Godless Americans

[ASkolnick]

As a registered Republican, I will agree that W. is probably the worst ever president. (I did not vote for him in '04 and how the Democrats lost that election is still beyond me.) Before everyone gets on my case, well he didn't win, bla, bla, bla, it really should not have been that close.

 

As for Democrats being better for the economy, if you ever saw how they count money, you would understand why. I once saw how everything was paying for each other and realized that if you use the same money twice, you get much better answers. Also, things like the .com boom was just an artificial raise of prices instead of being based on solid value. Look what happened then as well.

 

But even still for legacies, most presidents have at least one good thing they have done for the country. Even Bill Clinton had the Family Leave Act which was a good thing even though his morals were questionable. George W. has given us nothing good that is.

 

I am a McCain supporter but I am concerned with his choice as VP. I could care less about who is paying for her clothing, but I do not think she is qualified. With McCain's age and the drain the presidency usually gives to a candidate, it does worry me. I know the Republicans "rolled the dice" by selecting her which got a short term hike, but I think in the long run it may wind up costing him the election.

 

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

 

I have to admit, I do like the political discussion here since it is one of the few places that there does not seem to be a particular bias towards either party.

[matmat]

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

wait... are you accusing a politician of demagoguery. Goodness gracious! I can't believe anyone running for office would stoop so low!

Isn't it also the case, though, that Biden, Palin and McCain have been doing the exact same thing?

[cherdano]

This is the reason why Bush could get reelected in 2004: The conservative base would support him no matter what he does, and on the other hand he can give tax cuts to those rich enough to finance his campaign.

I think it was slightly more complicated than that.

[TimG]

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

I think McCain will say whatever the public wants. Perhaps these are not unbiased views.

[cherdano]

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

I think McCain will say whatever the public wants. Perhaps these are not unbiased views.

The difference: McCain has the record to prove it.

[mikeh]

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

I think McCain will say whatever the public wants. Perhaps these are not unbiased views.

The difference: McCain has the record to prove it.

I must be having a particularly stupid moment, because I can't tell whether you are saying that McCain's record shows that he will say whatever he thinks (or his handlers think) the public wants to hear, or that you feel that he says it the way he means it, because his record is consistent with what he is saying.

 

If the latter, I would disagree... the straight talk express has become a fear-mongering, hate-filled, divisive smear campaign, replete with the abandonment of all but pretence of honour, honesty and principle. And it has been sad to watch. As a foreigner, US politics has always fascinated me. I suppose that it is similar to most western democracies, but the characters often seem larger on the American stage than elsewhere.. the villians are worse but the good guys are better. McCain was one of the good guys... I would never, if I had the chance, have voted for him (unless I was sure he wouldn't win) but I always admired him for his political courage. No longer.

[cherdano]

I meant the former. Seemed obvious to me which way I meant it :)

[kenberg]

Early on, I had expected that I would be voting for McCain but in fact I will be voting for Obama. Since the thread concerns the God issue, I'll address it.

 

Back when Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, my thoughts were that I really did not want a president who thought that the the Biblical story of the beginnings of the world took precedence over science. Nonetheless, I took his statement "I'm a conservative but I don't hate anyone" at face value. The McCain campaign has been playing to the folks that are religious, conservative, and very much do hate quite a few people, most likely including me. I'm truly sorry about this, I expected better.

 

I hope this doesn't drive anyone completely over the edge, but I think McCain has the better of the argument involving Iraq, at least as far as what to do next is concerned. It's been a disaster. But a disaster can be made worse, or it can be made better. I would prefer having McCain at the helm as we work our way out. But the fundamental argument for McCain, that he is an experienced principled leader who will put his judgment out there for all to see and accept the verdict of history, that argument has fallen away. Too damn bad, in my view.

[TimG]

My problem with Obama is I think he will say whatever the public wants to hear regardless of whether the policy works, in a similar way to Clinton.

I think McCain will say whatever the public wants. Perhaps these are not unbiased views.

The difference: McCain has the record to prove it.

Yeah, I'm stunned that a McCain supporter would cite this as a problem with Obama. It's like an Obama supporter saying that his trouble with McCain is that he lacks experience in Washington.

[Lobowolf]

You only have to look at the economic numbers (employment, gdp etc) to see that the failed policies of the Republicans NEVER benefit the "working" man (earning less than the price of an avg. single family dwelling in 1 calendar year).

 

The 3 worst? Bush sr. Bush jr., Reagan

 

 

Some of the best presidents had members of the other party in their cabinet or in political positions because they realized that the best man for the job wan't necessarily the person most like them......W has shown that as long as you were loyal bushies.....you could get any position and if you were "fair-minded and even-handed" then you were out.

...as Jimmy Carter and U.S. Grant heave sighs of shocked relief.

[Codo]

 

GWB was one of the worst presidents they had. But this has exactly nothing to do with his religious belives.

I couldn't disagree more (with the last sentence, not the first).

 

One of the fundamental (pun intended) problems with born-again Christians (and of zealots of other religions as well) is that they are armoured with an invincible sense of their righteousness.

Mike, I know that you like to bash religious people, but this is plain wrong.

 

1. If GWB had been an atheist , he had been as convinced and as stupid as a christian.

 

2.You say that Bush claims that God directly tells him what to do: Do you really belive that this is true? You don't belive that there is a God, so you "know" that he lies here. That makes him a liarer, but does not profe the inferiority of religious people.

 

3. Follow the discussion we had here and elsewhere: How many people are capable to confess: Yes I am wrong? 25 % of the Forum Members?

And of any President in the history, including the soviet and chinese atheists, how many exactly did claim: Oh sorry, I made a mistake? One? (Not that I remember ever to hear about this, but maybe there had been a case or two.)

 

I guess, if you are the President of a big country, you must have some abilities. I belive that righteousness seems to be one of them.

 

4. I guess you know a lot about his belives. Where exactly did his belives told him to invate Afghanistan, the IRaque and break the Human rights in Guantanamo,

Abu Greib and elsewhere?

I calim that he had made the same descissions being an atheist, or a muslim, buddhist or whatever. He had just grwon up in a place where that had been many bornagain christians, so he happend to become one. If he had grwown up in the USSR he may had become the president there and had made the same mistakes being an atheist.

[luke warm]

The McCain campaign has been playing to the folks that are religious, conservative, and very much do hate quite a few people, most likely including me. I'm truly sorry about this, I expected better.

i'm conservative and (depending on how you define it) religious... i realize you only know me thru my posts here, so using what you do know (those posts), who would you say that i hate?

I hope this doesn't drive anyone completely over the edge, but I think McCain has the better of the argument involving Iraq, at least as far as what to do next is concerned. It's been a disaster. But a disaster can be made worse, or it can be made better. I would prefer having McCain at the helm as we work our way out. But the fundamental argument for McCain, that he is an experienced principled leader who will put his judgment out there for all to see and accept the verdict of history, that argument has fallen away. Too damn bad, in my view.

why has it fallen away? is it because of his VP choice? i think biden has far more negative baggage than palin, although he also has far more experience... sticking strictly with obamba/mccain, what kind of america do you envision with either?

[matmat]

I hope this doesn't drive anyone completely over the edge, but I think McCain has the better of the argument involving Iraq, at least as far as what to do next is concerned. It's been a disaster. But a disaster can be made worse, or it can be made better. I would prefer having McCain at the helm as we work our way out. But the fundamental argument for McCain, that he is an experienced principled leader who will put his judgment out there for all to see and accept the verdict of history, that argument has fallen away. Too damn bad, in my view.

why has it fallen away? is it because of his VP choice? i think biden has far more negative baggage than palin, although he also has far more experience... sticking strictly with obamba/mccain, what kind of america do you envision with either?

[hrothgar]

why has it fallen away? is it because of his VP choice? i think biden has far more negative baggage than palin

Not sure whether you bother to look at the demographic model that

fivethirtyeight.com is using... One of their independent variables is measures

the number of evangelicals in a given state. (It seems that the

evangelicals have a radically different view of reality than the rest

of us...)

 

For example, I'd be hard pressed to find many folks outside the bunker

who beleive that Biden has more negative baggage than Palin. The

Palin selection has been a miserable failure.

 

Take a look at the piece that talkingpointsmemo did on the so called "Palin effect"

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/fullpage/...palin-effec.php

 

This interactive graphic shows massive numbers of leading Conservatives bailing on McCain and specifically citing the Palin selection as the reason.

 

George Will

David Frum

Peggy Noonan

Andrew Sullivan

Christoper Buckley

 

the list goes on and on and on...

[kenberg]

The McCain campaign has been playing to the folks that are religious, conservative, and very much do hate quite a few people, most likely including me. I'm truly sorry about this, I expected better.

i'm conservative and (depending on how you define it) religious... i realize you only know me thru my posts here, so using what you do know (those posts), who would you say that i hate?

I hope this doesn't drive anyone completely over the edge, but I think McCain has the better of the argument involving Iraq, at least as far as what to do next is concerned. It's been a disaster. But a disaster can be made worse, or it can be made better. I would prefer having McCain at the helm as we work our way out. But the fundamental argument for McCain, that he is an experienced principled leader who will put his judgment out there for all to see and accept the verdict of history, that argument has fallen away. Too damn bad, in my view.

why has it fallen away? is it because of his VP choice? i think biden has far more negative baggage than palin, although he also has far more experience... sticking strictly with obamba/mccain, what kind of america do you envision with either?

To do first things first, I have no reason to think that you hate anyone. I definitely do not equate either religious belief or conservative philosophy with being a hater. For that matter, I don't claim that being non-religious (I am) and liberal (I maybe am sorta) gives one immunity from being a hater.

 

 

As to what has gone into my reappraisal of McCain, that will have to wait for when I have more time. The brief version is that he had a choice of who he wanted to try to appeal to and the group he chose does not include me.

[hrothgar]

Interesting chart

 

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426...BarChartBig.gif

[luke warm]

The brief version is that he had a choice of who he wanted to try to appeal to and the group he chose does not include me.

fair enough... i don't think there are many real conservatives left, i believe the republican party has been taken over by big gov't types who are as dangerous as any other group, maybe more so

For that matter, I don't claim that being non-religious (I am) and liberal (I maybe am sorta) gives one immunity from being a hater.

true... all anyone has to do is look at the post people make to get a feel for things like that

[barmar]

Perhaps it's just me but I vote for people based on issues

So their character and morality don't enter into your decision at all?

 

To many people (especially many devoutly religious ones), being atheist and/or homosexual are black marks on someone's character, and even being the "wrong" religion may shed a bad light on them. They're not going to vote for someone they think has an agenda contrary to their own.

 

Furthermore, voting based on issues is HARD. Politicians are well known to break campaign promises ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), so how confident can you be that what they say about the issues before the election will reflect how they will act after they get into office? Or even if they do keep their promises, there are so many issues -- candidate A may agree with you on issues 1 and 2, candidate B agrees with you on issues 3 and 4 -- how do you decide which ones should take precedence?

 

By voting with a party or based on religious affiliation, you get someone who shares your overall philosophy. On that basis, you can expect to be reasonably satisfied.

[Impact]

As an outsider form a galaxy far, far away:-

 

1. The Republicans were always going to be in trouble: too many things going wrong on their watch;

 

2. McCain took a high risk strategy when he fell behind in the polls, rolled the dice ....and crapped out;

 

3. I do not know what happened to the left wing of the Republican party (relatively progressive as defined perhaps by Rockefeller) but they are unsighted these days - maybe it was the Goldwater effect?

 

4. Obama has campaigned on "hope" - but query whether that has not raised unrealistic expectations....which will be doomed by disappointment.

 

5. Neither candidate appears to have any economic savvy whatsoever - in fact economic illiterates, appears a closer description. It also appears bizarre that combinations of legislation which allow (indeed encourage) debt on the basis of "no recourse beyond the asset" remain in place, particularly when combined with other legislation which encourages lending to "disadvantaged groups who do not/may not have the capacity to repay".

 

6. Jimmy Carter was unquestionably one of the more intelligent recent US presidents - and perhaps one of the worst because of a tendency to micromanage and an inability to attract top quality advisers. I fear that may be repeated.

 

7. As part of the rest of the world, I am bemused by our willingness to criticise US presidential nominees in a fashion that would breed enormous resentment if the process were reversed (ie US newspapers carping about our putative leaders).

 

8. THe US tendency to believe (or at least pay lipservice to) the concept that God looks after them and invocations to blessings by God by every politician is bizarre: it might be comforting but surely you can't believe

a) that any putative God would care;

 

;) that each of the competing views is sanctioned by the putative God;

 

c) that each of the competing religions is similarly sanctioned (to the exclusion of the others)...

 

9. To date if someone tried the same act (invoking God) in Oz, they would be laughed out of office - this despite the relatively privately held strong religious views of our last 2 PMs.

 

10. OTOH after all the theatre, I am really disappointed that the "race" looks as if it has been determined, depriving us of last minute drama...

 

We got the convicts; you got the Puritans - and we got lucky!

 

regards

[helene_t]

If I wanted them to vote for me, how do you rate my chances if I:

Say that all religions are a silly waste of time  ....

Well, being an atheist doesn't necesarrily mean that one insults religious people as part of ones campaign, any more than being a christian automatically means that one would insult jews and moslems as part of one's campaign.

 

I have no clue what the religious belief is of any of the politicians I have voted for. If they were asked by a journalist I would slightly prefer them to say something like "no answer, we are here to discuss politics". However if they had professed to believe in God or the flying spaghetti monster or whatever it would not influence my decision. (Admittedly, if they professed to believe in Freud and Marx I would be less likely to vote for them).

[Gerben42]

I have no clue what the religious belief is of any of the politicians I have voted for. If they were asked by a journalist I would slightly prefer them to say something like "no answer, we are here to discuss politics".

 

Same for me. Now if they would take on an astrologer as advisor, I would stop voting for them because advice based on astrology is worse than no advice.

 

Furthermore, voting based on issues is HARD. Politicians are well known to break campaign promises ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), so how confident can you be that what they say about the issues before the election will reflect how they will act after they get into office? Or even if they do keep their promises, there are so many issues -- candidate A may agree with you on issues 1 and 2, candidate B agrees with you on issues 3 and 4 -- how do you decide which ones should take precedence?

 

By deciding what issues are most important for me? And that are issues that affect me + what I think is good for the country. And that's economic and social issues, not religious ones.

[matmat]

By deciding what issues are most important for me? And that are issues that affect me + what I think is good for the country. And that's economic and social issues, not religious ones.

unless, of course, one believes that religion is a key issue for the country, which I think some do.

[Codo]

I have no clue what the religious belief is of any of the politicians I have voted for. If they were asked by a journalist I would slightly prefer them to say something like "no answer, we are here to discuss politics". However if they had professed to believe in God or the flying spaghetti monster or whatever it would not influence my decision. (Admittedly, if they professed to believe in Freud and Marx I would be less likely to vote for them).

But is neither you nor me who represent the majority of voters. :)

 

So they need to influence people with a much more narrowminded head then your open mind. Because these is the majority of the voters.

 

They better don't care about the voters who think, but about the voters who feal.

[TimG]

I have no clue what the religious belief is of any of the politicians I have voted for.

You are fortunate to live in a place where religion and politics do not go hand-in-hand. Here in the US, anyone who pays any attention to politics has no choice but to know the religions of the candidates.

 

Than again, I do believe that a person's religion says something about the man (or woman) and can be an indication of how he will comport himself when in office and how he will lean on some issues, so I'm not really sure why we would want to be in the dark.

[PassedOut]

I have no clue what the religious belief is of any of the politicians I have voted for.

You are fortunate to live in a place where religion and politics do not go hand-in-hand. Here in the US, anyone who pays any attention to politics has no choice but to know the religions of the candidates.

 

Than again, I do believe that a person's religion says something about the man (or woman) and can be an indication of how he will comport himself when in office and how he will lean on some issues, so I'm not really sure why we would want to be in the dark.

The problem is that to get elected all politicians in the US claim to be religious whether they are or not. So I don't find claims of being religious to be much use as a predictor.