It sure is cold in Provo tonight. According to Central Bank Time and Temperature (373-9120) it is about 19 degrees. We were hit with a storm last night, and snow is predicted for the next four days. The pipes at the Provo Library froze yesterday, leaving a whole community without borrowed books (quel horror!) The news is reporting that UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) has already spent their allotment for snowplows for the year. This is January in its brusque inhospitable glory.I braved the weather tonight to head up to my parent's house for CNN's Republican debate at the Reagan Library in California. There has been much ado about Mr. McCain and his political momentum at present so I decided to check him out myself. Other spectators were my parents--The Councilwoman and The State Legislator--who have embraced Conservatism since they sported beehives and side burns (respectively).
I have a lot of respect for my parents and their desire to serve their/our community. Having said this, I must state that I have long since been suspicious of their everlasting loyalty to the Republican party. My mom is decidedly more passionate about neighborhood rights than property-owner privileges. My dad has been published as a more moderate Republican, sometimes voting with Utah Democrats over issues like the environment. As their unaffiliated daughter I must say that their records make me enormously proud. Never-the-less when it comes to a state and national elections they always support the Republican candidates. We've even had a few of them in our house, meeting our neighbors and eating our refreshments.
And so we watched the debate. My dad, just home from a day at the Utah Legislature, in the rocking chair, my mom and I on the couch eating toasted garlic bread. It was especially exciting when Mr. McCain and Romney went the rounds on the Senator's now-called dirty political trick he pulled on the Governor days before the Florida Primary. On the far end of the table there was Huckabus trying to stay relevant and Ron Paul who, quite frankly, is too smart to be the President. Oh and Anderson Cooper. Governor Schwarzenegger, Nancy Reagan and Kelsey Grammer too.
Of course we are all Mitt enthusiasts. How could we not be? Not only are we Mormon, but we also like good-looking rich people. If Mitt chose Dr. Laura as his running-mate The State Legislator would be in political heaven above. However I did notice that whenever McCain spoke my dad heaved uncomfortably and shook his head. When Huckafly orated he shifted in the rocking chair. Finally when the debate concluded my dad announced something that I never thought I'd hear from my patriarch, the party-abandoning statement, "If Mitt doesn't get the nomination I am supporting Obama."
Not only did he say something that shocked the very foundations of my childhood, he also said what was in my heart. If I can't have Mitt, a man of integrity, then I will take a young politician who is inspiring the masses. But this McCain fellow . . . he does nothing for my political libido. I'd almost rather be celibate.
And so it was on this cold night in Provo that my father and I aligned politically. I have to ask though, is it the frost in the air here or are there others out there who feel the same way?



192 Pieces of Opinion:
ive found thru liz nielson aka liz bryants blog. hope you dont mind. but i love reading your stuff. your hi-larious. and for some reason, this post - of the many i have been lurking on - made me want to say hi. obama does bring "something" to table. its weird to see how many people see/feel it. and that it. the end. :O)
I'm a lurker and I agree completely. If Romney doesn't make it, Obama is sounding more and more appealing. I get the heaves just thinking of McCain as our next president and Hilary makes me plain vomit.
Obama is too much of the "hip" candidate for my tastes. Never mind that that's not a good reason to rule out a candidate.
Yep. I told my mother the very same thing yesterday. If Romney doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote Obama.
Obama's pretty easy on the eyes, anyway.
And you know what, I still dial 373-9120 sometimes, if the power goes out, and I don't want to get out of bed to find my watch. (Oh, and I live in CA.....so I have to dial the 801)
Heh.....and we used to call it all the time as kids....."I'm calling Mom right NOW.....dial dial.....Yeah, Mom, he's got the garden hose on in the living room.....ok, I'll tell him..." "Mom said she's coming home RIGHT NOW!"......
"Nuh-uh......you called TIME!".
I'm with you. If I can't have Mitt, then it's Obama for me.
I am delurking to comment on this one too. I 100% agree with your dad. I think that the democrats want McCain to be the nominee because the rest of the country would do the same thing and vote for Obama. That is why the media is constantly promoting McCain. He doesn't stand a chance!
By the way, you are hilarious! I can't stop reading, and frankly, why would I even want to?
I agree. I've been listening to Obama's speeches online and reading his platform and gotta say, if he's elected maybe Americans can be the good guys again.
He'll be in Utah on Saturday!
I was thinking the same thing. Just tonight. Obama's got something.
Same as Tricia...."I'm calling Mom!!"
or "I'm on the phone with Santa Claus!"
Okay babe- this is like your best entry ever! I will be quoting some of this. Goodness!
What your said says sums it up for me. I am going to vote in the caucuses Tuesday and will have to decide then what I will do. Eeek. The decision still hangs in the air.
I really feel like Romney and Obama are two of the only credible people out there. They are both wonderful, able men. I would feel comfortable with either one of them leading. However, I fear for Ombama and worry that he could be murdered. I also fear for Romney that our faith will be dragged through the mud and back. What can I say, I'm a sensitive lady?
Either way I am just SO EXCITED to see what happens.
Pardon my cynicism, but I don't think a truly decent man (or woman) will ever get close to the presidency. Why? Climbing the political ladder and attaining such status (to be a serious candidate), while remaining decent, is like walking in a pigpen and assuming you won't get any poop on your shoes. We can safely assume that Mitt will not smoke, drink, or commit adultery, but beyond that I'm oooh so skeptical. This time I'm having the hardest time discerning the least of multiple available evils.
You took the words right out of my mouth! Well um, except the celibate part, since I'm already painfully celibate -er, um yeah.
I'm so bi-partisan I once risked disownment by my own grandmother by not only voting Democrat, but also campaigning for one. As it is I think I've been written out of her will.
I loved what Nigel said and it about sums up the essence of my own cynicism.
*sigh*
i i eee--I love your comment too, dear girl.
Sorry Gritty Pretty--
Obama canceled his Saturday visit out of respect for President Hinckly's funeral.
Just one more reason to vote Obama....
"he does nothing for my political libido. I'd almost rather be celibate." Awesome.
I'm so with you guys. I've been rooting for Romney and Obama since last year. And if it came down to the 2 of them, I'm not sure who I'd pick. But I am gonna be mucho depresso if it's Hillary vs. McCain. Same old thing again being forced to choose the lesser of two undesirable candidates. Bleh! I shall boycott politics! (i'll still vote though) If the democrats are smart they will realize that Obama has a WAY better chance of winning the national election because of his cross-over appeal. Hillary ain't got none of that.
I have said all along...if not Mitt then Obama it is. I call central bank time out here in Iowa if our power goes out as well! I wonder if Central Bank knows the power it has?
I decided the same thing back in September (because we get all that politicking early in New Hampshire): if Romney's not on the ballot then I'm voting Obama.
I even read Obama's book....I agreed with about 90% of what he had to say.
I agree completely! I think Romney is the best choice. Not because he's Mormon, but because he makes the most sense to me. Obama is my second choice. I don't even want to think what will happen if either of these two don't make it. *shudder*
So interesting to hear your social commentary and love for Central Bank and Time.
Oh yes we pulled the "I am calling Dad" Or "Santa" all the time. It made me laugh to hear that wasn't just a trick of my family's.
And Abby I know what you mean bout the "hip" factor with Obama.
Also, if I am feeding into the "media's" plan to turn away from McCain for Obama then are am I just being puppet?
I am de-lurking myself as well to comment. I am in Arizona and my husband and I think it would be so awesome if Romney can beat McCain here. He has done NOTHING for his home state - he never even comes home, he is so caught up in Washington politics. We love Mitt for his wealth and beauty but I also served in France with his oldest son Tagg - and Mitt served a mission in France too! We will vote Mitt on Feb. 5 and if he doesn't make the general we will vote Obama.
Love your blog. Just have one question? I am a liberal and LDS too, I know weird. But, why Obama?
I will vote for Mitt even though I am not republican, but don't think I would vote for Obama. Just wondering why conservatives would vote for him.
Btw, my kids loved your rock band concert. = P
PS...I mean I would like to know specifics if you all don't mind..Just curious.
No, CJane, you are not a puppet of the liberal biased media (see matt's latest post)! If you listen to Obama with your heart, not trying to be cheesy, though it's hard since I am a cheeseball by nature, but truly, you will feel the spirit! I'm not kidding . . ."Stand for Change!"
I'm a Mormon too and I am supporting Obama even if Mitt does get the nomination. Don't gasp.
First, amen to Nigel's comments. Alright, so I'm gonna "delurk" too as they say, and just admit how I feel. I am LDS, but the fact that I share my religion with Romney doesn't mean anything to me. Being a member of the church does not ensure that you are a good person let alone the right man for the job. Now I'm not saying that Romney isn't a good man or that he wouldn't make a good president. I'm just far more interested in the man (or woman)inside and what he/she can do for our country. That being said, I do like Obama, but still haven't made up my mind who I'll vote for.
Yay verily! And if it comes down to McCain and Clinton, heaven forbid, I'm moving to England. . .
How is it that so many people feel this way, and McCain still keeps winning?
My dad said the same thing thing to me yesterday. I agreed.
Mainly because I like good looking rich people too.
Is it still 373-912anything? It's been years since I've called.
i'm with nigel-- they're all politicians bottom line.
it's not like a vote for mitt means having a GA in the white house.
I'm with am'n2deep. Voting for Romney when I don't agree with all of his politics just because he's Mormon doesn't sit well with me. And McCain gives me the willies, which means Hillary makes me convulse. So then, there's Obama.
But then, I can't even remember which party I'm registered for, so who knows who I get to vote for on Feb. 5?
CJane - You're Not Alone(I'm singing it McLean style).
You just live, unfortunately, in a right-leaning, blinded by tradition kind of state. I loves me Utah, but I feel politically judged and smothered there.
I consider myself a very lefty liberal. And even in my Mormon ward I don't feel like an outcast. It's nice to be in NYC.
I have donated and campaigned for Obama and truly believe in my heart of hearts he was sent to us to defeat the narrow-minded, war hungry, and shifting agenda of candidates like Bro. Mitt,(as he is often referred to in SS class).
I wouldn't vote for Mitt if he was my Bishop. No offense, but he gives me the creeps. In the same way Bush did in 2000/04. And look, I was right to think that then, maybe people should reevaluate their "safe Republican" choices now.
Maybe I should speak more directly to how I really feel(sheepish sarcastic tone).
OBAMA '08!!!
This is the post Heather was referencing. http://nycherrick.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-talking-heads.html
same same. Love Obama
My husband and I feel the same as your dad. McCain needs to go. If he is the Republican nom,. we are all in troulbe. HE IS 72!! I was so nervous watching the debate because McCain and Romney were sitting way too close to each other. I was waiting for a brawl to break out. And then there is Ron Paul who is like a little time bomb waiting to explode. And Hucka-whatever- whatever.
On SNL a little while ago, Chevy Chase said, "It looks like Mitt Romney combs his hair with a fork and olive oil." It is true. But if that is what is takes to be handsome and rich, he has my vote.
What if Romney was on the ticket as VP? Does that make a difference?
I share! I cannot stand McCain for the life of me. I feel he would be a Presidential wuss.
I was just telling Davey last night that if not Mitt, then Obama. He is the only other decent running candidate, Democrat and all.
There we go McCain, you got no support in Utah!
I hope.....
Amen. :)
I'm voting for obama. Other than being Mormon, I'm not sure why anybody is interested in voting for Romney. The one point that has come up more than any other here and in my Utah neighborhood is "he's good looking".
So true Jeremy. He's Mormmon, rich and good-looking, okay . . .
Ok, love this discussion.
I have to admit here that I am a voter who votes on character more than issues. I can see both sides to issues and so I just end up getting confused if I base my decisions on such debates. That being said, I feel that Mitt is a man of integrity and values and I like that.
After Mitt I'd go with Obama because, as my dear-former-companion and cheese endorsing Heather Anna said, there is a spirit to the guy that I can't help but like.
I like a good Liberal Mormon, though I don't think I am one. How does one really know?
Also, good question J5T. I would say no to Mitt as the VP because I think it would mean McCain as P. PPPPP. (That is a funny letter.)
And an extra welcome to all the brave, political de-lurkers.
Feeling the same way here, both Craig and I.
All I can say is "Obama '08"!!! Romney and I might share the same religion, but we definitely don't share the same political stances!
A great website for those wondering who the candidates are and what their views are on many issues, go to www.glassbooth.org . You can even take a quiz to see which candidate represents your beliefs!
That picture of McCain almost made me fall off my chair. I can't stand McCain now and if he gets the nomination I will be very tempted to vote for Obama but when it comes right down to it I don't know if I will. One thing that bugs about him is yes he has great vision but never talks about what he will actually do - that scares me. I love how Romney spells everything out, he is such a smarty pants!! I think he is the best leader out of all of them.
I mostly agree (don't care so much for Obama, either)...but here's what I'm afraid of:
What if it comes down to McCain and Hillary? Our family will be moving to Mexico, and we will miss you.
Hi, I am also a lurker ready to be known. I completely agree. I love Mitt Romney, a love that has grown tremendously over the past few months. I dislike McCain as much as I love Romney. I too will vote for Obama if Romney doesn't win the Republican nomination.
Just want in on the action- I didn't know so many people felt this way?! It's really exciting! I have always been for Obama and to hear all this is just icing on the cake!
When I look into McCain's eyes, (wasn't that a weird question last night?) I see the potential for more sarcastic, cheeky smiles. And I am definitely not one for sarcasm.
~j , I'm intrigued by that thought. I'll have to think on it for a while... because, VP to who?
I almost feel the same as your dad. It's hard to say it, but I HATE McCain. I have been tempted to post on my blog the following question: "If you are a Republican and support McCain, tell me why. I REALLY don't get it."
Huckabus needs to get his sorry a__ out of the race and stop giving McCain votes.
Ideally...Obama.
You know, I didn't used to think it could ever come to that. But the more I see of McCain the more I agree. If someone like Lieberman were running on the Democrat side, I'd vote for him over McCain. I haven't decided what to do if McCain gets the nomination but I'm not giving up hope yet. I just don't understand what has come over the conservatives in this country. Grrrr.
Wow. So, my wife emailed me with a link to this post, due to its political nature, and she knows I always have something to say about politics. I'm excited that so many of you will switch over to vote Obama if it does end up being Obama v. McCain. Personally, I view myself as a very social liberal, with moderate values on economic issues, although I would argue that the economy seems to do better when the Ds run things vs. the Rs. Being such a person, I always had an affection for the little alien man Kucinich (and boy-howdy, what a sight his wife would be as first lady! Yowza!). However, since his exit, I've gotten 100% behind Obama. He's head and shoulders above the other Ds, as far as I'm concerned. On the R side… the Mittster has made me ill for years. Seriously. I actually USED to like McCain, back in, oh I don't know, 2000 or something when he should have routed W., but alas sir Karl Rove took care of that. And then in '04 when McCain buddied up to Bush, well my opinion of him tanked. That said, I'd still prefer him to Mitt. For real, he seems like the kind of guy that would sell his own mother for a cool $1. I dig on Ron Paul. He's probably the most straight shooting candidate on either side, but many of his ideas are simply unachievable dreams in this society of ours (that's the problem with the Libertarian philosophy… It's full of beautiful ideals, but alas, integrating them has never actually worked). Thanks for letting me post my 2¢. Peace. Go Obama!
jeremy, i think most of the romney supporters here didn't pick him because of his mormonness or his good-lookness. for me it's his executive leadership experience, insanely good ability to solve problems while working with others (i.e. dems in massachusetts), knowledge of economics issues (have you listened to mccain act like he has anything remotely intelligent to say regarding the economy? he once said "i hate interest rates. i wish the interest rate were always zero." umm, yeah. romney is a good public speaker, a good motivator, brilliant, and does espouse many of the conservative principles that many of us do.
while i agree that obama does have a strong dose of that indefinable quality that draws people to him, he is far too liberal for my liking and lacks any real leadership experience.
I feel just about the same. I say "about" because this election year is rough. There seems to be no "perfect" candidate. This year, I will definitely feel as though I am settling.
Sara I think you expressed nicely how I feel about Mitt.
And Steve thank you for your 2 cents. I thoroughly enjoyed the part about McCain selling his mom for $1. I haven't cared for her since she blamed the Olympic scandal on the Mormons in Salt Lake City.
Courtney,
I just called my brother (who loves a good political discussion) and told him to go check out cjane because he would "enjoy it."
Then I laughed realizing what I had just said.
Sara, I understand the majority of people have a good reason they're voting for Romney, I'm just saying more than any other candidate around here (Utah) I hear people saying they like him because he's Mormon. Being Mormon isn't a good enough reason for me, I've known too many Mormons that are jerks.
As far as Obama not having much experience, do the people like McCain with 20+ years political experience really seem like a great choice? Can the guy make decision, can he listen to the smart people he hopefully surrounds himself with and does he seem to care about everyone, and not just the upper-class?
I actually do use a fork and olive oil.
and like i said before i would absolutely vote for mitt because he's a mormon and i'm a mormon and my bishop told me to vote for only mormons.
and my brother in law says about mccain, 'who wants a 70 year old cripple for president?' is he crippled?
McCain has something wrong with his arms. It's almost as if his arms are too short. We can't have a president with short arms. I also heard he uses the F-word a lot. That's why I like Mitt. His arms fit his body. Handsome. Rich.No F-word. Everyone knows that mormons don't swear. I did hear steve young swear on the football field once. I hate steve young!
www.dillarddoctrine.blogspot.com
Study this blog and see what is said here.
Man, I hate to disappoint… but I was saying that I would still prefer McCain over Mitt. It's Mitt that I feel would sell his own mother for a $1. He seems like such a slimy, sleezy, money-worshipping, business man to me.
Who I wanted to vote for dropped out.
I know not who it will be now. but I have till the fifth to decide.
I do know that I would never vote for a woman. I feel that women in politics has ruined many a thing.
I can't have piece of mind voting for Obama either.
I do know that Mr. Romney made much progress as govenor in Mass. umemployment, the english speaking program and all that fun stuff.
I have read many things on McCain. Not sure. What to think of him though.
Huckabee no clue at all.
I do know one thing I don't want the it takes a village mentality.
Steve funny you should comment again because I read your first comment again to my husband and then wondered if you meant McCain or Romney. I'd still sell Sister McCain for a $1. Hopefully, we can still be friends.
Anon, women in politics have ruined many a thing, but to be fair, so have the men. Mostly the men. Good luck on your decision.
Well to be fair the late 60's and the 70's ruined so much
if i can't have mitt, i'll take ANYONE so as to make it so i never see hilary clinton again.......ever
amen, honey.
And Obama's a hunka hunka.
Wow, I'm really surprised by the Hillary hatred. Yes, I am 100% for Obama, but I won't be upset if Hillary gets the nom. Yes, she can be little scheming and polarizing, but she will still move the welfare of the country and its citizens in a better direction. It's time for our government to start worrying about us , and not some futile war on the other side of the world.
Boy have you opened up a can of worms, Courtney.
thanks
Anybody who would vote for Obama when Mitt isn't on the R ticket is a friend of mine. Let's just hope it's Obama and not Hillary on the D ticket. Although I do tend to agree with Matthew. She's not as bad as the Sean Hannitys of the world make her out to be. (But I'm still no fan. She was always my last choice on the D side. I would have even gladly taken Mike Gravel over Hillary, but I'd take Hillary over ANY of the Rs. Except Ron Paul. That guy is freakin' awesome.)
So ,how do you get to vote for Obama here in Utah? Does one need to be affiliated? As I am not, I'm wondering if I can even vote Tuesday!
Justine… we non-affiliated are free to vote in the Democratic primary. I don't know the rules for the Republican primary, since I've never bothered to vote in one, as I was too young to vote in the early '96 primary, but made the cut for the general election, then in 2000, I was fresh home from Germany, so U.S. presidential politics was far from my mind in February, but I was ready by November to vote Nader. Then '04 I voted in the D primary, and all the while have been registered as non-affiliated. Hope that helps.
Justine, I just read someone's post somewhere (where?) that if you are unaffiliated in Utah you can vote ONLY in the Democratic Primary.
love a little political passion to get me out of lurkdom.
our stake president brought up an interesting point (at a dinner, not a church activity) about Hillary. He pointed out that she probably had the most experience of any of the candidates with the White House and all its politics. I thought that was interesting. I am not particularly a Hillary fan (she supported the war and is a little too slippery), but I think it would be cool if she were prez to put Bill in as a Supreme Court Justice (I'm guessing most of your readers hate Bill, but remember the budget surplus? those were good days in sooo many ways).
I am leaning more towards Obama (he's smart and he opposed the war from the beginning and I think it's great that he stuck to his guns, when no one else was on his side). I reeaallly don't like that he smokes, but I know he's trying to quit.
And McCain makes me really nervous - but I know a lot of people think his wife is pretty glam and that scores points in their books.
I am curious, and a little nervous, to see how it all turns out.
If Hillary is elected, the thing I worry about most is Bill. Not his politics, but all the corporate/international tit-for-tat that he's been doing for the last eight years (I lend you my credibility, you give my foundation a hundred million dollars -- that kind of thing). If Hillary walks into the White House, how could Bill possibly NOT bring all that with him?
I like Obama exactly for his outsider status. Nothing will ever change for the better if we elect another Washington polemic.
There's my two cents, in all its ranting glory.
Just gotta say.
One more thing.
Can't. Stand. Hillary.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. She has that effect on me.
No way! I'm voting for Hilary! When hell freezes over, that is. I think my husband and I will be on Team Obama if Romney doesn't make it.
And good Lord almighty, that photo is frightening.
Oh the dilema. The drama. If I can't have Mitt [not because he's Mormon...cause there are Mormon politicians that I'd never vote for] I don't know who I'd vote for. I don't care too much for the other three possibilities.
Hopefully, there won't be a landslide before I even get a chance to vote.
I'm always concerned when people will mortgage the security and prosperity of this country for their comfortability with a candidate.
I totally remember 373-9120!
Ahem...
what that should of said was
(quoting my good friends father...)
John McCain...
"jack Ass in an Elephant suit"
(that's what I get for commenting while I have 5 preschoolers running around.)
obama, with or without mitt.
for the record: mccain's arms don't function properly because of the torture he underwent as a prisoner of war in vietnam for 5 1/2 years.
You all say, "If Mitt doesn't get elected," like somebody other than "WE THE PEOPLE" will be voting Tuesday. If you want Mitt, vote for him and get others to vote for him. And just going out on a limb here, but if you vote for Obama, you're not a conservative, not that there's anything wrong with that.
McCain is the only candidate with a sensible, humanitarian plan on Illegal Immigration, which is an issue close to my heart. I loathe Romney's ideas which would split up families and I really believe devastate our economy in the west. We need a legal way for non-citizens to work in this country in much larger numbers. Part of our ecomic down-turn in addition to fuel costs and the housing problem has definitely been the tightness of the labor market. I don't think many people realize that between 4 and 6% is considered full employment by most and when you have those kinds of numbers.. employers can't be too picky.
And, I like the idea that McCain has military experience. I agreen with him on the torture issue. We are the good guys and should never torture people.
His ideas on health care, that it should be controlled more by the market and less by the government make a lot of sense to me. I really hate the idea of socialized medicine which would be likely implemented by Clinton and Obama. And, I love the idea of implementing health savings accounts. Have people save for their own care. I have one and have loved it. They would be as successful as 401K's have been for people if not more so.
All of the candidates spend too much for my liking and I wish that there was someone I was more excited about, but I will probably be voting for McCain based on those issues.
Oh I have lurked and lurked but this one has me hopping. Yes! A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary. No doubt about it.
It almost seems like when Bill was pres they convinced McCain to change parties just for this occasion. Aaaack!
Dear Cjane-I love you- and all believing Mormons who said they would vote for Obama:
Not being a Republican and especially not a Democrat, I have one question for all of you:
Please explain to me how forcing your neighbor at the point of a gun to pay for little Suzy's operation or groceries for the family down the road or your college education is a true and correct principle?
Didn't we settle this in the War in Heaven?
Just wondering.
-Jen -who wouldn't vote for Obama or McCain if the very mouth of hell tried to swallow me whole-and believe me, it is.
It is truely a sad day when in peoples minds looks, religion, and money is the determining factor in who they want running this country/their lives. This is how we got Hitler.
The bigger picture is stop using your heart and sex organs to determine a proper president.
Use the honest facts by peoples voting records not the things they say. to be a real determining factor.
Dem/Rep is the same thing they will both end up crashing into a wall and taking all of us with them.
Mitt Romney made a very valid point as his response to The State of the Union address:
"Washington is broken. Until we can get people in there that actually realize it is broken then we won't ever get it fixed. Until they do."
cjane,
congrats on the most comments!
It takes either politics, religion, or sexual orientation to get every ones attention I guess!
i love mccain. he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can!
this discussion is FANTASTIC!!!
I am not a lurker. I have commented many a time, but have never been acknowledged. Sigh. With that said:
If Hilary gets the nom, I'm writing myself in.
Courtney:
How do you ALWAYS get so many comments?
I think YOU should be on the ticket--I'd vote for you, even though you are a Mitt supporter...
So, I really really follow politics a lot; I read everything I can find everyday, I watch and read commentary and analysis, I listen to almost all of the debates, both Republican and Democrat, and I've even visited many of candidates' websites (of both parties)...
I do all this because I believe in the potential of our nation's system of government--NOT IN POLITICIANS...
I just don't understand how anyone can really get behind any politician for being a moral person, or a man of integrity...
Integrity? We are talking about people who not only WANT to become President of United States, but have done what it takes to be in the position to almost attain that...
I don't understand how people can say "I can't stand Hillary" or any other candidate but so enthusiastically endorse another candidate...
America and Washington are broken because it is run by politicians who are beholden to the people ($$$$money$$$) who put them in office and NOT by people who genuinely represent the people of the United States of America...
(or is that all the people of this nation are? $$$$ Consumers? $$$$$ Are the presidency and our delegates just products?)
As much as I REALLY REALLY wanna believe in the sincerity of Obama's optimism and in the genuine character of his desire to change Washington, I am skeptical.
I feel like I've come to view politicians like different brands of laundry detergent or cage free/free range eggs...they all claim to be the better product...maybe some are, but its next to impossible to discover whether that's true.
One could visit the factory where the detergent is made and observe the process, study the ingredients, conduct tests...one could go to the chicken farm, observe the diet and the care of the birds...
But who has that kind of access, time and resources? (we have to make $$$ and survive, right?)
(STILL, if you did have the $$$$ you might just get into the factory and the farm, and then maybe you'd be persuaded to buy in on the profit of this amazing product once you see how good it really is, or at least how much more $$$$ you could make if this product sold well...)
I'm just rambling now, but I think the truth is we're all just in some aisle in some discount grocery contemplating whether to buy the all organic cage free/free range eggs in the cardboard-looking brown carton or in the white styro-foam-y carton.
(I know...a very Marxist reading...)
In the end, eggs, detergent and POLITICIANS. There all pretty much the same...
But, if Obama gets the nomination I will indeed vote for him...
God bless America!
Great post! I agree with you for so many reasons... yet.... for so many more, I also disagree.
Can't stand McCain. He is a political hack who wants to be president for all the wrong reasons.
He has been pushed in the media lately because of this exact discussion going on here. Everyone knows McCain would be SLAUGHTERED by whatever Dem opposes him. So the goal is to push McCain into position to secure the Dem's a spot in the house. At the very least it causes confusion and lack of a clear front runner. Then most people are not really sure WHO to vote for in the Repub party and just go with someone else who they've "heard lots of good things about" and "just has a great 'feel' to him"
Which is a really scary way to vote. In my opinion.
Not discounting any Obama supporters who really appreciate is political stances. But it seems a lot of people are willing to vote for him just because he's an alternative.
Mitt would be my first choice. But I really am curious as to why someone who would choose Mitt first would flip to Obama as a second choice???? Such COMPLETELY different political attitudes. That's not a rhetorical question either. I really hope people that have posted will jump back in the discussion and elaborate on these things. This is really fascinating to me!
Especially because of Obama's history of voting "present" so frequently. I understand sometimes things need to be reworded and clarified before a person would feel comfortable voting. But what exactly does that tell me about how this person will lead in the future? Not sure. Which I don't like. One thing which he did vote very clearly on does not sit right with me at all. The abortion issues. Women can get abortions in the U.S. We've already been there, done that. Obama has such an extreme view on it that it really frightens me. Who in their right mind would vote AGAINST medical care for a baby who survives a botched abortion?!?!??! Are you KIDDING me???? He didn't vote "present" on that the second time. He voted AGAINST it.
ok..this comment is FAR too long. I have many more concerns with voting for Obama as an "alternative" to Mitt. Guess I'll have to blog it myself. ;) Thanks for the great discussion starter!!
That's opening up a whole other can of worms (pro-life vs. pro-choice) and you're right the difference between most R's and D's differ on this issue. If people are interested in Obama then it should be understood that he is pro-choice period. I assume that most people here probably know that he's pro-choice. But before making an assumption on the reasoning behind his voting record, people ought try and see why ANY candidate votes the way they do on certain legislature. Some times it's wording that they disagree with. Look at the whole issue with not passing the proposal to insure all children in our country. Both sides would like to do it the problem lies in the wording of the proposal a lot of republicans feel that it would be a slippery slope into socialist health care or disagree on how to pay for it. In this specific case of Obama voting against medical care for babies surviving abortions, he claimed to vote against it because of specific wording that he felt would eventually be a foot in the door to end Roe vs. Wade.
So there it is- I think it's important to note that not all pro-lifers agree with each other some feel that despite incest, rape, or harm to pregnant mother are not sufficient enough reasons to abort, even the church's stance on abortion may seem to "liberal" to some pro-lifers. It's a very complex thing and should be treated as such.
My hope is that people try and ask WHY rather than just hearing something and running with it- if you don't agree with the whys than fair enough at least you made a educated decision. If your interested in the exact legislature that Obama voted against it is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1952780/posts
It's going to be Oballery or Hillama....you watch.
They are going to hook up.
Hillarama. Oblinton. Barachilly.
I want to respond to AMY's question of why a MITT supporter would switch to OBAMA if McCain got the nom. Like Courtney's dad.
I don't know peoples hearts, but in my opionion, many Rebpublican "traditionalists"(culturally,and religiously influenced Utahns)actually fall more in line with the many ideals of the Democratic party. Closet Democrats. Even if not socially(abortion,gay rights), they believe in the idea of government taking care of its own and respecting every citizens' rights and concerns. Not world dominance and protecting the rich. We can't fix the world unless we first fix ourselves.
The USA is an amazing nation, with the potential to be a true world leader, but unfortunately, it's just dealing with a lot of screwed up ideals and practices, right now.
The dilemma is, many of these 'closet' Democrats aren't even aware of where they stand because of societal pressure to be a "Righteous Republic" like our fathers were. Believe me, I grew up that way. Completely uninformed, and diligent in my duty to follow the standard.
For these people, OBAMA's idealism, and message of hope, is a welcomed alternative, if they can't vote for the person they are "supposed to" vote for - MITT.
I'm going to say something strong to my fellow LDS, and I don't want it taken in the wrong way, because I am one, and I cherish my beliefs and culture.
But, concentrated groups of Mormons(i.e. Utah, Arizona, Idaho, California), have a tendency to feel righteous security in following their peers, politically, without thoroughly researching what they believe, politically, for themselves.
This falls against everything that Mormons believe about conversion to the principles and ideals of their religion. You have to find out for yourself.
Just because a candidate is your religious 'brother', or they wear their religion on their governing sleeve with proclamation of their god-fearing righteousness, and the lack there of in their opponents, doesn't make them a good civic leader.
Christ's teachings parallel so many of our most pertinent issues we face today:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights)
2. peace before violence(world diplomacy)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation)
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance)
5. feeding the poor(proportionate taxation)
These are all Democratic ideals.
The Republicans lean in the opposite direction of the same Christian teachings:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love (denial of certain rights for certain citizens)
2. peace before violence(war without true cause, besides money and power)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (deportation of hopeful immigrants)
4. humility(strong handed dominance and superiority in the world community)
5. feeding the poor(economic tax system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer)
It just doesn't jive.
Hence I declare, don't hate me, good Christians and citizens of the world are..... secretly...... Democrats, if they really incorporate their core value system into civic life.
I may be banished from CJane's blog forever for that one....but that's it.
OBAMA '08 (or Hillary, too a lesser degree)
Best. Reading. Ever.
I'm enjoying the diversity and the humor, not to mention the subtle McLean reference. You're not alone...
Matthew: I hope you're not banned! I am a Utah Mormon gal, and I want to add my AMEN! BRAVO! You expressed my feelings so well. Often I think I must be off or "wrong" to feel this way because it seems that I am sitting with the minority. Thank you so very much for your courage.
Dear Anon:
Please explain to me how forcing your neighbor at the point of a gun to pay for a war in a foreign land that posed no physical threat to our country or for $27.6 Billion of profit oil companies' tax relief is a true and correct principle?
Seriously, the rhetoric can go either way.
And I must again give props to Matthew. I dig that jive man. Hence, I will no longer engage many a friend and former mission president in politics. Michelle too makes great points on why voting records aren't as simple as many people make them out to be.
And I 99% agree with Nathan (the 1% disagreement is that I wouldn't give my vote to C Jane, as I know no more about her than a single blog post).
I agree with d.:
"I'm always concerned when people will mortgage the security and prosperity of this country for their comfortability with a candidate."
Nathan: America is broken because Washington is broken.
The way I see it any more is that Dems=Liberals/Reps=Dems.
Since both have proven they can't do what is best for America it time we Started looking into third parties. As they may have something much better to offer America.
My problem with the democrats aside from their liberal views on gay rights and abortion (which I'm not totally against in situations of incest and rape, but a lot more "unwed mothers" could be giving their babies up for adoption to married couples who desperately want families and can not have children... another topic...)
... is this... there needs to be more a more regulated process for those who seek public assistance and then proceed to live off of it for the remainder of their lives. It is one thing to have a legitimate reason to need the assistance (disabilities, etc.) but far too many people know how to work the system and get away with it for years! I personally know people who have and do.
What happened to getting an education and taking care of your own? (good LDS principle, no?) I was raised with the thinking that the last thing you do is get public assistance, you pull up your boot straps and get to work before you do that! But I was humbled by the situation we found ourselves in while my husband was a med student. We had one (and a ½) baby on Medicaid and used WIC for several years.
I’m not one bit ashamed, and I’ll tell you why. In 18 months when my husband finishes his residency 40% or more (likely) of his income will go straight to the government, paying for these programs. I’m not against helping people in need… but let’s define NEED! I saw too many people with their high couture jeans, fake nails, $200 dollar cell phones driving a Lexus, walking out with food stamps and medical benefits! It was sickening. I could over hear them talking about how they “work the system” while I sat in the nasty DHS office for 2 hours waiting to be seen. That is just wrong.
The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 90 percent of the taxes in this country! These aren’t people like Michael Dell, Mitt Romney and the big CEO’s of large corporations… they know how to protect their money and pay maybe 15% in taxes. Democrats and Republicans alike. It your white collar business men, Accountants, lawyers and doctors who make 2-500K… they really get hit in the pocket book! Look at the taxation curve.
Amnesty is not the answer. People who want to become citizens need to do it legally. I’m not opposed to people immigrating to this country, but they need to pay taxes. I realize that migrant workers are important to our economy, but they should pay taxes like the rest of us. Right now they don’t and they get free health care because they legally can’t be turned away. Possibly the biggest reason for the health care crisis. Emergency rooms are the biggest money pit in the hospital.
I don’t know what or who the solution is, but I think it needs to start “at home”. If people would get to work and stop expecting the government to be responsible for them, we would all be a lot better off. Maybe a “time” limit imposed on benefits like food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, (Which stands for TEMPORARY Assistance for Needy Families).
Don’t even get me started on socialized health care! If Obama or Hillary decides to do that, then they can pay off all of our Medical School loans!
This discussion is awesome. Thanks to everyone. It is great to be able to read so many thoughts of LDS peers about politics. Heaven knows we can't do this in Sunday School.
I forgot to point out that in countries like the UK and Canada, where there is Socialized Med, doctors do not go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to get their training. Hence the comment that they can pay off our student loans...
There are also real downfalls to that kind of practice. It takes MONTHS sometimes just to get a CAT scan in Canada. People will come here to get them done. Time is of the essence sometimes. A cancer that would have been curable six months ago could now be terminal for a patient who had to wait for their CAT scan, and so they come to the US to have them done.
Again, nobody has all the answers, but people need to help themselves with a "hard day of work" and not expect to be taken care of by their government.
Tara,
I hear you on your concerns with welfare and the like. As a "liberal" myself, I too am sickened by people who take advantage of the system. As a matter of fact I have many extended family members and ex-family members who do that exact thing (funny thing, 100% of them vote straight ticket republican, yet bloviate on and on about how the government should stay out of our business, all the while living solely off the government. It's quite the oxymoron and makes me chuckle every time I think about it).
I do have to make one observation from my past experience. I too have heard the problems with Canadian style socialized medicine. However, that model is only one of many. During my mission in Germany, I found the medical system to be fantastic. While I personally never needed medical care, I had a handful of companions who did. And when they did, they were seen either the same day or next day, given quality treatment, medication, et. al., and paid exactly $0 for it, even though we were foreigners. And the German doctors, while not as wealthy as their American counter-parts, were still well to do, middle-upper middle class citizens. I did have to receive dental care once, and the experience was identical. I called a dentists office, said I had a tooth ache, the receptionist asked me if I could come in an hour, I did, the dentist took care of my tooth, and I was out the door.
Now granted, German citizens do pay higher taxes than we do, but the payoff in their medical benefits, etc. seems fair to me. And their economy is flourishing and has been for quite some time.
why hasn't anyone yet stated the obvious?: if not mitt, then obama BECAUSE HE'S THE NEXT BEST-LOOKING.
It really is about looks, isn't it?
Matthew-
Christ certainly did teach tolerance, but our Prophet has also made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most Democrats don't believe that.
Tara, illegal immigrants who use fake SS cards to get employment pay taxes just like everyone else. They pay into social security with no hope of ever getting a payout, the pay income, medicare, gasoline, sales, property, all the taxes we pay. Only they receive a fractin of the benefits. Texas State auditors did a financial analysis of the impact of illegal immigration and found a net increase in state coffers.
Now, I'm not saying unhinge the borders and let the love start, but I think we need a sensible solution, which none of the candidates have been able to figure out.
And I think Mormons tend to shy away from the democratic party because of the social issues. It's certainly difficult to throw your support behind someone who supports something you find reprehensible.
I'm just happy to see the debate. From an anthropological viewpoint, this two party system of ours is vitally important to the success of our nation. No governmental system has ever thrived in perpetuity without a constant and fervent struggle between two competing philosophical ideals -- opportunity vs. equality. Wither one, unchecked, can ruin a nation. We need them both to pull and tug at each other. So I think all this is wonderful!
I too must come out of the shadows to make my mark on this post, albeit a small one. I'm from AZ, though currently living in MI, and feel no loyalty to McCain as a person or a politician. I cannot stand his policies on immigration and the economy. And to the previous commenter who mentioned that Christ's teachings coincide more with Democratic ideals - having the government take care of those less fortunate by mandating us to give more money to government programs doesn't seem to count for much do-gooding in my book. Wouldn't Christ want you to have the agency to chose who you helped, and how and when? You can't just say, "oh, I pay my taxes so I'm set when it comes to saying I'm a charitable person".
I do support Mitt Romney, and not because he's LDS - in fact (and I don't know if this is good or bad) I've kinda forgotten that he is, because it doesn't matter. He has solid policies that I agree with, a record I can support and enough character that I can say I trust him more than the other front runners.
If he doesn't get the nomination, I will be at a loss. It's against every moral fiber in my being to vote for McCain and I cannot support democratic ideals. It's gonna take a lot of searching and pondering to make a decision at that point.
I will close by adding a link that I think the many politically minded people that commented here might enjoy. It's a website called PoliticaLDS and it's an open forum authored by 6 LDS young adults, a mix of lefties and righties, men and women, who are trying to expand view points when it comes to the political climate we find ourselves in. Check it out, and make comments as you feel inspired.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon?
Let me try that link again. There, I think that should work. Sorry I don't use HTML often enough to get it right the first time.
I can see Tara's concern but look at the whole picture. My husband is in his last year of dental school too we will end up with a ton a debt government assistance
has been great for us- I know
exactly what you're talking about as far as abusing the system.
But look at the reality of whole picture- we are fortunate to be finished with a grad program- these poor folks (the ones abusing the system) have decided to stay where they are at. Most likely they will never own a home or have much more than a big screen t.v. and a nice car. They put all their money into those things which is very unfortunate for their children who are the ones who really pay for the neglect of priorities.
This doesn't mean it's o.k. to abuse the system but what society do we want to live in? Pull yourself up by the boot straps is all good and well for equal opportunity but let's face it equal opprotunity hasn't always existed and since the civil right movement it still hasn't fully be what it ought to be.
I was a social worker before a mother and I know that the POOR, not just African American and Latino but whites as well, have a huge obstacle before them. It's easy to say just work hard. Millions of Poor folks do work hard. I believe that we as a society should make sure that there are always opprotunites for progression- especially in education where the poor seem to always get left behind.
There will always be that group of people that want a free ticket but they are the minority. Do we really believe that any government will let this minority influence the ecconomy that much?
In the end I think it's wrong to not provide the basic needs of life- food, shelter, health care, and education. After that I believe it is up to the individual to "pull them selves up by their boot straps." In my view this is what a civilized society should stand for- we ought to be more humane.
Obama and Hillary are NOT asking for Socialized medicine theirs is only a version of what Romney already proposed. I thought they both did an awesome job spelling it out clearly in the debates last night.And really we can do much better than a Canada or Britain, come on folks we are the USA- we can do it!
And as far as the issue on illegal immigration- I felt it was Bush's one redeeming quality. Our capitalist economy survives on exploitation of desperate people. I think Capitalism is fine as long as there are regulations. The blame needs to go to the companies and businesses that hire illegals. If their wasn't a demand then you would see that there would be a lot less reason to come to this country.
My mom is a social worker in California and she has found that because restrictions are tightening many of these families are realizing they need to go back home or do it the right way.
Sorry I've gone on so long here I promise that's it!
Justine
Yes, in my opinion, Christ would certainly advocate for our agency to "choose" to give, love, support, aid, feed, clothe, etc the poor..
BUT he also COMMANDED--yes COMMANDED us--COMMANDED us--to do so...
it is required of us to do so, if we want to be right with Him...
So, supporting a party that actively tries not to do this, just does NOT make sense to me...
Just give and let GOD decide whether they deserved it or not...
Give said the little stream, and Jesus.
Thanks for the link Aimee.
Matt, I would really like to hear your response to Anon. Would you be so kind?
And Steve's comment reminded me of the time I was a missionary in Canada with a sick companion. After months of a medical circus (complete with a trapeze) she was sent home for care in the USA (just a border away. . .) She was back, healed and ready to go a short time later.
Is that a typical representation of social medicine vs. private in Canada?
Also, thanks Justine for the equity vs. opportunity line. Makes me think.
Justine
My apologies. My comments were in response to Aimee's assertion that Christ would want us to exercise our agency when giving...
Justine, I found your thoughts on immigration very helpful and thought provoking...
thanks
I borrowed this from dillarddoctrine.blogspot.com
Read it and think about it.
Sen. Obama,
First and foremost, congratulations on your victory in the Iowa caucuses. A historic moment for all African Americans, myself included.
However, here’s why I still can’t support you:
1. Your Views on Iraq and the Global War on Terror
Contrary to your belief, Iraq is one of the frontlines in the Global War on Terror. Our efforts there continue to defend our democracy at home. The argument over whether or not we should have invaded Iraq will be decided long after you and I are dead. However, the fact remains that the world is a much better place without Saddam Hussein in power.
Our military must continue the mission which you validated with your vote to confirm GEN David Petraeus. We MUST continue to stabilize Iraq so that it does not become a springboard for another attack into our country. Our surge strategy has worked, and continues to work. Yet you would pull all of our troops within the first few years of your presidency. That single move would serve two goals:
1. It would embolden our enemies, who would “ride out” our remaining time on the ground, strike us on the way out, and declare victory-similar to what happened in Somalia in 1993,
2 It would ensure that American citizens will continue to live in fear of attacks on our country.
As a veteran of both Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, this is unacceptable. We agree that there is no purely military solution to the problems in Iraq. However, your presidency would make it a strong possibility that my son-now six months old-will never know safety and security in his own country.
2. Your Plan for Government-Funded Healthcare
We agree that all Americans deserve affordable healthcare. However, shifting the responsibility to the government to fund this healthcare is not the way to go. How will it be funded? Whose budget will you pull from to fund a national healthcare program? And who would manage it? What arm of the American way of life are you willing to sacrifice to the altar of healthcare?
You say that no American should be denied healthcare based on any pre-existing conditions. What about those Americans who are smokers, illegal drug users, or are morbidly obese by their own free will? Why should those of us who don’t have these problems-mostly that arise out of a lack of personal responsibility-have to shoulder the burden of those who do? More importantly, why should our government?
3. Your Views on Immigration
Yes, our borders need to be secured-and no, we have not done enough to accomplish that. However, rather than making the END of illegal immigration your policy, you would remove those things that attract ALL immigrants, be they legal or illegal. And you would offer illegal immigrants “in good standing” the opportunity to earn their citizenship.
Why should those who broke our laws to enter this country get a pass? There are thousands of immigrants who wait for YEARS for the mere chance to become citizens. If you offer an amnesty-or a slap on the wrist-to illegal immigrants, don’t you just encourage MORE illegal immigration? Not to mention that do you want the problems-increased drug importation, higher crime-that have a tendency to follow the waves of illegal immigration?
4. Your Experience
I have serious doubts-aside from the policy differences-over whether you have the experience to run this country, with all its complexities. You are a first-term Senator who is not even halfway through his first term. Your political experience is mostly on the local and state level. You have no military experience. Some-myself included-would argue that you started campaigning for the presidency even before you were sworn in as a senator. And I cannot point to a single bill that you have authored and passed (not including co-sponsorship) that has been of benefit to our nation.
In a time when our country stands terribly divided, and faces danger on every side, we need a president who will offer stability, resilience, and strength. Our next leader should be able to take charge of this country on his first day in office. He should have the willingness to do whatever it takes to defend this country against all her enemies, and should be able to unite us under the principles that have guided this country since its inception.
And in my opinion, you are not that person.
HB2DF,
-D.
My Question to you all is how can you go from one end of the spectrum to the opposite end? If Mitt Doesn't get it then I go with Obama?
Like the previous comment stated Stop saying IF and get out there vote for the man. Get your friends, family, strangers, or what ever out there and do what you can to get him in it.
I’ve never read nor posted a comment on this blog. My wife sent me a link to it as well b/c of my interest in politics, economics, etc. I feel like I have to leave my $.02; hopefully it won’t turn into $.04 by the time I’m done.
First of all, I was very surprised by the lovefest for Obama. As someone else already said, “WHY?” Is it his experience? Eight years in a state senate and four years in the US senate don’t qualify someone to run the country. His ideas? Can’t be that either b/c they’re so much like Hillary’s (read: typical democrat), especially if you’re defecting from the Republican Party. Is it his message of transformational politics and a new Washington? What in the word is that? How, exactly, does he really think he can unite the country? The only way you can really unite a country as diverse -- politically, socially, economically, and otherwise -- as the US is the same way Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini did it: by force. I don’t think we want that either. My point isn’t that he’s one of those guys; it’s that he can’t realistically accomplish what he thinks he can. The only other reason I can think of to vote for him is because he gives good speeches and is very charismatic.
Second, I wanted to make a comment about Matthew’s aligning of Democratic platform ideals with the Gospel. (I know someone else already said this, but I’ve got to bring it up again.)
Christ's teachings parallel so many of our most pertinent issues we face today:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights)
But we don’t tolerate sin, right? Let alone legislate it. Love the person, hate the sin. Most LDS aren’t part of the extreme gay-bashing type. In what way does a typical repub not treat someone equally from a civil (I’m assuming you’re talking about racial) perspective? Historically? Maybe. Back in the day, it was the Southern Democrats that blocked integration for so long.
2. peace before violence(world diplomacy)
Peace. Like Captain Moroni and the title of Liberty. Mormon. The Mormon Militia. We may disagree with respect to why we think we go to war, but the gospel doesn’t say to avoid war.
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation)
I do disagree with repubs about immigration. I think we’ve got it wrong there. Welfare. Tell me how a democratic welfare system even remotely approaches how the church runs welfare. And taxes? Serious? Tithing is a flat tax type system. Not progressive that penalizes success. Why doesn’t the church say something like “the lord has blessed you 10x as much as Brother Jones so we’ve decided to raise your tithing percentage. You can either pay it and enjoy the blessings of the temple or leave the church. Sorry, you were outvoted.” How equal would that be? See #1.
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance)
If you believe D&C 98:5,6 you know the constitution is approved by the lord (I’m not aware of any other governments endorsed in scripture) and that freedom is good. We have this. If we don’t lead, who will?
5. feeding the poor(proportionate taxation)
Huh? See #3. 1) At no point has the Lord ever forced anyone to do anything. By taking my money away from me to give to someone else, you do just that. Not only that, but you create incentives for that person being fed without doing anything (not by the sweat of their face) to continue not doing anything. And 2) by taking money out of the hands of those who are creating the jobs for the poor to work in, you take away opportunities and incentives to invest and create more jobs. Sure, rich get richer but so do the poor. Which would you rather have: the rich get 10% richer and the poor get 2% richer OR the rich get 5% richer and the poor get 1.5% richer? (Those are made up numbers, by the way, to illustrate.)
And a few other comments.
Germany doesn’t have close to the same economy we do in terms of growth, productivity, etc.
I don’t think LDS people generally think of the “idea of government taking care of its own.” We think that we should be taking care of our own. Very few of us rely in any way upon the church for sustenance. When we do, that’s OK, but we do it for a short time and we generally are asked to help clean the building, help at the bishop’s storehouse, attend service projects, etc. And protecting the rich is just class warfare where one group thinks that another group should be forced to help them out.
Hutch,
The only other reason I can think of to vote for him is because he gives good speeches and is very charismatic.
I think that might be it. Isn't that a good enough reason?
Well, if you vote for Mitt b/c you think he's a hansome man, I guess so. :) I might not agree with it. A friend's wife fills out her entire March Madness bracket based on whether she thinks a hurricane (an act of god) can beat a tiger (it does, to her) and the like. She always wins.
Re: Going from Mitt to Obama
Maybe some of us feel that if we can't do it right (Mitt) we shouldn't do it at all. Thus, abandoning our party to vote for Obama becomes the next best thing.
Steve—quite the oxymoron indeed, but I’m certainly not chuckling. I guess because I know we’ll be paying taxes out every conceivable orephus, it is really bothersome (I try not to get angry, b/c that doesn’t do any good). Especially since I know we’ll never see a dime of that Social Security tax—ever—again. I know people who don’t have the potential (based on current level of education) to ever make greater than 150K don’t really care about this dynamic of the issue. As long as they still get their child tax credit… I have an uncle who has lived in Germany since just after his mission there in 1968 or so (married my Aunt who is from Düsseldorf) I’ll have to ask him about the details. I know people in Canada who “have money” pay for better health care. I’m sure the church makes sure their missionaries get the health care they need immediately, no matter where they are in the world, unless you’re in the jungle in Cambodia, I’m sure they do the best they can.
Café-Rio: You’re hilarious, thanks for lightening the convo.
Justine—If you can’t see something wrong with just the first 5 words of your comment… then I don’t know what to say. So, Fake SS cards are the way to go about it, huh? NOBODY who is paying into Soc. Sec. right now has much hope of ever getting a “pay out” so that is kind of a mute point. THAT system is broken. On a side note, what medicare pays right now for Operating room services doesn’t even cover overhead and supply (medication, equipment, etc.) expenses. Doctors are in a deficit for services proved to medicare patients. Some changes have been made to the fee schedule in a couple of states, but not where we live. What is so wrong with going about becoming a citizen legally? There is a process for a reason.
Michelle- You made a comment about “equal opportunity” and just before that something about people deciding to stay where they are at. I think the key word there is DECIDING. It is absolutely untrue that the poor get left behind when it comes to education. Some people who are very dear to me be have been able to attend college with their tuition and books paid by the government—and some living expenses, never to be paid back, because their father basically went AWOL on them after a lay off in the hi-tech industry and they qualified for PEL grants. They just had to work to cover their living expenses. These are white Americans who once lived as “upper middle class” This IS the land of opportunity and for anyone who is willing to work for what they want to have in life, they can get it… thanks to the millions who don’t want to work for it. There always has to be a top and a bottom. The children don’t have to “pay” for what their parents have or have not done. Unfortunately I do think that our government pays heed to the noisy, well funded minority lobbyist, and they do influence the economy. If I knew html I’d hot link this… http://www.fww.org/newslett/111999.htm I agree that the basic needs of life should be provided for children, but capable adults who are just lazy, there should be a time limit. It’s understandable that everyone can be “down on their luck and in hard times”, Of course there are always exceptions. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just food for thought.
I agree with Hutch’s #5… the first part, the last part confused me, but a lot of people think nothing of having to work by the sweat of their brow, as in They don’t want to.
Maybe mitt can get it there and set it up like the church welfare system. It’s sure to work!
Just kidding….
Sort of.
Honestly, I’ll be relieved for Mitt if he doesn’t get elected b/c I’d hate to see him have to endure the same scrutiny and slandering Bush has. It would surely be tied in with the church, and that’s the last thing LDS need.
Yeah, I just disagree with Hutch...
WE can spin it anyway we want..
But, love is the answer... always has been and always will be... it is the beginning and the end...
In my opinion, we should always be doing ALL we can to engender more of it, not looking for justifications to not offer more of it...
So many of your rebuttals to Matt's ideas, in which you cited passages from Scriptures and instances from Mormon history and interpretations of doctrine have always been the ideas in Mormon thought that I've never felt good about...that my inner heart always felt just didn't jive...
To read your responses and the comments of so many on here, you'd think that Mormons and many Christian-minded Republicans have elevated the principles of agency, independence, do-it-yourself-ness, and securing economic stability to an absolute centrality in a Christian life.
They all appear to me as justifications to do something contrary to what I see as the central and founding principle of Christ's teaching:
"love the Lord thy God... and love thy neighbor as thy self... upon these two commandments hang ALL the laws and prophets..."
Your responses all seem to be ways of worshiping and privileging the part of us that wants to be right...justified...strong...independent and free to do what we want when we want...
My thoughts is that if we really approached ALL problems with love and humility... if we all REALLY did that...
oh...
what a world it would be, what a world...
But, sadly, I know we don't live in that world, and people will always take advantage of those you genuinely attempt to create that world...
So, I guess, we should just fight 'till the bitter end right?
the strongest and most righteous wins!!!
Yippee!!
Okay this is it... I think (o: I have house work to do!!! yahooo!!!
This is a really good talk from GBH in 2003 about his stance on the war-- I echo his sentiments exactly. http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,4880-1,00.html Quote: “Many of our own Church members have been involved in this conflict. We have seen on television and in the press tearful children clinging to their fathers in uniform, going to the battlefront.
In a touching letter I received just this week, a mother wrote of her Marine son who is serving for the second time in a Middle Eastern war. She says that at the time of his first deployment, "he came home on leave and asked me to go for a walk. ... He had his arm around me and he told me about going to war. He ... said, 'Mom, I have to go so you and the family can be free, free to worship as you please. ... And if it costs me my life ... then giving my life is worth it.' "He is now there again and has written to his family recently, saying, "I am proud to be here serving my nation and our way of life. ... I feel a lot safer knowing our Heavenly Father is with me."
“In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.”
He then talks about Captn. Moroni in Alma 43-46… and then says…
“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”
--end quote--
I really think that we do need to protect ourselves and our freedoms, despite the unpopularity of the war. I’d hate to see another 9/11. How many of the current electorates “voted for the war before they later voted against it?” (oh that was sooo 4 years ago!) Yes, things have changed over the past 7 years, but at the given time, just after an attack on our home land, what was the right thing to do? I can be quoted on another blog as having said that I’m not so pleased with Bush anymore, so don’t get me wrong, but I supported him then, and I can’t go back on that now.
Hutch- as far as the German economy not matching the U.S., it kind of depends on what #s you're looking at.
I don't do html, so you'll have to cut and paste yourself:
Germany's #'s (although their GDP growth doesn't match the U.S.[it's been close the last 2 years], note the "current account balance #s": That's their Trade Surplus):
http://www.economist.com/countries/Germany/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structure
Here's the U.S. #s (notice our "current account balance #s": That's our Trade Deficit, man. Not pretty):
http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Structure
My dear wife sent me this link, and as a lover of the United States Constitution and the freedoms that lie therein, I don't understand the premises upon which this blog and the majority of the comments are based.
1. Voting for a person because of their religion is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. It is in a religious test and would therefore allow the majority religion to rule.
2. There are other ways to validly exercise your constitutionally given right to vote. I am not a party person, and I do not vote while holding my nose. For offices in which I do not support the candidate I write in the name of the person whom I believe would be the best person for the job. I sure as heck will write in Mitt's name if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. Yes, my vote will count for Romney, and yes my conscience will be clean because I will have voted for the best candidate in my mind. There will be many people who write in Al Gore, and I respect them for their integrity.
3. Voting for someone because they sound good and market themselves as bringing "change" and "hope" is wonderful because I have some beach front property in Wyoming to sell you. Bottom line is that if you are willing to trade in your freedom to make decisions and would rather have the government tell you what to do so that "no one gets left behind" and everyone is taken care of (which is a pretty nice sounding proposition, it has been used successfully before) then go ahead and vote for Obama, Clinton, Huckabe, or McCain. They are all the same, they all want big government, they all want more taxes, they all want to take away your agency to choose so that poverty is solved, peace prevails, and more people lose their independence and can't achieve the American Dream.
4. As outlined in premise one, if you are voting based upon religion from the get go, why would you then vote for someone who supports and has voted for partial birth abortion and the outright KILLING of babies already BORN after an an abortion has failed? NO matter what your views on abortion are, killing a baby after a botched abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, but has everything to do with covering up the malpractice of the doctor and pandering to special interests with money. Yes, Senator Obama supports partial birth abortion, and yes, the young senator also voted to allow the killing of babies in the aforementioned scenario as a legislator in Illinois. Oh, and he was pro life before he decided to go into politics, but changed because only a Democrat can get elected in Chicago, and only abortion supporters can be successful Democrat candidates for office.
Here is the thing, Obama may sound nice and clean, but he isn't. He knows what it takes to win, and he wants to win. He wants the glory and he has already shown he is willing to do anything for it. As president he will do whatever big business, big tobacco, big trial attorneys, big alcohol, and Big ACLU tells him to do--not what we, the people, want him to do.
Check the record and vote your conscience. Mitt in '08.
Man! Cutting and pasting those won't work. Sorry. The URL gets cut off. Go here:
http://www.economist.com/countries/index.cfm
Click on Germany, then the "economic structre" link.
Do the same with the United States.
The illegals with their "fake" ss cards. Yes some are fake. But most are stolen numbers. Will you still be preaching the way you are when you realize that one of those "fake" ss card numbers happens to be your number and you realize you have been victim to Identity theft?
First, thanks to all the e-mailing wives out there!
Second, thanks Joe for this:
For offices in which I do not support the candidate I write in the name of the person whom I believe would be the best person for the job. I sure as heck will write in Mitt's name if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. Yes, my vote will count for Romney, and yes my conscience will be clean because I will have voted for the best candidate in my mind.
It's nice to be reminded of that option.
Yes, I do realize that not identities are stolen by illegals. But they do have to get their "fake" card numbers from somewhere.
Thank you Anonymous and Hutch. I really incited something in my conservative Mormon friends.
To respond to both of you, I guess I, like most progressive thinkers, try to always maintain a distance between religion and government.
I am an active, church-going Mormon that supports and believes in the truth of the prophet's counsel and the doctrines.
But we can't run our government on religious doctrines. That would define us as a theocracy, not a democracy.
Plain and simple, I believe in civil rights and full constitutional privilege for all citizens - gay/straight, citizen/undocumented immigrant, and rich/middle/poor.
Yes, I am a Mormon Social Liberal
Don't run away, I'm really nice. You would probably even want to be my friend if you met me in person. Right CJane?
I have my religious/doctrinal opinions on many social issues, but they frequently differ from what I believe to be my civil duty to uphold.
Yes, I believe in full civil rights for gay couples. Marriage, adoption , tax benefits, insurance, etc... Especially in our day and age, when the sanctity of marriage that I believe in, has been so desecrated and tampered with anyway . If we don't give 'the gays', as my gay friends,(yes, I have many of them) like to be called, the same rights we all enjoy, we are no better than our forefathers in discrimination of racial minorities. They are loving, intelligent, responsible, and good people. Don't slap your moral system on their basic human rights. How can we withhold rights from a very large section of our society? Are we that barbaric.
And as the prophet teaches us, I do believe marriage, before god, is between a man and woman.
I am fully Pro-Choice. And yes, I think abortion is awful, and should only be practiced in certain instances. I have three children myself.
But guess what, abortion will happen if we regulate it or not. We can't stop it. Just as the government prohibited alcohol sales and production in the early 20th century, it increased crime rates because of the hidden subversive actions taken to maintain production and sales.
If we make abortion illegal, it will still happen, just in dark corners, practiced in shame by young girls and scared women with bad medical practices. And these women will suffer the consequence. You can't force your choice on woman. You will only hurt them. Not to be harsh, but the fetuses will still be killed.
And as for the war issue, are you really going to compare this modern war over power, oil, and money to a religious struggle between surviving nations in an ancient, more non-diplomatic era? Come on. War was survival back then.
And war can become about survival for us as well. But I'll tell you...this war had nothing to do with defending our homeland. Even though we were attacked on 9/11.
Having said that, I do believe the Book of Mormon is true. The doctrine and principles can directly apply to us, but it is an antiquated society. How can we possibly compare it to the complexity of our modern world?
Thanks for your input. I rarely get to debate with my Mormon counterparts. Too many people here, in my neck of the woods, usually agree with me.
BTW, Anonymous, have the guts to own your comments. (But, if you suffer from social anxiety, and blogging is the only form of social communication that enables you to expand your social network in a safe way, then I apologize. You can remain Anonymous.)
Isn't that Democratic of me?
h --- ugh I have the most heart wrenching story to tell about that issue... involving a close friend of mine. She is a refugee from Sudan. Been in the country three years this summer. Her husbands newly issued SS number is being used illegally by someone. As you pointed out, most likely being used by someone working here illegally. :(
I think I'll blog it this weekend.... Thanks for reminding me.
we absolutely need to love others and provide for them. i don't belive the government's place is to tell us who to love and how to show that love. when you take money out of someone's pocket to put it in someone else's, you dictate/enforce your morals on the first person. how in the workd is that showing love? the person getting the money sure loves it, but who else. my point isn't that we shouldn't help; it's that the way to do it isn't coersion at the hands of government. when the time comes when the lord has come and we're under his rule, I'll absolutely support as big of a government (whatever form it is; for one, I know it won't be a democracy) as he dictates. Until then, all government is impacted by interests, etc. the more we can get government out of the equation and allow people the agency to choose for themselves, leaving government only to enforce the rules, the better we'll be.
steve, look at the german economy over the last 30 yrs and compare their gdp growth to ours. And trade deficit surplus is far from the only way to judge a country's economy. We are a big country with, relative to that of Europe, pretty free trade. Of course when you throw up barriers to trade, like a lot of Europe, you don't have big deficits b/c you don't buy stuff. That hurts everyone. That is everyone but the people who's jobs are protected. It hampers your economy and prevents real growth. And just b/c we've become less comfortable with the rsults of free trade (thank you Lou Dobbs et al), doesn't mean it isn't the best thing for our economy. Over 90% of economists (they are the people who study this stuff for a living) agree.
Matt-- was the book of Mormon not written "for our day?" I don't see how you can have one stance "doctrinally" yet a whole other "civilly"
and please explain more why you think gays should be given benefits of lawfully married men and women. What about the children who would be raised in those homes. how sad. that is just contradicting to me.
I realize for some abortion might be a good option. Incest, Rape, Health of mother, or to both mother and baby.
But what about the if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion?
I know someone who was a product of rape. His mother kept him. He is a daddy and a pretty nice guy. His mother loves him and helps him in any way she can. His grandfather on the other hand reminds him regularly that he should have never been born.
I watched a talk show about women who chose to keep the baby. Most of those kids have it bad cause their mothers see their attacker every day and hate the kid for that.
Give baby up for adoption. Just a thought.
As for comparing the mormon church's beleifs to the political parties: Religion doesn't matter in politics. Seperation of church and state.
Seriously it is time to start looking at the third party candidates as I think that Both the R's and D's are a lost cause.
Maybe I should just write in Elmo.
This is a late reply but I do have to clean my kitchen.
Tara- you make a good point I just know first hand working with poor families that it isn't as easy.
Education is unequal for the poor in our country. Have you ever worked in inner city or rural schools? It's a fact. I've worked with inner city kids and rural schools I was also a regional board parent rep. for the Headstart Program. It's no secret and well known that the poor get left behind. I bet most inner city teachers would agree with me.
I'm originally from Provo and it literally is a different world on the outside. You just don't have the same kind of poverty in Utah as you do in other places. The church culture makes it easier for people to trancend poverty because of it's historic good work ethic and self reliance. We have been lucky enough to be nurtured in those wonderful values for many generations.
But the fact remains that education is unequal for the poor. There is a lot to be done to fix our outdated school system. Here's a good link to research done on this subject.
http://www.equaleducation.org/research.asp
And just a little reminder of what our parents lived in- at least mine not too long ago.
It is precisely because education is the road to equality and citizenship, that it has been made more elusive for Negroes than many other rights. The walling off of Negroes from equal education is part of the historical design to submerge him in second class status. Therefore, as Negroes have struggles to be free they have had to fight for the opportunity for a decent education.
--Martin Luther King, Jr., 14th March 1964
I can see your frustration and others as well- It's kinda like the prodigals son. The son that did everything right and the one who squandered everything. In the end God loves all his children and guess what the ones who were industrious and hard working win in the end- their quality of life is far better than the other.
Now I'm really done nothing else to say and we all probably still disagree for good personal reasons- fair enough thanks Courntey for good dialog.
Tara,
I agree with you about the BofM being written for our day completely. I was just separating the doctrinal messages that do apply to us vs. their political impetus for war, in their day. I can't see a comparison between this war and any conflict in the BofM, for justification of our current situation in the Middle East.
And in regard to the gay marriage issue, I am honestly offended that you really think children that are raised in same-sex parented homes are disadvantaged. That it's "sad" for them. What?
Yes, like you, I believe the "ideal" environment for child-rearing is a father and mother. Not just from an eternal, religious, Plan of Salvation way, but any sociologist will agree on the need for parental balance.
But this is the real world. There are millions of orphaned children every year that need stability and, most importantly, love in their lives to grow in to healthy, functioning adults. And if their only option for adoption is either a gay couple, or a single person, than that is better than foster care, or orphanages.
Believe me, as a father of three, I understand the importance of the father and mother. But it's not always possible. Also the joys of parenting are so wonderful, and gay people deserve that same joy.
On an additional note, I have people close to me, family and friends, that have been in long, committed, gay relationships(some over 20 yrs.) Some of them have children, and some of them don't. And they are extremely nurturing and responsible people. Wonderful, loving examples to my own children. How can that be "sad", as you so judgmentally stated, for the little children that are receiving their love and nurturing? Would you honestly rather have abandoned or orphaned children left to a life of instability and loneliness than have gay parents? Wow, you need to open your heart.
Pls. correct me if I misread your meaning. Cause I'm kind of baffled right now.
Tara
I have many gay friends and acquaintances, I know many gay families and yes, children of those gay people, raised in those gay homes.
I also have a lot of straight friends and acquaintances, I know many straight families and yes, children of those straight people, raised in straight homes...
I am not an expert, but for those children in the gay homes, their lives are pretty comparable to the straight ones...no, not "how sad" at all. Just life.
Gay people and their families are just trying to live life and make it through like you and your family. We come up against the same obstacles in raising our families as you do.
Unfortunately, we face another set of obstacles that you don't face: a society which tells us our families are not legitimate and refuses to allow us the same legitimacy.
Any legislation that will define marriage as one thing or another, will not stop gay families from forming, and what really may warrant a "how sad" for children of gay families, is a society that refuses to acknowledge that their families, their parents, their very existence is valid.
Tara, there are gay families right now... they exist. You can make their lives a little less sad and difficult by trying to see the world through their eyes.
Tara, please be more considerate of others. Please take some time and visit your local gays and their families and observe their lives...I think you'll be surprised.
Tara,
Another thought, do you feel it is "sad" when a single woman chooses to have a child, or adopt? Curious.
Also, I apologize if you feel berated by two strong and lengthy comments regarding your response to my post. It's a very passionate issue for those you are or have gay people close to us. And for all I know, we both misread your "sad" meaning. At least I hope so.
Thank you for your willingness to "put out there" what you feel.
The more we discuss our misunderstandings, the more we can come together. Keep posting.
On the "how sad" bashing and gay rights, etc, etc.
I too have gay friends with families of their own. They are dear people to me. I heart them.
However, why not think "how sad" for these families? Gay marriage is not ordained of God. These couples do not, nor do their children, enjoy the blessings of covenant marriage and the sealing of families forever. I cannot/will not promote that. I encourage legislation that does not contradict this basic gospel principle. There are other ways to have compassion and share freedom than to mock the fundamental principle of the sealing of families.
I love the individuals. They, in fact, share all of the same protections and legal rights upheld by the constitution as I do. Gays are not excluded from civil rights. Why do we need to force the issue of same-sex marriage? Civil rights and gay marriage are not the same thing.
Also, yes, I do think "how sad" for the single woman who chooses to have children/adopt. For the same reason.
Amy,
Civil Rights and Marriage are intertwined. All the civil privileges that come with marriage are what are withheld from gays. But, it does vary state to state.
Expample, my Aunts(gay couple of 20+ yrs.) have a daughter through adoption that is now in her teens. If the primary adopter of the two parents was to die, the other parent would lose custody of the child that she has raised since she was an infant. Is that civil?
This is just one scenario. Don't get me started with tax benefits, insurance, and power of attorney.
Just some things to think about.
Amy
I disagree with you.
As long as gay people are not offered ALL the same opportunities as heterosexual people, they are in some way, being denied civil rights.
But, of course, there are many responses to this reasoning:
for example:
gay people are allowed to marry, just not members of their own gender...
or trying to make other prohibitions on marriage analogous to a ban on same-sex marraige:
People under 18 are not allowed to marry nor are brothers and sisters etc...
We know them all.
None of them really get to the point though, do they? If we are honest, we know what's at the core:
Homosexuality it just wrong for many people, and therefore the markers of it should not be socially acknowledged or rewarded.
This is really at the core of it.
You think being gay is not right, or at least acting on it, is not.
You can say you love and support your gay friends and families, and I believe you--I know my family does love and tries to support me...
but, until they/you recognize that I have the same right to express this component of my identity as they/you do, I will continue to feel sad that we can't see eye to eye and also feel that I am being denied some of the same rights as they/you enjoy.
Also because I express my opinion and ask for more consideration and kindness, it doesn't mean that I am "bashing"...
I am speaking from my heart, trying to make the world a kinder and better place, the best I can.
So, practically, Amy--since not everyone can have the type of marriage you feel is ideal, wouldn't you WANT everyone to be as happy as they can be? To me, that seems like the Christian thing to do: To wish others all the happiness they can achieve and to help them do so, not actively try to limit their ability to attain that happiness.
I know you certainly will have a robust rebuttal, and I will read it, but perhaps you could really consider what I am saying, and, while not compromising your beliefs about marriage, begin to relate to your many gay friends and families with a little less sorrow and with a little more hope that they can be happy.
In this life at least...
I'm going to make this my final comment, no matter how much I'll want to comment later. Regarding the gay marriage/rights issue:
I understand not backing certain legislation because it doesn't jive with your religious beliefs, in this case the LDS belief that a gay marriage isn't "ordained by god", but gay marriage most likely isn't taking place between two loving, consenting LDS individuals, so what do those beliefs have to do with that couple? Why shouldn't a "marriage" which is always a Civil Ordinance, and only sometimes a religious one, be allowed to one and all? Not to mention the LDS creed of "free agency". Isn't not allowing someone, no matter what creed or faith, the same rights that we have a hinderance to "free agency"? Not to mention the 11th article of faith (let's let all believe as they may), or (and I hate to even mention this, but I feel it's relevant to today's conversation) even the fact that our very own church had a prophet once say from the pulpit that any white that would marry a black should be immediately killed.
Seriously, it just seems so purely hateful to me to take away rights from anyone because they're different or as my own mother says, "gross". Peace.
Here, Here, Steve.
Said MUCH better than all my emotional/ drippy /touchy-feely talk could ever put it!
Thanks!
CJANE,
I apologize for bringing my contentious, liberal opinions to this once, focused discussion. Consider me "reigned in" from here on out.
There have been some enlightening posts on this blog thread. Parts remind me of a scene from the "Remains of the Day" where a group of Nazi's are discussing the merits of their political beliefs and why the "masses" shouldn't be determining the fate of a nation in a free election, while other posts have provided some comic relief and many have provided much to think about.
Someone compared politics to a muddy pig pen and they may have a point. For a politician to remain a politician requires compromise, even in areas that may be against their moral fiber, because they are representatives of their constituents and to stay in their elected seat requires that compromise. Perhaps that is why we don't have more people running for office that do not waiver in their beliefs because it is very difficult to do so and maintain a career in politics. We seem to despise waivering, but can there be any other way and have anything but stalemate in Washington?
I happen to believe that what is really broken in this country is not just Washington, but the moral fiber of the country itself. If the core principals of the gospel were revered nationwide and were peoples primary motivator and what was the once foundation of our country, there wouldn't be some of the problems that plague our nation.
We have complex problems that aren't going to be solved by one political party or one particular candidate. The most important thing is to be involved, not just on election day, but in every way. There are many opportunities to be involved in our communities and in the political process. Write letters, call your elected officials, be involved AND vote. Many in the world wish they had that opportunity.
Nuff said.
Man, a lot has been said since last night:
First, I hope that not too many non-member's stumbles upon the latter part of the comments, because I personally am ashamed of the close-mindedness of some of the fellow members of our Church. Do I love the sins of others? No. Do I immediately think that they are living horrible, sad, tragic lives because they don't live in line with what we believe? I share my beliefs when appropriate, and try to live my life the way I've been raised to. When I look at my gay friends who are in LONG TERM committed relationships and think, How Sad? Not because they have children, I don't.
My baby was in the NICU for 2 months. While I don't agree with Abortion on principle, I can tell you that there were FAR too many suffering babies who were there born to parents who don't want them, but don't feel that they can give them up for adoption. That, my friends, is sad.
Hence the reason I hate election years. The first 30-50 comments were friendly and nice, but then entered those who feel that people aren't entitled to their own opinion. Free agency, guys. We are free to make our own decisions, and then face the consequences, whatever they may be, later. I don't need you to tell me how wrong I am.
Not only am I mormon, but I am for Obama... even if Mitt gets the republican vote...
Anne Lee:
Anything on here is just opinion and nothing else.
Can't force anyone to beleive what they don't want to believe.
Plus this is how any political discussion turns out.
I think that this is the nicest of any political discussion I have ever come across.
K this is 2 pages typed in word… sorry.
Michelle- thanks for the info. I will have to read up on the link you provided. I'm not from Utah. i did live there for a while after I graduated from HS and I went to Ricks before I got married and moved back to Houston. I’ve lived in the greater Houston area for over 12 years and I lived in inner city Houston for nearly 5 years and served as YW president while in my ward there. I saw poverty there and the effects of it. However, I don't have the experience as a social worker. I'll have to read up on why education is unequal for the poor. I know that where I live (still in the Houston area) children who have no SS or documentation can still be registered in school. The amenities of the school might not be as good, but you get in the school what you pay taxes for. (computer labs, etc.) There are also lots of programs here created to help minorities and for the poor.
This was very well said quoting {the garden maiden}
“I happen to believe that what is really broken in this country is not just Washington, but the moral fiber of the country itself. If the core principals of the gospel [or might I add: Christianity] were revered nationwide and were peoples primary motivator and what was the once foundation of our country, there wouldn't be some of the problems that plague our nation.”
--end quote
Just because people have desecrated the institution of marriage as God ordained it does not make it okay (in re: to married men/women and adulterous affairs). The same thing goes for gay persons; just because two men or women are attracted to each other does not mean it is natural or normal. Matt—I don’t know what you mean by “this is the real world”. Are you saying because it is the “social norm” that we all need to accept it? God does not. I don’t hate gay people and I would befriend them as I would befriend anyone. I have a close family friend who is gay. I love him no less than the next person. My best friend in High School’s mother decided that she was gay and left her husband and family to be with my Sunday school teacher’s wife whom she had developed a close relationship with. Both of these women were endowed members who had been sealed to their husbands. It was devastating to their families. They have since left one another and while I don’t know their current practices, I know they have both been re-baptized, serve in their separate wards and I saw one of them in the temple. I am so happy for them. Members who have SSA who do not act on those feelings can enjoy all the blessings of the church and temple as any man or woman in a heterosexual monogamous relationship.
As for the orphaned children comment… I know MANY families who are dying to have children that can not and would adopt them in a heartbeat! Members of my own family are in the process of adopting a child from the foster care system at the very present.
This might seem too unreal to be true given current conversation, but it is. A very close friend of my family who I have known since I was 7 years old and call my aunt is a single woman who has never been married. She tried w/i the past 3 or so years to do invitro from a ‘donor bank’ if you get my drift. It was unsuccessful. I was sad for her, because she was sad. She is a wonderful person and I love her, but I did not agree with what she was trying to do. She is a very educated woman and very well to do financially (heterosexual, but I don’t think that really matters either way), there is no doubt she would have been able to provide for the child financially, but I still believe any child deserves what parents of opposite gender are designed to provide for that child.
When all is said and done, God will be the one to judge, and that is not what I was trying to do here, I was just stating my beliefs on the matters, and why I think it is important that the POTUS up holds these values. I know that God loves us all and will be merciful in his judgments of us and how we live our lives based on our experiences here—in mortality. In the mean time, I would be just as kind to any man or woman, straight, gay, black, white. That said, I do not deviate from principles I know are true. I think God has given the commandment that marriage is ordained between 1 man and 1 woman for a reason, he wants us to be happy and that is how we were designed. This is not to discount that some people have feelings of SSA that are very real to them. I am no expert on these things and my heart goes out to them for the pain they are caused by feeling prejudiced against. I just don’t feel that our nation should go as far as to change the law to state that any union of two people is a “marriage”. I realize that there are many people and types of family situations and people do the best they can. Good for them. (That is not meant to be sarcastic, I mean it.) Aunts and Uncles, grandparents taking nieces and nephews under their wing b/c of the loss of parents, and any other number of other circumstances—creating “families”. I just don’t think that gay relationships are natural and familial. Perhaps they are, to the natural/carnal man, but when all is said and done, that is not how “families” will be formed, with God. I’m not trying to be “judgmental”, that is just how it is, as I understand things now. Like Amy said, these “families” can not enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage. It isn’t like they aren’t allowed to live together. How many men and women live together as “significant others” but aren’t married. A lot. The reason to be married legally is to comply with the laws of the land and of God. I could be wrong in my assumption that gays do not honor the laws of God in re: to what the terms of marriage are, so why do they need to be married. (I’m probably going to take a lot of flack for that. I’m just asking, what is the big deal? They are not – not allowed to live together.) If I am “closed-minded” for having these beliefs then, what can I say!? I love the people, but I think the act is a sin. God will have to work out the details.
Nathan—I’m sorry I offended you. Aside from the one person I can say I know personally who is gay, I have been acquainted with many since high school, they are some of the kindest people I have ever met, and I enjoyed friendships with people I knew in HS that were gay. I appreciate the “sensitivity” of gay men and sometimes wish a dose of it upon the men in my life! I do not have anything against them or you. I wish for them and you to be happy, as I recall I didn’t say anything condemning them or wishing for their unhappiness, I was just stating my feelings about what political legislation should/should not be passed. The LDS church is not the only one that does not support homosexual relationships.
Anyway…I’ve been MIA this afternoon b/c I had to go take care of my kids. I’ve invested way too much time into this, and I’m afraid, nearly gotten myself lynched. Bottom line, I love all people, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. I do not think that legislation should change to define marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman, let us all live in peace according to the dictates of our own conscience. This is the USA.
Maybe someone has more statistical documentation on why legislation that allowed gay marriage would be bad for our country and economy. I think I’ve said enough.
As far as “if not Mitt, then Obama” I’ve got to agree with Ryan Hoffman who just commented. They are polar opposites, and Obama slogan of “Change” is like a nauseating broken record. I’m glad I’ve still got time to read up on the candidates. God help us.
Nathan, Matthew or anyone else, feel free to email me if you’d like, it’s in my profile. I really did not mean to offend.
Thanks Courtney, never meant for it to go this far!
I'm a first timer here; someone sent me this link. I hope you don't mind my chiming in because politics is somewhat of a passion/hobby for me.
I have to admit I was pretty nervous reading the first several comments with all the people swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other. How is Obama even close to Mitt? (I support Mitt; not because of our common religion, but for his strong leadership, etc).
Then I was comforted to find comments left by like-minded conservative/libertarian folks. Tara, I think you're brilliant (You wrote a lot of my sentiments....esp the Apr '03 conf. talk). Hutch, Joe, and 'not sure what to think', I loved yours as well. (Sorry if I missed anyone!)
I was disturbed by the individual who claimed that I basically can't be a good Christian if I'm not democrat. Sorry, but I think rewarding law breakers, forcing people to give of their substance, and not actively engaging ourselves in our own freedom is NOT gospel principle. Neither is big govt.
While I'm not a huge fan of McCain, if he happens to be the Republican choice I will probably vote for him, because a moderate is better than a full-blown liberal. (Although I like the comment of the gentleman who said we should write a name in). Obama screams leftist ideals to which I just can't get behind. One step closer to socialism is a step closer to communism. A vote for a Democrat is almost a sure vote for increased taxes and more legislation (isn't that in violation of our civil rights?) The BofM has a word for excessive taxes: bondage.
Hillary AND Obama scare me. Socialized medicine is not the way to go. We need to get rid of people like John Edwards who make their millions frivolously suing doctors for so-called malpractice (reports have come out that he was WAY off base). This part of our medical care problem.
I'm also not seeing why people support gay marriage. If the LDS church flies GA's to
Washington to work on a marriage amendment, I think that's a powerful statement. I don't intertwine marriage and civil rights. The purpose of marriage is to raise a family. How can that be done if not between a man and a wife?
The free market works; govt control does not. Keep govt out of the lives of individuals.
I'd like to recommend an excellent book: God, Family, Country by Ezra Taft Benson. Great read.
(ok, longer than I intended; but thanks for letting me participate)
Gees-ma-knees Kristen. You just made my day! I am by no means brilliant, but I hold these things dear to my heart and feel it's important to let our voices be heard on these issues that are fundamental to families. I tried to link to your blog but saw it was private. I'm interested in President Benson's book. email me EightCowMomATgmailDOTcom
is this the new designmom? all these comments...cjane, are you giving away a prize? pick me!
Lets here it for religion, politics, and gender/sex opinions!
I hereby announce this blog to be a "place of free speech".
I, also, pick candidates based on hair, but also like to choose based on how their names will sound. For example--"President McCain" sounds like ass-kicking Die-Hard Hero, John McCain. But his hair (the most important factor) is not that great.
"President Huckypuck" will make the French laugh at us. And, as we have established, we don't like it when the French laugh at us because then we get all huffy and people start forwarding me emails with lame jokes about how we saved them in WW2. AND I HATE FORWARDS.
"President Obama" just doesn't sound right. I don't know what it is--just say it out loud. And his hair is kind of slimy. Maybe he should change products. Then he would have a chance. Also, his dancing is lamer than Pres. Clinton's. Is that possible?
Speaking of Clinton, We already had a President Clinton. 2 Rosevelts, 2 Bushes, and 2 Warren G Hardings--it is getting hard to differentiate. And, again, the hair.
And so I am back to Romney. Hair vote WAY in, name doesn't sound too bad (although it doesn't have the ring of, say "President The Rock"), so I think that is what I will choose. Because I don't believe that anyone will do any better than anyone else, in the long run. Because 4 years is not enough to change anything. Especially in Washington.
Just to make comments and even
150. Be sure and do another post on the political atmosphere as it heats up.
p.s. I think Mitt looks he should be in the wax museum. Topher is much more manly looking!
a men, la yen.
Tara
Thank you for responding so sensitively...
I have been trying to figure out how to e-mail you, but my mac isn't letting me do it, so I hope you check back here.
You didn't offend me. I appreciate the sincerity of your beliefs.
I hope you know that I hold my beliefs and relationships as sacred and important as you hold yours.
I think that's the biggest difference in our belief systems.
The best I can see it is that you sincerely feel that you know what is best for me and my relationships. At least you feel that you know that my relationship with my partner of five years is not as valid or sacred as your marriage...
For me, this is where the problem lies.
I believe that you love me and all people and want us to be happy--I do. And that means a lot.
But, Tara, consider how you would feel if people were trying to tell you that your marriage and your family is not as valid as others.
I know you have a million reasons why that just isn't a valid request-- mainly because God said yours is valid and mine is not.
I know you believe that. I respect that you believe that. But I don't believe that and in this country, as I understand it, we honor other people and their various religious/or non-religious beliefs and ideas...
It really comes down to a question that could be phrased like this: how do we best share this country and its promises of life, liberty and happiness with all people?
That's not an easy task, and it requires compromise.
We are asking you to compromise. You are refusing...
We are in stale mate.
I respect you and love you too.
Hopefully one day we will better understand how to better live together...
In the meantime we will continue to express our opinions and listen to the opinions of others and keep trying, right?
P.S.
In my understanding, until about 10 years ago when various states began passing constitutional amendments banning same sex unions, there was no law establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman. So, technically, we are not contemplating changing the law. There is no law on the federal level regarding this institution...
Tara, I absolutely in no way suggested that owning a fake or stolen SS card was a good or moral choice, I was merely saying that it happens, and consequently these people are paying into the taxation system.
There wasn't a shred of advocacy for the practice in my analysis of the situation.
I just happen to believe that the majority of people that come into this country are just looking for a better life, not trying to illegally mow your lawn.
And interestingly, breaking immigration law is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense, must like a speeding ticket or other civil violation. That's all.
ok, I hope that wasn't too snarky. Just didn't want to be mis-understood.
And it's really late.
And I ate too much chocolate today...
I must be the only one who reads this blog voting for Hillary on the 5th. Go Hillary!!
Nathan,
Do you have a fan club? : )
I imagine you aren't overly concerned whether I (a stranger to you) agree with you or not, but I had to chime in and say how impressed I am with the dialogue that you opened up. Hopefully a shift (or glance at) a different paradigm on these tough issues will be the result. You humanize the issue with your honest, intelligent, respectful dialogue.
And, dear Cjane, I'm with you, politically speaking. And I adore you, personally speaking.
I am inclined to pipe in on what seems to be the end of a string of comments concerning same sex marriage and a rehashing of a Segullah blog some months ago, in what started out as a "which candidate if not Romney" blog post.
Live and let live seems to be the theme of a few commentors and that may be all well and good in some instances, but in the instance of the sanctity of the family I believe there is no gray area.
God's position is clearly outlined in the Proclamation on the Family and as a country we may chose to adopt another philosphy contrary to this document, but we will not avoid suffering the consequences of such an action. Cause and Effect. If this country supports same sex marriage as it has abortion issues we will suffer the consequences of that action. The sanctity of life and the family is being attacked from all sides and if anybody should be defending it the latter day saints should be frontline.
My opinion may not be hip, or a politically correct stance, as they say these days, but as for me and my house I look toward God and his prophets for direction in matters such as these. I am not inclined to argue with God, because honestly I have tried and I never ever win. So those who try to justify their lives concerning any deviance from God's law, whether it is in accordance with the law of the land or not, in time find will out the error of their ways. We always will.
No matter how you add up the numbers, it may be civily equatable to support same sex marriage, but it will never be equitable in the sight of God and this nation will be held accoutable. This very nation was founded for the purpose of raising up a nation wherein the truth could be restored and spread forth. If we as saints allow this country and it's purpose to be trampled through our apathy and failed convictions we too will be receiving the same consequences as the world.
I understand tolerance and love, we get plenty of opportunities to practice this each day. We are told to love everyone regardless of circumstance, but if you truly love someone you wouldn't let them remain in a burning building without trying to save them. We can teach the truth and still love those who don't chose to live it, but we cannot allow this nation to become a nation that turns its back on its roots allowing sin to rule our laws.
I appreciate the tender way in which each person has tried to convey their feelings and message and this type of dialogue more readily allows the spirit to teach. Thank you cjane for once again giving many an opportunity to have a voice, let us all stand strong in our convictions and with strength bind ourselves together to protect this great nation we are all so blessed with.
I'm not a Mormon (I'm actually a Baptist), but here's my opinion:
Personally, I feel that abortion is wrong. I also feel that marriage should be an act between a man and a woman.
However, if a popularly elected government has established that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and if same government decides that homosexuals can get married, and if I don't like that, I unelect those officials...not consign the entire country to hell. That comes off as a little extreme to me.
Not meant to offend in the least....just my two cents worth.
I just wanted to give my two-cents about some comments I have read about people being impressed by Obama and "feeling the spirit" when he talks. I don't know what spirits are being felt, but it's not THE SPIRIT. I am pretty sure that the spirit wouldn't indicate to someone that they ought to feel good about a politician who has talked about dicriminalizing marijuana, changing the definition of marriage, and steering us toward a completely socialized state which would only harm and impoverish the citizens of this great country.
Socialist policies do work toward making everyone equal. The problem is that it will make everyone equally poor and equally inept. Obama has minimal experience in government (a mere two years as senator) and absolutely NO executive experience. And since the office of President is an executive one, the fact that he has no experience in such positions (ie Governor) he is unqualified. He throws out the buzz word "change" and people think he is a genius. Has he said what he will do to make change? He hasn't.
So how anyone can "feel the spirit" when he talks, and how anyone can say that it is either him or Romney is beyond me. The stark contrast between the two is quite apparent. Hillary would actually be a more viable candidate than Obama. Thought they aren't much different, she wasn't voted 2007's most liberal senator like our friend Barack Hussein Obama.
However, I would say that if Romney doesn't win then I would vote Democrat. Even for Obama. But not because I think he has any admirable traits, policies, or values. It is because McCain is basically one of them, and we may as well vote them in instead of McCain because it won't be much different. Then we can hope for someone like Mitt to run again after four years, instead of allowing McCain to lead for four years, allowing him to be the incumbent for the election for the next four years. THAT is a legitimate reason to vote Obama or Hillary. Not because he says the word "change" a thousand times, or because he is "easy on the eyes." But because we want to give a REAL conservative the opportunity to run in 2012, if our current real conservative, Mitt Romney, doesn't win this time around. Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan was defeated in 1968 and 1974 for the Republican nomination, but was able to run again and win in in 1980 and become the great president that he was.
Even if Mitt does not get it as you are saying here.
Why not write him in?
There was one year Pee Wee Herman got written in. He got 5,000 votes.
I ask again why not write in Mitt Romney if he doesn't get it?
I don't know about where you live, but where I live I don't get a #2 to write anything on my ballot. It's all electronic.
Hi!
That topic has already been discussed. Read the previous comments.
Tara:
There is the option even on the electronic to write someone in. I have done it.
So if you don't like your choices pick someone else.
Bye!:
I did read it. The suggestion was made to write it in. That is all there was not a discussion on it.
I have nothing political in nature to say (yet) but I'm looking forward to reading all of the political comments your post has generated when I have some more time.
373-9120 was one of the first telephone numbers I ever memorized-that and the Blairs (375-6919) who had the best location for night games in the neighborhood!
Oh my.
To all those proclaiming god's rule and god's wrath if we (the U.S.) break such rule (btw "The Proclamation on the Family" is an LDS thing, which has about the validity of David Koresh's claim to be Jesus reincarnate)... Have you been to Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, etc., etc., etc. lately? So far I haven't witnessed any doom and destruction, a la Sodom & Gomohrra, in these countries. So your moaning about god's wrath seems to be a little off base. Like the militant agnostic says, "I don't know and neither do you, so leave god the hell out of it."
Honestly, trying to argue things based on god is always a losing situation, because once the believer brings god into it, all rationale goes out the door in favor of belief. And since everyone's version of god is different, well, you know what path that will lead down.
I wonder if that's why there IS a separation of church and state clause in the constitution (much like there ISN'T anything in the constitution about who can marry whom)? I say we dig up Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock and the rest and get some answers.
Watch http://www.dipdive.com/
ooooohhhhhh!
just found your blog today through a friend's...
i agree complete. if it's not mitt then it's obama. i can not stand mccain. i hope more than anything that it's not a mccain-hillary race. our country will be doomed for four years with either of them.
Saint--first of all, by comparing the 'Proclamation to the Family' to David Koresh is offensive to everyone who has commented here. But hey, it's a free country. I'm not going to even try and convince you of the existence of God and His role in establishing this country. You are obviously not open-minded enough.
Secondly, I will have to point out some inaccuracies on your part. There is nothing in the Constitution that uses the words "Separation of Church and State"; that has been drummed up by people like you. The exact words of the establishment clause are thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So what you and your ACLU friends have misinterpreted is the intent and meaning of this clause. It was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.
(sorry, jane, hope I wasn't too strong in my words....)
What a sad day. I came to this conclusion myself the other day. No Mitt, then no McCain. He gives me the heebeejeebees.
Sure there's the rather intensely polarizing issue of the hair, but I'm even more concerned about the First Lady. Or in Hillary's case, the First Man.
Or was it the First Lady (Man)'s hair? Now I'm confused.
I agree 100 % I would never want Hilary or McCain to get the nomination. Having said that I am still a little wary of Obama, does anyone have any posts, websites, or articles that may help me clear my brain on the issue??
I can't believe that I am making a comment on this, especially years after the original post. I find it sad how much hatred comes out in political discussion. I consider myself non-affiliated, that is what they call it here in California, I guess. I have decided that I don't want to be a republican or a democrat because I don't think I want to be that narrowly defined. I have to agree with the with what I have heard somewhere before and I can almost guarantee that many others have heard it, niether party holds the monopoly on wrong or right.
Now I will join with all of the other novels on this post with some random thought.
I don't think that most people think that it is okay to take advantage of the system, many do it anyway, dems and republicans.
I thought about putting "peace on Earth" on my Chrismas card this year, I believe that it should be a goal of anyone, Mormon, non-mormon, Christian, Athiest agnostic, Jewish, Muslim...... The reason why I didn't was because I knew that many of hte people I was sending my cards to would think I was trying to make a some political statement. Kind of ironic I think.
Also on the abortion issue, The Church is most definately not supportive of abortion. Having said that, they don't necessarily align them selves with the evangelicals either. You can go to LDS.org and look it up. The do say that in certain cases it may be considered an option.
I think that for me I am constantly reminded that there is so little that is black and white out there when we consider the different circumstances from which we all come.
I don't hink that we all have to agree with each other on everything to be more unified either.
I noticed that the Utah state legislature met with church leaders recently and encouraged them to show compassion when dealing with the immigration issue and to remember the humanity involved. I guess that is where I am at. Whether we are talking about gays, immigrants, people considering or having already had abortions, and other issues, I think that we should look at the issues behind all of them and to remember the humanity (and the divinity if that's your view as it is mine) of them.
Carry on!
For the immigrants Have no issues with them so long ad they are here LEGALLY. It is the issues with the ILLEGALS I have issues with.
Clarification: Last I checked illegals were human too. Wrong? Probably. Human? Most definatly. The church encouraged the legislators to deal with the ILLEGAL immigration problem with compassion. Sorry for the mix up.
And Romney exits the building. I sure hope a lot of you stick to your guns and vote Obama come November. Much love,
Steve
I know thay are human. But we have laws on how to be here for a reason. Hence the ILLEGAL part of ILLEGAL immagretion. However since those laws are not enforced who cares right?
It's not right or fair to the people who try to come here legally.
On our blog we have made similar comments. Rather than endorse only one candidate we had endorsed 1 Republican (Romney) and 1 Democrat (Obama). Well now that Romney is out we are both looking at Obama. We are very conservative and have always voted Republican but McCain doesn't look like the best candidate. This year may be the year to vote outside of party lines and choose what is best for the nation rather than just what is best for a single party.
none of the candidates that are running now are good for the nation.
I know this is an old post, but I feel it is important for people to learn about a candidate before committing to them. And since so many people have suggested a "if not Romney, then Obama" scenario, that would indicate to me that some people may not know a whole lot concerning Barack Obama.
www.claritypolitics.blogspot.com
I take it back.
Go Hillary! Or is it too late, now?
We need a HTT over at you know where (for those of you who read those) on this...
look at the roots of this man...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DGiNtj-0m0A
He married Mr. and Mrs. Obama and has baptized Senator Obama's children. We really have to take a GOOD Look at this man before we vote him in as POTUS. He has gone to this church for TWENTY years.
Tara- I watched the clip where Rev. Wright compared Obama to Jesus, etc. and I thought the reverse racism he used was obnoxious, but I don't believe Obama agrees with everything his reverend said as evidenced by the speech he gave today in Philadelphia. (see http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/18/sot.obama.controversy.cnn)
I didn't hear him compare Obama to Jesus, however I did hear him say Jesus was a black man, which, that last time I checked was not the case. And some other very anti-American things in other video's posted to youtube. (like the "US of KKKA").
I didn't say Obama agreed with everything Rev. Wright says. I can see now why he is backpedaling and wants to be distanced from him, but the fact is, he has associated with him and attended that congregation for 20+ years. As someone who is seeking the highest office in the United States, It is alarming to me, to say the least, that he would have attended a congregation that was so Anti American, if he had within' himself to run for President. I'd expect him to have a bit more respect for his country than to be affiliated with that jargon.
I just think the media has WAY down played his relationship with that church and I think people need to see Rev. Wright and his teachings for what they are, and then form their own opinion about what that means about Barack H. Obama.
I guarantee that if the church I go to was saying things like that, I'd be outta there pretty quick and looking for another congregation: and I have no desire to be the President of the USA!
I think you last 2 commenters are talking about the same clip: I could be mistaken, but when Rev. Wright said "Jesus was black" wasn't he speaking metaphorically in an attempt to compare him with Barack Obama? (A simile would have been more appropriate and less controversial.) Nonetheless, the Reverend is a racist nutjob.
I sure am glad that the church to which I belong has never been accused of anything controversial. Oh wait . . . Mountain Meadows Massacre, Polygamy, Blacks & The Priesthood. Nevermind.
I need to just unsubscribe from the "notify me of follow up comments..." however- I am still getting them... so...
anonymous... since you have the gumption to call Rev. Wright a nutjob (that's valid, he's a bit crazy)... I would say why don't you grow some yourself and identify who YOU are. Perhaps he was likening Obama to Jesus (GAG.) I didn't catch that metaphor, simile. Whatever.
As far as Mormons and controversial subjects.
Mountain Meadows Massacre was not something that the leadership of the church rallied and carried forth. Militiamen who went against the counsel of the church were behind it. Because they were "Mormon" it has been labeled to the church. Yet, notwithstanding, the church has apologized for the atrocities that had been perpetrated.
But Really, The BOTTOM LINE in my opinion is this. This isn't about religion, It is a race for POTUS. But for someone to have such long term ties with and organization (Which happens to be a church) that is blatantly anti white and anti America-- I wouldn't trust him as the commander in chief. It has nothing to do with him being black or a "black Christian" and not a "white Christian" (Whatever that means!?) I question his allegiance to America.
And to think they gave Mitt Romney hell for being a Mormon.
Sorry.
Someone mentioned earlier about Mccain's arms. He was hurt in war and they did not or could not set them. That is why he can only raise his arms to a certain point.
Post a Comment