What the Evangelicals Want, by James Jewell The Rooftop Blog. (Hat Tip: James Jewell himself, via email, thank you!)
To My Fellow Democrats, by Andrew, The Backseat Philosopher, a new blog. (Hat Tip: Mark Shea)
I will not tell you if I am a democrat or a republican, because I think no matter what I say I am, that youll probably question it. So i'll let you figure it out for yourself and see if you can guess correctly.
Ok, you say here....
-----------------------------------
I think the values-based voting was a real factor this year, but not the only one. When the Unitarian Universalists and other religious progressives started their Faithful Democracy project, the whole concept of voting one's values was vindicated, what religious conservatives have been doing for years. Did the kickoff of this project imply that the "religious left" weren't voting their values in the past? That's hard for me to believe. Of course they were voting their values; all that project did was to vindicate the position of those who said all along that it was proper and right to do so.
--------------------------------------------
Thats not true, and in every election, values and morals are always a factor when an American chooses to vote for.Its insane to think that its finally happening this year. Maybe you only think its this year because your choices won, and you assume everyone who voted like you has finally agreed with you.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the religious right is nothing but a tool that a political party is using because they saw that group as having a chance in helping them to achieve their goals.
No better way to get elected than to get those people out to vote for our side, right? Tell them that these evil valueless, moral lacking, devil worshipping democrats are people who cant be trusted. They don't have a godfearing bone in their bodies and they are going to take your bibles so it can be banned. These horrible left leaning whackos want nothing more than to make sure God no longer exists in this country.
I bet it worked on our religious groups, dont you?
--------------------------------
then you say this....
---------------------------------
What would I like to see as a result of this election? Based on the Senate results, and Tom Daschle's defeat, I would love to see an immediate renomination of every judicial nominee subjected to the Filibuster. In my opinion, this was the gravest injustice committed by the Democrats' minority in the Senate. I called Senator Frist's office today to urge him to stop the chairmanship of Arlen Specter to the Judicial Committee, and urge everyone concerned about judicial integrity to do so as well.
-----------------------------
Why do you think that all these judges should get a second chance? Don't you know how our government works? This has happened in many administrations. In Bush Jrs, Clinton's, Bush Sr's, Reagans, and in every administration before it. I'm sure that there have been many injustices before them, and there will probably be hundreds more to come after them.
But Filibustering is a major part of the check and balances that our Founding Fathers created to protect the citizens from our ruling government. It is there for a reason. Our Founding Fathers believed that not any one single party should ever have control over all parts of our government. Filibustering protects you just as much as it is anoyying you. You think it hinders your desire to have everything your own way in "our" government? Well, that is exactly what it was intended to do. They were smart men, no?
Im sure you think that you believe that all these liberal judges that Clinton appointed are out to make laws that goes against everything that you, me, and every other american believes in.
I hope you know that these Judges do NOT make laws. Their job is to only interpret laws. In no way are they are to make a law. Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart when they set our goverment up for us. All these checks and balances that they set up have a purpose, and they work.
And BTW, Arlen Spector is a very smart man. He is a republican that knows what it means to be a conservative. And he will do a fine job as the Judicial Chairmen. If you stopped and thought for a minute, you might realize that if you put somone in that seat that is intent in finding a judge to overturn RvW you will never succeed. They will not stop the Filibusters just because someone else is sitting on that seat.
-------------------------------
than you said this
-------------------------------
There are many other things I'd love to see, making the tax cuts permanent, killing the inheritance tax, making true school choice available, a Federal Marriage Amendment. And speaking of that Marriage Amendment, I'm glad that people are speaking up and saying they don't want the courts to decide this issue for them, and I agree with the thoughts expressed by Rush Limbaugh, quoted in a post below by Rick Penner, who said that the push to decide this issue in the courts would inevitably end up in a backlash.
---------------------------------------------
Well, we'd all like to see that happen. But when Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending Bill, how will that ever happen? Do you have any idea how high the deficit is now? Whoever comes into office in 2008 will have to raise taxes if Bush does not stop spending wildly.
Why should the inheritance tax be killed? Its not the death tax that Grover Norquist says it is. Very few people are ever effected by the inheritance tax. Family farms, no matter how big they are have never had to pay that tax, they are exempt from it. There has never been a single instance that someone has ever had their property seized because of it. No one has ever lost their homes or estates due to it. It actually isnt even an inheritance tax, its always been an Estate Tax. Grover Norquist began calling it an inheritance tax because it scared people into thinking their children would have some god awful tax to pay when they inherit family possessions. Then that stopped working, and then they tagged it as the "Death Tax". Thats even scarier, eh? I think you shoulkd know what it is before you actually want to get "rid" of it.
And just curious here. When you put your FICA into this new retirment account that is being proposed by Bush, what happens if the market crashes? Are you willing to buy Government secured bonds which youll have to wait 20 years just to make 5 dollars or so? Or will you get brave and start buying some stocks that maybe you can actually make some money on? What if we have another market crash? Who will protect your retirement savings account? Would it bother you that your broker and Wall street will always make money off of you and these accounts, but if they lose money for you or the market crashes what will you do for retirement money for future?
The least amount of taxes that we should have to pay the better. But you do know, that even if the federal tax disappears that doesnt mean state and loacl taxes will go away. We'll never get rid of them. How and who will be paying for all of those services that your state, county, and city is providing to you?
Why do we need a Federal marriage Amendment? There are very few people that believe in same sex marriages. Not even the gay people want it. Kerry and edwards both stated many times that they were against them being able to legally marry. And gay people don't even want it to be called a marriage. All they want is some kind of assurance that their partners are able to get health insurance, have the right to take care of them if they get sick, and things like that, that you and I may take for granted.
And the courts will never be able to decide this for our country. Judges cannot make laws, they only interpret the laws!
And the only backlash has come from people like Rush saying that its going to happen. The more he says it the more you are expecting it, right? I bet you are watching for it everyday, right? And besides, how can Rush be talking about who does or doesnt have values or morals? He is now in the middle of his third divorce. And he has been battling a drug addiction for the last 2 or 3 yrs. So who is he to tell anyone about morals and values?
It sort of sounds like you are a very scared american voter. You seem to believe anything bad about others who don't agree with your views.
You are an extremely ripe voter that some people just love to have on their side. They know they have you believing in all that they say.
----------------------------------------------
then this.....
--------------------------------
For the Democrats, I think Nancy Pelosi should lose her job as the House Minority leader. Her strategy of taking the party left after the 2002 elections was clearly a mistake. I'd like to see the Democrats drop their class-warfare rhetoric. I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion. I was a Democrat once, was even on the pro-choice bandwagon, but their vitriol for anyone who expressed a pro-life viewpoint drove me away (and this came from people who "worship" tolerance). I actually converted to the pro-life worldview before becoming a Christian. This issue is not a mere "article of faith".
-------------------------------------------
Why should she lose her job? Hell, shes not even half as left as Newt was right.
Do you have any idea of how our government works?
There are reasons why we have to have people in government like her. We need them whether we agree with them or not. It is all part of the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers set up to protect us.
There is no actual class-warfare rhetoric going on, its always just been thrown out there to get people riled up, from both sides. It will never ever go away. Republicans believe in cutting taxes no matter what. Look at us now. We are in a war in Iraq, our men, women, children are dying. Bush passes No Child Left Behind, but theres no money to fund it. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since he first took office in January of 2001. Yet, during this campaign Bush signed another tax cut, but not for you or I, but for businesses.
If you decide to cut back the hours that you are working, which changes the amount of revenues (paycheck) that you are bringing home, would you continuelly keep spending like crazy? Would you cut your hours working again knowing you that you already dont have enough money to pay your bills?
Well, Bush is doing just that. No way would any of us responsible adults ever do something like that in our own personal life. It is not iscally smart to do that.
Abortion will forever be something that we will never all agree on.
And I think it would benefit you greatly if you begin to understand how our Founding Fathers set this government up to protect the people of the USA.
And never ever forget, that our Founding Father's one single purpose in creating this democray of theirs, was to make sure that that the minority will always be the one that will be protected.
They cared not at all about the majority, but they instilled these checks and balances for the sole purpose of protecting those who are in the minority. And to make sure that they were well protected from the majority, so that the majority can naver become the tyrannt that they had left in England when they signed that Declaration of Independence.
And, I am a conservative republican =)
Thank you for your critical comments. Pardon me if my reply doesn't answer each point, since your comment is rather long.
Regarding the voting values, I believe you agreed with me. I stated that I did not believe that leftists were not voting their values in the past, the same point you made, though you implied that I said the opposite of it.
Regarding the filibuster, I recognize that there is a Senate rule putting that practice into place. It is not a constitutional requirement however, so the claim that is a constitutional practice is only based in the statement "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" in Article I, Section 5. Regarding the use of the filibuster, sure it protects the views of a minority, but so what? The people didn't elect a majority party to the Senate just in order to let the minority party run the show. Bottom line is that it is an extremely divisive practice, and has never been used, except once in LBJ's administration to thwart a judicial appointment.
Inheritance tax - no comment except to say that even if your claim is true that doesn't mean that the tax has had a negative effect on economic activity.
FICA money in private accounts: I'm a firm believer in "Stocks for the Long Run", and the stock charts published in a book by that name by Jeremy Siegel show that stocks are the best investment for long-term investing (longer than five years) and have been so even in periods encompassing market crashes. President Bush hasn't advocated moving all FICA monies into private accounts, just a small portion. It doesn't bother me that Wall Street profits from this activity. Many of the brokerages are publicly owned. If they will profit from this poicy, that sounds like a good investment opportunity. Thank you for the stock tip.
About the courts not being able to make laws, only interpret them: are you serious? Roe vs. Wade was a judgment based on legislated law? Where? Get real. The MA Supreme Court discovered a right to same-sex marriage? Again, where? After more than 200 years, they just discovered this right?
Bush's spending: I agree with you. He's got to veto some spending bills. There's some others I wished he had vetoed as well. I'll not mention them here.
Regarding Nancy Pelosi, its a judgment call as to how far left she is, but she was endorsed by The Nation, a socialist magazine that lamented the fall of the Soviet Union. It does seem to me that the Democrats have not done very well with her strategy.
Regarding your claim to be a conservative Republican - maybe so, there is a wide range of opinion within the Republican party, and I'm thankful for that. However your claims that judges do not make laws lack credibility in my view.
Reflecting on what I wrote above, I feel a need to clarify something.
When I state that I believe both conservatives and liberals voted their values, I do not intend to imply that those values are morally equivalent. I do not believe that something can be "wrong" and "right" at the same time, and I do not think that a society where "everyone does what is right in his own eyes" is a just or righteous society.
Regarding the stock tip statement: I do not buy stocks based on stock tips, but the point is that making a profit is not immoral, and many people would be a lot wealthier if, instead of complaining about other peoples' prosperity, they decided to pursue a little prosperity themselves, using the same resources available to all, and I advocate public policy that makes those resources available to all.
Posted by: Joel Fuhrmann at November 8, 2004 01:01 PM