Who would you vote for?

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 16:05

Quote:
You'd be throwing your vote away! Kang is the clear winner.

But this was my *one* chance to vote my conscience!

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 16:14

Yeah, if only we had a Bartlett to vote for. SIGH.

And regarding the Sheen/Bartlett thing... You've gotta watch his "Inside the Actor's Studio" appearance. There's a suprising amount of Sheen in Bartlett. I don't think Sheen knows enough about politics to be president, but all the bits where Bartlett shares trivia with his staff, and the Latin/Catholic quotations, that's all pure Sheen injected into the show.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 16:16

Quote:
several years of increasing disappointment as nation realises that the man cannot live up to his image and the promises made.

And this is different from most of our real presidents... how?

Posted by: mdavey

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 16:58

Quote:
And this is different from most of our real presidents... how?

Exactly! Actually, I'd like to see Tony Blair standing for president. That would be good for the US and the UK, and probably one of the better scenarios for the rest of the world. Just need you guys to tweak your constitution

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 18:44

just need you guys to tweak your constitution

....but if we tweaked our Constitution, the next *real* scenario would be Schwartzenegger....which might still be an improvement over our *actual* current choices....

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 19:57

Quote:
....but if we tweaked our Constitution, the next *real* scenario would be Schwartzenegger....which might still be an improvement over our *actual* current choices....

"I'm not a war president, but I play one on TV . . ."

Posted by: furtive

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 20:03

LOL! I wasn't logged into the forum when I tried to vote and got told:

"Only registered users that are logged in are allowed to vote"

Posted by: Laura

Re: Who would you vote for? - 25/10/2004 20:11

Jed! Jed! Jed!

Posted by: drakino

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 00:37

Was rather confused on the 4th choice, since I never have watched West Wing. But in that thought pattern...

Posted by: grgcombs

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 00:43

Or how about this?

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 01:37

Quote:
Or how about this?

Peter Griffin

I guess we could move to Petoria for a start.

"I was gonna call it Peterland, but that Gay bar down by the airport already took it."

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 02:19

Quote:
If this were the Presidential ballot, for whom would you vote?

This BBS often hears laments about its left-wing bias, but I am *very* interested to see (even allowing for the limitations of a self-selecting BBS poll) 19 votes for Bush. Fully 37 percent of votes cast -- not anywhere so lop-sided as minority complaints and posts from the BBS right might suggest.

I can't help but wonder if some of those closet Tories from Cambridge have been stuffing this ballot box!

Jeff and a very few others are willing to stick their neck out to the right on the BBS, but that leaves maybe 14-15 other voters unheard from. Yes, given the prevailing (accepted) wisdom regarding the left-wing BBS tilt, I am surprised to see Bush polling at nearly 40 percent and wonder why we don't hear more about his merits on the BBS. I am curious about that and how the BBS came to be perceived the way it has..

So, I have a few questions for any willing Bush voters.....(Feel free to cherry pick!)

1) Blue-state liberal folks (and BBSers) are sometimes derided as uppity, snobby, effete intellectuals who just can't appreciate that Bush is beloved precisely because he's a "regular guy". In light of this "snobs-versus-regular-guy" phenomenon, what do you make of the influence of Leo Strauss on key members of the administration and do you perceive any contradiction between Bush's "regular-guy" reputation and Straussian philosophy?

2) Four years later, how do you feel about the presidential election of 2000 as compared to what you felt about it at the time?

3) If you are voting for Bush, is it safe to assume that you support his conduct with respect to Iraq? If so, can you state a detailed case (needs to say more than "Saddam was a bad guy") as to why the preemptive war in Iraq was a good idea?

4) If John Kerry wins, what bad things do you predict will happen that you are pretty certain will *not* occur if Bush is elected? The definition of "bad" is left completely up to you.

5) What do you think that bulge was?

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 08:27

Greetings!

I had not voted in that poll yet, but I am one of those "undecided" folks that will wait until the last minute (last few days, anyway) before deciding. I have seen the debates and been back-and-forth as to who to vote for. (No, I do not need any supporting info about any candidates - I can find that data on my own... Thanks, though...

)

1) I do not see it as "snob vs. regular guy". I see it as a choice between two people I don't trust, a third that will never win but that I do not think is qualified given today's "geopolitical instability" and not voting. My only hope is that the people that control / help / advise the person who gets in will have a clue, and that the winner is smart enough to accept that help.

2) Four years later. I voted for Nader then, not liking either major candidate. Disgust and horror at the judicial struggles, dismay at people not being smart enough to read / understand a ballot (sorry - "I didn't realize who I voted for" does not work well for me), hanging chads (punch cards?!?!). It is just another symptom of even greater problems in "the system". Still, it is the best system we have right now and it takes a lot of time and work to improve it. I like to think that is happening, no matter how slowly progress seems to be made.

3) I do not think the war was a good idea, looking back on it. But at the same time, I do not know what intelligence, wrong or right, was in the hands of the president and congress at the time. From that perspective, it may have been the right thing. However it began, we are where we are - at war on many fronts and in many ways. Personally, I do not think it was as much oil driving the decisions to push in Iraq. I personally think it was more a matter of finishing what Daddy started...

4) Bad things will happen no matter which candidate is elected. The person in office is held accountable and is considered a scapegoat for anything that happens, better or worse. These policies can be decades in the making (economic, political, educational, etc.) before any results are seen. So, yes, bad things will happen.

5) Bulge... If it was a gun, I would smile at the president carrying a concealed weapon and be horrified at the thought of him playing with a loaded firearm. But, then, his guards would probably not give him a loaded weapon anyway... If it was a radio feeding him answers, I would be surprised by the intelligence of those behind the scenes and glad that they were at least trying to coach their candidate into giving a good answer.

I wish I could put together my own ticket and have it be placed on the ballot... Who would you (collectively) really WANT in office? No fair choosing fictional characters. Real politicians (oxymoron) only please. I think a Powell / McCain ticket might be a real winner...

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 12:56

Quote:
Reponses from a Bush voter:

Thanks for your reply. Some of my questions were/are obvious "soapbox"/setup questions. You could have cherry picked but did not.

I am not sure your thoughts are as atypical as you may think.

Employment calls...

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 14:19

"I'm not a war president, but I play one on TV . . ."

Hey!... It worked for Reagan and he wasn't as pretty or as tough. It seems to be all about appearance, not substance, these days.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 14:39

Responses from another Bush voter:

1) Unfortunately, as a comp sci major, I didn’t get any poli sci courses, so I know only a very little about Straussian philosophy. I suppose if I was well-informed enough, that shouldn’t be an issue. I seem to recall that it hearkens back to the great philosophers for political influence. Not knowing who the key members of the administration are that would be influenced by Straussianism (although I would suspect Dick Cheney if I had to pick one), it becomes difficult to answer the question. I do think that you have picked up on the dissonance between the “regular-guy” persona and the ideal of the collective wisdom of the early philosophers. Bush certainly does not represent the philosopher type, and seems content to leave that in the realm of those who advise him. I don’t necessarily believe that makes him a puppet of the Straussians, as many seem to imply. I do believe that he makes his own agenda. However, I do think that he recognizes either the wisdom or the influence of some Straussian devotees and surrounds himself with these people to make use of their wisdom and influence. I’m sure there are many that would disagree with that.

2) Pretty much the same. Still thankful that we don’t have President Gore. (I know…lazy answer)

3) I agree with Redrum, I think he made the best decision that he could at the time with the intelligence that he had. Hindsight being 20/20, it was probably the wrong choice, but it was the best decision at the time. Now that we’re in the mess, I think he’s got a better grasp on what needs to be done to finish the job. It’s pretty naïve of Kerry to think that all sorts of countries are going to join a coalition and jump into the conflict just because they’re more politically aligned with him than Bush.

I realize that you will probably be disappointed with this answer because it still does not satisfy why we needed a pre-emptive war, but I won’t pretend that I’m informed enough to make judgement when a president, his advisors and staff, and congress all seemed to think it was justified at the time.

4) I don’t necessarily think homeland security would suffer as much under Kerry as the Bush camp is trying to scare everyone into believing. I do think that he would push for a significantly more socialistic government and that to me is “bad”. He would also tax the “wealthy” more. I’m not currently in that group (or anywhere close), but I like to think that someday I could be. If I were, I would not want the government to take a significantly larger portion of the earnings I worked so hard for. I would be giving a significant portion of my income to social and religious causes anyway, and I think I can best decide where my money should go. To be honest, there’s not a whole lot of Kerry’s ideas that I do agree with. I guess I support his desire to balance the budget, and I will fully support that should he be elected president. I don’t think it will be possible to do while keeping the promises he’s made, however, without significantly raising taxes. I’m not entirely opposed to raising taxes, if that’s what it takes, but I do think that we should try to recover the deficit by shrinking or streamlining government before resorting to a tax increase. I don’t think either candidate will do a good job there. I’ve worked with enough government agencies to see the waste and inefficiency that most of them operate under compared to a profit-based business. I think that when it comes to issues that are moral issues to me, he would vote the opposite way that I believe and that would be “bad.” I could ramble on for a while…but I’m sure you get the gist.

5) Probably coiled his “trouser snake” in a different spot that day so as not to make Kerry feel bad

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 14:42

That may be the longest post I've ever made. Usually I just wait for Jeff and then say, "Yeah, me too."

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 14:59

"This BBS often hears laments about its left-wing bias, but I am *very* interested to see(even allowing for the limitations of a self-selecting BBS poll) 19 votes for Bush. fully 37% of votes cast--not anywhere so lopsided as minority complaints and posts from the BBS right might suggest."

I was also surprised, having spent the last month reading old posts, and the point is valid even if you have to figure that the folks who voted for Bartlett will likely vote for Kerry if only in desperation--this is very much an "anybody but Bush..." election. It is also part of the rhetoric of the right to suggest that anything that doesn't agree with their world-view is liberal left-wing bias without any acknowledgement of the amount of conservative right wing (increasingly media-driven) bias.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 15:01

Quote:
He would also tax the “wealthy” more. I’m not currently in that group (or anywhere close), but I like to think that someday I could be. If I were, I would not want the government to take a significantly larger portion of the earnings I worked so hard for. I would be giving a significant portion of my income to social and religious causes anyway, and I think I can best decide where my money should go.

Me too!

OK, to be different - "Like he said!"

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 15:07

Quote:
That may be the longest post I've ever made. Usually I just wait for Jeff and then say, "Yeah, me too

Every Batman needs his Robin.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 15:24

Quote:
Usually I just wait for Jeff and then say, "Yeah, me too."

I'm glad you expounded in more detail this time. I have to agree with most of what you've said here, and I think you it put much differently than I would have. Or to say it differently: "Yeah, me too."

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 16:42

Quote:
I was also surprised, having spent the last month reading old posts, and the point is valid even if you have to figure that the folks who voted for Bartlett will likely vote for Kerry if only in desperation--this is very much an "anybody but Bush..." election. It is also part of the rhetoric of the right to suggest that anything that doesn't agree with their world-view is liberal left-wing bias without any acknowledgement of the amount of conservative right wing (increasingly media-driven) bias.

hmm, I think you're taking the observation too far here. While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush, I still think the opinions found throughout the life of the BBS show a definite leaning toward the left. I'm not saying this is bad, but the history of our discussion is replete with dominant left-wing opinions. I've never personally been offended by this, nor have I even asserted that it’s a problem. I know what I'm getting into whenever I post here, as does everyone else for the most part. It may be (as I think Jim was implying) that those with liberal tendencies are more vocal than the conservatives here, but the result is that our discussions have a decidedly left-wing focus.

I also think, however, that there is a simple reason for a left-wing leaning on a board founded for the sake of a cutting edge mp3 player. I just about any gathering of technologically savvy people, which this clearly is (though not all of us fit that mold, it is dominant), is going to have a tendency to move toward the left. Technology implies forward thinking, and the left is, by definition, about changing and moving forward (though we conservatives tend to believe this thinking isn’t really “forward” when it’s taken as far as the left does). But truth be told, as conservative as I am in this context, in “Real Life” I’m both more technically savvy and more liberal than most of my friends. I’d dare guess this is probably true for a lot of the conservatives on this board.

One thing I’d like to point out that has impressed me here is that while there does seem to be a "liberal bent", no one seems to feel the need to stuff themselves into a pigeonhole and remain there. Sometimes very surprising opinions come from people unexpectedly, and there are clear instances in which those on opposite “sides” have agreed (markedly different than the presidential candidates, who will NEVER agree on anything- I’m sure if one said the sky was blue the other would come up with some way of asserting how his view is different and superior). It's refreshing to know you're having a conversation with a thinking person rather than a machine that compiles the question, lines it up against a set of stone ideologies, and spits out an answer (Perhaps "Tony the bot" notwithstanding

- just kidding, of course. Tony is as flexible as the rest!).

As far as right/left wing media bias, I'm afraid that the media panders to whatever is popular at the moment. So whenever the media panders to "the other side", the bias decried by the side it is “against”. A good example I see is NBC on Wednesday nights. You see the West Wing and think that NBC has a liberal bias. Then you get Law and Order, which thought it has had many characters with different bias through its long run, it now has a VERY strong conservative personality in the character of the head DA. NBC doesn't care about left or right wing; they just want us all to watch their dramas.

Incidentally, have you heard that the West Wing is considering a GOP president to fill Bartlett's shoes? I don't know if it’d be out of an attempt to be artistically credible or simply a product of more pandering, but I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 16:53

Quote:
I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?

For me, West Wing was all about the writing and not about the politics. The last season almost lost me for a while, but it really got pulled together in the last couple episodes, and this season's opener was just brilliant. So if they can keep up this quality of writing, they could have a fascist anarchist in the the office and I'd watch it.

And by the way, you've never seen me try to touch my toes. It's not a pretty sight.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 17:01

Quote:
And by the way, you've never seen me try to touch my toes. It's not a pretty sight.

Ah, I knew it! You ARE a bot!

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 17:15

No, just not very... Flexible.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 21:57

Quote:
While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush, I still think the opinions found throughout the life of the BBS how a definite leaning toward the left.

Entirely possible; as I'm a newbie, and with all the tangents the leady me off on, I've only read about 3000 of them so far...a mere drop in the bucket. BTW, did you read the Christian response on the 'bushforkerry' site, and if so, what was your reaction to that?

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 26/10/2004 22:53

Quote:
BTW, did you read the Christian response on the 'bushforkerry' site, and if so, what was your reaction to that?
I hadn't, but I just did. I suppose the easiest thing to do is respond point by point. But before I do, please remember I’m not a huge Bush fan. I just think he’s the better of two poor choices.

Now, from the web page:
Quote:
I'm voting for John Kerry because I'm a Christian. I know that my second cousin, George Bush, claims that he is the anointed leader of the American people and that God told him to run for office. I believe he may even believe that. I don't.
While it is true Bush claims this, the context also should be understood. Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval, right down to going to the store to buy bread. Now certainly a wrong choice, like cutting someone off in traffic, is not what God asked for, but a Christian who is making a positive decision he or she thinks is the right one believes that this is something that God wants. Sometimes they find out later they were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the original feeling that “God ordained it.” In Bush’s case, certainly if he’s running for the highest office in the land he’s only doing it if he believes it’s what God wants him to do. The language he’s used (that I’ve heard) is entirely consistent with this, and many Christians I know would not interpret the things Bush has said the way this person has, nor do I believe Bush meant it the way she is taking it. However, I do understand the reaction.

Quote:
My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the poor and the marginalized, yet Bush's actions in office have repeatedly cut funding for health care, aid to failing schools, jobs programs . . .
I understand this completely, and I think it’s a tough call what the government’s responsibility is toward the poor and marginalized. I think that it’s a bad idea for the government to be heavily involved and that caring for the poor and marginalized should be a personal responsibility, but that’s easy to say in my comfortable house typing away on one of my many computers. Reasoning it all out logically, I know the government can’t be responsible for everything, otherwise we’ll have communism which always breaks down into corruption. So the only real question is where to draw the line. I draw it further toward personal responsibility than this lady does, but I realize I might be wrong. In the end, though, it’s not a question of Christian belief, it’s a question of what economics best meet that belief. She and I want the same things, but we disagree about how to get there.

Quote:
My Christian faith tells me the peacemakers are the blessed ones, yet George Bush wants to resurrect the Crusades . . .
I think this is over-the-top and just plain wrong. There may be lots of allegations about why Bush went into Iraq (she seems to think it’s about oil), but only the worst conspiracy theories compete with the horror of the crusades.

Quote:
[Jesus] was talking about liberating his OWN people from within, not invading an oil-rich country out of purely selfish motives, then claiming it was for the liberation of others.
If she’s right about his motives, well then she’s right. But I don’t think so. I truly think he believed (as did most of the nation, Congress, and Kerry) that attacking Iraq was the best way to ensure long term peace.

Quote:
My Christian faith moves toward greater inclusiveness and acceptance, George Bush moves toward punishment, division, and exclusion.
This is just a general statement, and could be attributed to a lot of things so it’s hard to argue. In any case, it’s oversimplified from my perspective. Jesus was exclusive toward some people (the Pharisees, for example), but he was certainly inclusive toward those who wanted to follow Him.

Quote:
My Christian faith seeks to bring people into the circle of decision-making, George Bush seeks to keep them out. My Christian faith seeks to afford equal rights and responsibilities to all, George Bush seeks to reserve more rights for the privileged few.
Once again, very general statements that I can’t really respond to. I don’t know who she believes is the “privileged few”. If it’s that those who have the most money get to spend the most money, I don’t see that as being un-Christian (I don’t see it as being Christian either- just economics).

Quote:
My Christian faith is not looking for a new Messiah named George Bush.
Once again, she’s pushing Bush’s words pretty far. He never claimed this; rather I think he’d be ashamed to even think it.

In the end, I think that though she and I may both be Christians, we are coming from very different places. Some of it (the economics) is religiously neutral and we just happened to differ. In other places, we seem to differ in our interpretations of events or how much benefit of the doubt we give Bush. Finally, there are also some clear theological differences that yield different worldviews.

Whew! Sid that answer your question!

Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 04:00

Quote:
I was also surprised, having spent the last month reading old posts, and the point is valid even if you have to figure that the folks who voted for Bartlett will likely vote for Kerry if only in desperation--this is very much an "anybody but Bush..." election. It is also part of the rhetoric of the right to suggest that anything that doesn't eagree with their world-view is liberal left-wing bias without the observation too far here. While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush,

I'd say that you, Brad, and JBjorgen, being frequent posters in this kind of discussion, do a fair job of balancing that out, but overall, you're probably right, and especially are correct about the reasons. techies tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum.

Quote:
while there does seem to be a "liberal bent", no one seems to feel the need to stuff themselves into a pigeonhole and remain there. Sometimes very surprising opinions come from people unexpectedly, and there are clear instances in which those on opposite “sides” have agreed...
It's refreshing to know you're having a conversation with a thinking person rather than a machine that compiles the question, lines it up against a set of stone ideologies,

It IS refreshing, and it IS because people on this board are clearly smart enough to think for themselves. Things have gotten so polarized that some of us are meeting in the middle. I've just been discussing long-distance, (with my co-ex-wife of 33 years; that's how liberal I am...) the scarey fact that we've found ourselves agreeing with Pat Buchanan lately, at least fiscally.

Quote:
As far as right/left wing media bias, I'm afraid that the media panders to whatever is popular at the moment.

Good point; our media have become so biased in one direction or the other that I now get most of my news on the net, from boards, blogs and other English-speaking newspapers around the world rather than bother sorting out the biases here...although of course everybody's got some degree of it, with enough different views one may arrive at an approximation...

Quote:
Incidentally, have you heard that the West Wing is considering a GOP president to fill Bartlett's shoes? I don't know if it’d be out of an attempt to be artistically credible or simply a product of more pandering, but I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?

I'm not a television watcher, although I'vve seen "West Wing" with friends and enjoyed it; but I'd suspect they'd have to build a whole new viewer base, because while some, like Tony, would watch it just for the writing, many others would find the politics unpalatable..but then, the other half of the country might well fill that void...frightening how divided we've become.

Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 05:16

Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval

And there, Jeff, you have put your finger on exactly why George Bush frightens me so much.

Here we have a man who engages in actions that I (and many others) consider to be irrational and at odds with reality -- a man who can convince not only himself but the sycophantic yes-men that surround him that whatever he wants to do is not just OK, but ordered and ordained by God, and anybody who disagrees is just an atheistic, unpatriotic, commie pinko degenerate intent on the destruction of....

OK. Close eyes. Take a deep breath. om mani padme hum...

I feel better now. In case there was any doubt, I am not a Bush supporter.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Cybjorg
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 10:23

Quote:
Jesus was exclusive toward some people (the Pharisees, for example), but he was certainly inclusive toward those who wanted to follow Him.

[off_topic_clarification] Actually, Jesus was inclusive towards everyone, including the Pharisees (i.e. Nicodemas). It's just that most were/are exclusive towards him. [/off_topic_clarification]

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 12:04

Quote:
[off_topic_clarification] Actually, Jesus was inclusive towards everyone, including the Pharisees (i.e. Nicodemas). It's just that most were/are eclusive towards him. [/off_topic_clarification]

[finer_theologlical_point]
I suppose this depends on what you mean by "inclusive". From my view, if Jesus were truly inclusive of everyone then he'd have forced those who didn't believe to follow him anyway, being God and all. However, he did not do that, and instead allowed people to reject him. It may sound silly to classify this as exclusion, but with the way Jesus is often charactarized today as being accepting of every behavior and belief is not consistent with how He is portrayed in the bible. Those who rejected him and his admonishment of their sin received did not forgiveness, but harsh criticism instead.
[/finer_theological_point]

That being said, I appreciate your point and the clarification that Jesus responded to people and their hearts, not their titles, positions, or classes.

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 12:28

Quote:
Here we have a man who engages in actions that I (and many others) consider to be irrational and at odds with reality
Everyone draws their sense of what is a proper action based on something. For Bush that might be what he believes God wants. If you don’t believe that God is talking to Bush or inspiring him somehow, I can understand why this would scare you to death. For me it is exactly the opposite. The idea of someone running the country and ignoring the One who created it all and sustains our very existence is frightening. In the end, this is a polarizing belief, and a point on which there really can’t be resolution.

Quote:
and anybody who disagrees is just an atheistic, unpatriotic, commie pinko degenerate intent on the destruction of....
And see, this is where I think the understanding of Bush's statement has gone too far.

Both candidates seem to have the "if you're not for me, You're against me" kind of attitude, but when it comes to Bush specifically, I don't think this is coming from his belief that God wants Him to be president. When most Christians I know and respect say that they believe God wants them do something, they are not meaning it to say that to be against them is to be against God; they are saying that they are doing their best to serve their Creator and that they want you to know it’s their primary desire to follow God.

Of course, you can argue that Bush is not like “most Christians I know and respect”, and I’ll grant you that might be a possibility. You can’t get that, however, from only the statement that he believes God wants him in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 13:01

Quote:
Everyone draws their sense of what is a proper action based on something.

Very true, and I can understand (what I consider) misassigning attribution of a personal choice as God's will, but that's not the problem.

Consider, if you will, biblical literalists. Their point in defending the notion that the universe was created in exactly six days seems to be that if the Bible is wrong in that point, then who knows what else the Bible might be wrong about. (IMO, this is taking the easy way out to avoid having to come to an independent conclusion, but that's a story for another time.) If they have that attitude about the Bible, and they legitimately believe that God's telling them what to do, then where does retrospect and correction come from? There are many possible outs even for people who believe this sort of thing (I misunderstood, Satan was tricking me, etc.), but it's easy to see a culture of avoidance of responsibility and dismission of faults. I believe that this may be where GWB is coming from. (I don't retract my previous statements about his faith being ingenuine, but he's a good mimic, as his accent shows.) It seems obvious to most of us that, at best, Iraq was invaded on false pretenses. (Whether or not they were intentionally false is a different question.) Yet Bush claims that he wouldn't change a thing -- apparently not even how to represent the attack.

Back in the early 60s, Kennedy OK'd the Bay of Pigs invasion/uprising, potentially as big a pitfall as the invasion of Iraq. But Kennedy publically admitted his mistake, and that showed a lot of character and introspection, despite the fact that it was a terrible, terrible, fisaco. Trying to imagine GWB offering the same sort of contrition for the invasion of Iraq is hard at best. And I don't believe that you'll ever see that sort of thing come from him. We all make mistakes, and the best of us own up to them. He does not, which leaves him well outside the camp of "best".

Posted by: Cybjorg
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 13:04

I define inclusive as "allowing access without bias." This doesn't necessarily take into consideration the issue of free will. The access was there, just without coercion.

Quote:
...but with the way Jesus is often charactarized today as being accepting of every behavior and belief is not consistent with how He is portrayed in the bible.

You are correct, sir.

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 13:23

Quote:
I define inclusive as "allowing access without bias." This doesn't necessarily take into consideration the issue of free will. The access was there, just without coercion.
Ok, I'll conceed the point on the language. Your definition makes more sense than mine. Conceptually, it appears to me that we are in voilent agreement (as I think we both acknowledged fromt he outset).

Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 17:11

Quote:
Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval

Quote:
And there, Jeff, you have put your finger on exactly why George Bush frightens me so much

It's what appears to be a Messianic complex, especially coupled with Bush's well-documented aversion to disagreement or even facts, that scares most of us.

There is a fine line between faith and delusion in such a person (not that I mean to equate them, generally). Also, as with many others, I find Bush's actions, as compared to his rhetoric, antithetical to the understanding of Christianity I was taught.

Posted by: Laura
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 18:57

I usually stay out of political debates since I don't vote and haven't for many years (I would vote if I felt anyone running had some integrity left to hold an office but I have given up hope on that and got tired of voting for the lesser of two evils) but I saw something today that totally disgusted me and pissed me off and makes me wish that I could vote so I could vote against Bush.

I was driving around today and saw two large trucks with signs on them saying "Kerry, Edwards. A bloody team for a bloody America." with very large pictures of aborted fetuses. I found it to be totally uncalled for and sickening and if Bush supports those kinds of tactics then he would never ever get my vote. I won't go into the pros or cons of abortion (which I am for) but crap, why doesn't he send trucks out with pictures of people being blown up and beheaded and shot during his war and say "This is the kind of bloody leader I am."

Politics is not about the issues anymore, it's about who can smear who and none of them deserve any votes for running campaigns that way.

Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 19:07

It's THAT kind of thing that really is evil, not just "the lessor of two" (I agree, BTW, I've been voting against, rather than for, ever since I was old enough to vote; quite a while ago), and it's that kind of tactics that STRONGLY impels me to vote this time...no one's stopping you, either.

Posted by: Laura
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 19:53

The fact that I am no longer registered is

Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 21:03

The fact that I am no longer registered is

Is it too late to register? It has been so many years (decades, actually) since I registered, I have no idea of the timeframes involved.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: morrisdl
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 21:34

it differs state to state (bizzare). Link here: web page

Posted by: Laura
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 21:48

October 2 was the last date for me.

Posted by: Daria
Re: Who would you vote for? - 27/10/2004 22:55

Same here. Luckily I'm registered.

Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 00:28

Quote:
Same here. Luckily I'm registered.

October 2 here in WA. Taking the bus downtown tomorrow to (paradox alert!) vote absentee in person, just to make sure I am still on the rolls.

Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 02:28

Quote:
Is it too late to register?
...shouldn't be, unless you've moved since you last registered; otherwise, I think you're retained until/unless you register elsewhere, but it shouldn't be too hard to check...the Knowles/Murkowski race was on NPR this morning as if the fate of the nation hung on the outcome---I wish!

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 10:54

Quote:
if Bush supports those kinds of tactics then he would never ever get my vote.
FWIW, I doubt seriously Bush would support that bumper sticker or those tactics. While I'm against abortion myself, I agree that such a sticker is offensive and inappropriate, to put it mildly.

However, Kerry supporters have also done such offensive things as well. In our city some people have been putting swastikas on other people’s front yard Bush or republican signs. What a sickening feeling that must be to wake up and find a symbol of such evil displayed in your front yard. Yet as gross as this is, it’s not something I think anyone can blame Kerry for.

Having said all of that, I think both candidates have run pretty dirty campaigns, even if not to the level of the examples above. Or like you said:
Quote:
Politics is not about the issues anymore, it's about who can smear who

Posted by: Laura
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 11:30

If it had been bumper sticker size that is one thing, but this was almost billboard size. I agree that any campaign is run rather dirty these days.

Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 12:17

Quote:
What a sickening feeling that must be to wake up and find a symbol of such evil displayed in your front yard.

Are you implying that these homeowners didn't know that the Bush placards were being placed in their lawns?

Posted by: JeffS
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 12:36

Quote:
Are you implying that these homeowners didn't know that the Bush placards were being placed in their lawns?
LOL! Step RIGHT into that one, didn't I.

Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 13:16

Quote:
October 2 was the last date for me.

Laura, it may not be too late to make a difference. I stumbled upon this blog that mentioned an outfit called Women Really Against Bush Investing in Democracy and their plan for an October surprise only in November.

Roughly, the plan is: unregistered women hang out in front of polling places in selected precincts and engage hunky men who approach. They had a few snips from a role-playing guide:

Him: "Hi, are you here to vote for George W. Bush and stop the terrorrists?"

You: "Why of course! But hey...you wanna grab some lunch first?"

You can fill in the rest. Later that evening.....

Him: "Gosh! The polls are almost closed! I need to go right now and vote for George W. Bush and stop the terrorrists!"

You: "Awwww. Do you have to go right nowwww? Can't those dumb terrorists wait just a teensy-weensy bit?"

The role-playing guide had a few other scenarios, but this was the one that seemed most promising.

Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 15:27

Quote:

Where is the link for that one? i wanna join if there's a geriatric chapter....there's the whole baby boom to work on!

Posted by: Laura
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 22:30

Quote:
You: "Why of course! But hey...you wanna grab some lunch first?"

You can fill in the rest. Later that evening.....

I'm against Bush and all but I don't know that I want to have to screw some strange guy all afternoon just to keep him from voting

Anyway, I have to work.

Posted by: tfabris
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 22:33

I just caught the acronym for "Women Really Against Bush Investing in Democracy". Heh.

That whole thing you just said is a joke, right Jim?

Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 23:46

Quote:
I'm against Bush and all but I don't know that I want to have to screw some strange guy all afternoon just to keep him from voting

Why never in life! I don't think the role-playing guide suggested that....just that you keep the potential voter, well, ....interested!

Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Who would you vote for? - 28/10/2004 23:48

Quote:
That whole thing you just said is a joke, right Jim?

Dang, I lost that URL....but let me Google a bit and I am *sure* I can turn it up.

Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Who would you vote for? - 30/10/2004 20:43

Thanks again for your frank responses. I meant to respond more fully a while back but didn't get to it. I see Bush is still polling ~37%

Quote:
Reponses from a Bush voter:

1) You must be an effete intellectual to dig that deep . I never really thought of liberals that way. The imagine of a tree hugging hippie always flashes in my head when I hear liberal. I don’t care how Bush, Kerry or Leo Strauss comes across. I’m voting for Bush because I agree with his stance on the majority of the major issues at hand. That basically sums up why I am voting for him.

My queston about Strauss was a soapbox question. The left are criticized as effete elete academic intellectuals, but Straussian influence shows me that this is not just the province of the Left. Strauss also propounded a near-mystic "esoteric" politcal philosophy that is about as elitist as they come and which institutionalizes the notion of "all things are not what they seem" in a way that lets smarmy neocons like Cheney pull out BS like "We have information the (9/11) Commission doesn't have." Liar. So the next time you are thinking about those snooty liberals, cut 'em a little slack, eh?

Quote:
2) I felt that since it was so close maybe my vote does count. The inevitable screw-ups of the voting process will really come to light when it is close. I’m sure issues like Florida occur in every election you just do hear as much about them when it’s a landslide.

It amazed me that some people thought the outcome was a great triumph when (I think) we all should have been scared out of our wits. Four years later, after knee-jerk Diebold-style reactions to a huge problem, we could be in for a repeat. Our electoral history is chock-full of cases of fraud, but I see the 2000 Florida fiasco as the most frightening.

Quote:
3) I’m not a big fan of the war now or then. I supported his decision to go to war because this is a republic; we elected him to make these decisions and with the evidence at hand (although it was wrong) I can see why he made that decision. Plus we needed the practice and the warranty on many of the bombs was running out .

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the evidence at hand wasn't on his side.

Quote:
4) Bad – More and higher taxes, more money for welfare thus less people willing to work, worsening economy, a weaker stance in the world (Korea will probably step up aggression), more gun control laws, a lot of nothing getting accomplished and more governmental gridlock.

The fascination with armament in this country amazes me. FWIW, I don't think you have much to fear from the ever-pragmatic Dems WRT gun control!

On the tax break side of things, I can understand Identifying with the super-rich. But I have spent my last 4 lunch breaks sitting on a curb waiting for a limo to rull by and for some mysterious billionaire to throw a few mill at me, but it ain't working!

Quote:
5) I think it was his coat label but really don’t care if someone was giving him his words. A president for the most part is just a puppet anyway. Besides, I will concede that Kerry is a better speaker but that does not make him a good leader.

Maybe you didn't really mean this. Maybe this was posted by someone *impersonating* you! No offense, but I find your answer pretty depressing. Hey, I asked, right?

Quote:
I’m sure these attitudes do not represent the majority of Bush voters.

I'm not so sure. I'm still looking for other plausible explanations for that bulge.

Who would you vote for?