it but the fact remains that this proposed Amendment singles out a particular group of people and says, “You may not have this.” Why may they not have it? Because nuclear families raise better children.

I’m sorry, George, but I think that’s a lousy reason if it’s the only one you have. There are plenty of perfectly legal lousy parents out there right this very moment who will not change their parenting one bit if the amendment passes. Besides THAT, there’s nothing stopping gay couples from raising children anyway.

As I stated in my previous post, I agree that it’s an issue that America isn’t adult enough to face right now. Nevertheless we are facing it, ready or not.

Alejo-

Your lack of comprehension is frustrating at best.

Where have I ever stated that I am for a Constitutional Amendment?

On the purely political side, I am for the repeal of the Clinton Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that the Federal Government should have to recognize any marriage or legal arrangement as sanctioned by a State. However, there should be no requirement that another State recognize a marriage or legal arrangement sanctioned by another State unless they so desire

In fact, if you read what I wrote, you will see that I am for the repeal of the DOMA! That’s because I belive that the Federal Government has no say so in what is a State issue.

Which gets to my point about the President. Although he can set the debate, he has no real power to “enforce his religious views upon anyone.” Neither do I.

I told you how I would have voted if I’d been in one of those eleven States that issued referendums. I think that a traditional family is the best place to raise a child, and therefore we need to policy that favors traditional families. That’s how I see it. If you see it differently then fine.

George—

Your lack of comprehension is frustrating at best.

Thanks, George. Have a nice day.