O-bomb-a
Despite what happened last time I posted something even quasi-political, I have chosen to brave whatever scorn may come from our few vocal republican commenters. This candidate has wooed me. I am consistently impressed with his candor and his willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in order to effect balanced change. I believe that one of the things we need most right now, as a nation, is increased unity and cooperation.
posted by Mamie at
1/03/2008 02:23:00 PM
19 Comments:
His speeches give me chills. Pretty exciting Iowa caucus, eh?
Me too. John often looks at me and says "Are you going to cry?"
I'll be honest, sometimes the answer is yes. Exciting, indeed.
Mamie, you're asking for it.
Just kidding, I like him too. Only one question besides his extremely liberal views: why won't he place his hand over his heart when he's listening to the national anthem? This wouldn't necessarily prevent me from voting for him if I were of that persuasion, but when you're running for the Presidency, why not?
And I'd like to hear your thoughts on Mitt...just for kicks. Remember, he's family. (And because John is an honorary Romney, he's your too!)
Love ya.
I think you like him because he's just like Johnny, and what's not to like about that!
Brad, although his campaign said he wasn't making any kind of statement by declining to put his hand over his heart (on the occasion you are referring to), I could offer up an opinion that crossed my mind.
Obama is focusing on a new/old politics- one heavily based on principle and a return to American ethics, things that come from deep within. By declining to put his hand over his heart, I think in a way he is delivering a message about patriotism. Wearing a lapel pin, or tying a ribbon to a tree, or putting your hand over your heart (unless in uniform) are all outward demonstrations of our love and regard for our nation.
Obama addressed his not wearing the flag lapel in Independence, IA:
“Somebody noticed I wasn’t wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven’t probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time.
“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”
So- while I found photos of him holding his hand over heart and at least one of him not doing so, I still have to concede that I don't know.
Also, an afterthought- lots of Christians think it's wrong that we don't use the cross to symbolize Christ. It certainly doesn't mean that we don't believe.
about Romney- I am drafting you a personal letter so that you can address my issues.
While you and I may not agree on a myriad of issues,I love that we both share a mutual care for our civic rights and responsibilities. I am so proud of you and Carli for going to IA to make your voices heard.
Mamie, what a wonderful response. Thank you.
I've heard that response from Obama before and I understand his position. However, couldn't he do both? Couldn't he wear the pin or place his hand over his heart AND be patriotic? I don't believe they're mutually exclusive and I don't believe they're substitutes for each other. It's actually a very small action that speaks volumes about his ideologies, whether for good or for ill. I haven't decided which yet.
Good point about our religion not using the cross. A bit different circumstance, but still very related.
I love to discuss politics and glad we can do so respectfully. Look forward to getting your letter.
Carli and I want to come see you guys sometime this summer. What do you think?
If I was a democrat I'd vote for Obama, if I was a republican voting as a democrat in the primaries I'd vote for Hilary, she's the only chance the republicans have. I'd vote for Mitt though, he's the only candidate on either side that I have on good authority is a good, ethical person. That's not because he's a member of the church (we all know that doesn't necessarily mean anything), but because people I know and trust knew, or know, him personally and have said he is. The others are too much of a risk.
Rod, whole-heartedly agreed, although I do believe Mitt would be a formidable opponent to Obama. Huck and Giuliani have way to many ethics problems, McCain is too old and ornery, and Fred exhibits too little excitement.
If Mitt's nominated, I guarantee a win above anyone except Obama - I can't guarantee a win there.
I think the reason Mormons don't wear crosses is the same as why they don't wear little guns around their necks to honor Joseph Smith.
michigan observer, I am guessing that your point is that we choose not to focus on his death (or the way he died)? If so, I agree with you. Additionally, I would offer these comments from President Gordon B. Hinckley of the LDS church in reference to this topic:
We recently held an open house in the Arizona Temple. Following a complete renovation of that building, nearly a quarter of a million people saw its beautiful interior. On the first day of the opening, clergymen of other religions were invited as special guests, and hundreds responded. It was my privilege to speak to them and to answer their questions at the conclusion of their tours. I told them that we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Many were asked. Among these was one which came from a Protestant minister.
Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.”
He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
(“The Symbol of Christ,” Ensign, May 1975, 92)
Thanks for commenting! I love this kind of dialogue.
I love that quote you found, Mamie. It gave me chills.
Sorry about Obama's loss last night - I along with everyone else thought he'd win - I had hoped he would win because of all the Dems, I like him best.
Mitt's loss was a tough one. He really needs Michigan. I just think he would make an amazing president, and I'd love to see debates between he and Obama. That would really be something - to see two men who are actually intelligent vie for the world's #1 job.
You know, Brad, I'll be honest. I have been twice disappointed that Mitt didn't "take the gold" for the GOP. I guess somewhere inside I am secretly pulling for him, too, although I maintain my difference in opinion on many issues.
So here's a question- why does the Wyoming win seem to be totally insignificant? How does that make the Wyomingans feel that no one cares about their caucus?
I wish him better luck in Michigan- it looks like he stands a pretty good chance there.
That's good to hear. I would bet that if the election came down between a dem candidate that you can't stand (assuming there is one) and Mitt Romney, I'd like to think you would vote for him. Heaven knows that if it came down to Obama v. Huckabee or McCain, I'd most likely cast my ballot for Obama because I can't stand those other guys. I wouldn't vote for Edwards, though. I'd rather stay home.
Wyoming:
OK, there are three reasons people give as to why it's not covered more heavily, two of which I think are quasi-valid although not necessarily the way it should be:
1) Semi-Valid: Wyoming was not heavily contested. Mitt, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter were the only ones to campaign there, possibly because of double-digit Mormon population. But I don't believe that that should mean the caucus isn't as important. It is to Mitt as Iowa is to Huckabee. So while it may not have shown how the people in general would vote if they had all sides presented to them equally, our political system isn't designed that way. Wyoming should get as much coverage as any other state.
2) Semi-Valid: Iowa, NH and SC have historically been important. The Iowan political parties have a rule that they must be the first contest in the nation. NH has a rule that they must be the first primary in the nation, traditionally a week after the Iowa caucus. And SC has followed closely behind NH. However, the national GOP has a rule that no primaries may be held before Feb 5. Because NH and a variety of other states are holding their primaries before Feb 5, their punishment is that at the national GOP convention where the nominee is chosen, the delegates of those states are halved. So instead of NH having 40-some-odd delegates, they get 20-something. This rule does not apply to a caucus. So Iowa, Wyoming and Nevada will keep all of their delegates, but those with a primary before Feb 5, such as NH or MI or SC, lose half of their delegates. As such the winners of these states get fewer delegates but receive the huge advantage of free media adulation. So that's why some states are perceived as more important than others. Wyoming and the others that moved their contests up are hoping to get in the "more important" category.
3) INvalid: Wyoming is seen as not representative of the general populous. Although I agree with that statement, the reason I believe it is invalid is because the traditionally important states such as Iowa and NH are also not representative of the general populous (Iowa way too rural and NH way too independent). So to validate some states that are a misrepresentation of the population and invalidate others for that reason, completely debunks the theory.
So there's my analysis of Wyoming. I would have loved to have seen it covered much more heavily, but that's just the way it goes. Mitt is trying to bring it out and has been moderately successful at it, but it's still largely unknown to those that don't follow politics.
Holy-comment-oly
CONGRATS TO MITT FOR HIS MICHIGAN WIN!
I'm pretty happy to see that Mitt won as well. I think that a choice between him and Obama would be just fine. Because Mitt hasn't been a congressman (and not been "socialized" to normal washington culture) and the fact that he is such a savvy businessman, helps him to be a better candidate.
I'm voting for Ron Paul. I guess Brad is going to give me a talking to.
I love that quote, Maime, about our lives being the symbol of our religion. As far as the flag pins or hands over hearts, I agree that it's an insignificant point that some may exploit when trying to dodge bigger issues. I've been very impressed with Obama whenever I've seen him on t.v. He's got real sincerity and is such a foil to Hilary. Can you believe elections aren't until November? This is going to get really intense.
That's OK, Hollywood - I'll spare you my wrath this time.
I actually don't mind Ron Paul all that much. He takes his views a little too far sometimes, but I completely support his theoretical basis.
Wow--very interesting thread! You've all gotten me thinking.
Post a Comment
<< Home