[Al_U_Card]

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.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Oct 31 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

No, my point is that the economic and social policies of the Democrats would benefit the majority of the voters more, but they still voted Republican for reasons other than the issues.

Perhaps they voted Republican for reasons other than these issues; economics and social policies are not the only issues out there.

[mikeh]

Codo, on Oct 31 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

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. Bush has made it known, numerous times, that he prays in private before making major decisions... and that he believes that God speaks directly to him... in answer to these prayers. He is also famously known for being unable to admit to making any errors. Well, of course he thinks that way.. he is guided by God in all important decisions, and how can God ever steer him wrong?

I am sure that one of the most seductive aspects of religious zeal is the bestowal, on the believer, that doubt can be eliminated.. if your decision turns out disastrously for anyone, well... God has his purposes, which are not for us to question.

My reading suggests that there is at least the possibility that this type of religion holds a particular attraction for certain personality types.. essentially those who are most comfortable in a well-defined hierarchical environment. Add to this the suggestions that W has long been in conflict with his father, an alpha male in his own right but not the least bit fundamentalist in belief, and we can see how W would seek refuge from self-doubt in his born-again faith.

Of course, I may be simply babbling pop-psychology

And, I suspect that many readers might well infer, from my posts, that some atheists (me?) suffer from a similar certainty... The difference, of course, is that I'm right......

Back to the OP: I recall reading a survey about factors that might dissuade a US voter from voting for an otherwise well qualified candidate. I seem to recall that more people said they would refuse to vote for an atheist than for a homosexual.. and, given how gays apparently are still seen by many people as sick or evil, that suggests that the US is a long, long way from being a secular state.

[pclayton]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 31 2008, 08:23 AM, said:

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

History will (already has) judged Reagan to be a solid President.

"43" will likely be judged as the worst ever.

"41" I doubt will make anyone's best or worst list.

[matmat]

TimG, on Oct 31 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

Perhaps they voted Republican for reasons other than these issues; economics and social policies are not the only issues out there.

what else is there?

[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]

ASkolnick, on Oct 31 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

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]

Gerben42, on Oct 31 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

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]

ASkolnick, on Oct 31 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

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]

TimG, on Oct 31 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Oct 31 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

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]

cherdano, on Oct 31 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 31 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Oct 31 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

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]

cherdano, on Oct 31 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 31 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Oct 31 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

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]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 31 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

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]

mikeh, on Nov 1 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

Codo, on Oct 31 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

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]

kenberg, on Oct 31 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Nov 1 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

Quote

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?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 2 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Nov 1 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 31 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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.