Politics and Early Primaries

[unclerichiejr]

I just had to express someplace my feelings on the early presidential primaries in Iowa and South Carolina. I kinda believe religion is a personal private thing and should not be played to as a source of votes and support. If the first primary was in Utah, sorry to say that Mormon candidates would come out on top. If held in Maryland, CAtholics would win, etc, etc. The Evangelical movement is a small religious sector that we find candidates now kissing up to to win these meaningless first votes in small states that should not represent our country. It really bothers me that the power of religion is showing in our important choice of a president. I think the keys should be the larger states holding primaries on the same day to get a better cross sectional representation. Look at some of the winners- they will not have national appeal outside their small suporter network. Thanks for reading.

[kats]

kats hesitates... fearing stepping into a huge debate. Religion and politics are always controversial - with lots of contentious debate potential... now mix the two together and it could be nearly as hard as deciding on a pipe of the year for the whole group. It seems everyone has opinions that are right (but mine are always more righter than yours - of course)... but here goes..

religion is a personal private thing and should not be played to as a source of votes and support.

Yes very personal and private, but I'm not afraid to share my beliefs if asked... and I hope that my beliefs shape and color me as a person - and to the people that know and interact with me they will notice a difference from "normal" in how I think, behave, respond to situations, etc.. I think I have a right to know where a presidential candidate stands in relationship to my beliefs (religious, political, social, or other...) - and the more near a match to my prioritized beliefs, that candidate will get my full support.

The Evangelical movement is a small religious sector that we find candidates now kissing up to to win these meaningless first votes in small states that should not represent our country.

Small? ... Kissing up? ... Meaningless votes?... Small states don't really matter and larger states are somehow more representative of "the people"?... I disagree! Are you suggesting that I should not vote in an important race with my moral and ethical (religious) world view in mind?

Isn't the whole political race/run for office about seeking support and a source of votes from like minded people?


Opinions are like armpits and a$$ holes... everybody's got 'em --- and they all stink.

[unclerichiejr]

K ats, that was a great reply. I fully respect your answer but the problem i have is with the ranking of one's moral and ethical views when examining a candidate. I figure that there are several key points to consider beyond religious/ ethical points. I really feel it is more important to judge a person on his positions on issues of government, economy, etc, etc. What really frightens me is that folks with very conservative religious views make that a main issue with candidate or make it a knock out factor for those with opposing views- for example abortion to name one that stirs a lot of debate. When i say small states, i mean states that are fairly homogenious and do not really have people of different views like say California,Florida, Pennsylvania. I think Oregon has that kind of mix- It should never be selecting which candidate is closest to your moral views- that is how one selects a churcxh or a new minister. So these guys go into Iowa and try to prove who is the most religious etc for a mostly white one main view religious electorate of 6 electoral votes. In the process other candidates get cast aside. A Jew or Catholic or Muslim would never come out of there in a good position. Because of TV they can no longer say stuff like how important famm subsidies are- or more support for corn- like they used to before nationwide coverage. States that do not have broad spectrum of voters and ideas- even if i agree with them should not have this power. A super Tuesday approach makes more sense in my opinion and to heck with Iowa or Newhampshire gettng this power and attention.

[ewlewis]

I beleive the states set up their own caucus dates and Iowa purposely places theirs first. We could bump others back and they would just see our bump and raise. if a candidate is worth their salt I son't beleive the Iowa caucus will break them, if it does then they probably would never have survived their opponents attacks.

[kats]

I think we are much more in agreement now that I think I understand better what you were saying in your first post... Still....

the problem i have is with the ranking of one's moral and ethical views when examining a candidate. I figure that there are several key points to consider beyond religious/ ethical points. I really feel it is more important to judge a person on his positions on issues of government, economy, etc, etc. What really frightens me is that folks with very conservative religious views make that a main issue with candidate or make it a knock out factor for those with opposing views- for example abortion to name one that stirs a lot of debate.

I'm one of those... social/political/religious conservative, pro-life, NRA supporting, anti-gay/trans/bi.., pro man/woman marriage, tithing regular church attending 'prayer', pro-business, tea party, small government, small taxes, in favor of local control, pro utilize and care for the environment, anti-Prius V-8 SUV driving, EDIT : how could I have left off of my list of descriptors - PRO-MILITARY (thanks veterans for your service!), etc....voter! I think all that puts me somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. There are many hot button / litmus tests that I apply to a candidate and sometimes even one of them is enough for me to disqualify a candidate. I can not help but to allow my religious beliefs to color my world view and affect how I respond to the world around me! It all affects my voting record completely. To do any less would completely invalidate my religious beliefs and make me completely duplicitous.

[acaciavet]

Anbody except Obama.That being said I would have a tought time Voting Backman.Las election I voted for nader becuase non of the above was not an option.
Up Spirits
Chuck

[kats]

Las election I voted for nader

How'd that work for you Chuck? Us on the more conservative side of the aisle need to find more common ground than disagreement--- so we don't get four more years of "change".

[Add]

I'm British, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.

What do US T&Pers think of Ron Paul?

[gnossos]

Oof been looking over old posts and now it's me who bumps this

I think figures like Ron Paul are important in American politics because they force us to consider things we may not want to. They bring in their own ideology which is very different from what generally floats in the long-term here - despite raising lots of money and winning straw polls. They force the "mainstream" candidates to discuss issues they otherwise wouldn't (so long as they're allowed into the debate). And yes, sometimes they steal votes from candidates and cause upsets.

I think figures like this are an important part in attempting to keep the process honest. Leading figures have had to drop out of races faced with what candidates like Paul have said, sometimes because it has become clear they never really put much thought into their pitch (to quote Rick Perry: "oops"). Whether or not you agree with them (and I usually don't), having someone with a strong ideology helps and makes the process better. It helps - to a degree at least - to weed out the pure panderers who consider our American process the equivalent of a high school public speaking project.

[Slickheadhunter]

I think we are much more in agreement now that I think I understand better what you were saying in your first post... Still....

the problem i have is with the ranking of one's moral and ethical views when examining a candidate. I figure that there are several key points to consider beyond religious/ ethical points. I really feel it is more important to judge a person on his positions on issues of government, economy, etc, etc. What really frightens me is that folks with very conservative religious views make that a main issue with candidate or make it a knock out factor for those with opposing views- for example abortion to name one that stirs a lot of debate.

I'm one of those... social/political/religious conservative, pro-life, NRA supporting, anti-gay/trans/bi.., pro man/woman marriage, tithing regular church attending 'prayer', pro-business, tea party, small government, small taxes, in favor of local control, pro utilize and care for the environment, anti-Prius V-8 SUV driving, EDIT : how could I have left off of my list of descriptors - PRO-MILITARY (thanks veterans for your service!), etc....voter! I think all that puts me somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. There are many hot button / litmus tests that I apply to a candidate and sometimes even one of them is enough for me to disqualify a candidate. I can not help but to allow my religious beliefs to color my world view and affect how I respond to the world around me! It all affects my voting record completely. To do any less would completely invalidate my religious beliefs and make me completely duplicitous.

That just about sums me up to a tee!

[kdj70]

I'm with Kats and Slick !

[kats]

I'm with Kats and Slick !

That just about sums me up to a tee!

I've got some company in the MINORITY. Four more years of "Hope and Change"

[highstump]

I'm with Kats and Slick !

You guys got room for me in that boat?