What’s news to you?
The debate is of course.
OK Mr. President, let’s check the record.
From WeaselZippers
“During the debate Obama demanded we “check the record” to prove Romney never said in his NY Times op-ed that the government should provide guarantees for the automakers post-bankruptcy financing. Shockingly, that’s exactly what Romney did say.”
“Via Mitt Romney’s 2008 NYT op-ed:
The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”
Oh, sorry Mr. President, you’re wrong again. Smug, condescending, and wrong. That about sums it up.
But as usual, I only say that because I’m racist.
🙄
From NewsBusters
“CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think they’re more political than either you or I – I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred – hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the south and looking at these numbers we’re getting about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even if it’s to the left on issues, as long as they get rid of this guy. Romney went in there tonight with sixteen ounce gloves. He didn’t want to look too ferocious he just wanted to win and the way he wanted to win was not make himself into the right-winger that the right wing that’s supporting him really are.”
How original Chris, no wonder you have such high ratings. Oh wait, you don’t.
And here’s an update on the conversation about the UN election observers.
From YellowHammerPolitics
“In response to news that poll watchers affiliated with the United Nations will be sent across the country to monitor balloting in various states and search for evidence of “voter suppression” during the upcoming November 6 presidential election, Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard said he will support legislation in the next session requiring all poll watchers in Alabama to hold U.S. citizenship.
“The United States is the worldwide beacon of free elections and the Republican form of government, so having an international squad from the United Nations playing referee in our elections is insulting and absurd,” Hubbard said. “We’ve been holding elections in the U.S. for the past 223 years without the United Nations playing a role or enforcing the rules, and we certainly don’t want or need them now.””
Kudos to Alabama!
Wandering Views 
Good grief. Oh yes, how much safer Alabama is now that they have a legislator telling outsiders to get out when comes to election observation. So I guess this guy also thinks only Russians should observe Russian elections? No, you say? Then I guess he thinks Alabama and the USG are above all the other nations of the world and we don’t need to set an example or follow the rules. Oh yeah, Alabama is so much safer because of a blowhard reacting to another blowhard (hide the women and children the election observers are a comin! It’ll be just like the yankees after the war … ) Absurd. Utterly absurd. And also uninformed and ignorant.
AJ
on bankruptcy and detriot, I do note that the op-ed speaks clearly to post-bankruptcy efforts. How would a structured bankruptcy have worked with no liquidity in the financial markets at the time it was needed?
LikeLike
I watched a while. I noticed each of them was making a prepared speech and never answered a question. Neither was interested in making a point, but not making a mistake.
After a few minutes, I turned to ESPN and watched a Bears QB throw a pass into the chest of a receiver who dropped it. That was third down, so the Bears punted to a Lions receiver who fumbled the ball out of bounds. I figured that I saw enough of that Saturday afternoon. So I turened back to the debate.
Obama was making a speech. So I read my latest World for a few minutes then went to bed.
LikeLike
A fitting tribute to George McGovern by Wes Pruden:
Loser or not, no one ever put an asterisk against George McGovern’s origins deep in America’s heartland, his unreserved love for his native land or his courage under fire. He flew a B-24 Liberator on more than two dozen bombing missions against the Nazis, twice bringing his battered ship home on a wing and a prayer. He won the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal and went home to South Dakota to marry his high-school sweetheart, Eleanor, who, like so many young women of those years, waited, afraid to take a deep breath, for her soldier’s return home from the hill. He studied for the Methodist ministry at Dakota Wesleyan College, where no one tried to destroy his faith, and later reluctantly traded the cloth for politics. But he never abandoned Christ’s commandment to look after the poor, the hungry, “the least of these.”
I’m glad McGovern was never President, but he was a good man.
LikeLike
I have to ask — anyone notice any difference between the 2 foreign policies? Anyone count the number of times Gov Romney said he agreed with the President? Who is Mitt Romney. If the R’s really wanted to nominate someone center right, why not Huntsman — he was not prone to actually changing his views according to what might give him the greatest advantage. Instead Mr Elastic Man — he has more positions than you dreamed of and will deploy them all.
LikeLike
CB, I agree with you that the Alabama legislator’s anger was misdirected. The Yankees are his enemy, not the Russians. He should be working to get Alabama out from under The Voting Rights Act.
LikeLike
Meanwhile my wife has revived her candidacy and has a new slogan: “You know those things the Democrats say that Romney would do. I would actually do them.”
LikeLike
Oh AJ, I think they should monitor our elections alright. Especially where those Black Panthers have been intimidating voters…
LikeLike
CB – Although they seem to agree on general policy tactics, I think the difference is, Romney will probably do more than talk about it.
Also, I’m very tired of Obama’s constant mantra about “the failed policies that got us into this mess”…I wish Romney would point out that a large portion of the problem stemmed from the ridiculously stupid housing policies rammed through by Obama’s party…
Also, I thought that Obama’s childish tirade about the aircraft carriers, etc., made him look like a desperate child. Romney should have pointed out that every aircraft carrier requires an extensive support system to protect it…
What I REALLY want is for a candidate to say…”America IS exceptional, we ARE different than the rest of the world, and I will do everything I can to return us to that place”.
LikeLike
I have grown more impressed with Romney in every debate. Last night he once again showed he is the smartest man in the room. What stood out to me are two things no one is talking about: His Latin American policy, which would not only help stabilize and strengthen that region but build it up thereby addressing the root cause of illegal immigration, and his inclusive Middle East policy, which once again shows him looking at root causes. If we don’t help build up the economy, education, and infrastructure among moderate and cultural Muslims, then Hamas and Hezbollah will – and have. He sees the big picture and I have hope for those two areas under a Romney presidency.
LikeLike
CB,
“Absurd. Utterly absurd. And also uninformed and ignorant.”
That’s exactly how I feel about the UN as a whole, and their poll watching. It’s totally and completely unnecessary. They have no power to do a thing, nor do they have the right to. We already set the example by following the rules WE SET, not them. They can stuff it. You named plenty of places they may be needed, but the US isn’t one of them. Maybe they should stick to 3rd world countries where they might do some good, if that’s even possible given their ineptness at everything they do. Same goes for their fellow leftist groups like the NAACP and ACLU that invited them in. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they’re too far gone to realize it. I’m a little surprised you think this is necessary as well.
And yes, Obama and Romney do agree on alot of our present policies. Mostly it’s the ones from former admins that Obama left in place. Obama stood there last night and said once again that he ended the war in Iraq. And I guess he did, but he did so by following the Bush plan already in place. The surge, which he was against, is what led to our ability to exit. He’s a poser, nothing more.
LikeLike
inbutnotof says:
What I REALLY want is for a candidate to say…”America IS exceptional, we ARE different than the rest of the world, and I will do everything I can to return us to that place”.
I’ve never understood this sentiment. It seems to me to be just the same as “My kid is the smartest, most athletic, most special kid in the neighborhood.” Well OF COURSE YOU feel that way – every parent does.
LikeLike
Obama has claimed that his policies have restored American credibility…why then was he being dragged in effigy through the streets of Egypt. Arab experts have said over and over that the only way to earn their respect is through assertiveness. Every time we have a milquetoast, “let’s talk to them” president, we get walked on. Hopefully, President Romney will put some teeth to the policies in the Middle East.
LikeLike
Chas, I agree with you about McGovern. As I’ve said, when I was a college student I walked precincts for him, right up until the closing of the polls on that dark and rainy election — when people answering their doors insisted that the television already said the election was over, McGovern had lost (just by how much we were to learn shortly).
I kept walking, insisting that if everyone who hadn’t voted yet now voted for McGovern, maybe it would change … 😉 Ah, idealistic youth.
I had a McGovern bumper sticker on my baby blue VW bug, I had a turquoise blue-and-yellow sports-style T-shirt emblazoned with “McGovern ’72.”
It was my first big political letdown, and I took it very hard. Around that time I began to major in journalism and, frankly, have never fallen completely “head over heels” again for a political candidate.
And while I agree with you now that he would not made a good president, I also agree still that he always did strike me as a decent man, often self-effacing, never arrogant, not one of those blow-hards. He quietly got back to work, wasn’t in the news much, but he never seemed to stop (quietly) working either, even after losing his Senate seat.
And, as the Watergate mess unfolded in the following 2 years after the ’72 election, many of us on the other side at least had the satisfaction of telling ourselves, “told ’em so.” 😉
LikeLike
Post on World about the debate:
http://www.worldmag.com/2012/10/a_good_night_for_ron_paul
LikeLike
On last night’s debate, again I noticed that my liberal friends on FB were elated, one of them saying that Obama’s performance gave him goosebumps (oh, how tempting to bring up that tingle comment of Chris Matthews’, but I stayed mum). 🙂
I think Romney was playing it cautious and I personally liked the times when he noted he agreed with the president. It made him seem definitely above the fray, gracious even. Adult. Even-handed. Reasonable.
And I suspect that’s exactly what he was aiming for. He achieved it. As one commentator said, he did what he needed to do. Obama was already scrambling, Romney’s big danger last night was in blowing it by saying something off the wall or getting angry or testy. He didn’t. He stayed calm.
Obama — though I realize I’m not fond of him anyway, so that might be driving much of my perceptions of him in these debates — struck me as testy, easily irked, arrogant and, just below the surface, angry, disdainful.
I don’t find him “likable” by much of any measure anymore and don’t see how undecided voters could find him appealing in this mode either.
But we’ll see. The polls remain very close and rather volatile still. Things could shift still in one direction or another.
Again, my one fear is that the results will be so sliver-close that it’ll prompt a worse and more unsettled aftermath than the 2000 election, with charges and counter charges.
Those who support Obama will not go quietly if they lose. As Matthews foreshadowed in AJ’s post, there will be a deep resentment, a conviction that they were somehow robbed (even if the results aren’t that close) of Obama’s rightful 4 more years, driven in part by racism.
LikeLike
Romney folks also won’t go quietly if they loose, either.
But I suspect the Obama side would make more of a ruckus in the aftermath of a close loss. ?
It’s ironic (and very sad to me) that our election of the nation’s first black president might only, at least in the short run, wind up making race relations more tense.
LikeLike
Because I remember that Russia has never stopped being our enemy, my favorite Romney line of the night was “I’m certainly not going to say to him (Putin) After the election I’ll give you more flexibility. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”
LikeLike
By its nature, foreign policy — when it comes our role, whether we get involved or not — is something of a moving target as the world changes. While general principals need to be in place, it’s often on a case-by-case basis in which decisions will have to be made. It’s complex and very interconnected, this world of ours today.
But I suspect we’re all a bit weary of foreign entanglements at this point. The fact that our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan has dragged on for so many years (to what end?) is unfortunate (and it’s now been longer than was our presence in Vietnam? That claim that I heard surprised me, but I suppose it’s true?).
I suspect if we’d found bin Laden sooner, within months or at least a year of 9/11, things would have played out much more cleanly and decisively — and quickly. I also think we’ve come to see our desire for spreading democracy as something not quite so easily done in many cases. Well-intentioned, but perhaps naive.
Still, there is a danger in embracing (again) an inflexible, isolationist view as I think Ron Paul would have us do. I grew up hearing my parents talk too often about how disastrous that perspective was when it came to World War II (“it’s Europe’s affair”) and the subsequent attack on our own fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The world is even smaller now.
But like many Americans, I suppose I’m conflicted about exactly how proactive we should be in matters abroad.
LikeLike
Speaking of an elastic man, Obama last night tacked from hard-left actuality to center right fakery on foreign policy.
While Obama has tried to open up “space” between the U.S. and Israel, he claimed last evening to be a strong supporter of Israel. While he has rudely snubbed Netanyahu diplomatically, he is now claiming to be a close friend. Also, he resisted strong sanctions against Iran until the Congress forced his hand. Obama has visited all the major countries in the Middle East during his presidency except for Israel which he claims is our strongest ally in the region.
Obama is actually an egregious chameleon who rarely shows his hard left colors.
Compared to Obama, Romney is a piker when it comes to political tacking.
LikeLike
Aj
The UN is not the OSCE. Different oranizations ith different purposes, different membership and different funding.
Sails
I know you are but what am I is not a defense of a republican candidate who stated no substantive differences on foreign policy. The Israel stuff you cite is all made up right wing rhetoric.
In
You might actually look at the various programs and policies in the mena region.
LikeLike
Did the campaigns’ respective internal poll numbers drive the candidates’ debate approaches last night? Sounds plausible …
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/another-thought-on-last-nights-debate.php
LikeLike
My wife was at church last night. We taped the debate so I went to You Tube and watched Chris Christie videos. Boy do I like him. He sounds reasonable, smart and Republican.
LikeLike
CB, while you pretend to be a dispassionate foreign policy analyst, you are in fact a rather ordinary leftist. Obama’s predilection to favor Arab interests over those of Israel is obvious to clear-minded observers of the Middle East scene. In truth you are either some sort of a fraud or at best a low-level State bureaucrat who amusingly lodges on this blog as a pseudo expert.
LikeLike
Hey, Donna, the Nixon/McGovern election was my first election too! Well, sort of…it was the first one I paid any attention too. I was in fourth grade and we had a school election. As was repeated in the actual election, Nixon won by a landslide. I even wrote a letter to president-elect Nixon and I don’t think it was a school assignment.
LikeLike
Sure CB,
They’re just a UN wannabe who works in cooperation with, shockingly, the UN.
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/partnerships
“In order to increase efficiency and avoid the duplication of efforts in the provision of electoral assistance to
Member States, the Electoral Assistance Division works in close collaboration with a number of other intergovernmental
organizations. This involves the coordination of technical assistance provided as per the Member State’s request, and
appropriate division of labour to avoid overlapping efforts. EAD may also provide partner organizations with tools
and advice for the development of their own electoral assistance capacities.
Partner organizations include, among others, the African Union (AU), the European Commission (EC), the International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), the Organization of American States (OAS),
the International Organization for Francophonie (OIF), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)”
Also, they’re a member organization of the UN Pension Fund, which sounds like a mingling of monies to me.
Click to access OSCE.pdf
“A former Provident Fund participant may elect to be covered by the provisions of the present agreement upon entering
the service of a member organization of the Pension Fund and becoming a Pension Fund participant within six months
after separation from the service of OSCE, by electing within a further period of six months to transfer all the
accrued entitlements in the Provident Fund to the Pension Fund.”
Also,
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/peacemaking_prevention
“In rising to meet these challenges, the United Nations neither starts from scratch nor does it usually work alone.
We have a substantial track record in peacemaking dating back to Ralph Bunche, a relatively united Security Council
in support of our actions, and ever-stronger partnerships with key governments and regional organizations such as
the African Union or the OSCE.”
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/regional_organizations
“The Department of Political Affairs has also developed with partner organizations a series of regular “desk-to-desk”
dialogues, which are designed to improve mutual understanding of each others’ structure and organization, review and
improve channels of cooperation, and develop recommendations in that regard. Such “desk-to-desk” dialogues as well
as regular communication and consultation are on-going between DPA and organizations including the African Union (AU),
the European Union (EU) and the Organization of American States (OAS). DPA also holds a similar annual staff-level
meeting with relevant officers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). ”
Here are several more instances.
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/engineName/search/site/undpa/main/issues/
elections/actors
http://www.finchannel.com/news_flash/World/116871_OSCE_Chairperson_
addresses_UN_General_Assembly/
Also from TheHill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263141-international-monitors-at-polling-
places-draw-criticism-from-voter-fraud-group
“United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around
the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights
groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning
group combating election fraud.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and
human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers from its human rights office around the country on Election Day
to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places. It’s part of a broader
observation mission that will send out an additional 80 to 90 members of parliament from nearly 30 countries.”
“These activist groups sought assistance not from American sources, but from the United Nations,” she said in a
statement to The Hill. “The United Nations has no jurisdiction over American elections.”
Neil Simon, director of communications for the OSCE’s parliamentary assembly, agreed the U.N. does not have
jurisdiction over U.S. elections but noted all OSCE member counties, which include the United States, have
committed since 1990 to hold free and democratic elections and to allow one another to observe their elections.”
While you may technically be correct, you cannot deny the connections between the 2.
LikeLike
Oh great. Let me fix that.
LikeLike
The links are abit broken up, but they work. WordPress is annoying me today.
LikeLike
Sails
Why is it that you don’t actually answer questions put to you? As you seem to style yourself as an expert, why don’t you, using original source material (I.e., actual articulated policies and programs) outline the substantive differences between the President’s Israel policy and that which Romney outlined last night?
Aj
The OSCE will partner wwith the UN, but the UN has no authority over the OSCE.
LikeLike
CB: Why is it that you don’t actually answer questions put to you?
Huh! I gave very specific examples of Obama’s policy toward Israel and behavior in relation to Netanyahu, to which you merely stated that this was right-wing rhetoric. You are the one that, lawyer-like, engaged in rhetoric without answering my specific points. Also, you didn’t raise any specific questions.
LikeLike
Sails
You’ve taken seriously the alleged shunning of Bibi? Do you take seriously Bibi’s wn affirmation that relations with the administration are strong?
LikeLike
CB said, “You’ve taken seriously the alleged shunning of Bibi?”
Do you remember when Bibi was meeting in the White House with Obama? Obama didn’t like what was happening so he got up, said he was going to dinner and walked out leaving Netanyahu and the Israelis high and dry. Rude? My mother taught me better than that!
“Alleged shunning…” my foot!
Coyote Blue,
I like you. I read your posts. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. I try to understand your point of view. You help me to understand the Democratic way of looking at things. Sometimes I even agree with your stated viewpoints, but this time, not so much.
The President was rude, childish and a jerk.
After Watergate most Republicans just wanted Nixon to go away. The same with Clinton, both of them. You can add Barack and Michelle to the list.
Just remember, politicians are like dirty diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason.
LikeLike
Sails
Sanctions and Iran – congress played a useful role in this strengthening the foreign policy hand. And the administration was right to insist on international support. But I wouldn’t give congress credit for making it happen as congress did not do the diplomacy. On travel – I’d ave to check whether your assertion is true. I’m actually not a mena expert and never claimed to be that.
You seeem most annoyed that President came off as a moderate and seem to think that he’s hiding something. For me the Governor came off as a moderate in contradiction to what hee ran on in the primaries.
LikeLike
But Sails, I do know soething about human rights and found Gov Romey’s statement on indicting Ahamenijad puzzling. Perhaps you kno hat he meant?
LikeLike
CB, of course, Pres. Netanyahu talks diplomatically about Obama, as in relation to Israel Obama wields great power; however, Netanyahu well knows Obama’s rude behavior toward him both in Washington and in avoiding Israel during an extensive visit to the Middle East. The truth is that from the beginning of his administration, Obama has made clear a low regard for both Netanyahu and Israel.
LikeLike
Bob
Oh to be a fly on the wall and know what actually happened. HW’s foriegn policy was much tougher on the Israelis as was Clintons. And Netanayhu by all accounts is not known for his charm, to put it lightly.
LikeLike
CB, as to Ahmadinejad, Romney’s considered view is that he could be indicted under the Geneva Convention law for incitation of genocide. Ahmadinejad has stated several times that Israel deserves to be wiped off the map.
LikeLike
BobBuckles, No matter what happens, Obama isn’t going away.
Did Clinton go away?
Did Carter go away?
LikeLike
Well, Chas, I think Clinton and (to a lesser extent since in later years he became so annoying with his “ambassador-style” travels and statements during the Bush years) Carter both became easier to take, if you will, once they were out of power.
Clinton actually was largely a moderate Democrat.
I do think a close loss by Obama next month would be received in a very unpleasant manner by many people, to put it mildly. And that’s a concern.
Either way — though I hope I’m wrong — the tension among those of us within the U.S. could get worse, not better, following this particular national election. The election is unlikely to “settle” anything.
LikeLike
CB,
The poor treatment of BiBi by Barry is well known. And that was when he visited. Don’t forget, a month ago he refused to meet him at all, or to establish red lines for Iran. He was too busy campaigning to do his job. He’s snubbed Israel on numerous occaisions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-israel-iran-netanyahu-idUSBRE88A10B20120911
“In a highly unusual rebuff to a close ally, the White House said on Tuesday that President Barack Obama would not meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a U.S. visit later this month, as tensions escalated over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.
The apparent snub, coupled with Netanyahu’s sharpened demands for a tougher U.S. line against Iran, threatened to plunge U.S.-Israeli relations into crisis and add pressure on Obama in the final stretch of a tight presidential election campaign.
An Israeli official, who declined to be identified, said the White House had refused Netanyahu’s request to meet Obama when the Israeli leader visits the United States to attend the U.N. General Assembly, telling the Israelis, “The president’s schedule will not permit that.””
The scheduling conflict was a fundraiser with JayZ. Partying with the pretty people and sucking cash from them was more important that doing his job.
http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-snubs-prime-minister-netanyahu-makes-time-for-jay-z-letterman
“Normally this would be understandable with elections coming soon, except that there are mounting Middle East tensions. Obama found room in his schedule to attend a fundraiser and make a television appearance on the late night talk show circuit. Money for campaigning appears to be more important than meetings with foreign dignitaries that are about to launch World War III.
Word on the street is that supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu feel he was snubbed. The Prime Minister wanted to meet this month and address the concerns of Iran’s recent threats to launch a missile attack against Israel, and to demand a tougher stance against Iran by the United States.
Perhaps part of the snubbing and the imperative need for Obama to elicit celebrity support is our own fault, after all there were over 9 thousand articles written in the space of a few hours that focused on the President’s relationship with Jay-Z and his appearance on “The Tonight Show.”
Just being a little daring about seeing naked men and you get plenty of campaign coverage. Joke around with Letterman, fist bump and watch the reports fly. Yes, the self-importance and arrogance seems to be lost on the supporters of Obama. It is better to win votes making celebrity appearances, than to actually meet with world leaders to prevent World War III. It seems the foreign relationships play second fiddle to campaigning.”
And it seems lost on you as well. He’s a failure.
LikeLike
Sails
That makes no sense
LikeLike
Here is an important read for all Christians who vote. Even if you’ve already cast your ballot for the upcoming election, the following link is still worthwhile reading because you will likely be voting in future years. 🙂
(And BTW, despite the name of the website in the link below, Visionary Womanhood, the article is good reading for all of us, women AND men!) 😉
http://www.visionarywomanhood.com/happened-god/
LikeLike
Ah,
Romney had to mean incitement to genocide from art 3. I think this was used successfully in Rwanda prosecutions. It’s a high bar though as are most speech related issues are; I know that sounds funny but you’d have to prove intent to make it stick. You’d also have to find a venue and that could be tricky as the ICC and World Court are not venues the US would want.
LikeLike
Just a reminder that tonight is the presidential debate hosted by the Free & Equal Elections Foundation. Live stream coverage begins at 7:00 pm Central Daylight Time, with the debate being held from 8:00-9:30 CDT. View at http://freeandequal.org/live
President Obama and Governor Romney have declined to participate, but the presidential candidates from the Constitution, Libertarian, Green, and Justice parties will face off on the issues. Debate listeners can also submit questions for the candidates at the Free & Equal site above.
I know how several of you feel about voting for anyone outside of the two major-party candidates (based on the October 4 political thread), so this may seem like I’m beating a dead horse, bringing up third-party candidate talk again.
Sometime before the election, I do plan to discuss my voting views more fully here. Not that you should adopt my views, but I firmly believe there are more considerations to be made about third-party voting than “they can’t win” or “it’s a vote for someone else”.
It’s a matter of where our hearts are when we cast our ballots. I will expound on that at a later time.
If you do nothing else, I urge you to at least read the link in my post at 6:28 pm above. But most of all, PRAY! We can all have blind spots (including me). This election (and all past and future ones) are in God’s hands. Ask Him for wisdom in understanding His will as we proceed with not only voting, but with every decision we as Christians make in life.
LikeLike
I’ve seen exceptionally few bumper stickers during this campaign cycle — several Obama stickers, of course; 1 Romney sticker (that was a while ago, though); and 1 Gary Johnson (libertarian) sticker a couple weeks back.
And there are a number of lawn signs in my neighborhood regarding the various propositions on the ballot.
LikeLike
6 Arrows, thanks for the link. I appreciate the argument of voting for conscience, even if that means abandoning the major parties.
But I suppose I fall more on the side of how John Piper sees this election in his recent post “I Am Going to Vote”:
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/i-am-going-to-vote
“… Barring catastrophe, Obama or Romney will be president (yes, I know you may see it as a catastrophe even if either does get elected). The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.
“We can be part of that guess, or sit it out. God promises wisdom to those who seek it. So the likelihood that prayed-up, Bible-shaped Christians will tip the scales toward the incrementally worse regime is small. Therefore, the likelihood that we will waste our time voting seems small.
“Not a very inspiring rationale. I just find it compelling in a fallen world that is not my home … “
LikeLike
Thanks 6 – my SO thinks both major party candidates are unworthy so she perked up on news of this debate.
LikeLike
Glad to hear it, CB — thanks.
BTW, if you’re having trouble with the live streaming at the link I gave above (it’s freezing up for me), try this site:
http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty
I believe the debate will also be on C-SPAN.
LikeLike
I saw part of it on C-Span.
I didn’t see anyone I would have supported, even if I hadn’t already voted.
LikeLike
I simply fall in closer to the main parties and believe they offer the most logical/practical/workable candidates to govern the republic. I’m not fond of Libertarianism and never could embrace the Greens, even in my “liberal” youth. None of the third party movements have ever appealed to me.
So in my case, while the candidate I’m voting for isn’t a perfect match and there are things I’d definitely change, I just don’t feel I’m compromising my principles. I much prefer Romney to the third-party or also-running type candidates.
That he also has the far-far better chance of actually winning (as opposed to a 3rd party candidate) is also appealing, I’ll confess. 😉
LikeLike
Donna, thanks for the link at 7:24 pm yesterday. I like Piper, and agree that voting is better than not voting. Where I disagree with him is that he starts with the presumption that it’s likely that there are only two candidates who can win (which, I’ll admit is most likely to be true), and then proceeds to choose between those two. In other words, he’s starting with the end result in mind, and works backward from there. In some things I think that’s a good idea, but not with voting, IMO.
I think we need to start with “What does God say about the issues on which we vote”, and then look at all the candidates God has placed in front of us, and go from there, not limiting our choices to only two when God didn’t so limit them.
LikeLike
Chas, glad to hear you saw some of the debate. I wasn’t entirely impressed with how any of them did, but I’m glad they had a chance to put their ideas out there. A better way to learn more about their stance on issues is to go to their websites (or their party websites) and read the party platforms.
LikeLike
It’s true that Piper was speaking about voting vs. not voting. But I also saw it as a compelling argument for voting for one of the two candidates who will win, for better or worse. It comes down, in my mind, to casting a vote — one way or the other — with that reality in mind.
And, as I said, I’ve never been a fan of libertarianism so some of the new conservative breakaway movements out there right now simply do not appeal to me anyway. I think they have some valid ideas that actually harken back to original Republican ideas which have become lost through the decades. The best result of all that, however, would be for those ideas to come back into discussion within the party framework.
Bottom line, a new party will only emerge and be truly competitive/viable when one of the 2 major parties virtually implodes/breaks apart and leaves a vacuum.
That could happen. But it’s not, from what I can see. And third parties have been trying for a long time, they come and go pretty regularly.
So we’re left with the reality that either Obama or Romney will be the next president. In light of that, it seems that the wiser (not perfect) choice is clearly Romney. Even if he’s only incrementally better, it moves us as a nation at least in the right direction.
LikeLike
Now if we had two liberal, pro-choice candidates who were virtually alike in their position from whom to choose … now then I’d have a dilemma.
In fact, because of a new primary system we have here in California, my choice for congress person is down to two liberal Democrats. I still don’t know what I’ll do on that ballot line (one has ethics problems, so she’s definitely out; the other candidate is someone I know personally, she’s personable, well liked, I covered her for years as she rose through the political ranks — but she still supports/opposes many things that are simply contrary to my core beliefs).
I very likely could wind up not casting a vote for either one, I’m not sure yet. 😦
LikeLike
Arrows, look through her website at http://www.Latayne.com
LikeLike