LDS, Christians, and Politics

[Lisabob 13]

I think a lot of the people who support Obama and Clinton do so, not because they are minorities of one sort or another, but because they talk a good game of actually caring about people who are not in positions of great power in our society. The issues they tend to focus on resonate with middle class and lower-middle class Americans, many of whom have felt a pretty big pinch in the last 8 years, with recessions, unemployment (at least, regionally if not nationally), changing skill sets needed in the workforce, the war (lots of kids who enlist come from poorer backgrounds - though I don't have numbers to back this up for the latest war, this is generally true of our volunteer military), the mortgage "crunch," etc.. The Dems in general tend to appeal to these folks and both Obama and Clinton have capitalized on that.

 

Furhter, a lot of people who are savvy about politics are just plain fed up with the apparent idiocy and fumbling of the Bush administration and want someone who appears to be both articulate and thoughtful, for a change. Again, Clinton and Obama fill that role nicely, whether you agree with their particular thoughts or not.

 

So I'm really uncertain that most of their supporters are behind them based on descriptive characteristics, though I'm sure there are some few who are.

 

As for the Republicans, what an unappealing bunch they are this year. Not a fresh idea among the lot as far as I can tell and not a whole lot of integrity either. And those who seem to have at least one or the other - ideas and/or integrity - have no money to campaign effectively for much longer. (McCain?)

 

Anyway, my 2 cents. Note it isn't about religion at all, at least not to my eyes.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Furhter, a lot of people who are savvy about politics are just plain fed up with the apparent idiocy and fumbling of the Bush administration and want someone who appears to be both articulate and thoughtful, for a change. Again, Clinton and Obama fill that role nicely, whether you agree with their particular thoughts or not.

[Lisabob 13]

Actually Barry, I'm inclined to agree with you here. But I do know many people who have said that they almost don't care WHO the next pres. is, as long as it is someone whom they can respect for their ability to understand complexity, respond in kind, and provide evidence of thoughtfulness on a regular basis. Not to mention that for most of us, our "dream candidate" isn't a reality and probably never will be, so we have to be willing to accept that no candidate is going to satisfy all of our wishes. For this reason I can respect certain Republicans, even though I probably wouldn't vote for them. And I hear lots of people saying similar things about Obama and Clinton too.

[evmori 11]

Hillary has no desire to satisfy any of our wishes unless they are in line with hers. Obama ain't much better! I would never vote for either!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all

[Lisabob 13]

And you think the same couldn't be said of Mitt, Mike, Rudy, and friends?

[John-in-KC 311]

Can we start a Draft Condoleeza Rice/Colin Powell movement?

[packsaddle 753]

Bush/Cheney poured Powell's personal integrity out on Iraqi sands years ago. And Powell knows it.

[TheScout 10]

So now Bush gets blamed for losing other people's integrity! Haha In never ends.

 

Let me try:

 

I think George W. Bush caused Hurricane Katrina.

[funscout 11]

Although I disagree with his politics, I do respect Obama. I am concerned, however, that he will not defend our country. He proudly admits that he voted against the war in Iraq, back when the ONLY info. we had was that Iraq had WMDs, and we all know how suspicious Sadam Hussein was, at not allowing inspectors in his country. I am worried that Obama wouldn't take our national defense seriously enough. We don't know how many attacks on America have been prevented by our going to war in Iraq. All anybody sees is the money and soldiers' lives, which, of course, is tragic, but how many more people (including CHILDREN) could have been killed over the years if our president hadn't been strong on national defense? And for anybody who brings up the kids killed in Iraq, much of that, and possibly more would have happened if we hadn't gone to war.

 

I don't have respect for Hillary. She has just done too many things over the years starting way back when Bill was running for President and she "slammed" stay at home Moms. She, of course came back with an apology when it became apparent that she was a detriment to her husband's run for the presidency. And then of course, sticking with a serial adulterer doesn't speak too highly of her. Hillary is proud of her "35" years of fighting for her causes. Well, I say if she still hasn't succeeded after 35 years, then I don't think she can do it in 4 years.

 

I haven't decided yet who I prefer on the Republican side. I like Giuliani, except for his pro-abortion stance. I haven't made up my mind about Romney and Huckabee, yet. Even though it's considered bad form for a politician to seek God's guidance in government affairs, I will definitely be doing a lot of praying so that I choose the candidate that God wants me to choose. I couldn't vote for Giuliani if his opponent were anti-abortion, but if Giuliani gets the nomination and he and his opponent are both pro-abortion, then that point is cancelled out.

[Lisabob 13]

Giuliani scares me. As an old New Yorker I know that he took a lot of liberties with, well, people's liberties. Yes, crime dropped during his rule over NYC, I grant him that. But he also presided over a city where police brutality claims went way up and the perception was, he didn't care that much. He's linked to a variety of folks under criminal indictment and they were in charge of his security apparatus (Bernard Kerrick, anyone?). Sure, he "got the job done" but at what cost? Mussolini made the trains run on time too but I'm no fan of dictatorship, no matter how "benevolent" it may be in the eyes of some. And I think G's fame nationally comes simply from him exploiting people's fears about terrorism. This is not to diminish his actions on that awful day, but there's plenty of not-so-good stuff to consider about him too is all I'm saying. And I think it is hilarious that he is trying to remake himself as a conservative Republican. Those of us who "knew him when" in NY (figuratively) find that so funny because in some regards he has always been quite liberal for a Republican.

 

About Obama's opposition to Iraq invasion early on - careful there funscout, there were shades of grey in the "evidence" back then too. They just didn't get a lot of discussion in our rather breathless rush to war. I'm not sure I'll vote for Obama yet but I don't worry about his willingness to defend us. I don't doubt that most of the candidates would defend the country if it came to that. I do doubt some of them for their ability to pursue a nuanced foreign policy as opposed to the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists... BOO!" type garbage that we've had so much of in the last few years.

[John-in-KC 311]

Bottom line to me is we got the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey clown line running for President.

 

No, wait: The RBB&B clown line would be an improvement over what we have. The problem is, you almost have to be a #### fool to want the job anymore, for the micro-parsing of your life that goes along with it. With Bill, it got to the point of mapping individual sexual indiscreations.

 

At this point, I'm not sure Jesus of Nazareth could successfully run the gambit of the US electoral cycle.

[evmori 11]

I would rather have a guy like Rudy who isn't afraid of kicking some butt when needed.

[le Voyageur 72]

The better choice for POTUS would be... http://webb.senate.gov/

but, he's not running.

 

 

[funscout 11]

LisaBob,

 

Saddam Hussein was given many, many chances, and was given warnings, so he knew what the consequences of his actions/inactions were. How many more warnings should he have been given? Unfortunately, Bill Clinton gave Osama Bin Laden "one more chance" and didn't take him as prisoner when he had the chance. After all, that would have made America look bad in the eyes of other countries. So, instead Bin Laden went on to orchestrate the nightmare of September 11, 2001. We will never know how many other terror attacks were thwarted by our going to war against Saddam Hussein. I'm glad we didn't wait around to find out.

 

Hey, I don't like war any more than anyone else, and I, too, wish it were over. But war isn't something that you can just say, you know, I really don't feel like doing this anymore. We're in it, so now we need to finish it. I must admit that I have been remiss in not praying daily for a successful end to the war. I hope many others will join me in this effort.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Lets not rewrite history. Many many many Democrats called for regeime change in Iraq and many many Democrats said there was WMD in Iraq. Lets remember what happened. Iraq invaded Kuwait. #41 put together a coalition to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Iraq was thrown out of Kuwait. Hussein never thought the world would cooperate long enough to throw him out. Swartzkopf was on his way to Baghdad when 41 brought him home. Part of the treaty that Hussein signed to keep his country was to allow the UN weapons inspectors to well inspect. He didnt live up to his side of the bargain. He did use chemical weapons on the Kurds. How many UN resolutions were there calling for Saddam to honor his committments? What were we to do? If Saddam had WMD and used them in Kuwait or elsewhere, how many people screaming for GW's head for rushing us into war would have been screaming for GW's head because he did nothing? That we never forced Saddam to honor his committment to the treaty would be unforgivable. Maybe Saddam was the king of scam. he never had the weapons, but his downfall was based on what he did, not on anyone else