Monday, February 18, 2008
"Sometimes, irony can be pretty ironic" — Buck Murdock
Does it strike anyone else as particularly ironic that Hillary!® finds herself fighting for her political life against a candidate who is long on style, image and rhetoric, and (to be charitable) short on substance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I've got a different view of things, watching as I am from Canuckia, but it amuses me that she may be ousted by someone with even less to say than she has.
His voting "present" was, well, an interesting addition to the debates.
Still not as priceless as todays news about the speech he so obviously lifted from some other guy. ("Just words" was the body of the speech)
That said, since we live in your shadow, here in Canada, I shudder to think what awaits us in the coming years, come what may.
I would have laughed at the notion of anyone being the demonicratic nominee other than Mrs. Bill Clinton, boy was I way off.
But it doesn't really strike me as ironic because the media is more infatuated with Obama becoming President than with Mrs. Bill Clinton. Substance is completely irrelevant (as long as you're pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-war on terrorism and anti-Bush, etc. etc. etc.) as far as the media is concerned.
I have yet a different opinion than the two previous posters. Since I teach American Politics I have to check out each candidate and what they have to say, usually because it is inevitable that some student will shout out a question in class and I must be prepared to answer it.
Regarding the three candidates remaining, Obama has the most detailed information about his plans or programs on his website. Billary and McCain have very little of substance to say about anything. But none of that really matters because it is all about PERCEPTION, not REALITY.
The truth of the matter is this, the media is not a person it is a collection of disparate organizations with employees. As such "the media" doesn't give a rat's behind who wins this election or who the nominees in either party are. All it cares about is selling newspaper advertising space , television commercials, radio airtime, etc....
Come on, he has lots of substance.
Poverty - he's against it.
Health Care - He's for it.
What more substance do you need?
And change? Where does he stand on change? And hope?
Or as my wife says, he's against Hilarie - how bad can he be?
Wisconsin is a cross over state - no requirement to vote in your party. Alot of republicans are going to vote Obama. In the primary
Wellsir, I don't know how tactically smart that is. It's uncertain to me that McLame has any chance whatever; but I think he has more chance against Hillary! than against B. Hussein Obama.
This year we have a 'first-time voter' in our family (who also happens to be a relatively new US citizen!) who is trying to sift through all the smoke-screens and mirrors. It certainly has kept us on our toes as we try to teach her how to navigate the media and political campaigns!
djp
I didnt say it was smart
But you can argue with my wife and mother in law. I'm not.
I am voting for Fred
long...short
I've been sort of chuckling about that one too but at least Obama hasn't busted out a sax yet.
OK, to address your post Dan, ridiculous. All it takes is to look at Senator Obama's site and know where he stands on issues and his plan for America. Far more information than any other candidate has put out. Really, just look. Here it is... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Secondly, is it your view that a Christian can not vote for a Democrat and still be considered Christian? Or suspect at best? I am interested to know because that is the impression that I get from you and some of the other posters here.
God Bless,
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Ricky,
You are correct in stating that Sen. Obama has provided the most information of the three major candidates remaining. See my previous post on that.
Ricky says:
is it your view that a Christian can not vote for a Democrat and still be considered Christian? Or suspect at best?
Yeah, that's the perception I get from this blog and those who post here as well. They are the guardians of ultimate truth and any who disagree are borderline Christians at best. As Christians we ought to be able to rise above the level of ignorance that is often displayed by the world, not repeat it. It seems it is much easier to demonize those whom we disagree with than to dissect their views and engage in fact based discussions. Apparently it is a phenomenon that has swept America and, sadly, many Christians have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
In my own church on Sunday I was talking to a father and he said something about how Obama being a muslim scared the heck out of him. Wonder where he picked up that lie?
My wife also met a woman who said Obama refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag...another lie. Talk about a war on truth...it seems Christians are often times the one waging that war.
Anyway, for the record, I've investigated Obama's past because my students asked and I'm convinced he is a genuine Christian with different views than mine, not heretical, and certainly not worthy of being demonized. Disagree with him, yes I do, but respect his views I also do.
Ricky, Rob:
Has Dan said that if you vote for so-and-so, you're not a Christian? Has he said anywhere that he speaks for all Christians? He's not a Dobson, Falwell, or Robertson who's disseminating his views to an audience of millions. This is his personal blog, and he's entitled to his personal views, although they may be caustic at times.
That said, I'm a Canadian and a conservative; at this point, I would probably be supporting Huckabee, if I had a right and an inclination to have a say in the process. (Dan isn't keen on Huckabee, however.)
Anyhow, I presume that we can all agree—regardless of our personal point of view—that as Christians choosing someone who will hold civil office over both Christians and non-Christians, we should seek someone (whoever it may be) who carries out his (or her) task with a sense of accountability to God and deference to the counsels of Scripture; and with wisdom, justice, and fairness to all citizens, both Christians and non-Christians.
Stefan,
Has Dan said that if you vote for so-and-so, you're not a Christian?
No, thankfully he is smart enough not to make such a statement.
This is his personal blog, and he's entitled to his personal views, although they may be caustic at times.
I do not begrudge anyone their personal views. Keep in mind, however, that he has chosen to post them in a public place and opened those views up for discussion. If one is willing to post his/her views in a public place one should at least take the time to get their facts straight and not parrot the talking points of his/her preferred political party.
that as Christians choosing someone who will hold civil office over both Christians and non-Christians, we should seek someone (whoever it may be) who carries out his (or her) task with a sense of accountability to God and deference to the counsels of Scripture; and with wisdom, justice, and fairness to all citizens, both Christians and non-Christians.
Well, that would eliminate most members of the GOP and Hillary Clinton. Maybe you'll get your wish for an Obama-Huckabee faceoff!
The Huckabee-Obama reference was from a previous edit of my comment, but yes, that would be a good match-up, and would probably make for some interesting debates between the two candidates.
Not that alternative choices are that great, but it does my heart good to see Hillary get a little comeuppance.
Ricky,
You wrote: "Secondly, is it your view that a Christian can not vote for a Democrat and still be considered Christian? Or suspect at best? I am interested to know because that is the impression that I get from you and some of the other posters here."
Well, let me answer for those "others" you are talking about but I will say this, I can definitely say that's not Dan's view.
As for my view, your description is not mine also. I would say there are two possible reasons why a genuine believer could vote for a democrat (and by democrat I mean a traditional democrat like an Obama, Clinton or Kerry), not a non-traditional democrat like, say, a Bob Casey (the senior Casey who died, not his son who is the Senator in PA who can't hold a candle to his father). I think those democrats are extinct.
The first reason is you have a new babe in Christ. You'll remember the man that Christ began healing the blind man and Jesus asked him what he saw, and the blind man replied that he saw people but that they looked like trees. So, Jesus, subsequently, fully restored his sight. That is true for conversion. When the Lord saves people, He saves them out of their sin, doctrinally and morally, and that is a process. All Christians start out with bad morality and bad doctrine and that bad doctrine and morality affects every part of their lives including their mind and thinking - which includes their politics.
The second reason is that they have bad stewardship. I would actually go further and say it is egregious sinful stewardship. Our stewardship includes our money, time and in this republic our vote. So, you could have someone voting for a democrat out of pure ignorance. They are just not taking the time to think through what the candidate will do in office. You could also have a Christian vote for a democrat out of hatred and anger. This happened in 2004 and 2006. Some Christians voted for Kerry in 2004 because they hated Bush on the war on terror. A lot of Republicans either stayed home in 2006 or voted out good Republicans like Santorum because of a protest vote. I'm all for voting out bad Republicans, but not voting out good ones which is what happened in a lot of states and districts. Genuine Christians out of hatred voted out the wrong candidates and voted in the wrong candidates.
Other motives for voting for a democrat could be pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, you name it. But you get the point. So, no one is saying you can't be a Christian if you vote for a democrat, but at the same time, you'll get no stamp of approval from me if you vote for one, either.
Carlos,
I never said that was yours or Dan's view, I said that was the impression that I got from your comments. However, according to you, I am either ignorant, a young Christian, am a bad steward, prideful, arrogant, or self-righteous, or simply angry. Those are your views. And at best you will view my salvation as questionable at best, since you won't give me a stamp of approval because I am voting for Obama. And you wonder why I got the impression you viewed people that vote Democrat as non-Christians. Because according to you, there is no way that I could have looked at the issues, as a Christian, and come to the conclusion that Barack Obama would make the best President out of the group. Unless I had one of the ulterior motives you ascribed earlier. After having this discussion on both Cent and Dan's blogs this week, I have come to a conclusion. My conscience will be clear when I vote, I hope yours is too. I will vote for I will, you vote for who you will, and in the end, God's Will will be done. And I am happy with that.
Ricky, first, to your question: "is it your view that a Christian can not vote for a Democrat and still be considered Christian? Or suspect at best? I am interested to know because that is the impression that I get from you and some of the other posters here."
I'm sorry if I've been in any way unclear.
Christians can do all sorts of idiotic things. They can lie, they can drink too much, they can go to lame churches and waste their time in playtime activities instead of pursuing God's priorities. Sad but true, Christians can be absolute fools.
So yes, Christians can vote Democratic and still be Christians. They can embrace the only one of the two political parties where their distinctive values as Christians are never welcome, are openly vilified and mocked and targeted for elimination. They can stand with the open and brazen mockers of God, enemies of God's values; the party that, if it had its way, would erase distinctively Christian involvement from the public square altogether. The party of abortion, the party of totalitarianism, the party of moral chaos, the party of theft and corruption and immorality, the party of opposition to the values on which our nation was founded.
And they can even vote for the candidate who is more virulently pro-babykilling even than Hillary Clinton: B. Hussein Obama, the man in an empty suit, hollow pastiche of empty rhetoric and Messianic delusions. And, with him, they can empower the sort of "leadership" that will disgrace our nation in the eyes of the world, make us vulnerable as a country, and barter off the rights and freedoms of individual Christians — except to the degree that those few statesmen with a clue have the brains and guts to stand in their way.
And those statesmen will be mostly, or (since the party sold its soul to keep Bill Clinton in office, solely) Republicans.
So, yes, a Christian can vote Democratic and still be a Christian.
Of course, "can" and "should" are not synonyms. In this case, they are antonyms.
Hope that clears things up. Thanks for asking.
Now, two final words.
Ricky you keep laying down as a trump-card that you will do this foolish thing "with a clear conscience." You say that as if it exonerates the act. It does not. It is a sad comment on the state of your conscience, but says nothing about the act. I know for a fact that here and at other sites brothers have patiently explained to you why and how your contemplated action is foolish and wrong. You turn a deaf ear (very pleasantly), and play the conscience-card.
I voted foolishly, too: Jimmy Carter. But then I grew up a bit. And I was, as Carlo set out above, young and foolish and uneducated. I had not had the benefits you have, of brothers explaining to me what a foolish vote that was. My conscience, too, was clear — and dumb as a box of hair. Unlike yours, however, no one had tried to inform it.
Last word: as of late, this site has played host to some advanced cases of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). No more. You've got a thousand places you can call home, where you can indulge your personal issues: Democratic Underground, Daily KOS, CNN, Pravda, Al Jazeera, whatever. Not here. It's a blog, it's my blog, it's not a forum.
I don't think Bush was perfect. He was not conservative enough. But he attempted some remarkable things, thwarted by the treacherous Dems and compromised Republicans in Congress: reform SS, develop energy from Alaska, etc. His basic idea in adapting to today's terrorist threat was exactly right, as the Dems agreed when it served their interests. The world is safer without terrorist-enabler, WMD-user (remember?) Saddam Hussein in power, Iraq has their destiny in their hands as never before, the region has some hope for stabilization.
And he did some great things: tax cuts, Constitutional judges such as the Dems would never, NEVER appoint, not funding the exploitation of human embryos, and more.
Once he's out of power, history will judge him favorably -- as it has Reagan, once he was out of power, once he was dead.
One more thing: an attentive reader will notice that I haven't actually said much in favor of the GOP. There's a reason for that.
I think the GOP is the worst political party there is.
Except for the other one.
With that, comments on this thread are closed, and I encourage those who are repelled by my non-Bush/America-hating comment policy to read elsewhere, if they find this setting uncongenial.
Post a Comment