US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

[deep]

We know conservatives and liberals think differently - but this???

The mentally ill prefer Bush



Would you have to be insane to vote for George W. Bush? Well, no. But if the conclusions of a recent study hold up, it couldn't hurt. During the 2004 presidential election, a social work master's student at Southern Connecticut State University surveyed 69 psychiatric outpatients, and he found the more severe the person's psychosis, the more likely he or she was to vote for President Bush. While the study was designed as an advocacy project—researcher Christopher Lohse said he hoped to get out the mentally ill vote—when the survey results were analyzed, a clear trend emerged. Lohse said that his results imply that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader, pointing to a 1977 study showing that psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...linton-takes-9-11-truthers-hillary-fundraiser


And of course, is there anyone better to preach to people about self-control than Bill Clinton?

You honestly think it's a fair comparison to compare a guy who can't keep it in his pants and lies about it (hopefully he can now, who knows) to people who believe that that Sept 11th and the slaughter of all those people was an inside job involving the US govt, and their shouting of that anywhere they can? That's quite a stretch. Unless of course 9/11 is somehow connected to Bill Clinton's sex life.

 

[verte76]

I'm a psychiatric patient--I'm an autistic--and I didn't vote for Bush.

 

[diamond]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...linton-takes-9-11-truthers-hillary-fundraiser


And of course, is there anyone better to preach to people about self-control than Bill Clinton?

Actually I was a little bit proud of Bill here.

He stood up to a heckler, but I became disappointed when Bill had to take a swipe at Republicans in doing so with the Bohemian Grove comment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0K-Vi31mrdk

Couldn't Bill just have stuck to the topic?
Too bad for Bill.

dbs

 

[INDY500]

The mentally ill prefer Bush

Not if you count Bush Derangement Syndrome:

"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush."

There's been an epidemic of this of late.

a 1977 study showing that psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern.

Nixon won the popular vote 61% to 37%, other than draft-dodgers and acid freaks, who didn't prefer Nixon over McGovern?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Did you understand the article?

It's just two surveys on voting behaviour of mentally ill people.

his results imply that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader

Why getting all that defensive over that study?

 

[deep]

When asked, this June, if he would agree to be president if it hinged on his becoming a Red Sox fan.

“I have great respect for people who really are fans of the team they say they are fans of,” Mr. Giuliani said. “But probably that’s a deal I could not make.”

October 25, 2007

Bronx Jeers for Giuliani, Now Rooting for the Red Sox
By ALAN FEUER

As he moves about the country campaigning for the White House, Rudolph W. Giuliani is not always kind in describing where he comes from. New York City, he will say, is a tough town, hard to govern. It’s liberal to a fault and unruly as a child.

Now, however, there has come what is for many the true unpardonable insult: Mr. Giuliani has declared he will be rooting for the dreaded Boston Red Sox against the Colorado Rockies in the World Series, which began last night. From the Bronx to his childhood haunts in Brooklyn, there was a baffled anger bordering on rage.

“They should burn his seat that he sat in at Yankee Stadium — how’s that?” said George Patsin, a Brooklyn restaurateur. “They should burn it on TV so I can watch.”

It would seem that the timing is particularly galling to the faithful in New York. Bad enough that Joe Torre, the manager, is gone. Bad enough that half the team might follow. But Rudy cheering for Pedroia and Ortiz? It was, in short, too much.

“The word I’d use is ‘stunned,’” said Freddy Schuman, who for nearly 20 years has been showing up at Yankee games and banging on a frying pan with spoons. “I tell ya, I just can’t understand how a Yankee fan like him would all the sudden go for the Red Sox. It must be politics. I don’t get it. How do you do a thing like that?”

The betrayal hurts the more because if one were forced to pick the premiere New York fan, Mr. Giuliani would top the list.

He is a fan’s fan — a man whose very organs are likely etched with pinstripes. As mayor of New York, he used to wear his cap to City Hall. He is known to schedule political events so as not to miss a ballgame in the Bronx.

He once told Diane Sawyer he was fairly certain that God himself was rooting for the team.

By way of explanation, Mr. Giuliani couched his shift in loyalty as support for the American League. (“I’m an American League fan and I go with the American League team,” he told reporters — not coincidentally — in the primary state and Boston neighbor of New Hampshire.) “I thought he was loyal to New York,” said Kebrae H. Scott, 30, a maintenance worker who wore a Yankees cap as he was heading to his home in the Ebbets Fields Apartments in Brooklyn near where Mr. Giuliani grew up.

While it’s clear that fans develop an allegiance not just to a ball club, but a league, the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry is so embittered it’s hard to imagine any situation in which a fan of Mr. Giuliani’s stature could root for the sworn enemy of a beloved hometown team.

“It’s what you do when you run for president, I guess,” said Mike Francesa of “Mike and the Mad Dog,” a program on WFAN radio. “When in Rome, act like a Roman. I’m sure if he was stumping in Colorado next week, he’d be rooting for the Rockies.”

To be sure, politicizing baseball is neither something new nor a partisan problem, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has found out. She tried to split the difference between the Yankees, her adopted team, and her favored Chicago Cubs — a case of double loyalty for which Mr. Giuliani gave her grief.

Perhaps because the moment seemed so ripe for turnaround, the anger was decidedly unsubtle when The Daily News and The New York Post both ran doctored photographs of Mr. Giuliani on Wednesday in a navy ball cap with a bright red Boston ‘‘B.” “Traitor!” claimed The News. The Post, on its own cover, was equally damning: “Red Coat,” it declared.

Some politicos suggested that Mr. Giuliani may have confused the Red Sox with a red state.

“This is a major story,” said Maurice Carroll, director the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Rudy Giuliani endorses a team from Ted Kennedy’s state? A state that was once headed by Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani is a great American in many ways, but he must have simply lost track in this case. He’s got to win red states like Colorado and he comes out in favor of Massachusetts?”

To the former mayor’s credit, there are some who think it’s fine for a Yankee fan, in a time of need, to cheer the Sox. “It’s not that big of a deal,” said George Manesis, who runs a sports bar, Billy’s, near Yankee Stadium. “He’s going for votes now, plain and simple. But I don’t think he’s a traitor for doing that.”

None of this would have merited a mention had the former mayor not been so expressive of his passion for the Yankees (and his hatred for Red Sox). He once told reporters at a City Hall briefing: “What can I tell you? This is me. I’m a Yankee fan. I love the Yankees.” And he confessed to Glamour magazine last year, “The only tattoo I would ever consider getting would be a Yankee tattoo.”

Of course, his most revealing comment on the subject was perhaps the answer he provided to The Providence Journal in Rhode Island when asked, this June, if he would agree to be president if it hinged on his becoming a Red Sox fan.

“I have great respect for people who really are fans of the team they say they are fans of,” Mr. Giuliani said. “But probably that’s a deal I could not make.”

 

[yolland]

It's too long to post, but there's an interesting article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine about the changing evangelical political landscape.

'The Evangelical Crackup'

 

[INDY500]

It's too long to post, but there's an interesting article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine about the changing evangelical political landscape.

'The Evangelical Crackup'

The most striking change in the political landscape in the past generation has been the "religion gap," voters (especially whites) who attend church "often" overwhelmingly going Republican while those that attend church "rarely or never" skew Democratic. Besides further polarizing politics it adds an underlying suspicion to the motives and actions of other party.

In short, "Democrats do the bidding of Satan" -- "Republicans want a Christian theocracy."

Dodgy title aside, I would agree with the article in that more and more Christians now see that religion shouldn't have the political affiliation of (R) or (D) next to it. Which isn't to say that letting our political beliefs be shaped in part by our religious beliefs is a bad thing, I've argued otherwise many times. Only that the danger lies in the perception (even if true) that one political party now panders to religious believers while the other supports social legislation that ostracizes them.

It's easy to see how we got here, now we just have to reverse the process. Starting locally.

 

[U2isthebest]

I'm still trying to figure out which part of The Bible talks about using politics to make our culture more "moral".

 

[U2isthebest]

Fox told me: “I think the religious community is probably reflective of the rest of the nation — it is very divided right now. This election process is going to reveal a lot about where the religious right and the religious community is. It will show unity or the lack of it.”

But liberals, he said, should not start gloating. “Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” he said. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.”


Wow. He sounds just like Jesus!


I do compare the religious right to a snake though, that's for sure.

“Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”

People with attitudes and utter ignorance like this shouldn't even have the right to vote.

When I read your statement Kayla, I was like, I can not believe anyone can be that unintelligent, like, like.

 

[deep]

“Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”

Barak Hussein Osama

does not sound too Presidential.

Who wants people naming their kids Hussein?

his name is just one letter off from containing the names of America's two greatest enemies since the end of the Cold War.

You know, he could change it.

 

[U2isthebest]

Barak Hussein Osama

does not sound too Presidential.

Who wants people naming their kids Hussein?

his name is just one letter off from containing the names of America's two greatest enemies since the end of the Cold War.

You know, he could change it.

Jesus Smith, anyone?


Oh, wait....Many conservatives aren't too fond of the Hispanic population either.

Darn. I guess you're screwed, Kayla.

 

[deep]

Maybe something more American like Jesus' step Dad

Joseph? Smith

 

[deep]

We can't have this

Barak

Hussien

ObamaOsama

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

“Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”

Uhhhhhhhhh... . O-kaaaaaaaay...

Yeah, 'cause having a Christian like Fox, who makes statements like this:

“We are the religious right,” he liked to say. “One, we are religious. Two, we are right.”

is so much better .

Originally posted by INDY500
Dodgy title aside, I would agree with the article in that more and more Christians now see that religion shouldn't have the political affiliation of (R) or (D) next to it.

Right. And I'm glad they're realizing that, because it's true.

Originally posted by INDY500
Which isn't to say that letting our political beliefs be shaped in part by our religious beliefs is a bad thing, I've argued otherwise many times.

The problem with that comes, though, when those who use religious beliefs to help shape their views try and push that line of thinking onto other people. I understand that religion will play a factor in the way some people shape their line of thinking, that's fine. Just don't force that religious mindset on me or anyone else, is all.

Interesting article, yolland. There were parts of it that scared the crap out of me, but thanks for sharing it, it was a good read .

(And a belated thanks to everyone else who's shared articles here, too)

Angela

 

[U2isthebest]

Maybe something more American like Jesus' step Dad

Joseph? Smith

Sorry, Joseph Smith was one of those bad Mormon fellows.


How about "Bob", Bob Smith. It's as American as apple pie!

 

[yolland]

The most striking change in the political landscape in the past generation has been the "religion gap," voters (especially whites) who attend church "often" overwhelmingly going Republican while those that attend church "rarely or never" skew Democratic. Besides further polarizing politics it adds an underlying suspicion to the motives and actions of other party.

In short, "Democrats do the bidding of Satan" -- "Republicans want a Christian theocracy."

That you mentioned "(especially whites)" caught my eye, because as a native Southerner as well as a 'minority' of a sort, I've often thought about this "striking change in the political landscape" that's unfolded in my lifetime in light of that aspect. While I'm too young to really have meaningful reflections on the early years of that change, I do tend to suspect (given the traditional stronghold of such groups in the South) that many white voters who responded powerfully to the Moral Majority rhetoric of the late '70s and '80s--with its sometimes rather apocalyptic-sounding intimations of our very civilization being under dire and profound threat from an 'Evil Empire' within--did so at least in part because they'd been primed for it by pro-segregationist rhetoric of the '50s and '60s, with its own apocalyptic visions of 'our Anglo-Saxon Christian country' being under threat from a subversive mob of menacing blacks, Jews and Communist/atheist whites associated with them. And as with the Moral Majority, the audience for such rhetoric wasn't limited to the South--in particular, in both cases it enjoyed significant popularity in the Midwest as well. (Of course, there was a lot more going on in the '60s besides the Civil Rights Movement, and I don't mean to suggest that was the only salient backdrop; but it was, I think, a microcosm of other national tensions in many ways.)

On the flip side--and again, looking at all this from an admittedly highly personal angle--I found my own habituated deep distrust of the kinds of evangelicals I'd associated with both the aforementioned 'schools' of rhetoric growing up being tempered by my reactions to some very different attitudes I encountered after moving away from the South. Not in the sense of thinking, 'Huh, maybe those folks were on the right track after all,' but in the sense that some of the caricatures I encountered elsewhere of what they supposedly were 'all like' were ludicrous to the point of offensiveness (stupid, culturally vapid, humorless, 'white trash' etc.), accompanied by an unwarranted certainty that 'We don't have any of their flaws ourselves'. Ironically, a bit too close for comfort to the similarly (and familiarly) polarizing barbarians-at-the-gate-type rhetoric from the other side. As you said, "it adds an underlying suspicion to the motives and actions of the other party" and then some.

And more specifically on the religious-demographic aspect, I've always found it nonplussing how (until quite recently at least) people on both sides of this perceived bidding-of-Satan/theocratic-dystopia divide tended to dismiss the large numbers of black Christians, Catholics, and religious Jews who consistently lean Democratic as an anomaly--almost as if 'Aw, they're not really Religious People--they don't count.' Of course to the extent that some of those 'anomalous' folks likewise reflexively think their own religious affiliation comes with a (D) attached, that isn't any better. I agree with you that the apparent 'crackup' (or whatever less dodgy term one prefers) now unfolding is a hopeful sign for the country--it really does make collective priority-setting almost impossible when you're starting from the situation of being split into two camps, each of whose top priority seems to be reflexively opposing the other. Obviously the differences run much deeper than religious-identity-couched perceptions, but the particular forms of binary, essentialist political thinking those have given rise to have really been poisonous.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By The Associated Press | October 29, 2007

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she was top choice when people were asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

Asked about costume choices, 37 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos survey this month chose New York Sen. Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic presidential contenders. Fourteen percent selected former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leads Republicans in national polls.

No other candidate exceeded 6 percent.

Clinton was the choice of four in 10 men and one-third of women. While a predictable two-thirds of Republicans picked her, she also was the choice of 18 percent of Democrats. Among members of her own party, that made her second only to Giuliani as the scariest costume.

About one-third of independents, nearly half of whites and just over half of conservatives selected her.

Giuliani was the choice of 17 percent of men and 12 percent of women. About one-fifth of minorities and city residents and one-quarter of Democrats also picked him.

While many conservatives have doubts about Giuliani's candidacy because of his moderate views on abortion and other social issues, only 6 percent of that group said they thought he would make the scariest costume. That is about the same number as those who chose Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,013 adults conducted from Oct. 16-18. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — The controversial Gospel singer at the center of a gay and lesbian backlash against Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign struck back at his critics Sunday night, saying that he has been "vilified" and declaring that "God delivered me from homosexuality."

Rev. Donnie McClurkin, who headlined the final installment of the Obama campaign's "Embrace the Change" Gospel concert series, did not comment on the controversy until the just before the concert's finish, when he told the crowd of about 2,500 African-Americans: "I'm going to say something that's going to get me in trouble."

"They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot," McClurkin said. "We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God."

McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard.

The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."

"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."

McClurkin's words drew raucous applause from the crowd, who had lined up around the block to get into the Township Auditorium in Columbia.

Although a small demonstration led by the South Carolina Gay & Lesbian Pride Movement had gathered across the street from the concert venue, they were dwarfed by the crowd of black Gospel fans and Obama supporters who turned out to see the performance.

Meanwhile, Obama staff were inside and outside the building, working the crowd and trying to register new voters.

Nearly all of the African-American concert-goers interviewed by CNN expressed support for McClurkin. Some referenced the First Amendment, saying McClurkin had the right to say what he pleased. Others agreed with McClurkin and said that homosexuality is a choice. Several more invoked the Bible and said homosexuality is simply wrong.

A September poll conducted by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 74 percent of South Carolina African-Americans believe homosexuality is "unacceptable."

Michael Vandiver, president of the South Carolina Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement said that he was disappointed by Obama's refusal to take McClurkin off the bill, but that he hopes it will be an opportunity for new dialogue.

"This is not a protest of Senator Obama, but rather a vigil in opposition of Reverend McClurkin and his statements on homosexuality," Vandiver said before the concert. "We're also here to show our support for Rev. Andy Sidden."

Sidden is the white, gay pastor added to the concert bill as a last minute compromise by the Obama campaign. Sidden's appearance was notably brief and anti-climactic: He said a short prayer to the auditorium at the very beginning of the program, when the arena was only about half full, and then he left.

Obama, while not present, appeared on a videotaped message to the crowd, saying, “The artists you’re going to hear from are some of the best in the world, and favorites of Michelle and myself.”

McClurkin said during the concert that he had been introduced to Obama by Oprah Winfrey.

 

[2861U2]

By The Associated Press | October 29, 2007

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she was top choice when people were asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

Ain't it the truth.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Why does she scare you so much?

 

[BVS]

Woman that can take white house = scary

 

[verte76]

Yeah, why does she scare you?

 

[INDY500]

On the flip side--and again, looking at all this from an admittedly highly personal angle--I found my own habituated deep distrust of the kinds of evangelicals I'd associated with both the aforementioned 'schools' of rhetoric growing up being tempered by my reactions to some very different attitudes I encountered after moving away from the South. Not in the sense of thinking, 'Huh, maybe those folks were on the right track after all,' but in the sense that some of the caricatures I encountered elsewhere of what they supposedly were 'all like' were ludicrous to the point of offensiveness (stupid, culturally vapid, humorless, 'white trash' etc.), accompanied by an unwarranted certainty that 'We don't have any of their flaws ourselves'. Ironically, a bit too close for comfort to the similarly (and familiarly) polarizing barbarians-at-the-gate-type rhetoric from the other side. As you said, "it adds an underlying suspicion to the motives and actions of the other party" and then some.

This reminds me of Thomas Franks's book What's The Matter With Kansas? The premise of which was -- Why do these moronic buckle-shoed hayseeds let themselves be fooled into voting against their own best economic interests by "slick talkin" Republicans mouthing slogans and code words about faux cultural issues?

I enjoyed your observations. I suppose everyone at sometime in their life as a voter thinks to themselves, "why can't we have more choices." With only two parties, it seems so easy for groups that vote consistently the same way to, over time, find themselves painted into a corner where one party ignores them and the other takes them for granted.

Too bad we can't assemble our next president the same way Dr. Frankenstein assembled his monster.
"Ygor, throw the switch. Now...starting at the top...do we want Romney's or Edward's hair?"

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Woman that can take white house = scary

Next thing you know, we'll have a black man thinking he can run for President. The horror!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he is "disturbed" by some of gospel-singer Donnie McClurkin’s views toward homosexuals, a day after the prominent Obama supporter lashed out at critics for calling him 'anti-gay.'

“It’s true we had a controversy…a gospel singer was singing at a gospel concert on our behalf, he was one of many, and he had some views that were anti-gay,” the Illinois Democrat said during an MTV/MySpace forum. “I am disturbed by those views and I have said publicly that I have disagreed with them.”

But Obama defended his campaign's affiliation with McClurkin, saying, "I have also said we have to reach out to those who have a different attitude on these issues to try to teach."

Obama added that in the course of his presidential campaign he has "spoken out forcefully and clearly to African American ministers and African American denominations saying we’ve got to get beyond some of the homophobia that still exists in some of these communities."

On Sunday night McClurkin headlined the final installment of the Obama campaign's "Embrace the Change" Gospel concert series, and addressed critics at the end of the event who have faulted him for saying homosexuality is a choice.

"They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot," McClurkin said. "We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God."

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

On Sunday night McClurkin headlined the final installment of the Obama campaign's "Embrace the Change" Gospel concert series, and addressed critics at the end of the event who have faulted him for saying homosexuality is a choice.

"They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot," McClurkin said. "We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God."

So...uh...maybe let God decide then what is and isn't a sin, instead of doing it for him/her/it?

As for whether or not homosexuality is a choice, I dunno, I guess I figure a homosexual would know better than anyone else whether or not this was a decision for them, would they not? And why does it matter anyway?

That said...

But Obama defended his campaign's affiliation with McClurkin, saying, "I have also said we have to reach out to those who have a different attitude on these issues to try to teach."

...that makes sense. How can we all hope to solve any of the problems in this world if we don't open up some dialogue between those of differing viewpoints?

Angela

 

[U2isthebest]

Did anyone else catch Obama on MTV/Myspace's open forum with him? I watched that tonight, and he's already been a definite frontrunner for me, personally. I have to say I'm even more impressed with him after this. He's the first politician that's made me feel this hopeful about this country's future after the horrendous past 7 years. I loved what he said about education and the failure of No Child Left Behind. I also was impressed by what he said about restoring foreign public opinion of the U.S. He said a lot of things that struck a chord with me, but those are what struck me the most. I was also very impressed with the intelligence and passion of the students. They didn't ask easy questions, and Obama didn't skirt the issues. All in all, this was very worthwhile for something put on by MTV.

 

[BVS]

I watched and he really impressed me, I hope more take part in this forum...