[hrothgar]

Interesting chart

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

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Nov 1 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

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

Quote

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]

Gerben42, on Oct 31 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

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]

Codo, on Oct 31 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Gerben42, on Nov 3 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

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]

helene_t, on Nov 3 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

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]

helene_t, on Nov 3 2008, 02:44 AM, said:

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]

TimG, on Nov 3 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 3 2008, 02:44 AM, said:

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.

[PassedOut]

In my opinion, a person's actions reveal a lot more about character than do professions of religious belief - particularly when those professions of religious belief are almost mandatory.

In that vein, here is a telling account of an act long ago by Barack Obama: Obama Helped Woman from Norway 20 Years Ago

Quote

The Norwegian newspaper VG has reported a truly amazing story about a newly-wed trying to get to Norway to be with her husband, and the stranger who helped pay an unexpected luggage surcharge. The blog “Leisha’s Random Thoughts” has translated the story.

It was 1988, and Mary Andersen was at the Miami airport checking in for a long flight to Norway to be with her husband when the airline representative informed her that she wouldn’t be able to check her luggage without paying a 100 surcharge:

When it was finally Mary’s turn, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.

-You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway , the man behind the counter said.

Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.

-I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

As tears streamed down her face, she heard a “gentle and friendly voice” behind her saying, “That’s okay, I’ll pay for her.”
Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.

-He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.

-He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary.

She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

Who was the man?

Barack Obama.

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Nov 3 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Quote

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Nov 3 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 3 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Quote

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Screw that...gimme my 103 bucks.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Nov 3 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 3 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Quote

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Both stories highlight good aspects of the subjects' character.. and I don't think that one can say that one shows more (or better) character than the other.

After all, we don't know how Obama would have reacted in McCain's situation, anymore than we know if McCain ever has or would exhibit the sort of spontaneous compassion and generosity (small tho the scale may be) that Obama showed.

Frankly, my take on McCain is that he has changed a lot in the last 8 years.. as some of the MSM (took me a while to realize this stood for MainStream Media) have noted, McCain 2000 has almost nothing in common with McCain 2008... can anyone seriously imagine that McCain 2000 would have chosen an evangelical ignoramus as a running mate had he beaten out W during the primaries back then? Heck, he was campaigning AGAINST the religious conservative side of his party, not pandering to them.

To me, his selection of Palin and some of the more reprehensible smears he endorses (the garbage about Khalidi is a classic) say more about his current character than anything he did or did not do in North Vietnam 40 years ago... and I say that from the perspective that he truly was a hero... and I am very, very happy that I never was nor ever will be in any situation remotely as difficult as his experiences as a POW.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Nov 3 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 3 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 3 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Quote

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Both stories highlight good aspects of the subjects' character.. and I don't think that one can say that one shows more (or better) character than the other.

Frankly, my take on McCain is that he has changed a lot in the last 8 years.. as some of the MSM (took me a while to realize this stood for MainStream Media) have noted, McCain 2000 has almost nothing in common with McCain 2008... can anyone seriously imagine that McCain 2000 would have chosen an evangelical ignoramus as a running mate had he beaten out W during the primaries back then? Heck, he was campaigning AGAINST the religious conservative side of his party, not pandering to them.

I think there's some truth to this, but I also think that to some extent, it's a political reality that candidates frame themselves in response to whom they're running against and what they're running for. For example, when running against Howard Dean in the 2004 primary, Kerry issued some very hawkish statements, including that anyone who didn't think regime change was needed in Iraq was unfit to be president; when running against Bush in the general election, we saw a very different Kerry.

Similarly, with respect to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I don't find it at all credible that Obama's designated "spiritual advisor," whom he'd known for 20 years, suddenly changed, or Obama suddenly learned shocking new things about him; rather, when Obama was on a local stage in a liberal venue, Wright was an asset, but on a national stage, when he needed to appeal to moderates, Wright became a liability. You could surmise that either Obama or Wright changed drastically over the last 10 or 20 years, but I think that Occam's Razor suggests political expedience.

[jonottawa]

I thought Obama was too smart/rational to believe in 'gods' and other superstitious nonsense, but if he doesn't even know when WWI ended, perhaps I'm mistaken.

I also thought that John Edwards would make the best candidate for the Dems because he'd be the most 'electable.' What a clown that guy turned out to be. Have an affair AFTER you get elected, not in the middle of the campaign.

I'm not very optimistic about an Obama presidency. He's slick. He panders well. He knows how to raise money. Can he govern? Time will tell. The alternative was too disgusting to consider voting for anyone else.

[helene_t]

matmat, on Nov 3 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 3 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

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.

Disagree. Religion can be a key issue for a country without being a key issue for the country's government. One can favor separation of church and state without dismissing religion in general.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 1 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

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.

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

Not sure what the term "born-again Christian" means, it is possible that it is an extreme cult that prevents its members from rational thinking. But more generally, it seems evident to me that religion not necessarily prevents people from rational thinking. Although I don't understand religion, and although religion (to the extent that I do understand it) seems irrational to me.

Conversely, it is quite possible to have this "invincible sense of one's own righteousness" without being religious. From my perspective, Marxist or Freudian zealotry is more dangerous than religious zealotry. Of course I might have seen it differently if I were raised in a country where religion is mixed into politics, such as Iran or USA.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 10:42 AM, said:

Conversely, it is quite possible to have this "invincible sense of one's own righteousness" without being religious. From my perspective, Marxist or Freudian zealotry is more dangerous than religious zealotry.

How true. I was involved with anti-war activities during the Vietnam war, so got to know many different kinds of leftists. The worst to deal with were those who were absolutely convinced of the correctness of their ideologies. Some called me "worse than Nixon" for taking issue with their positions and for refusing to listen to long-winded nonsense.

I think that people with "true believer" personalities are pretty much the same whether they get caught up in religion, politics, or some other cause.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

matmat, on Nov 3 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 3 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

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.

Disagree. Religion can be a key issue for a country without being a key issue for the country's government. One can favor separation of church and state without dismissing religion in general.

I think this is an easier view for the non-religious. Take premarital sex, for instance. One's religion might teach that premarital sex is immoral, so that an elected official that has this religious belief would be hard placed to support programs that make birth control available to teenagers; he would be acting immorally (in his view), or encouraging others to act immorally, if he supported such programs.

I don't think the non-religious amongst us fully comprehend how impossible it is for some to suspend their religious beliefs when it comes to government. Religion is not something that can be practiced only when convenient, but rather it is an integral part of some people's every moment.