posted
I read the recent WW column. I discussed this subject recently with my dad. We both attend an AG (evangelical) church. He said he would not hold mormonism against a good candidate for political office, but he did know some people, like my grandad, who might. I certainly would not. My best friend and favorite author are both mormons. Most mormons are a tribute to their faith. At one time I worried about theological differences, though of late I recognize that even if mormonism teaches some strange (imo, of course) doctrines, it also inculcates many of the the values that are badly needed in America, and there are a great many ideologies which are doesn't raise the same suspicion but are in fact much more dangerous. I suspect, and hope, that more evangelical Christians agree with Hugh Hewitt and myself than Orson Scott Card suspects.
One nitpick with this quote, though:
quote: Think about that. If Mitt Romney is elected President, and he does what the Mormon Church tells him to do, we'll have peace and freedom around the world...
I think you give the president too much credit for efficacy in ending war and spreading freedom (which don't often happen simulteaneously anyway).
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: I read the recent WW column. I discussed this subject recently with my dad. We both attend an AG (evangelical) church. He said he would not hold mormonism against a good candidate for political office, but he did know some people, like my grandad, who might. I certainly would not. My best friend and favorite author are both mormons. Most mormons are a tribute to their faith. At one time I worried about theological differences, though of late I recognize that even if mormonism teaches some strange (imo, of course) doctrines, it also inculcates many of the the values that are badly needed in America, and there are a great many ideologies which are doesn't raise the same suspicion but are in fact much more dangerous. I suspect, and hope, that more evangelical Christians agree with Hugh Hewitt and myself than Orson Scott Card suspects.
I think the problem is going to lie with the people that don't know ANYTHING about Mormons. Which really seems to be the vast majority of non-Mormons. All they hear is negative propaganda, whether true or not. There is something about the religion that really does anger people, and I'm not sure what it is. Is the story about Joseph Smith really that much more far-fetched then a burning talking bush, or as OSC pointed out a wafer physically transforming into flesh?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the story about Joseph Smith really that much more far-fetched then a burning talking bush, or as OSC pointed out a wafer physically transforming into flesh?
No, not really. Once you've accepted wackiness into your heart, the degree of wacky is really sort of irrelevant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I really don't think that's appropriate, productive, or in keeping with this site's TOS.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom ... the only real difference between those things is that one of them happened in the "modern era", and the other two are ancient and therefore easier to accept.
Also it's a lot easier to accept a prophet named "Moses" than one named "Smith".
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the story about Joseph Smith really that much more far-fetched then a burning talking bush, or as OSC pointed out a wafer physically transforming into flesh?
quote:Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist
This sounds a lot like what you said, but "substance" means something very, very different:
quote:"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
When at his Last Supper Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, in accordance with what Jesus said, the underlying reality was changed: the "substance" of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist.
The bread is changed into Jesus' body, but, because Jesus, risen from the dead, is living, not only his body is present, but Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity. The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.
In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.
Edit: I think this was OSC's point - he was giving examples of un-nuanced popular views of beliefs held by various groups.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the story about Joseph Smith really that much more far-fetched then a burning talking bush, or as OSC pointed out a wafer physically transforming into flesh?
No, not really. Once you've accepted wackiness into your heart, the degree of wacky is really sort of irrelevant.
posted
I think the major question in all this is: How much, many, or kind of "wacky" is worthy of marginalization? The second important question to this is: Who gets to define "wacky"?
For athiests it is anyone who believes in religion. For religionists it is anyone who doesn't believe in "my" form of religion. That is what I get from all the discussions.
The answer to the second question seems to be each individual or group as they see fit. I don't see a problem with this other than the fact those same seem to marginalize and behave as if it is more than their opinion, but somehow a truth that must be acted upon.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That's not exactly true, either, Stephan.
Tom believes in being good to other people, which is also a major part of many religions.
It is in the eye of beholder, that much is true. Countless many would find it wacky that he can believe in being good to people without a spiritual reason to do so.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That's not exactly true, either, Stephan.
Tom believes in being good to other people, which is also a major part of many religions.
It is in the eye of beholder, that much is true. Countless many would find it wacky that he can believe in being good to people without a spiritual reason to do so.
And I would be scared of people who can't be good without a spiritual reason.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's point made me think about a favorite passage in the Bible (1st Corinthians 2):
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Of course, anyone can claim that their "wacky" beliefs are beyond comprehension or discernment of a critic in this way, but soon the discussion becomes--"is not" "is too" "is not" "is too"...what else can you point to?
It takes a LOT of work (at lest for me) to sift through the seen and the unseen and try to identify and hold to what is real, regardless of who or how many find it wacky. I wrestle with it every day, and sometimes think it would be easier to just dismiss it all and be done with the unseen. Something inside me keeps bringing me back. You can call it what you want, and I wouldn't blame you for your assumptions, but I know my self pretty well, and have experimented much with various degrees of being true to that self to discover what that means, and so far on the journey I have accepted an amount of "wackiness" and have been willing to take on the challenge of continual self analysis (for the lack of a better term) and willingness to test the unseen and not dismiss it out of hand.
My experience is not meant as a critique on someone else who has gone a different direction. I am not qualified to judge if anyone has earnestly and honestly analyzed his/her own self and been true. It is hard enough to do it myself, but I have grown much through the process.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Stephan: "Every belief is wacky to non-believers." Responded to by Scott R with this: "That's not exactly true, either, Stephan. Tom believes in being good to other people, which is also a major part of many religions."
Scott R, you miss the point of Stephan's statement. He wasn't saying Tom's beliefs are wacky, per se. He was saying, to someone who believes that being good to other people is wacky, someone who believes in being good to others is a wacko.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmm...Stephan didn't contradict me, so I'm going to assume I didn't misinterpret his statement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, I really don't think that's appropriate, productive, or in keeping with this site's TOS.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think the fact that a certain someone gets away with saying a lot worse than this when it isn't even relevant pretty much precludes Tom's getting any trouble over this one. It's just an opinion, I guess.
Edit: I guess I should point out, in case anyone didn't catch on, that I'm not referring to anyone who has posted in this thread so far.
quote:I think the major question in all this is: How much, many, or kind of "wacky" is worthy of marginalization? The second important question to this is: Who gets to define "wacky"?
There certainly comes a point where such decisions have to be made. I wouldn't have any trouble voting for a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or (why not?) a Zoroastrian, though I am none of those things. As long as they aren't fundamentalists, I don't have a problem with adherents of those religions.
But what about someone who honestly believed that he himself was the Second Coming of Christ, and that it was imperative for the salvation of the universe that he become president so he can lead his flock to the Kingdom of God through a thousand-year holy war against the heathens of Belgium? Religious man, or wacko?
Of course we can't just go around marginalizing everyone who doesn't believe the same things we do, but one must be willing and able to draw the line now and then.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the story about Joseph Smith really that much more far-fetched then a burning talking bush, or as OSC pointed out a wafer physically transforming into flesh?
No, not really. Once you've accepted wackiness into your heart, the degree of wacky is really sort of irrelevant.
It depends on who is promoting the wackiness, imo, and the character of said wackiness promoter.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my concern, that said candidate believes in his/her heart, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that salvation/the end times/Rapture/whatever will come about when certain conditions are met. I'm concerned that the president would attempt to actually accomplish these things and that attempting to do so would frame our conflicts into an "our god vs your god" situation where compromise and diplomacy become impossible.
I have no idea how Mr. Romney would govern or how much his beliefs would guide his foreign policy but I think it bears investigation as do the foreign policy opinions of every candidate, if you can actually drag them out of them.
And for what it's worth, I appreciated "The Mormon Church believes that abortion should be far less available than it is..." instead of mentions of bans, although I would prefer to work to make it less desirable and less needed, rather than less available. But reducing the number is an excellent compromise position that many pro-life and pro-choice people can agree on.
However, "...and that marriage, as recognized by government, should be exclusively between a man and a woman." Prolly gonna argue that one, but that's hardly anything new.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be accurate to say that the majority (or even a large proportion) of American presidents over the last 200+ years have been believing Christians? Have they governed negatively because of it?
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: That's my concern, that said candidate believes in his/her heart, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that salvation/the end times/Rapture/whatever will come about when certain conditions are met. I'm concerned that the president would attempt to actually accomplish these things and that attempting to do so would frame our conflicts into an "our god vs your god" situation where compromise and diplomacy become impossible.
I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. That sort of idea is very much a fringe idea in the LDS Church. I've only ever heard it coming from people who were a little bit kooky—not the kind of people who run successful businesses and save Olympic games from bankruptcy.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, you can get all that information simply by asking their policy positions. You can't get that by dragging Religion into the discussion. In fact, by actually focusing on the issues rather than arcane and personal theology, you can understand specifics rather than speculative generalities.
Too many non-religious folks have no idea how nuanced even the most fundimental theology is. Just because two people believe the same things doesn't mean they understand it the same way, even within the same religion. If you don't like religious people, fine. Don't pretend it is for any theological positions they hold (speaking politically) - as you probably don't understand how a believer accepts them anyway.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And for what it's worth, I appreciated "The Mormon Church believes that abortion should be far less available than it is..." instead of mentions of bans, although I would prefer to work to make it less desirable and less needed, rather than less available. But reducing the number is an excellent compromise position that many pro-life and pro-choice people can agree on.
However, "...and that marriage, as recognized by government, should be exclusively between a man and a woman." Prolly gonna argue that one, but that's hardly anything new.
I was going to respond with how I felt about the WW column, but this sums up, more or less, how I feel and what I would've mentioned. It was quite a shock though to find that Card, who's writing inspired me to write, was so fervent in his belief that gays negatively impacted the community. The first time I read his now infamous "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" column, I was terribly saddened. There's nothing quite like seeing your writing hero write something like that. Ah well.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to some pains to indicate I was not setting Romney aside for examination. I would look hard at any candidate, and I do.
I have no idea what Mitt Romney's beliefs are, or how he would act on them. The essay was on what difference a candidate's faith makes and whether it should make a difference at all. I gave you my only concern about the topic: a fundamentalist theist would scare the crap out of me. I have no evidence yet that Romney fits that description. Barack Obama has spoken often and publicly about his religion, and I'll be looking at that as well.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apart from Kennedy, when was the last time there was such concern over the religion of potential presidents. Is it a manifestation of the current suspicion of religion, which seems to be as much a result of overbearing fundamentalism as of any anti-religious feeling? Wikipedia has an interesting article listing presidential religious affiliations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliationsPosts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Is it a manifestation of the current suspicion of religion, which seems to be as much a result of overbearing fundamentalism as of any anti-religious feeling?
Mitt Romney's father had less negative reaction during his 1968 presidential campaign to his LDS beliefs than his son does currently, according to polls (sorry no online sourcing--I heard it on PBS News Hour and searched fruitlessly for the polls online).
Whereas most polls show Americans becoming more tolerant of different religions than they were in 1968.
So I think the current resistance to LDS beliefs in a national candidate comes more from the fundamentalists themselves than from anti-religious feelings or any backlash to the fundamentalists. Which if true is bad news for Mitt, because without a certain level of fundamentalist support, he has no hope of winning the Republican primary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone can make any kind of conclusions until at least reading some of Article VI Blog and some of what they say. They refute the idea that Romney has less of a problem among the anti-religionists than the Christian fundimentalists. One of the arguments is that the ant-LDS sentiments are deliberately stoked by the news media and anti-religionists as a backdoor to attack ALL religious people.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the current resistance to fundamentalist beliefs in a national candidate is also partly due to the very public nature of President Bush's beliefs and partly due to the recent perception of conflation of the Republican Party and the religious right.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's nothing quite like seeing your writing hero write something like that.
It's amazing that someone so intelligent, who creates compelling scenes of beauty and passion and sacrifice, who seems to understand the human condition so well could...disagree with you.
quote:There's nothing quite like seeing your writing hero write something like that.
It's amazing that someone so intelligent, who creates compelling scenes of beauty and passion and sacrifice, who seems to understand the human condition so well could...disagree with you.
Really, really disturbing, isn't it?
I can't tell if you're being sincere, or snide. Can you please clarify?
It's not me saying "He can't disagree with me," and I feel disappointed that you seem to think that's what bothers me because it seems as if you're belittling because of that. What upset me was him basically saying that a loving gay couple adds little worth to the community, and that their lovemaking should be prosecuted by law, or at least discouraged to the point that affection was kept indoors.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why does it matter that it was OSC who said it?
Because I very much looked up to him as a writer. If anyone else had said it, someone I didn't know, of course it wouldn't matter as much to me. It's because I greatly looked up to him as a writer that it affected me more. Just as a random stranger's appraisal of your looks don't matter nearly as much as what a friend or acquaintance thinks. I would have thought others had a similar experience of having someone the greatly admire or respect, and thus it would be understandable. If this isn't the case, then forgive me.
Edited to clarify that the reaction is personal and mine; it's me saying, "it matters that it's OSC not because it's OSC, but because of who he was to me specifically."
posted
Chris: While Mormons certainly look for signs of Christs second coming, the teaching that we can effect the speed with which Christ comes again is anathema at worst and simply not taught at best.
I mean honestly speaking I know of no scripture that states, "being good makes Jesus come faster." or the opposite. I know of many that say, "Nobody save God knows when Jesus is coming."
Not to mention the church actively guards discourages members from participating in fringe groups that urge people to live in bunkers or actively say that Jesus is coming any day now.
But to be fair the only foreign policy issue I could see Romney POSSIBLY letting religion influence is continuing to support Israel, but we've had that policy for decades anyway, so it should not be anything new. Well, that and that America should protect itself from foreign invaders should the need arise, but again I doubt most people disagree with that sentiment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A republican candidate can't win without relying on a significant bedrock of support from American evangelicals.
American evangelicals are more likely than not to dismiss Mormonism as a false version of Christianity, while at the same time factoring religion very significantly into their support for candidates. This cools Mitt's prospects in primaries and general elections.
I've essentially dismissed Romney from consideration, given the hurdles of religious discrimination that he would have to overcome from core Republican voter demographics. He will not be president.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal opinion is that if it came down to Romney as the Republican candidate, versus any of the Democrat candidates, the evangelicals would get over it and vote for Romney.
But in the Primaries, they'd vote for anyone else. So he probably won't get out of the Primaries, and it won't matter.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Chris: While Mormons certainly look for signs of Christs second coming, the teaching that we can effect the speed with which Christ comes again is anathema at worst and simply not taught at best."
But what's at issue (for me, anyway) is not what Mormon teachings are but what Romney himself believes. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church where hellfire, damnation, and the Second Coming were persistent sermon themes (and loud ones). While we were taught that no man shall know the day, there were certainly people in that little congregation -- small minority though they may have been -- that would have been happy to pull whatever triggers were necessary to speed the thing along. I would not fear a Baptist candidate, but I would surely fear one of the fringe believers getting in.
I'm not looking at the religion per se. I want to know about this candidate, and what he/she specifically believes. What the church officially teaches is only part of that.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: My personal opinion is that if it came down to Romney as the Republican candidate, versus any of the Democrat candidates, the evangelicals would get over it and vote for Romney.
But in the Primaries, they'd vote for anyone else. So he probably won't get out of the Primaries, and it won't matter.
I don't think that's a safe assumption. A lot of them probably just won't vote at all. If they really don't want to vote for him based on religious grounds, then they'll either vote for nobody, or maybe even vote for a religious Democrat (though highly unlikely).
Things like this tend to suppress voter turnout, but it really might not hurt him in the end. Most any Republican has the bible belt secured anyway, he has to worry about battleground states. Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania. If he can win those on the issues, it doesn't much matter if the hardcore evangelicals come out or not.
PA, MI, and OH leaned hard left in 2006. I think any Republican is in trouble.
Regardless, I won't vote for Romney, not because he's a Mormon, or even because he's a Republican, but because I don't like enough of his positions, and I like his opponents far more. Also I think he's a bit smug over the way he handled the supposed "Hillary and Obama spat" a couple weeks ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My personal opinion is that if it came down to Romney as the Republican candidate, versus any of the Democrat candidates, the evangelicals would get over it and vote for Romney.
The consistant pattern for decades is that the Republican party banks on the strength of a very strong evangelical voting core, which votes for 'god's candidate.' It is made into a strict moral equasion. This element makes the voting trend very, very, very strong.
Many evangelicals would get over it and vote for Romney, but this element's strength is mostly lost in the process -- suddenly, they are voting for just another lesser evil. This alone would dampen the voting trends in the G.O.P's bedrock of support enough to make the campaign a 5% or more gimme for an average strength Democratic campaigner.
Example: Romney would have probably lost to Kerry if he had been the Republican contender in 2004. The dampening of viral support in the evangelical world would have been too insurmoutable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not convinced that Romney could swing the conservative vote even if he was Methodist, Baptist, whatever. His record is not very conservative. I suspect the current support he is receiving (financially at least), is largely due to the fact that he is Mormon.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scooter: Tom's point made me think about a favorite passage in the Bible (1st Corinthians 2):
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ...
How come that the book's own admission of its shortcoming reassures your faith? Is this "it points out its own fault, so there must be an obvious reason why the fault is not there even if it is not clear to me" kind of thing? Sorry for offtopic...
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I'm not convinced that Romney could swing the conservative vote even if he was Methodist, Baptist, whatever. His record is not very conservative. I suspect the current support he is receiving (financially at least), is largely due to the fact that he is Mormon.
You'll have to wait until the official breakdowns are released like the rest of us, but the Washington Post and CNS News both recently reported that he appears to have gotten most of his support from his business contacts. Tossing out "Oh it's all becuz Mormons are supporting him becuz he's Mormon" without seeing the actual reports/breakdowns is disingenuous at best.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scooter: Tom's point made me think about a favorite passage in the Bible (1st Corinthians 2):
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ...
How come that the book's own admission of its shortcoming reassures your faith? Is this "it points out its own fault, so there must be an obvious reason why the fault is not there even if it is not clear to me" kind of thing? Sorry for offtopic...
Could you clarify this? I do not understand your interpretation of this.
-- Link to a discussion of Romney's difficulties being a Mormon candidate. I am mostly interested in how wrong he got it. I know that what he said about Southern Baptists (that for them born-again means a specific experience) is incorrect.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Mormon Gospel according to Ken W. is a pretty good discussion of how far wrong the article is. An even better one is a closer look at individual problems with the article, and its bigoted slights.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to Mitt Romney. But the idea that the Mormon Church may be running the show or that he has some come-Apocalypse-come tendencies is laughable. I'm sorry, but it is.
He is a white-bread, corporate boardroom, middle-of-the-road, new money, conservative -- a flip-flopping CEO-type.
I have no idea if that makes him a good potential president. I do know that it hasn't made him a very good candidate as his various pr blunders have proven. I'm also quite sure that any comparisons to the sitting president are way off-base in spite of the seeming outside similarities [religious with a business background and willing to pander to the religious right]. Of course, his own camp may deny that because of the politics they are trying to play.
No, I don't know Romney. I do know corporate-type Mormons and with rare exception that are about as standard, pragmatic, conservative American as you can get -- even with the Mormonism thing. I'm not saying the Mormon issue is never a Mormon issue -- I think it could be with some candidates. But not with Romney.
I think the bigger problem with the three leading Republican candidates is that the all have personality issues. Romney is a flip-flopper who seems a bit too eager to please -- he may be a great administrator, but who knows if he is going to be a decent politician (esp. if the Democratic majority in Congress holds in the next election). McCain has sold his soul to the Bushies and also has a bit of a volatility issue. Guiliani is an inspiring leader, but appears to not be that effective of an administrator who has a problem with cronyism and a bunker mentality. Of course, I think that I'd prefer all 3 to Bush.
I'm not sure about the Democratic side yet. I don't think we know enough of the specifics about Obama. I have a knee-jerk negative response to Clinton and although she may be a great politician, I would question her ability to govern considering all the baggage she comes with. I took a liking to Edwards in 2004, but I don't really remember why. Probably because he wasn't Kerry.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
It's just an opinion, I guess.
