Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

OH: 45% Kasich, 42% Strickland (Rasmussen 8/2)

Topics: Ohio , poll

Rasmussen
8/2/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Ohio

2010 Governor
45% Kasich (R), 42% Strickland (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Kasich: 47 / 34
Ted Strickland: 43 / 51 (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Strickland: 43 / 54 (chart)

 

Comments
Fred:

with the favorables, it looks as if this is Kasich's battle to win or lose. Strickland with 43% approval, and 42% of the vote. Sounds about right.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Yep unless Strickland's approval numbers change he's hit his ceiling.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I will at least give the Ohio GOP of not picking their nominees to be as radically right wing as the tea party candidates. Not that Kasich isn't pretty conservative, but he is more like the traditional, Fiscal, Social conservative who is also a big supporter of defense projects.

Portman may win this race, and if he does it will be because he is a mainstream conservative and as far as I know he has not directly been involved with the T Party. I think the fact he is Jewish may help to get some Independents who are fiscally conservative. At least he won't fit into that conservative Evangelical or Catholic style politician like a Palin, Santorum, John Ashcroft or Sam Brownback.

____________________

Field Marshal:

At least he won't fit into that conservative Evangelical or Catholic style politician like a Palin, Santorum, John Ashcroft or Sam Brownback.

Yeah, we all know how crazy those people who believe in God are, don't we?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

There is a difference between believing in God and respecting differences. The US was a place to escape religious oppression from countries where one state religion was dominant. The US is also a country where many who believe in God, such as Jews and some Catholics who are still Catholic but don't agree with all their stands; likewise we have protestant denominations like United Methodist or United Church of Christ that also would agree that leaders who impose "religious morality" is not the way to govern.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Here is a link I found about America's history of it's seperation of church and state. If someone wants to question the ideas of the founding fathers, go ahead.

"There are four references to a deity found in the Declaration of Independence, which was primarily co-authored by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, both friends of Thomas Paine. Those phrases are: "Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence." Specifically, the Declaration starts out:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration of Independence clearly asserts earthly authority, the words "Laws of Nature" are even capitalized. In addition to reading the usage of the word God in context, it is also important to understand the Declaration in its own historical context. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin was a self-declared Deist and it was he who made the final edits to the document.

The Declaration of Independence would have been clearly recognizable as deistic at the time it was written. The Declaration did not, for example, state: "In the name of The Lord God Jesus Christ," as would have been a much more traditional reference to the Christian God in a manner that was used by Europeans at the time. The Declaration was written during the height of the Enlightenment when Deism was popular and widely known. Deistic language was easy to recognize by people of the time because Deists avoided all of the traditional references to the Christian God. When Deists referred to "God" they used terms like "Supreme Being", "Almighty Judge", "Creator", "God of Nature", "Nature's God", etc. On the other hand Christians typically used terms like "the Lord", "Jesus Christ", "God", "Savior", etc.

The reference to "Laws of Nature" is an even more direct reference to Deism, because the deistic belief was that some supreme being created the universe and the laws of nature and the rest of what progressed from that point on followed the laws of nature. Most Deists did not believe in divine intervention or supernatural occurrences, and they definitely did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Mention of the Laws of Nature would have been an extremely obvious reference to Deism in 1776.

In addition to all of this, there was a reference to Christianity in Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, however the reference was not positive. In Jefferson's rough draft he wrote:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium [disgrace] of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

So, claims that references to a deity in the Declaration of Independence prove that America was founded on Christianity are dubious at best. The Declaration is clearly deistic when read in its own historical context and it was co-authored by America's two most strongly deistic founders. What has to be recognized is that the Declaration of Independence, including the manner in which it referred to God, was a very progressive document; in fact, it was "revolutionary."

What about the founders then?

The majority of the 100 plus founders were Christians, as were virtually all Europeans at that time. Of the Christian founders, most were very progressive in their views and were among the staunchest proponents of separation of Church and State. Some founders, including many of the most prominent, are known to have been Deists as well. Thomas Paine is of course the best example of an American Deist, but Benjamin Franklin also declared himself a Deist and Thomas Jefferson also wrote his own version of the Bible in which he took out all of the supernatural events of the New Testament. Benjamin Franklin is the only founder to have signed all three of the founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, The Treaty of Paris, and The Constitution. While Jefferson declared himself a "true Christian" (to Jefferson most priests and evangelicals were not "true Christians"), he also later declared himself an Epicurean. Epicures was a Greek materialist philosopher. "

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

____________________

Field Marshal:

There is a difference between believing in God and respecting differences.

I guess i don't understand your post. Are you saying these individuals, Brownback, Santorum, Palin, etc, do not want to allow other religions?

____________________

Gopherguy:

I think he's saying that those politicians want America to be a Christian nation. Not unofficially, like now, based on the majority religion, but officially, as in sanctioned by the government.

____________________

Gopherguy:

However, all of that is becoming debatable with the gutting of the free establishment clause.

____________________

Gopherguy:

However, with the free exercise clause being gutted, all of this America isn't a Christian Nation talk is becoming debatable. By that I mean it's not a Christian nation, but you could almost make a case that it has become one.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Sorry, for the now quadruple post, I meant free exercise earlier, but I accidentally wrote free establishment. I tried to cancel the post, but apparently I didn't do it in time.

Sorry guys.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

What I am saying is that many of the ideas of the Socially conservative Republicans is that some of the policies they support, like fighting civil Unions and gay rights, is because their type of Christianity condemns these things as immoral, just like believing that "life begins at conception". I don't know how Jefferson would have thought about abortion, but many of these policies that politicians like Santorum or Palin endorse come from very religious people, who do want to use these strict interpretations of scripture to legislate.

My point is that many Americans, and probably more than half, or even if it is just 40 percent who believe in Seperation of church and state, we deserve rights too. If you look at many of the most well known founding fathers, they were not atheist or agnostic, but freedom of ideas is what they support.

I think that any time religious elements are used to legislate morality it is a huge assault on the reason that our founding fathers paved the way for.

If you ask me about the 2nd Ammendment, I'll say it is a right that is sacred in this country, because it doesn't involve religion, and the 1st ammendment is sacred as long as people's lives aren't threatened.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

PS: I will admit that Obama's statement about Americans clinging to their guns and religion was stupid. It was poorly worded, and at the time he said it, I thought he wasn't going to win the election. It made it sound like all people who own guns are lunatics and all people who practice religion are all extreme Christian fundamentalists.

I think a better thing for him to say is to use these statements from founding fathers to prevent our country from being a theocracy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I disagree with you (both Gopher and FLAP) about the notion that Brownback, Palin, etc. would want to turn our country into a theocracy OR simply use their religion to make decisions that affect ALL Americans. These people use the same decision making that athiests, jews, muslims, etc. make both as politicians and in their daily lives. However, their environment has been influenced by, among many other things, their religion. To state they want all citizenry to follow their religion or that they want to make decisions based on what their particular religion advocates is a little disingenuous. It would be equivalent to stating that atheists would make policy decisions based on their belief that there is no God.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I believe that people in the workplace shouldn't be fired for being of a certain faith or repremanded unless they do something that is clearly offensive. If a teacher takes high school kids to a anti-abortion ctr, that is just as much grounds for dismissal as if a teacher takes high school kids to AFL-CIO meetings. Nevertheless, what people do in their free time is their business.

I think that the Democrats abide by Christian principles moreso than the GOP, because they reach out to the sick, the poor, the disenfranchised, and are more willing to face the underdogs in our society and help them. COnservatives may try to do this in their own way, but I find that most of them are more indirect when it comes to coming face to face with the unemployed, the minorities living in ghettos, gays, new immigrants and simply people like myself who would like to ask them some simply questions about why they govern the way they do.

Christ helped the poor and reached out to the prostitutes and those who were not the most moral, and it was the pharisees he was a critic of. I see the far right Christian conservatives as the pharisees. They may think their doing what is right, but based on my principles and what I think much of the rest of the world's principles are outside America, that they divide our country, and provide Democracy to the 40 percent who vote for them.

____________________

Gopherguy:

I never said that's what they want, I was just trying to answer your question.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that some politicians do want a theocracy.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

@Farlest
Enough said.

____________________

Field Marshal:

However, there is no doubt in my mind that some politicians do want a theocracy.

Probably. But i doubt any of the more prominent republicans are those politicians. Certainly not anyone in office.

I believe that people in the workplace shouldn't be fired for being of a certain faith or repremanded [sic] unless they do something that is clearly offensive

I completely agree.

I think that the Democrats abide by Christian principles moreso than the GOP, because they reach out to the sick, the poor, the disenfranchised, and are more willing to face the underdogs in our society and help them.

I would disagree here. I just think Dems and Reps go about helping these people in completely different ways.

As you said, Christ helped the poor. He did not employ the Romans or the provincial government to do it for him. Big difference.

____________________

Fred:

America was not born to escape Christianity or Christian values. It was born to escape oppression that came from the church of England. It wasn't Christian values that people had a problem with. It was the church of England. When people say "separation of church and state," usually they have no clue what they are talking about. Politicians who are Christians never say that they want everyone to worship in the exact same way at the exact same kind of church. That is where separation of church and state comes in. However, our country should be for Christian values if we indeed are "One nation under God," (which our currency says we are).

____________________

Fred:

As for who helps the poor more, it certainly is NOT the dems. Churches give more money to help homeless and people in poverty than the government does. Most of those people are probably conservatives, since Christians typically are more conservative. Secondly, the way that dems help the poor gives them no destination. Dems don't help those people out of poverty. They just encourage them to not have to work and keep them living off of the government while they are in poverty. Thirdly, while churches and individuals give their own money to help the poor, the democrats in government don't do anything to give of what they have. They just take taxpayer's money and therefore use the money of other people to help the poor. It takes no self-sacrifice to do that.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@FieldMarshal

You're probably right. Heavyweights within the Republican party are smart enough to know not to push a religious agenda or even endorse those that do.

Case in point, Mitch McConnell publicly stated that he isn't going to support Sharon Angle in Nevada who recently said "Democrats agenda violates the first COMMANDMENT." No, she didn't misspeak. She later explained that Democrats wanted to make government our god (that's a little g for me because there is only one God).

Anyway, the Republican elite sing a song for evangelicals every election cycle in order to take their campaign contributions. Then, after getting elected, they thumb their noses at them and laugh.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

Please read this. It is fairly objective and very much the kind of thing I learned growing up in school. You can argue with me all you want, but it is hard to argue with the founding fathers on religion.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Fred

"As for who helps the poor more, it certainly is NOT the dems."

Care to back that up with numbers?

____________________

Fred:

lol at myself. one nation under God is pledge. "in God we trust" is currency

____________________

Fred:

Shannon. You really think helping someone is about numbers? If you do, you've never helped anyone out. I'm saying that Dems push spending taxpayers money to help the poor continue on welfare. I don't see Obama going around giving sandwiches to homeless people like I see a lot of people doing. The real way to help someone in poverty is to help them look for jobs and to help them on their feet and speak hope into their lives........not to just throw money at them.

FLAP............what exactly in that site has anything to do with what is being discussed?

Just think. The evolution of the US since the declaration of independence has been that we've secularized our country......not the other way around. Have you ever seen the picture of the first prayer in congress? Just look at that picture, and the unity that the congress had, because they were 1 nation under God......maybe not complete unity, but very much united compared to our terribly divided congress that we have today.

you can just see how secularization of our congress makes it more and more divided.


____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Fred

We should probably drop this talk about religion. It's silly. We should be talking about policy.

However, if you're as concerned as some are that a Mormon or an atheist might be the next Republican nominee, I'd suggest that you disregard the advice being given on Fox News by a Mormon, and an atheist, and consider that Christian values are not tied to political affiliation.

Having said that, the separation of church and state was integral to the founding of our great nation. This is a nation that values every Mormon, atheist, muslim, evangelical, Puritan, Mennonite . . . whatever. Every citizen regardless of their religion is equal.

Just because all of the founding fathers were Judeo-Christians does not mean that forever our governors should always be Christians. As a Christian, nothing would please me more than for it to be that way, but I know that it should not. None of the founding fathers were black, yet, by God's grace, we have an African-American president. None of the founding fathers were women.

Let's set attributes aside and discuss policy. Does it really matter who is governing if the policy is correct?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The reason the topic of religion in politics came up was actually when I mentioned that Portman isn't coming across as the type of social conservatives that the GOP seems to be nominating these days.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think the "faith card" plays well in certain parts of the country. Obviously some parts of the country seem to put a greater emphasis on supporting right to like, Abstinence, being opposed to legal status for gays, school prayer, public display of the 10 commandments and other issues. Democrats nominate candidates in these states to also promote these issues because in many instances both sides need candidates who will connect with their constituency.

Charlie Melancon, sent a e-flier on the electronic mailing list and it had the Great Christian Footprints poem. I have respect for leaders who use their faith to lead, and I think he does it in a positive way to relate to his constituency, and I understand that the South and much of the midwest has traditionally been more religious than the northeast Corridor and Northern New England and try to respect those differences.

On the same note, Scott Brown did a lot to distance himself from the more religious Republican base, and focused on local issues and passed himself in Mass as a moderate. Same with Olympia Snowe.

____________________

lat:

Elena Kagan confirmed! The GOP has failed again.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yes he has. Shame on Ben Nelson for voting against her. I can understand him not being for health care reform or a moratorium on drilling or siding with the GOP on some issues, but not voting for Kagan is the end of his political career. He could never win Nebraska as a Republican if he switched. Perhaps he could give it a try. He and Lieberman can switch with Snowe and Collins I think.

____________________

Field Marshal:

She later explained that Democrats wanted to make government our god (that's a little g for me because there is only one God).

Hard to argue with that. Most on the left see government as their answer to any of life's problems whereas people on the right look to God for those answers. So, in essence, she is correct.


Fred,

Great post and I agree 100%. The Dems have no intention to help the poor. They simply want to create a permanent dependence on government in an effort for their permanent support at the polls. Its not very difficult to see that. A local study done here in Denver showed that the churches could feed over 2.5x the amount of people for the same amount of money as the city and state could. That's also not surprising.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Field Marshal:
She later explained that Democrats wanted to make government our god (that's a little g for me because there is only one God)."

Talking about Sharron Angle I presume? My question to you is if she truly believes that government is our god, why does she want to even get into government? It was a ridiculous comment not just because she has no agenda but can't we admire certain politicians without making them our God?

When you look at how unpopular congress is, and voter turnout is like half of other Democracies, I don't think the average person would consider Government to be their god.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Fred,

Great post and I agree 100%. The Dems have no intention to help the poor. They simply want to create a permanent dependence on government in an effort for their permanent support at the polls. "

If this is so true, why do Conservatives go so far out of their way to make sure the wealthiest 3 percent get their extravagant tax cuts, as well as the "death tax". I don't think the GOP would ever try to get rid of the death tax if it was for the middle class or poor. It is a issue that will continue to fill their pocket books from the very rich.


____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@FieldMarshal

Is money the Republican god?

It's political quackery. Any reasonable candidate would have stopped at democrats like big government.

She is a loon and that's why McConnell won't support her.

If republicans can get past making sweeping characterizations like democrats are socialists or democrats are godless, they might seem more sane and win a few more people in the middle of the political spectrum.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Is money the Republican god?

I would say God is the republican God.

It's political quackery. Any reasonable candidate would have stopped at democrats like big government.

How so? She simply used hyperbole to make a point.

If republicans can get past making sweeping characterizations like democrats are socialists or democrats are godless, they might seem more sane and win a few more people in the middle of the political spectrum.

Is it any different than that loon Grayson saying Republicans health care plans are for you to die. Or how about when democrats say republicans want a theocracy. Or they don't care about poor people. Or that if you oppose Obama you are racist. Or if you enforce the law you are racist.

It goes both ways my friend. Any sane person in the middle should be MUCH more afraid of the current democratic party which is now completed owned by the far-left loons.

You simply choose to focus on Angle because you have been indoctrinated by the left wing mainstream media into believing she is quack and nuts. You've been had.

____________________

Stillow:

There is very little dfference between the social left and social right. Both wish to use the power of g'ment to control people's behavior in their own way. Dems use g'ment to modify and control behavior by having g'ment tell what to eat, or what to drive, hwat kind of windows you must put in your house, wheather or not you can own a gun to protect your family...the Social right want sto use the power of g'ment to determine if you can abort a baby or not or whom you can marry.

Both sids are equally guilty...and both sides lust for the power to control our behavior by wielding the mighty hand of g'ment over us and slapping us if we get out of line or we do not conform to there view of what is socially acceptable.

The social right denying people from marrying is no more intollerable thanthe social left wanting to take my gun away. Both are an ends to a means...and the end is simply controlling the behavior of the masses. Once you control certain aspects of peoples lives, it becomes easier and easier to control all aspects of our lives.

I find what the social left and the social right do to be totally repulsive.....its all about the power to control people. And both sides use these types of social issues to distract us. They get us to hung up on whom can get married or hiding your guns that we many times do not see the damage g'ment as a whole is doing to society. We are being sold down the river financially while the two sides keep us bickering about social issues.

HCR for example, do you know what happens when g'ment takes total control over HC? In the future if we go to single payer and private carriers are out of business? They can control your entire lifestyle. If you do things that they cosnider a risk or a threat of higher HC expense they can deny you care. they can control all your behavior by simply threatening to take away your HC if you do not live the way they tell you to, or eat the way they tell you to.

Same thing with the right using religion to control behavior. They try to psuh certai nbeleifs on you and if you disagree with those beleifs they try and deny you this or that in society, make you an outcast....so they wish to control your behavior by exclusion threats.

Both sides are guilty of the same thing, onl ythe tactics are different....they both have the same sinsiter goal.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Maybe Palin and Mitch Mcconnell can go support David Vitter. They can tell the crowd that comes to hear the Great David Vitter speak, he can convince his supporters that everything about his staffer beating his girlfriend, and being charged was a lie, and a Democratic scheme to get him out of office.

Vitter seems to like being with real whores, now he can be with the biggest whore of the Republican party, Sarah Palin.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Good post Sillow.

Why does the government give out marriage licenses in the first place? Does anyone know the origin of this? My assumption is exactly what Stillow is saying- they want a hand in controlling us and limiting our freedom.

As i said yesterday, my issue with yesterdays court ruling on prop 8 is not about the actual law, but about the alarming power grab by the judicial branch in this country essentially marginalizing the people as well as the legislative branches.

Government should simply remove itself from the marriage business and allow anyone to get a civil union from the justice of the peace (including same-sex couples) or recognize marriage from religious organizations. Both would have the same rights and privileges.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@FieldMarshal

Are you really going to support someone who wants to eliminate the Energy Department, the EPA, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Education, Social Security, and Medicare just because there is an (R) next to her name?

Do you support any of these positions?

She's a political quack.

____________________

Stillow:

farleft - Half of the men in Congress have probably had affairs. Even President Clinton was getting his yankees off in the oval office.

Do you know how stupid you make yourself look when you call palin a whore? She seems to me to be a decent person, probably a great mom to her kids....when one has differing views than yours, they are not radicals or whores, they are simply another person with differig views. Its ok to slam those who you idsagree with on issues, even play hardball with your opposition rhetoric...but when you start calling somone like palin a whore, its not only unclassy, it makes you look like a totaly idiot.

____________________

Stillow:

"Shannon,Dallas,Texas:
@FieldMarshal

Are you really going to support someone who wants to eliminate the Energy Department, the EPA, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Education, Social Security, and Medicare just because there is an (R) next to her name?"

YES! The g'ment has no business being i nthe arts. Can you show me in the consituttion hwere it says g'ment needs an endowment for the arts? the dept. of education is a joke and should be abolished. education is best run o nthe state and local levels, not a federal level. The people of Oregon know best what their needs are in education, not people 3,000 miles away in DC who probably cannot locate Oregon o nthe map. SS and medicare will abolish themselves unless they are reformed/replaced.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Shannon,

I do support the elimination of the Energy dept, Education dept, NEA, and the reformation of SS and Medicare. The only thing on the list i dont agree with is the elimination of the EPA. I would also eliminate a host of other government departments and radically cut ALL cabinet budgets.

She may be a political quack to you but i would argue Obama, Pelosi and Reid are political quacks. Who cares if you think she's a quack? You weren't going to vote for her anyway since she had an R next to her name.

____________________

John1:

Government should not be in the business of subsidizing art. There was an article a few weeks ago in the Wall street journal with a scultpure of jesus being peed on that was paid for by the NEA. Our taxpayer dollars at work!

Since the dept of energy was setup in 1979 wit hte stated purpose of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil I would say its a failure.

Do I even need to mention the pathetic state our public education system in this country is to reason for the elimination of the department of educaiton?

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Extreme. We can't afford to put Republicans in charge of the federal government.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Actually, the extreme is medicare for all and funding art with taxpayer dollars. What we really cannot AFFORD, literally, is democrats in charge of government since they spend so recklessly on subsidizing art, ruining our education system and raising the cost of energy (the GOP isn't much better but they are better).

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Two unfunded wars . . .
An unfunded prescription drug benefit . . .
A loss of revenue due to the Bush Tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% . . .

Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."

Take those away from the current budget deficit and look back to the days when we had a budget surplus under the Clinton administration and it becomes clear who we can't AFFORD to have in control . . . the republicans.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Shannon,

I stated that the Reps aren't much better. But they are slightly better. And i see you responded with the traditional Democratic talking points.

Do you think Clinton would have had a surplus with a dem congress? I doubt it. And the Bush tax cuts went to all tax payers and disproportionately favored the poor. So what?

Remember, deficits don't matter when they are less than nominal GDP. Obama has basically doubled down on the Bush deficits and created a 12% budget deficit; oh how great it would be to have nominal GDP of 12%. Instead, we sit at 2.5%.

Also, which of our past dozen or so wars were "funded"?


____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Shannon,Dallas,Texas:
Two unfunded wars . . .
An unfunded prescription drug benefit . . .
A loss of revenue due to the Bush Tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% . . .

Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."

Conservative ideas fail everytime, and to look at the future of conservatism in America, all you have to do is look at their past.

Bush's new book is going to be coming out after the midterms? Is that a coincidence? You decide.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I didn't mean Palin was literally a whore. Please don't take that comment literally. I meant it figuratively since she is more or less used as a puppet by every extremely conservative candidate.

She is just insulting and in my opinion has no redeeming qualities because first off she is a 1/2 term governor, critisizing Obama for not having experience and in over his head. Of course Obama is in over his head, and has taken on some rough spots. Just having to deal with pathological liars who don't think he is born here, and being able to stay calm and collected, is impressive to me.

Palin could indeed blow it for some GOP candidates this year, and I keep hoping she will endorse them after the Republican primaries. I bet you anything that Ayotte will not get the Republican nomination in NH after Palin's endorsement. It was a little disappointing because Ayotte has some of her own ethics scandals to deal with.

The other thing I can't stand about her is she is so afraid of any media sources that disagrees with her. People like Mike Pence in contrast come on MSNBC all the time. Is there anything I agree with from their mouths? Nothing, but at least he can be diplomatic and share his ideas with people who disagree with him.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"There was an article a few weeks ago in the Wall street journal with a scultpure of jesus being peed on that was paid for by the NEA. Our taxpayer dollars at work!

Since the dept of energy was setup in 1979 wit hte stated purpose of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil I would say its a failure.

Do I even need to mention the pathetic state our public education system in this country is to reason for the elimination of the department of educaiton?"

2011 appropriation request of the NEA: $159 million

2011 Dept of Energy: $28.4 billion

2011 Dept of Education: $77.8 billion

Now what about Dept of Defense?

$708 billion

The entire Ed budget is equal to defense's R&D request, which includes gems like this:

"210 0303610K Teleport Program 07 6,880"

Yes you read that right, a $6.8 million teleportation program. It's been around for a while.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

Of course, I'd wager some of the scientists working on it probably got their physics phds with the help of a pell grant somewhere along the line. Remove the Dept. of Education, half of whose budget is pell grants, and you remove what little scientific competitiveness we have left.


____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Personally, I think the arts are far more important than something that's out of science fiction that even if it was physically possible we couldn't possibly generate the energy for.

Are things like this really that bad?

"Southern Utah University, in Cedar City was awarded a $15,000 theater grant to
support more than 20 performances of a production of Henry V by William Shakespeare
at the Utah Shakespearean Festival. The production was directed by associate artistic
director J.R. Sullivan, and drew audiences totalling approximately 13,000."

Eliminate the 1/3 funding that Southern Utah Univ. gets (generally public colleges and universities receive 20-35% of their funding from the federal gov't), you also destroy the economy of Cedar City, pop. 20,000, which no doubt benefits greatly from the 7500 students there.

In my experience, the businesses in college towns like that literally go into hibernation during the summer/christmas breaks. Without the students they would wither and die.

This cute little coffee shop on main street:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cedar_City_Utah_01.jpg

Gone. Way to go. You saved the fed a few million and cost a town the engine of its economy. SUU and the Iron County school district are the two largest employers in that county according to its chamber of commerce website. You cut those and you completely decimate it.

Also the Utah Shakespearean festival takes place there too, lol. You just cost the town a bunch of tourism dollars by cutting the NEA's support of it.

http://www.nea.gov/about/Budget/NEA-FY11-Appropriations-Request.pdf

Oops, but those without those pell grants, many of the theater students and SUU theater dept. wouldn't even be there to give the play.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - Uhhhhh, what good would spending more on anything be if you do not have the military to defend it? If did not and do not retain our global military dominance, forces like China, russia, etc would move in in a second. We are a superpower and have to maintain that military dominance. We are so hurt financially right now our military muscle is the only thing keeping us from being a nice target for the Chinese.

Stop whining about defense spending...its the most vital expense in our budget...because without a strong defense, we have no nation.

I love how you libs talk about how its only a few million....its only a few billion....g'ment is not responsible for paying for arts and or netertainment. If you want to put on a shakespere play that draws 13,000 people, then charge them a $1 to watch. Don't ask tax payers to pay the bill when we have a 14 trillion dollar debt and deficits nearing 1.5 trillion every year.

put it bluntly, we can no longer afford for you libs to feel all wrm and fuzzy inside as we all pay for your coffee shop and shaespere plays. You need to find other ways to soothe your need for inner harmony that doesn't cost tax payers money. You want art, fine by me, pay for it your damn self. The g'ment is responsible for things like national defense, it is not responsible for paying for satues of jesus being peed upon.

get a life aaron.....find other ways to indulge your need to "feel' good about life.

____________________

seg:

Field Marshal:
Extremely well said. In fact, many had excellent comments on both sides, with much less ranting and insults than usual.

I will add that all of us should remember that no group is monolithic. Not once in my life of church going or elsewhere have I heard a Christian advocate a religious state. On the other hand, I am certain you could find some if you looked hard enough or heard enough voices. Cherry picking a few extremists is dishonest representation, as is cherry picking a few statements from prominent individuals out of context.

The closest thing we have to theocracy advocates in this country are Muslims and militant atheists, and the former are not monolithic.

of course, liberals are only concerned about white Christian evangelists. What is fair to say is that all Christian evangelists (white, black, and Asian) hope and pray that everyone in the world will become Christians, not because of political power or hegemony but out of concern for the soul of each individual. The idea of forced or coerced conversion is inconceivable to most evangelical Christians since their most basic tenet is that the one and only requirement is the free and joyful acceptance of Christ into your heart. Hence, Christians have a duty to spread the Word, but conversion at the point of a gun (or regulation) is not conversion and therefore pointless. Certainly forced conversions have happened in the past, though not that often by Protestants after the Reformation. During the Reformation wars in the Europe, you became Protestant or Catholic depending on what your Prince or King chose for himself. His choice in some cases had less to do with his religious beliefs than in what his allies did.

I must have lived a charmed life because I have never meet any evangelicals who wished the state to adopt or require their brand of protestanism. They do want the state to disallow public sexual displays and other immoral public acts (mostly for the sake of children). For example, they would be upset at public entertainment whose theme is that abusing others is okay. Then again, so would most of us, especially those of us who are parents of non-adult children.

They do not like entertainment that mocks Christians or their beliefs (it is very common). They are notably less thin-skinned about it than blacks, Muslims, Jews, liberals, conservatives, and almost any other group you could name. Evangelicals see enduring public opproprium for their faith as something that binds them together and toughens their faith.

They rarely want the active support of the state, but they do desire that the state not put barriers to the free expression of their religion. Such barriers are extremely commonplace now for Christians in schools and other government buildings. It is remarkable that it is now considered wrong to have a prayer group in a school or for the school to cooperate by allowing them to use meeting spaces for that purpose.

Liberals who talk about the founding fathers' desire to separate church and state are projecting their own views into the past, typically supporting revisionist views of history with isolated quotes, often by unrepresentative individuals (e.g., Thomas Jefferson). I doubt many meetings back then started without prayers. What they opposed was government support of some sects to the exclusion of others. Hence, by that standard all denominations and religious groups should have access to meeting rooms. Anyone who wishes to utter a prayer in a public place should be allowed to do so and none should be discouraged from doing so. That is what the "free exercise of religion" really requires.

The ACLU bears great responsibility for the exclusion of Christianity from public life. One of my Jewish friends explained to me long ago that Jews have been persecuted by Christian and Muslim fanatics for centuries all over the world. For that reason, even someone relatively moderate politically like himself is very uneasy, to the say the least, with those with a strong Christian faith. He and they find expressions of fervent Christianity very threatening. He saw the ACLU as a mostly Jewish group mostly dedicated to reducing the influence and spread of Christian fundamentalism, with removing it from public places a primary tactic. Support for non-religious issues was a sideshow. He had very mixed feelings about supporting them because he feared that Christians would hold their efforts against all Jews. He admitted freely that he would be outraged if a Christian supported group had the same tactics against the Jewish religious expression. He hated subterfuge but felt that it was a matter of long-term Jewish survival, so he did support them.

I have always been deeply troubled by what he said (he still thinks the same way, as of a few weeks ago) because he is easily the most intelligent, astute, and cosmopolitan person I have every known. If he was correct in his assessment, it is a very sad statement. I cannot say that he is totally wrong to fear what Christian fundamentalism could turn into, but I would say that no group responds well when they feel they are under attack. It is conceivable that efforts to dampen Christianity could create the very problems he fears.

It is much more likely that we will become like Europe where the only significant group of people who fervently espouse their religion is Muslims. That would be the ultimate irony.

So, I am not sure what to think. I have never raised the subject with any other Jewish friends or acquantenances because it is a deeply uncomfortable thing to talk about and could lead to sad misunderstandings. The Jewish guy who said these things to me raised the issue to me because he felt guilty withholding such feelings from his best friend.

Is my Jewish friend representative or is he isolated from other Jews on this one? I think he is probably correct about the ACLU and its goals, but I wonder how most Jews see Christian evangelicals and the ACLU.

I certainly hope Lat does not represent the views of very many Jews (I know he is not Jewish, himself). I do not hold his antipathy to evangelicals against him, personally, because I choose to believe he would never act on his beliefs by harming others. However, it would be disquieting and sad to know that he represents a significant strain of Jewish opinion.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR