I surport him so strongly on capital punishment. I still think he throws too many bones to the right and populists, and that he is inexperienced. I would vote for anyone from the major two parties who surported an outright and immediate ban on capital punishment, unless he were also rabidly anti-gay or anti-immigrant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What bones is he throwing the Right and such?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
That is your deciding issue?
(4 Obama threads in the top 10; yay!)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of people have single clutch issues. For some people it's abortion, or gay rights, or in this case, the death penalty.
I don't have a single one myself, there's just too many things going wrong right now to be distracted by a single issue.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"What bones is he throwing the Right and such?"
To the Right, there is his immigration policy which is basicly the Presidential policy. He has also tried to court conservative "faith-voters."
To populists, there is his immigration policy. And though I believe he is fiscaly responsible, he often talks like he is a very loose spender.
Capital punishment is my biggest American clutch issue, followed by gay marriage and immigration. For other countries, it is different. I could never surport an Israeli "hawk" for instance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You do know that the President has say in a tiny, tiny percentage of capital punishment sentences, right? There have only been 3 federal executions since 1964. He has no power to ban capital punishment in the states.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I take issue with a couple of those things Prometheus.
First of all, Republicans don't hold the deed to faith voters. There's no law that says Republicans own the faith vote, or that Democrats can't openly court it. If you ask me, it's stupid that they haven't seriously tried before. There's also nothing wrong with an openly religious Democratic candidate. Therefore, courting faith voters isn't playing to the Right, it's trying to bring people into the Left. And it's about damned time. Democrats have been afraid of religion for too long, and it's about time they've found someone comfortable with his own religious identity. McCain doesn't seem to be as comfortable as Obama is. If you want to see blatent religious pandering, look at McCain.
Second, you are aware that Congressional Republicans are far more opposed to Bush's plan for immigration that Democrats are right? He's not throwing them a bone, he's perfectly lockstep with the Democrats on that one.
Third, lots of money needs to be spent to fix a lot of our problems. I've no problem with that, so long as he cuts other places.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*curious* Why did this need a new thread?
Navel-gaze much?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *curious* Why did this need a new thread?
Obamamania strikes Hatrack, news at eleven!
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
There are "faith votes" and "faith votes." Episcopalians are not Southern Baptists. However, "faith votes" almost always refers to the most conservative Christian, generaly Protestant, votes.
Edited to add in response to second point:
That's becouse, on immigration, Congress runs from conservative to very conservative.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"*curious* Why did this need a new thread?"
so you can add to it, of course! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's also nothing wrong with an openly religious Democratic candidate.
Yes there is.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
My religion affects my vote. Or does my vote affect my religion?
I am religious in the Christian tradition, but I have few beliefs in common with televangalists and most "non-denominationals."
Do I believe in God? Yes, but not as they envision God. Do I believe in sin? Yes, but not in the way they do. Do I believe in Hell? No. Do I believe in Heaven? I don't know. Do I believe that Jesus Christ was one of the wisest men who ever lived? Yes, but I also believe that about the Buddha. Do I believe he was God? I don't know.
Edited to add:
More to the point:
Do I believe in seperation of Church and State? I don't really care much one way or the other. Do I believe in freedom of religion? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe in evolution through natural selection? Yes. Do I believe schools should ban books containing "satanic" elements? No, never. Do I believe in mandatory school prayer? No, freedom of religion should be guranteed. Do I believe prayer should be allowed in schools? Yes, freedom of religion should be guranteed. Do I believe God has ever spoken to George W. Bush? I think it is an entertaining notion.
You can doubtless see why I am uncomfortable with candidites courting evangelicals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay, other than to openly atheistic anti-religious loudmouths, there's nothing wrong with it. And faith votes are faith votes, those who put more stock in the religious fiber of their candidate than much else. They are out there, and Democrats have shied away from them. They've shied away from religion in general. If they aren't religious, that's fine, but if they ARE religious, then they shouldn't have any problem with being public about it, and with trying to capture the votes of like minded citizens.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"but if they ARE religious, then they shouldn't have any problem with being public about it, and with trying to capture the votes of like minded citizens.
John Kerry was quite openly Roman Catholic and Liberman is an Orthodox Jew.
The majority of Black Presidential hopefuls before Sen. Obama were Protestant preachers, usualy in the Progressive Baptist tradition.
I would like to see a greater diversity of religious politicians, most are Protestant with a few Roman Catholic or Jewish exceptions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Liberman is an Orthodox Jew.
Not really.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
ditto.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Um...
He claims he is and he is called that by others. That is usualy how people are classified by religion. I have no doubt that there are some Orthodox Jews and many ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not consider him to be "one of them," but there are also many Orthodox Jews who don't recognize any other branches of Judaism.
Kinnda like some Christian fundamentalimts who deny that RCs and mainline Protestants are Christian.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
He violated the Sabbath publicly.
End of discussion.
And as it happens, he does not refer to himself as Orthodox. He prefers the term "observant."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Um...
He claims he is and he is called that by others.
He does no such thing. He calls himself "observant". He absolutely does not call himself Orthodox. Which is good, because he isn't.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Don't Orthodox Jewish men have to wear yarmulkes?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They generally do, but it's a custom (albeit a strong one). Certainly not on par with keeping Shabbos or kosher.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)