Politics as cult

[jrubyaz]

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.

I hear a lot of dissatisfaction with the two choices we have, and I think someone with a great message and backing could have gone pretty far this year.

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..obviously there will come a time when we might vote for that candidate in even numbers to win.

Jeff Ruby 

I

How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

It's one of the most damaging aspects of how our electoral system functions. There are simply too many people who are just clueless about how politics actually work, and who'll throw their votes away on candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader to effective vote for that which they oppose the most.

[Layman Randy]

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.

I hear a lot of dissatisfaction with the two choices we have, and I think someone with a great message and backing could have gone pretty far this year.

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..obviously there will come a time when we might vote for that candidate in even numbers to win.

Jeff Ruby 

I

How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

It's one of the most damaging aspects of how our electoral system functions. There are simply too many people who are just clueless about how politics actually work, and who'll throw their votes away on candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader to effective vote for that which they oppose the most.

Of course its not a wasted vote.  If a third-party candidate can be seen to be on one side of the political "middle" between two main party candidates, votes for him/her will help the candidate on the opposite side of the divide.  Now, as to a competitive "third party", since pundits have already declared the death of the Republican party via this election, the bigger worry might be a "one party" country.  This, of course, was claimed after 2004 in the other direction - and look how well that prediction work out -- not!

[Lutheran_Lay_Leader]

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.

I totally would not agree. The only time that it would be a good to have a major third party candidate would be if there ever was a major third party. And my that, I mean a third party that has at least two seats in the Senate and at least ten seats in the House. And maybe a Governor or two. To my way of thinking, that would be a minimum requirement for any party to be able to call itself "major".

There's a reason why America has never had a successful "third" party campaign since 1864. The way our political system works requires compromise and deal-making. That requires some sort of leadership and organization within separate factions, and that means political parties.

If there were any "third" parties in America that weren't either jokes or a means for someone to boost their value as a paid speaker on the lecture circuit (ie. Nader), then maybe it might be good if a candidate from that party had a shot at becoming President. But I won't hold my breath. The last thing this nation needs is for two candidates to split the votes of the majority of voters to hand the election to the candidate favored by the minority of the voters.

However, I could be convinced to favor a system of multiple candidates going through a series of elimination votes, similar to the ecclesiastical ballots the ELCA uses to select Bishops.

[Keith Falk]

sorry, I can't resist this one... at the moment, the latest member of the ALPB Online Forum has "Son of Man" as the screen name... we have moved from "Politics as cult" to "ALPB as cult" 

Where's a moderator when you need one?   

[Richard Johnson]

I'm leaving that one to Peter. Wouldn't presume to judge the Son of Man. 

[racin_jason]

Last night at dinner, my six year old daughter announced that Obama shouldn't be president because he makes women kill babies in their stomachs.  We send our kids to a private Chistian school and like it there very much. My wife and I have been fine not explaining what abortion is to our kids at this stage in life, though we are pro-life. Apparently another parent in my daughter's class thought otherwise, and the news shot through the first grade class very quickly.

This wasn't shocking, since there is only one candate of choice at the school, even the african american family in my son's class supports McCain. But we've had to explain to our kids that we don't go around the church where daddy is a pastor saying that Obama is a bad person. 

Our church is a polling place, and this morning, one of the (Baptist) election officials was speaking with me in the kitchen (as I raided their cookie supply) about the election.  She asked if I thought Obama might be the anti-Christ. She wondered if Christ's return was soon to come. 

Sure Glen, there are some who cast Obama in a messianic light. He is the latest in a long line of candidates that have promised to lead America into the promised land.  As with about every previous president, if elected he will leave his office under less heralding and pagentry than he received when he was a candidate. That is the nature of presidencies (as well as most pastorale calls).

The more one dislikes Obama, the more troubling s/he will find the messianic light he is cast in to be.

But let's make no mistake about it: there is plenty of demonizing of Obama going on as well. And in my case, If Obama is elected, I have to figure out a way to convey to my daughter that we as Christians pray for our president, even though we disagree with him on mamas killing babies in their stomachs. This kind of nuance is lost on most first graders. We will have to wait and see about how some adults might be in handling this.   

[Richard Johnson]

Kind of surprised that none of you cult-watchers out there have seen the sinister implications of President-elect Obama offering the chief of staff job to Rep. Emanuel . . .   

[Harvey_Mozolak]

funny, well that's not the word, one of my grade school kids came up with almost the exact same phrase in weekday church school tonight as he was telling another kid about the election... almost sounds like like some kind of stock line for kids... and there is a sadness to that in addition to whatever we might think of abortions...  what I mean is that another kid I know came home with this line, if O. is elected in Ohio he will change the state buckeye to an acorn... and the funny thing about that line is that the grade school kid had no idea what acorn was beyond a tree seed... are we making our children carry our griefs and sorrows before they have the wisdom to do so???  Just think not only of the ugliness of abortion as sin but the ugliness of saying "he makes women kill babies."   One may deal with the Fifth cmmandment, the other the eighth.   The right has to have higher standards than the wrong.    Harvey Mozolak

Last night at dinner, my six year old daughter announced that Obama shouldn't be president because in their stomachs.  (end quote)

[anonymous]

This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day!

[TravisW]

This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day!

Did Jerry Jenkins help him write that?

[jrubyaz]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   

This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day!

[peter_speckhard]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   

But anyone who worries about keeping the power of the SCOTUS in check is just a nut case, because after all, what are the odds they would go on a power trip, ignore the constitution, and allow a massive slaughter in violation of all basic human rights? Given that the presidents directly prior to and following GW Bush support taxpayer funded abortions at home and abroad, the concern about terrorists not being read their rights is, well, nice, I guess. Sort of like concern for the hangnail victim in triage.

[jrubyaz]

Peter,

All valid points.   However, you forgot one thing. The SCOTUS that allowed Roe V. Wade was much more liberal than the current court, which is a conservative majority. If a conservative majority finds that a President of like mind on social agendas  has violated the constitution, then it must be pretty serious. Indeed, he appointed two of them, if I am not mistaken. 

I also don't think that violation of the law on one hand allows violation of law on the other. You can argue that   Roe V Wade is wrong, a mis-interprteation of the law, or reading into the Constitution something that is not there. You can certainly argue it is unconstitutional or  usurping of powers. However, it is the law of the land. 

 However, that does not mean on another legal issue the Court should rule in ignorance of the Constitution. You argument would hold more water if this was the Warren court or a more liberal court. Then you could say it was all politics.  But a conservative court taking a conservative President to task is something interesting.

   It is is difficult for me to see how you can argue a conservative majority is correct  on most issues but on basic rights like habeas corpus it is somehow wrong.  There  are reasons for majority and dissenting opinions. In this case the majority found a violation of law in these decisions and the administration lost.




Jeff Ruby

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   

But anyone who worries about keeping the power of the SCOTUS in check is just a nut case, because after all, what are the odds they would go on a power trip, ignore the constitution, and allow a massive slaughter in violation of all basic human rights? Given that the presidents directly prior to and following GW Bush support taxpayer funded abortions at home and abroad, the concern about terrorists not being read their rights is, well, nice, I guess. Sort of like concern for the hangnail victim in triage.

[Steven Tibbetts]

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..

A week ago Sunday, I finally decided that, as much as I like Gov. Palin, as an Illinois elector, my vote for John McCain would be wasted.  So, I voted for Bob Barr, as that would increase the likelihood of Illinois Libertarians qualifying for the 2010 ballot.

As for whether or not 3rd party votes are a waste, take a look at the platforms of the Populist Party from the 1880s and '90s, or the Socialist Party platform from Mr. Debs' era. 

Looking for a Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, or John Quincy Adams,
Steven+

[Michael_Rothaar]

I finally decided that, as much as I like Gov. Palin, as an Illinois elector, my vote for John McCain would be wasted.  So, I voted for Bob Barr, as that would increase the likelihood of Illinois Libertarians qualifying for the 2010 ballot.

You too? So how many votes did Barr get? (The Trib's so trimmed down and graphics-heavy now that if they published the actual total election results I missed it. Certified vote totals don't seem to be available on the Election Commission site.)