Forum Package

Author Topic: General election/debates/politics thread  (Read 13946 times)

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3548
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #285 on: November 07, 2012, 07:09:59 PM »
While thirdn parties have not done well in recent years, we should not overlook the fact that two Independents were elected to the U.S. Senate in Maine and Vermont. That may be a more promising route for us who are out of patience with the two major parties.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3548
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #286 on: November 07, 2012, 07:15:58 PM »
A few weeks ago, I pulled from a BBc Worldwide poll that Pakistan was the only country where it found more favorable ratings for Romney than for Obama. Remembering that item, today I checked the English-language Pakistani newspaper Dawn for reactions there after the election.

http://dawn.com/2012/11/07/president-zardari-congratulates-obama-on-re-election/  Brief excerpt:
Pakistan is a key US ally in the “war on terror” but ties with Washington over the past two years have been fraught.

The fractious friends lurched from crisis to crisis in 2011, first over a CIA contractor who shot dead two people in the eastern city of Lahore, then over the US raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, and finally over botched air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani border guards at a checkpost at Salala.


That's background; I feel I shouldn't quote more from this short article.

Peace,
Michael

Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

Matthew Voyer STS

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #287 on: November 07, 2012, 07:34:20 PM »
While thirdn parties have not done well in recent years, we should not overlook the fact that two Independents were elected to the U.S. Senate in Maine and Vermont. That may be a more promising route for us who are out of patience with the two major parties.

Peace,
Michael

As a native Mainer who worked in public education during King's governorship i must say he is the most democratic independent I've seen. He'll be caucausing with the dems.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 9607
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #288 on: November 07, 2012, 09:54:23 PM »
I offered this take on a friend's timeline who thought that Obama's win showed a GOP out of touch and in thrall to the fringe right wing.

Take a look at the historical perspective. An incumbent winning re-election almost always happens. It is expected. It is like a tennis player holding serve.
Since WWII, the POTUS has changed parties like clockwork every eight years. The only exception was that Reagan essentially got three terms (Bush 41 basically being just a continuation) by taking one from Carter. Other than that the pattern is unblemished. So the real story of yesterday is just how close the Democrats came to blowing it. In every single other instance the party in power increased their margin of victory running for re-election. LBJ crushed in 64 where JFK barely eeked one out in 60. Nixon cruised to a second victory in 72 despite Watergate even. Reagan incredibly improved on his bloodbath in 1980 by coming a tenth of a percentage point in Minnesota away from a clean sweep in 84. Clinton did much better in 96 than in 92. Bush scraped out a victory despite losing the popular vote in 2000 but won much more easily in 04. In short, everyone gets more votes once people see them in action for four years. Obama is the big exception; unlike every other modern era president except Carter (again, counting Bush 41 as Reagan’s third term), he actually lost support by governing (or, if not actually governing, at least giving it the old college try, to be charitable). A smaller percentage of the electorate voted for him after seeing him in action than voted for him when he had no record to run on. That is unprecedented among incumbents who win re-election. It is telling that right up to election eve nobody knew whether Obama would hold serve. An incumbent winning a squeaker ought to be chastened by the experience, not chest-thumping. Plus, every congressional district in the nation elected a representative last night, and a comfortable majority chose a Republican, which gives the lie to the idea that the GOP is a radical fringe party. Even Mr. Tea Party Paul Ryan won re-election in a working class district of a reliably blue state. The Democrats lost three in a row before they splintered in Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council and Dean’s liberal “Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” If Biden wins in 2016 I’ll concede that the GOP needs to re-evaluate itself, as the Dems did after Bush won in 88. Until then, I think it is a bit premature to write off the GOP as out of touch for merely having the second best showing of any challenging party in the modern era.     

LutherMan

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5609
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #289 on: November 07, 2012, 10:25:44 PM »
Pr. Speckhard,

Your usually excellent posts are really hard to read and digest without paragraphs and spaces...
LCMS Layman

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 9607
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #290 on: November 07, 2012, 10:28:59 PM »
Pr. Speckhard,

Your usually excellent posts are really hard to read and digest without paragraphs and spaces...
My bad. I'll try again.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 9607
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #291 on: November 07, 2012, 10:33:53 PM »

I offered this take on a friend's timeline who thought that Obama's win showed a GOP out of touch and in thrall to the fringe right wing.

Take a look at the historical perspective. An incumbent winning re-election almost always happens. It is expected. It is like a tennis player holding serve.
 
Since WWII, the POTUS has changed parties like clockwork every eight years. The only exception was that Reagan essentially got three terms (Bush 41 basically being just a continuation) by taking one from Carter. Other than that the pattern is unblemished. So the real story of yesterday is just how close the Democrats came to blowing it.

In every single other instance the party in power increased their margin of victory running for re-election.

        --LBJ crushed in 64 where JFK barely eeked one out in 60.
        --Nixon cruised to a second victory in 72 despite Watergate even.
        --Reagan incredibly improved on his bloodbath in 1980 by coming a tenth 0.01% in Minnesota away from a clean sweep in 84.           
        --Clinton did much better in 96 than in 92.
        --Bush scraped out a victory despite losing the popular vote in 2000 but won much more easily in 04.
 
In short, everyone gets more votes once people see them in action for four years. Obama is the big exception; unlike every other modern era president except Carter (again, counting Bush 41 as Reagan’s third term), he actually lost support by governing (or, if not actually governing, at least giving it the old college try, to be charitable). A smaller percentage of the electorate voted for him after seeing him in action than voted for him when he had no record to run on. That is unprecedented among incumbents who win re-election. An incumbent winning a squeaker ought to be chastened by the experience, not chest-thumping. Plus, every congressional district in the nation elected a representative last night, and a comfortable majority chose a Republican. If Biden wins in 2016 I’ll concede that the GOP needs to re-evaluate itself, as the Dems did after Bush won in 88. Until then, I think it is a bit premature to write off the GOP as out of touch for merely having the second best showing of any challenging party in the modern era.     

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #292 on: November 07, 2012, 11:09:25 PM »
IF this election was the referendum on Judeo-Christian values as many of our finest had cast it; then the devastating results should cause great reflection in people of faith.

We should be repentant of our deficient catechesis; of failing to "commend to others the faith that is within us", to borrow a phrase from one prayer of confession.

And while our catechesis might still be adequate in "red counties" otherwise known as "flyover country" those same bi-colored maps reveal an utter failure of evangelism in our coastal cities.

So let us take yesterday's failure as tomorrow's challenge: to impart "the faith once delivered to the saints" to those regions where to many. God's Holy Name is but a curse word.

And to that end, again I share this prayer composed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  I had previously posted it on the Reformation Day discussion, and explained that it will become a standard piece in our Sunday bulletin whenever there is an otherwise blank half-page.

A PRAYER OF PREPARATION
FOR WORSHIP AND SERVICE


Heavenly Father,

Pour forth your Holy Spirit to inspire me with these words from Holy Scripture.

Stir in my soul the desire to renew my faith and deepen my relationship with your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ so that I might truly believe in and live the Good News.   

Open my heart to hear the Gospel and grant me the confidence to proclaim the Good News to others.

Pour out your Spirit, so that I might be strengthened to go forth and witness to the Gospel in my everyday life through my words and actions. 

In moments of hesitation, remind me:

If not me, then who will proclaim the Gospel?

If not now, then when will the Gospel be proclaimed?

If not the truth of the Gospel, then what shall I proclaim?

God, our Father, I pray that through the Holy Spirit I might hear the call of the New Evangelization to deepen my faith, grow in confidence to proclaim the Gospel and boldly witness to the saving grace of your Son, Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.



Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014..
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.
About to become and Orthodox Catechumen.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #293 on: November 08, 2012, 05:36:45 AM »
Thanks, guys, for my rolling-on-the-floor laugh of the day (along with some head-shaking incredulity at what some people will grab to make themselves feel better.)

Peter says the president didn't actually win, but got a second term because of some fatalistic, mechanical determinism, some clock-work in the universe, whose cogs must turn the lever a certain direction. He thinks the Republicans should be commended for putting enough sand in the cogs to shorten the distance that lever moves.
That sounds like the loopy, obsessed sports statistician (are there any other kind of sports statisticians?) my son read who said that if the Giants lose the game before the election, the incumbent does not get re-elected. Oh oh. The Giants lost last week.

And Pastor Shelly tells us that if people in the salt-water regions were better educated, better Christians, better catechized, and as solid in the Christian faith as those in the "red" states, then the non-Christian Mormon would have won. OMG! Gob smack me with a rolled-up Harvard sheepskin! In addition to the irony, I gotta remind you people that for lo, these many years, certain "liberals" or "reivisionists" have been getting hammered for allegedly contending that conservatives were not smart enough to see the way things should be. And now....? It is to laugh. Hard.

Can it possibly occur to you that millions of people - some of them intelligent, faithful, active Christians - actually like the president and approve of what is is doing or trying to do?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 05:38:16 AM by Charles_Austin »

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #294 on: November 08, 2012, 07:40:00 AM »

And Pastor Shelley tells us that if people in the salt-water regions were better educated, better Christians, better catechized.....


Perhaps one oversimplification deserves another:  I had closely studied the infamous "red county/blue county" map just before posting.

Pastor Austin's oversimplification is the phrase "salt water regions" stemming from my own oversimplification through the use of the word "coastal".

The map reveals a "blue streak" not only of New England through the coastal mid Atlantic, but then roughly following the I-95/I-85 corridor to Atlanta and Birmingham.  Also a Great Lakes lakeshore area from Eire PA through Detroit, northern Indiana through Wisconsin.

My oversimplification may have stemmed from reeling in astonishment that a strong and substantial "blue" enclave extends from wester Illinois through northeast Iowa, southwest Wisconsin, and southern Minnesota. 

Maybe some of our contributors from that region can enlighten me.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 07:43:54 AM by Rev. J. Thomas Shelley, STS »
Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014..
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.
About to become and Orthodox Catechumen.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #295 on: November 08, 2012, 08:29:12 AM »
You should know, Pastor Shelley, that there is a strong streak of "Prairie Populism," in sections of Iowa, the Dakotas and Minnesota; with tinges of even socialism. The northeast of Iowa was - when I was there - almost as politically "liberal" as New Jersey, though the issues were different.
But we quibble. What gave me the daily laugh was your suggestion that if people were "smarter" - in the way that you define that - the election might have gone differently.
So I guess the liberals are just a bunch of uneducated yahoos.


peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 9607
    • View Profile
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #296 on: November 08, 2012, 08:35:39 AM »
Thanks, guys, for my rolling-on-the-floor laugh of the day (along with some head-shaking incredulity at what some people will grab to make themselves feel better.)

Peter says the president didn't actually win, but got a second term because of some fatalistic, mechanical determinism, some clock-work in the universe, whose cogs must turn the lever a certain direction. He thinks the Republicans should be commended for putting enough sand in the cogs to shorten the distance that lever moves.
That sounds like the loopy, obsessed sports statistician (are there any other kind of sports statisticians?) my son read who said that if the Giants lose the game before the election, the incumbent does not get re-elected. Oh oh. The Giants lost last week.

And Pastor Shelly tells us that if people in the salt-water regions were better educated, better Christians, better catechized, and as solid in the Christian faith as those in the "red" states, then the non-Christian Mormon would have won. OMG! Gob smack me with a rolled-up Harvard sheepskin! In addition to the irony, I gotta remind you people that for lo, these many years, certain "liberals" or "reivisionists" have been getting hammered for allegedly contending that conservatives were not smart enough to see the way things should be. And now....? It is to laugh. Hard.

Can it possibly occur to you that millions of people - some of them intelligent, faithful, active Christians - actually like the president and approve of what is is doing or trying to do?
Charles, what did I say that was false? I never said Obama didn't win. I said that by historical standards it is relevant that he won by less the second tme around, which has not been the norm. Of course he won. It is all W's and L's. But by putting it into context we see that his win was not the amazing game-changer that many are making it out to be.

Dan_Biles

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
    • St. Paul Lutheran Church, Spring Grove, PA
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #297 on: November 08, 2012, 10:25:37 AM »
My thoughts, post-election: 
The re-election of Obama, which in many ways says something wonderful about this country, nevertheless is anxiety-provoking for those concerned about abortion, the institution of marriage, and the free exercise of religion in this country.  Most troubling were the ballot measures on approving same-sex "marriage" (in quotes, because there is no such thing).  Is this our future:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/  (Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada)? 

The RC priest in our town posted:  A respectful appeal now must be made for the government to relent from its heavy hand against the Church. Pray for the President, for Congress, especially for the Preborn, families and the weak and vulnerable. Amen.

It's the same old Republican Catch-22: One can't win the nomination without pandering to the right-wing crazies, which very thing keeps one from winning the general election. Watch for the coming civil war in the Republican party.
And watch for Hillary in 2016:  the Clintons helped Obama big-time, knowing it would be easier for Hillary to succeed Obama than unseat Romney.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 10:34:17 AM by Dan_Biles »
Ordained in 1978

The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7304
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
    • The Steven P. Tibbetts Home Page
Re: Wasted vote?
« Reply #298 on: November 08, 2012, 10:27:22 AM »
I have voted for Libertarians not because they have a chance of winning, and not simply to "send a message."

I know, I know. You voted for them because the Whigs didn't field a candidate.  ;)

I keep meaning to stand in front of my polling place smoking Henry Clay cigars...

Pax, Steven+
(who thinks Pr. Johnson's Congresscritter, though a bit of carpetbagger, is nonetheless one of the best!)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 03:07:16 PM by The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS »
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor, Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Peoria, Illinois, USA
Pastor Zip's Blog        Pastor Zip's Lutheran Links

Coach-Rev

  • Guest
Re: General election/debates/politics thread
« Reply #299 on: November 08, 2012, 11:02:38 AM »

I offered this take on a friend's timeline who thought that Obama's win showed a GOP out of touch and in thrall to the fringe right wing.

Take a look at the historical perspective. An incumbent winning re-election almost always happens. It is expected. It is like a tennis player holding serve.
 
Since WWII, the POTUS has changed parties like clockwork every eight years. The only exception was that Reagan essentially got three terms (Bush 41 basically being just a continuation) by taking one from Carter. Other than that the pattern is unblemished. So the real story of yesterday is just how close the Democrats came to blowing it.

In every single other instance the party in power increased their margin of victory running for re-election.

        --LBJ crushed in 64 where JFK barely eeked one out in 60.
        --Nixon cruised to a second victory in 72 despite Watergate even.
        --Reagan incredibly improved on his bloodbath in 1980 by coming a tenth 0.01% in Minnesota away from a clean sweep in 84.           
        --Clinton did much better in 96 than in 92.
        --Bush scraped out a victory despite losing the popular vote in 2000 but won much more easily in 04.
 
In short, everyone gets more votes once people see them in action for four years. Obama is the big exception; unlike every other modern era president except Carter (again, counting Bush 41 as Reagan’s third term), he actually lost support by governing (or, if not actually governing, at least giving it the old college try, to be charitable). A smaller percentage of the electorate voted for him after seeing him in action than voted for him when he had no record to run on. That is unprecedented among incumbents who win re-election. An incumbent winning a squeaker ought to be chastened by the experience, not chest-thumping. Plus, every congressional district in the nation elected a representative last night, and a comfortable majority chose a Republican. If Biden wins in 2016 I’ll concede that the GOP needs to re-evaluate itself, as the Dems did after Bush won in 88. Until then, I think it is a bit premature to write off the GOP as out of touch for merely having the second best showing of any challenging party in the modern era.   

I, for one, found this a very insightful analysis.  Thanks. 
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 05:55:00 PM by Coach-Rev »

 

anything