Lessons from the election

What have we learned from the election?  Here are a few points I’ve learned:

1.  The polls are accurate.  (The average of the state-by-state polls put out by RealClearPolitics the day before the election were pretty much right on the money.)

2.  It’s NOT “the economy, stupid.”

3.  The general public despises and fears conservatives.

4.  Evangelical political activists have lost their clout.

5.  The Republican party needs to re-invent itself.

How do you account for these perhaps inconvenient and unexpected truths?  Are there any other lessons we need to learn?

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Here is an interesting take. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

    It would appear that the Republican Party would be better served if it followed the commentary on Cranach and quit listening to the Limbaugh’s, the Rove’s and the WSJ hack commentariat (as much as I enjoy reading the WSJ too, natch).

  • SKPeterson

    Here is an interesting take. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

    It would appear that the Republican Party would be better served if it followed the commentary on Cranach and quit listening to the Limbaugh’s, the Rove’s and the WSJ hack commentariat (as much as I enjoy reading the WSJ too, natch).

  • Michael B.

    “Evangelical political activists have lost their clout.”

    Certainly you can see this from national election data, but you can also see this at your local level. I know many of you belong to conservative churches, so try this out sometime. After your church service is done, corner one or two of the kids in your high school youth group in the hallway, and ask them some open-ended questions. Ask questions like “If 2 people are in love and want to get married, does it matter what gender they are?”. Or “If a kid is sick and his father can’t pay his family’s medical bills, what role should the government play?”. See what kind of responses you get.

  • Michael B.

    “Evangelical political activists have lost their clout.”

    Certainly you can see this from national election data, but you can also see this at your local level. I know many of you belong to conservative churches, so try this out sometime. After your church service is done, corner one or two of the kids in your high school youth group in the hallway, and ask them some open-ended questions. Ask questions like “If 2 people are in love and want to get married, does it matter what gender they are?”. Or “If a kid is sick and his father can’t pay his family’s medical bills, what role should the government play?”. See what kind of responses you get.

  • Bdozer

    Evangelical Christians love America. Some see in her the last hope of creating a Christian nation. But it is not a Christian nation. It is pagan to the core. It is in danger of becoming, if it is not already, the new “Evil Empire.” The Mayflower Compact is a museum piece, a relic of a forgotten era. “In God We Trust” is now a lie.
    Yes, we must always work for social reform. Yes, we must be “profane’ in Martin Luther’s sense of going out of the temple and into the world. We do not despise the country of our birth. But in what do we invest our hope? The state is not God. The nation is not the Promised Land. The president is not our King. The Congress is not our Savior. Our welfare can never be found in the city of man. The federal government is not sovereign. We live—in every age and in every generation—by the rivers of Babylon. We need to understand that clearly. We must learn how to sing the Lord’s song in a strange and foreign land.
    America will fall. The United States will inevitably disintegrate. The Stars and Stripes will bleed. The White House will turn to rubble. That is certain. We stand like Augustine before the sea. We pray that God will spare our nation. If He chooses not to, we ask for the grace to accept its demise. In either case, we look to Him who is our King and to heaven, which is our home. We await the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose builder and maker is God.
    Originally posted on Ligonier.org

  • Bdozer

    Evangelical Christians love America. Some see in her the last hope of creating a Christian nation. But it is not a Christian nation. It is pagan to the core. It is in danger of becoming, if it is not already, the new “Evil Empire.” The Mayflower Compact is a museum piece, a relic of a forgotten era. “In God We Trust” is now a lie.
    Yes, we must always work for social reform. Yes, we must be “profane’ in Martin Luther’s sense of going out of the temple and into the world. We do not despise the country of our birth. But in what do we invest our hope? The state is not God. The nation is not the Promised Land. The president is not our King. The Congress is not our Savior. Our welfare can never be found in the city of man. The federal government is not sovereign. We live—in every age and in every generation—by the rivers of Babylon. We need to understand that clearly. We must learn how to sing the Lord’s song in a strange and foreign land.
    America will fall. The United States will inevitably disintegrate. The Stars and Stripes will bleed. The White House will turn to rubble. That is certain. We stand like Augustine before the sea. We pray that God will spare our nation. If He chooses not to, we ask for the grace to accept its demise. In either case, we look to Him who is our King and to heaven, which is our home. We await the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose builder and maker is God.
    Originally posted on Ligonier.org

  • sandi

    clearly, thanks to the public school system, half the population does not understand the concept presented in the Federalist papers; and ideas that bring forth freedom.

  • sandi

    clearly, thanks to the public school system, half the population does not understand the concept presented in the Federalist papers; and ideas that bring forth freedom.

  • SKPeterson

    Bdozer – You need to read this for some perspective.

    It’s not that bad, and I don’t think it is as libertine as Michael B. implies.

    http://www.adcrucem.org/2012/11/07/god-will-judge-us-for-this-election

  • SKPeterson

    Bdozer – You need to read this for some perspective.

    It’s not that bad, and I don’t think it is as libertine as Michael B. implies.

    http://www.adcrucem.org/2012/11/07/god-will-judge-us-for-this-election

  • MarkB

    As much as I wanted to believe that the United States have not changed, it has. The demographics have been changing and will continue to change into the future. The big wigs in the Republican Party will realize that eventually and will shift to the left to follow the demographics. Those who are on the right whether social or moral right will be left being marginalized. If that is the way it is going to be, so be it. I will still be a conservative and vote on principle and most likely will be voting third party in the future with the personal realization that those I align with will be the permanent minority. That is not to saw we will not have some success on the state and local level, but on the national front it will only get more liberal.

    Here is an article that outlines why. And if you go to this article you can also click on the links in it to other articles that give you more indepth information.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/where_we_go_from_here.html#ixzz2Bak7GiRU

    Politically we (the conservatives) can be defeated, but we still know that God is in control and His will will be done.

  • MarkB

    As much as I wanted to believe that the United States have not changed, it has. The demographics have been changing and will continue to change into the future. The big wigs in the Republican Party will realize that eventually and will shift to the left to follow the demographics. Those who are on the right whether social or moral right will be left being marginalized. If that is the way it is going to be, so be it. I will still be a conservative and vote on principle and most likely will be voting third party in the future with the personal realization that those I align with will be the permanent minority. That is not to saw we will not have some success on the state and local level, but on the national front it will only get more liberal.

    Here is an article that outlines why. And if you go to this article you can also click on the links in it to other articles that give you more indepth information.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/where_we_go_from_here.html#ixzz2Bak7GiRU

    Politically we (the conservatives) can be defeated, but we still know that God is in control and His will will be done.

  • Dave

    One problem is that the polls aren’t consistently accurate. The polls before the Wisconsin recall election were off by 5+ points. So you don’t know when to trust them and when not to.

  • Dave

    One problem is that the polls aren’t consistently accurate. The polls before the Wisconsin recall election were off by 5+ points. So you don’t know when to trust them and when not to.

  • Esh413

    The Libertarian Party ran one of its most successful campaigns in history. I think this tells us that, on some level, Americans do want a smaller government. It seems, however, that the Republican party has failed to communicate that message properly. One prime example of this would be in arguments about “Obamacare” and “Romneycare”. No one seemed to make a distinction between one being implemented at the state level vs. the other at the federal level. If this distinction is not made (on issues of this nature) then Republicans will find themselves looking completely inconsistent; as Romney did at times with the healthcare systems. Alternatively they also fall victim when they do not make a distinction about implementation of wanting to cut every government program. The phrase “leave this up to the states” seems to be heard as “we are getting rid of this”. In this case it seems like if the Republicans want to regain some more power on the national level they may have to side with some unlikely allies. The most obvious right now appears to be the marijuana vote in Washington and Colorado. This battle could easily highlight the futility of a strong National Government and, as a result, reveal an apparent need for more programs to be run at a local or state level.

  • Esh413

    The Libertarian Party ran one of its most successful campaigns in history. I think this tells us that, on some level, Americans do want a smaller government. It seems, however, that the Republican party has failed to communicate that message properly. One prime example of this would be in arguments about “Obamacare” and “Romneycare”. No one seemed to make a distinction between one being implemented at the state level vs. the other at the federal level. If this distinction is not made (on issues of this nature) then Republicans will find themselves looking completely inconsistent; as Romney did at times with the healthcare systems. Alternatively they also fall victim when they do not make a distinction about implementation of wanting to cut every government program. The phrase “leave this up to the states” seems to be heard as “we are getting rid of this”. In this case it seems like if the Republicans want to regain some more power on the national level they may have to side with some unlikely allies. The most obvious right now appears to be the marijuana vote in Washington and Colorado. This battle could easily highlight the futility of a strong National Government and, as a result, reveal an apparent need for more programs to be run at a local or state level.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We need to pick MORE conservative candidates and say goodbye to “moderate” candidates.

    We need to do something (what, I’m not sure) about the leftist monopoly of the public schools.

    We need an organization for conservatives within unions. There are conservative union members but they are afraid to speak out and combat the leftist propaganda from their unions.

    I doubt these things will happen. And I very much doubt that we will ever be a free republic once again.

    But we don’t put our hope in this world, anyway. Not that we shouldn’t do all we can to improve it while we are here.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We need to pick MORE conservative candidates and say goodbye to “moderate” candidates.

    We need to do something (what, I’m not sure) about the leftist monopoly of the public schools.

    We need an organization for conservatives within unions. There are conservative union members but they are afraid to speak out and combat the leftist propaganda from their unions.

    I doubt these things will happen. And I very much doubt that we will ever be a free republic once again.

    But we don’t put our hope in this world, anyway. Not that we shouldn’t do all we can to improve it while we are here.

  • Tony

    The Republicans need to re-invent themselves as conservatives and not liberal lite.

  • Tony

    The Republicans need to re-invent themselves as conservatives and not liberal lite.

  • #4 Kitty

    Are there any other lessons we need to learn?

    Yes, I would add that “religion poisons everything” and that the religious right are inherently delusional. I’d like to illustrate this claim with a couple of questions:
    1) Did God want Mitt Romney to win the election?
    2) Since Romney lost, does this mean that the United States will face God’s wrath/judgment?

    My prediction is that our religious conservatives (lol~ are there any other kind?) will answer a strong “Yes” to the first question and an even stronger “maybe” to the second.

  • #4 Kitty

    Are there any other lessons we need to learn?

    Yes, I would add that “religion poisons everything” and that the religious right are inherently delusional. I’d like to illustrate this claim with a couple of questions:
    1) Did God want Mitt Romney to win the election?
    2) Since Romney lost, does this mean that the United States will face God’s wrath/judgment?

    My prediction is that our religious conservatives (lol~ are there any other kind?) will answer a strong “Yes” to the first question and an even stronger “maybe” to the second.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frankly, given how close the election was, I really think some people, maybe just enough, were not thrilled about voting for a Mormon. It may be not too much more complicated than that.

    I know I was not comfortable voting for him, but I did anyway.

  • Random Lutheran

    Three things: first, get out of the echo chamber and learn what others are saying and how to speak to them in their own language.

    Second, learn graphic design. Use Google image search to compare campaign materials from this year: there is no comparison. The kindergarten-level stuff from RR was embarrassing, and it is clear that the right has no clue how to use the language of graphic presentations, either in print or in video.

    Third, and this has to do with the first two: stop gazing at your own bellybutton. The right speaks to the right, in the right’s language, to make the right feel good about itself. Stop it. Actually make the case for what you want to do. Actually try to articulate something other than “US GOOD” and “THEM BAD”. People fear conservatives not because they’ve rejected the ideas but because they haven’t been presented with conservative ideas and arguments for them, and they can’t figure out why anyone would be a conservative given the silliness they see spilling out from that side.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frankly, given how close the election was, I really think some people, maybe just enough, were not thrilled about voting for a Mormon. It may be not too much more complicated than that.

    I know I was not comfortable voting for him, but I did anyway.

  • Random Lutheran

    Three things: first, get out of the echo chamber and learn what others are saying and how to speak to them in their own language.

    Second, learn graphic design. Use Google image search to compare campaign materials from this year: there is no comparison. The kindergarten-level stuff from RR was embarrassing, and it is clear that the right has no clue how to use the language of graphic presentations, either in print or in video.

    Third, and this has to do with the first two: stop gazing at your own bellybutton. The right speaks to the right, in the right’s language, to make the right feel good about itself. Stop it. Actually make the case for what you want to do. Actually try to articulate something other than “US GOOD” and “THEM BAD”. People fear conservatives not because they’ve rejected the ideas but because they haven’t been presented with conservative ideas and arguments for them, and they can’t figure out why anyone would be a conservative given the silliness they see spilling out from that side.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    3. The general public despises and fears conservatives.

    Probably just growing idiocracy.

    Anything the media pushes, the people follow along with. People followed Nazi’s, so you know people will follow anything if the propaganda is pretty good. Very few are truly principled.

    Take gay marriage. If the media didn’t promote it, the idea would never occur to 99.9% of people. Because 99.99% of people would never even want to marry a same sex partner. The places that have legal gay marriage only about 0.01% of people are taking advantage of the law. So, gays are about 1% and of that only 1% want to marry their partner. Hmm. Yeah, that is an important national issue. Not, yet the media just love it. They must be laughing at how stupid the public is to even entertain something so pointless.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    3. The general public despises and fears conservatives.

    Probably just growing idiocracy.

    Anything the media pushes, the people follow along with. People followed Nazi’s, so you know people will follow anything if the propaganda is pretty good. Very few are truly principled.

    Take gay marriage. If the media didn’t promote it, the idea would never occur to 99.9% of people. Because 99.99% of people would never even want to marry a same sex partner. The places that have legal gay marriage only about 0.01% of people are taking advantage of the law. So, gays are about 1% and of that only 1% want to marry their partner. Hmm. Yeah, that is an important national issue. Not, yet the media just love it. They must be laughing at how stupid the public is to even entertain something so pointless.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @13 I am skeptical. I think it is mostly just indoctrination. Most people are indoctrinated in ideas when they are young and they just stick with them. That is why coopting works so well. You tell people that they already agree with you because they believe x and that is what your program is.

    You probably know a lot of independent thinkers and figure all people are like that. They aren’t.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @13 I am skeptical. I think it is mostly just indoctrination. Most people are indoctrinated in ideas when they are young and they just stick with them. That is why coopting works so well. You tell people that they already agree with you because they believe x and that is what your program is.

    You probably know a lot of independent thinkers and figure all people are like that. They aren’t.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @11 is an example of how to stigmatize a whole group based on the fact that you can find a few who would agree. Go look up the World Values Survey and check out how many Muslims think it is fine for men to beat their wives. Of course saying that is unfair to the 30% who don’t think it is okay. But it is perfectly fine to characterize all conservative Christians by what 3% of them might think. Basically it is always okay to vilify white Christians and especially males based on a few, but it is just immoral to ascribe to all of some X group what the majority of them agree with.

    Basically Kitty is a liar with no facts to back up his point and callously and intentionally defames people he hates.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @11 is an example of how to stigmatize a whole group based on the fact that you can find a few who would agree. Go look up the World Values Survey and check out how many Muslims think it is fine for men to beat their wives. Of course saying that is unfair to the 30% who don’t think it is okay. But it is perfectly fine to characterize all conservative Christians by what 3% of them might think. Basically it is always okay to vilify white Christians and especially males based on a few, but it is just immoral to ascribe to all of some X group what the majority of them agree with.

    Basically Kitty is a liar with no facts to back up his point and callously and intentionally defames people he hates.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    “The general public despises and fears conservatives.”

    Huh? They sent a whole mess of them to the House.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    “The general public despises and fears conservatives.”

    Huh? They sent a whole mess of them to the House.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I highly recommend the following article for looking at lessons the GOP could learn from the election:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/07/andrew-coyne-republicans-will-bounce-back-when-they-stop-behaving-like-yahoos/

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I highly recommend the following article for looking at lessons the GOP could learn from the election:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/07/andrew-coyne-republicans-will-bounce-back-when-they-stop-behaving-like-yahoos/

  • #4 Kitty

    Basically Kitty is a liar with no facts to back up his point and callously and intentionally defames people he hates.

    LOL ~damn girl!

  • #4 Kitty

    Basically Kitty is a liar with no facts to back up his point and callously and intentionally defames people he hates.

    LOL ~damn girl!

  • P.C.

    Bdozwer @3

    From a Biblical and historical perspective your post was well written. “I’m but a stranger here….”

  • P.C.

    Bdozwer @3

    From a Biblical and historical perspective your post was well written. “I’m but a stranger here….”

  • Random Lutheran

    @15 While I fear that most of the populace are uneducated simpletons, I believe otherwise, and act accordingly. Part of my work involves teaching adults: while many do not have the base knowledge I’d like them to have, once they do have it, they start making huge strides. I think this is the case for the population at large; the folks I work with are a nice cross-section of the population. Does this require work? Certainly. But this work pays dividends.

  • Random Lutheran

    @15 While I fear that most of the populace are uneducated simpletons, I believe otherwise, and act accordingly. Part of my work involves teaching adults: while many do not have the base knowledge I’d like them to have, once they do have it, they start making huge strides. I think this is the case for the population at large; the folks I work with are a nice cross-section of the population. Does this require work? Certainly. But this work pays dividends.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Chris B.,

    ‘Half the country’ despises and fears conservatives.

    And that half is getting better at getting their side to go out and vote.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Chris B.,

    ‘Half the country’ despises and fears conservatives.

    And that half is getting better at getting their side to go out and vote.

  • Tom Hering

    Why would anyone be persuaded by the arguments of cultural conservatives who, when they lose an election, give up on the country, and trash the people who voted for the winner? Like, those voters are supposed to suddenly wake up and coming running to you guys? For what? You’re piteous.

  • Tom Hering

    Why would anyone be persuaded by the arguments of cultural conservatives who, when they lose an election, give up on the country, and trash the people who voted for the winner? Like, those voters are supposed to suddenly wake up and coming running to you guys? For what? You’re piteous.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    As much as I wanted to believe that the United States have not changed, it has. The demographics have been changing and will continue to change into the future.

    Translation:

    As much as I wanted to believe that tribal 3rd world people would think like WASPs as soon as they were naturalized and would believe in free speech, equality under the law and civil rights, they don’t. Turns out they are different and will continue to be different into the future. They value special preferences for themselves and free stuff from other people? Who knew? Well everyone could know if they just looked at where they came from.

    Duh.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    As much as I wanted to believe that the United States have not changed, it has. The demographics have been changing and will continue to change into the future.

    Translation:

    As much as I wanted to believe that tribal 3rd world people would think like WASPs as soon as they were naturalized and would believe in free speech, equality under the law and civil rights, they don’t. Turns out they are different and will continue to be different into the future. They value special preferences for themselves and free stuff from other people? Who knew? Well everyone could know if they just looked at where they came from.

    Duh.

  • Jon

    I think it’s what my first-year political science prof used to say about ticket splitting: People want different stuff from different people.

    They want a president who will give them stuff. But they want a Congress that’s more conservative who acts as the brakeman to make sure we don’t go speeding too fast and come off the rails.

    Well, that and what Pr McCain said @12. I saw that Republican voters didn’t turn out as well as they could have, certainly less than the Dems.

    It makes me wonder if the Teavangelicals abstained, or maybe voted third party because they couldn’t handle voting for Mormon Mitt.

  • Jon

    I think it’s what my first-year political science prof used to say about ticket splitting: People want different stuff from different people.

    They want a president who will give them stuff. But they want a Congress that’s more conservative who acts as the brakeman to make sure we don’t go speeding too fast and come off the rails.

    Well, that and what Pr McCain said @12. I saw that Republican voters didn’t turn out as well as they could have, certainly less than the Dems.

    It makes me wonder if the Teavangelicals abstained, or maybe voted third party because they couldn’t handle voting for Mormon Mitt.

  • JonathanH

    How the more serious liberals see the election: http://davidsimon.com/inevitabilities-and-barack-obama/

  • JonathanH

    How the more serious liberals see the election: http://davidsimon.com/inevitabilities-and-barack-obama/

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    I vote in every category except for president. Like McCain said.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    I vote in every category except for president. Like McCain said.

  • JonathanH

    Yes, regarding #25, I do not know a single conservative or Republican friend who vocalized their support for Romney. Everyone I know who leans right voted for people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. According to my Facebook feed, you’re not allowed to like Romneys. It’s ok to be a little conservative, but you must pledge your support with the Libertarians or related options.

  • JonathanH

    Yes, regarding #25, I do not know a single conservative or Republican friend who vocalized their support for Romney. Everyone I know who leans right voted for people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. According to my Facebook feed, you’re not allowed to like Romneys. It’s ok to be a little conservative, but you must pledge your support with the Libertarians or related options.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    1.) God is sovereign
    2.) The church needs to be trusting in God and not politicians, and this is true for both sides of the political aisle (I’ve seen far too many people who seem to think that their candidate’s success was more important than remembering that it is God who ultimately in His will has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, both good and bad)
    3.) The minority is not always wrong; the majority is not always right. Righteousness seems to have an inverse correlation with popularity
    4.) Some people will sacrifice their faith on the altar of politics and vote for their candidate based upon protecting their own pocketbook (or robbing from somebody else’s pocketbook).
    5.) Isn’t it a beautiful thing to remember that when Jesus Christ returns all of this bravo sierra will be done away with?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    1.) God is sovereign
    2.) The church needs to be trusting in God and not politicians, and this is true for both sides of the political aisle (I’ve seen far too many people who seem to think that their candidate’s success was more important than remembering that it is God who ultimately in His will has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, both good and bad)
    3.) The minority is not always wrong; the majority is not always right. Righteousness seems to have an inverse correlation with popularity
    4.) Some people will sacrifice their faith on the altar of politics and vote for their candidate based upon protecting their own pocketbook (or robbing from somebody else’s pocketbook).
    5.) Isn’t it a beautiful thing to remember that when Jesus Christ returns all of this bravo sierra will be done away with?

  • Dan KempiN

    Re: McCain at #12,

    So the long delayed elephant has finally entered the room.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/13/its-going-to-be-romney/

    (Do I get prognosticative credit for this? If so, I’d like to apply it to the year end contest.)

  • Dan KempiN

    Re: McCain at #12,

    So the long delayed elephant has finally entered the room.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/13/its-going-to-be-romney/

    (Do I get prognosticative credit for this? If so, I’d like to apply it to the year end contest.)

  • Dan Kempin

    . . . and there is no significance to the fact the the the “n” in my was capitalized.

  • Dan Kempin

    . . . and there is no significance to the fact the the the “n” in my was capitalized.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    @Esh413 #8
    I would add that the GOP hasn’t represented small government since…I’m not sure when. This election was about two Big Government platforms.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    @Esh413 #8
    I would add that the GOP hasn’t represented small government since…I’m not sure when. This election was about two Big Government platforms.

  • Adrian Piazza

    This election had about 6 million less voters than 2008. It is a Black Swan event. Pulling “lessons” from such an event is difficult at best. The things the majority of people were unhappy about according to exit polls: economy, and Nationalized (yes it will be) Healthcare were not the issues of this election for a goodly percentage. How did that happen? Maybe we will never know. The electorate also says they don’t like negative campaigning yet it seems to work.

  • Adrian Piazza

    This election had about 6 million less voters than 2008. It is a Black Swan event. Pulling “lessons” from such an event is difficult at best. The things the majority of people were unhappy about according to exit polls: economy, and Nationalized (yes it will be) Healthcare were not the issues of this election for a goodly percentage. How did that happen? Maybe we will never know. The electorate also says they don’t like negative campaigning yet it seems to work.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom Hering,

    Rewind to 2000: Why would half the population support liberal democrats/social progressives when they disparage those who elected Bush as uneducated, backward, bigoted hicks who couldn’t string together two sentences? See how that works?

    I’ll repeat a dictum I shared earlier today: if you suggest that only this side or that side is guilty of a fault that is, in fact, general to humanity (or politics), then you should reevaluate that suggestion.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom Hering,

    Rewind to 2000: Why would half the population support liberal democrats/social progressives when they disparage those who elected Bush as uneducated, backward, bigoted hicks who couldn’t string together two sentences? See how that works?

    I’ll repeat a dictum I shared earlier today: if you suggest that only this side or that side is guilty of a fault that is, in fact, general to humanity (or politics), then you should reevaluate that suggestion.

  • Cincinnatus

    Actually, rewind to 2004, Tom. But the same things were said in 2000, if I recall.

  • Cincinnatus

    Actually, rewind to 2004, Tom. But the same things were said in 2000, if I recall.

  • SAL

    Billions of dollars were wasted on the election. The lesson I’ve learned is that we’d have been better off if Republicans had kept their money and paid off debt or helped their community instead.

    The Republican Party doesn’t need to re-invent itself. It needs to go away and let people focus their energy on things besides politics. Politics is irreparably broken and there’s no sense putting effort into that futile effort when there are still areas where we can have a positive effect.

    We could have paid off a lot of personal debt and built a lot of small businesses with all that money we wasted campaigning when the election was already predetermined by demographics.

  • SAL

    Billions of dollars were wasted on the election. The lesson I’ve learned is that we’d have been better off if Republicans had kept their money and paid off debt or helped their community instead.

    The Republican Party doesn’t need to re-invent itself. It needs to go away and let people focus their energy on things besides politics. Politics is irreparably broken and there’s no sense putting effort into that futile effort when there are still areas where we can have a positive effect.

    We could have paid off a lot of personal debt and built a lot of small businesses with all that money we wasted campaigning when the election was already predetermined by demographics.

  • Abby

    3,000,000 less Republicans voted than voted for John McCain in 2008. Why would Romney have been any less moderate than McCain? Unless, like Pastor McCain said, they wouldn’t vote for a Morman. I still believe that would not have affected his governance. And the moral issues that touched our beliefs were the same anyway.

    So, if we change the Republican Party to eliminate abortion, same-sex marriage, welfare reform, [why not try to eliminate 'God' like the Democrats tried to do at their convention?] — than we might as well merge and actually become Democrats. What would we be voting for?

    Someone said a long time ago, we might as well all quit our jobs and join the lines for the free stuff. And then, like a family I know, you can have parents, non-working children and grandchildren all living together to try to make ends meet with the combined benefit checks, free healthcare, and other free resources. The government really is god. I wonder if I will live to see its collapse.

  • Abby

    3,000,000 less Republicans voted than voted for John McCain in 2008. Why would Romney have been any less moderate than McCain? Unless, like Pastor McCain said, they wouldn’t vote for a Morman. I still believe that would not have affected his governance. And the moral issues that touched our beliefs were the same anyway.

    So, if we change the Republican Party to eliminate abortion, same-sex marriage, welfare reform, [why not try to eliminate 'God' like the Democrats tried to do at their convention?] — than we might as well merge and actually become Democrats. What would we be voting for?

    Someone said a long time ago, we might as well all quit our jobs and join the lines for the free stuff. And then, like a family I know, you can have parents, non-working children and grandchildren all living together to try to make ends meet with the combined benefit checks, free healthcare, and other free resources. The government really is god. I wonder if I will live to see its collapse.

  • Tammy

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/07/21_reasons_for_obamas_victory_and_romneys_defeat_116090.html?fb_action_ids=4129071105291&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UJvNFH8M-JY.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

    This link had some really great points.
    ———————
    Another real key aspect:
    According to Census, white majority is not longer a reality. Yet the Republican Party tends to represent this current minority.
    Obama represented the majority which is currently made up of Latino and Black Americans. He appeals to the feminist culture (which attracts more than just women) and those who embrace homosexuality (which attracts more than just homosexuals – in particular it attracts the young voters).

    For Romney to have had as many votes as he did considering he barely at all touched Obama’s character which could have really helped sway many. Says a lot!

    With the media on full attack mode, Republican reputation at an all time low and what I mention above … it does amaze me that Romney was able to get as many votes as he did.

  • Tammy

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/07/21_reasons_for_obamas_victory_and_romneys_defeat_116090.html?fb_action_ids=4129071105291&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UJvNFH8M-JY.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

    This link had some really great points.
    ———————
    Another real key aspect:
    According to Census, white majority is not longer a reality. Yet the Republican Party tends to represent this current minority.
    Obama represented the majority which is currently made up of Latino and Black Americans. He appeals to the feminist culture (which attracts more than just women) and those who embrace homosexuality (which attracts more than just homosexuals – in particular it attracts the young voters).

    For Romney to have had as many votes as he did considering he barely at all touched Obama’s character which could have really helped sway many. Says a lot!

    With the media on full attack mode, Republican reputation at an all time low and what I mention above … it does amaze me that Romney was able to get as many votes as he did.

  • Eric G

    I think one of the best ways that the Republicans can reinvent themselves is by rejecting the neo-conservative, activist foreign policy that the Republican party is known for following. I think that they should take a lesson from Ron Paul on this one: re-evaluate our defense alliances, bring our soldiers home, stay out the affairs of other nations, but continue to trade and have diplomatic relations with everyone. People in the US believe that Republicans start wars. And with the way Mitt sounded anytime the subject of Iran came up, he did nothing to disspell that belief.

  • Eric G

    I think one of the best ways that the Republicans can reinvent themselves is by rejecting the neo-conservative, activist foreign policy that the Republican party is known for following. I think that they should take a lesson from Ron Paul on this one: re-evaluate our defense alliances, bring our soldiers home, stay out the affairs of other nations, but continue to trade and have diplomatic relations with everyone. People in the US believe that Republicans start wars. And with the way Mitt sounded anytime the subject of Iran came up, he did nothing to disspell that belief.

  • SKPeterson

    I think homosexuality as a vote attraction mechanism is largely going to go away. Let’s face it. Homosexuals, or the adherents of the homosexual subculture, have become stridently boring and cliche – an annoying distraction from things that are truly important.

    While I’m being somewhat facetious, can anyone think of a major contributor to current pop culture who is both gay and entertaining, or who is gay and is not an absolute bore? I can’t. And if you disagree, you obviously have no taste. I think even Frank would agree with me. ;)

  • SKPeterson

    I think homosexuality as a vote attraction mechanism is largely going to go away. Let’s face it. Homosexuals, or the adherents of the homosexual subculture, have become stridently boring and cliche – an annoying distraction from things that are truly important.

    While I’m being somewhat facetious, can anyone think of a major contributor to current pop culture who is both gay and entertaining, or who is gay and is not an absolute bore? I can’t. And if you disagree, you obviously have no taste. I think even Frank would agree with me. ;)

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 34 & 35. Sure, in 2000 and 2004, I heard similar stuff from acquaintances to the left of me. “America’s doomed. I’m leaving the country. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo.” My reaction back then? “You’ve got to be kidding me.” I have no idea how you concluded I think this sort of stuff is exclusive to cultural conservatives. Was it just because I was speaking (@ 23) to some of the cultural conservatives here? Well, okay. If it makes you happy to think so, knock yourself out. But seriously, they’re engaging in a whole lot of giving up, and trashing of “them.” Not to mention downright odd theories about these “others” who are taking over the country. (It seems they’ve got vaginas that spew babies like fire hoses.) If you think it doesn’t all sound exceedingly weird to normal people, you need to get out more.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 34 & 35. Sure, in 2000 and 2004, I heard similar stuff from acquaintances to the left of me. “America’s doomed. I’m leaving the country. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo.” My reaction back then? “You’ve got to be kidding me.” I have no idea how you concluded I think this sort of stuff is exclusive to cultural conservatives. Was it just because I was speaking (@ 23) to some of the cultural conservatives here? Well, okay. If it makes you happy to think so, knock yourself out. But seriously, they’re engaging in a whole lot of giving up, and trashing of “them.” Not to mention downright odd theories about these “others” who are taking over the country. (It seems they’ve got vaginas that spew babies like fire hoses.) If you think it doesn’t all sound exceedingly weird to normal people, you need to get out more.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m thinking here that the big lesson for the GOP is that you can’t trust a big name to get the job done. Even the Yankees rely, ultimately, on their farm clubs. And those farm clubs need to police the players (hire some detectives, folks) to avoid scandals.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m thinking here that the big lesson for the GOP is that you can’t trust a big name to get the job done. Even the Yankees rely, ultimately, on their farm clubs. And those farm clubs need to police the players (hire some detectives, folks) to avoid scandals.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m thinking here that there is an annoying tendency to attempt to draw grand lessons from a simple electoral defeat. Look, the Republicans nominated a lousy empty suit who presented no meaningful platform to address the issues that matter to ordinary voters. And thus they lost. Talk of generational realignments, the end of the Republican party, etc., are, at this point, very, very premature and exaggerated.

    Both sides are guilty of it. In 2008, my exultant progressive colleagues were going on and on about a generational realignment, a new Democratic electorate, a new “grand coalition,” the end of Republican dominance forever, etc. Then 2010 happened.

    Hold your horses.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m thinking here that there is an annoying tendency to attempt to draw grand lessons from a simple electoral defeat. Look, the Republicans nominated a lousy empty suit who presented no meaningful platform to address the issues that matter to ordinary voters. And thus they lost. Talk of generational realignments, the end of the Republican party, etc., are, at this point, very, very premature and exaggerated.

    Both sides are guilty of it. In 2008, my exultant progressive colleagues were going on and on about a generational realignment, a new Democratic electorate, a new “grand coalition,” the end of Republican dominance forever, etc. Then 2010 happened.

    Hold your horses.

  • Abby

    Ok, here’s an idea for the Republicans. We just need to find a “cool” candidate. Forget the platform altogether. Do you think we can do that?! “Coolness” with some education. Experience not necessary. Morals exceedingly unnecesssary — especially for appointing judges to help all the “rights” people. And then, just print money! You know that family I referenced above? — they can buy more “stuff” than me! I can see after all, we really don’t need any Partys.

    Well, at least I got my Democrat daughter to vote for Romney — and she has a “cool” husband! I’m happy with that.

  • Abby

    Ok, here’s an idea for the Republicans. We just need to find a “cool” candidate. Forget the platform altogether. Do you think we can do that?! “Coolness” with some education. Experience not necessary. Morals exceedingly unnecesssary — especially for appointing judges to help all the “rights” people. And then, just print money! You know that family I referenced above? — they can buy more “stuff” than me! I can see after all, we really don’t need any Partys.

    Well, at least I got my Democrat daughter to vote for Romney — and she has a “cool” husband! I’m happy with that.

  • DonS

    1. “The polls are accurate. (The average of the state-by-state polls put out by RealClearPolitics the day before the election were pretty much right on the money.)” — Individual polls were all over the map, but it was a good election for poll aggregators. Bottom line — this was a margin of error election, which is why the polling was confusing.

    2. It’s NOT “the economy, stupid.” — I disagree. I think the Obama administration and media were able to convince the voters that Obama inherited a “big mess”, and it is going to take more than 4 years to dig out, but he’s made a good start. Not at all convincing to me, but apparently to enough voters. But, this is why he is the first modern president re-elected by a much lower margin than in his first election.

    3. The general public despises and fears conservatives. — True, in large part thanks to the leftist establishment we live in.

    4. Evangelical political activists have lost their clout. — Early indications are that they didn’t turn out. You can’t have clout if you don’t vote. The Mormonism issue may have resonated more than we thought it would.

    5. The Republican party needs to re-invent itself. — No. It needs to focus more on education, particularly among the young and minorities. It has to figure out how to message better, given establishment propaganda in favor of big government approaches.

  • DonS

    1. “The polls are accurate. (The average of the state-by-state polls put out by RealClearPolitics the day before the election were pretty much right on the money.)” — Individual polls were all over the map, but it was a good election for poll aggregators. Bottom line — this was a margin of error election, which is why the polling was confusing.

    2. It’s NOT “the economy, stupid.” — I disagree. I think the Obama administration and media were able to convince the voters that Obama inherited a “big mess”, and it is going to take more than 4 years to dig out, but he’s made a good start. Not at all convincing to me, but apparently to enough voters. But, this is why he is the first modern president re-elected by a much lower margin than in his first election.

    3. The general public despises and fears conservatives. — True, in large part thanks to the leftist establishment we live in.

    4. Evangelical political activists have lost their clout. — Early indications are that they didn’t turn out. You can’t have clout if you don’t vote. The Mormonism issue may have resonated more than we thought it would.

    5. The Republican party needs to re-invent itself. — No. It needs to focus more on education, particularly among the young and minorities. It has to figure out how to message better, given establishment propaganda in favor of big government approaches.

  • Jon H.

    Are there lessons to learn? Yes, simple ones, really.

    The GOP just doesn’t have ENOUGH white men …
    telling women they need to get their employers’ permission to use contraception; explaining to rape victims which rapes are “legitimate”; reminding successful Latinas they are only affirmative action appointments to the Supreme Court (e.g., Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation process); yelling “You Lie!” only at State of the Union speeches given by black presidents; demanding to see our first black president’s birth certificate, then dismissing it as a fraud; calling on Latinos to “self deport”; making Rush Limbaugh the party spokesman; disdaining 47 % of Americans as leeches; contemptuously describing as threats to Christian values the 94% of African Americans, 75% of Latinos, 73% of Asian Americans, and 55 % of women voters who voted for Pres. Obama….

    Keep it up, GOP. :)

  • Jon H.

    Are there lessons to learn? Yes, simple ones, really.

    The GOP just doesn’t have ENOUGH white men …
    telling women they need to get their employers’ permission to use contraception; explaining to rape victims which rapes are “legitimate”; reminding successful Latinas they are only affirmative action appointments to the Supreme Court (e.g., Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation process); yelling “You Lie!” only at State of the Union speeches given by black presidents; demanding to see our first black president’s birth certificate, then dismissing it as a fraud; calling on Latinos to “self deport”; making Rush Limbaugh the party spokesman; disdaining 47 % of Americans as leeches; contemptuously describing as threats to Christian values the 94% of African Americans, 75% of Latinos, 73% of Asian Americans, and 55 % of women voters who voted for Pres. Obama….

    Keep it up, GOP. :)

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    I read Cranach almost every morning, along with having my first cup of coffee for the day. Cranach is a substitute for the morning paper. Even so, I don’t think I’ve ever posted here before. I have a few thoughts on the significance of this election for Conservatives and Libertarians, whose ideas are sound but who evidently failed to persuasively communicate them, and who seem to have successively more difficultly doing so with each election season. I have a hard time expressing myself in few words (a personal failing…), so I apologize in advance for being long-winded.

    I’ve learned that Conservatives and Libertarians are trying to understand and communicate with America through a cultural lens that is becoming less and less relevant. As a result, their interpretations and expectations of American voters have become skewed, and they are surprised when they lose elections as a result. If Conservatives are trying to “conserve” something through fidelity to the greatness of the past, they need to understand that the majority of Americans have no acquaintance with this greatness, and even if they were, probably wouldn’t appreciate its significance for them today. Libertarians need to understand their idea of “Liberty” is essentially without meaning in a society in which the individual himself is disappearing. Reducing political campaigning to policy trivia, as we’ve suffered it for over a decade, is a crutch for the obvious: they are increasingly unable to communicate and establish their political ideology as a valid platform. Liberals, on the other hand, enjoy the luxury of not having to publicly debate their political ideology – a growing majority of the public has a latent understanding and approval of it already, and identifies Liberal policies as consistent with their worldview.

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.

    He displayed an insightful prescience, here, identifying why truth and fact no longer seem to be relevant in American political discourse. As the marketplace of contemporary pop-culture has become the common and unifying cultural experience in America, its prime value has become dominant, as well: “maximum self-amusement with the least personal effort.” (if I recall correctly, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 uses this image, of a society in which the worst punishment imaginable is to confiscate someone’s “personal titillation device.” Today, it seems that the worst punishment one can dish out is to confiscate someone’s “personal entertainment device” – if folks have their cell phones, they’re happy.) The objectivity of truth and fact doesn’t serve this prime value. It is irrelevant, and worse, requires a modicum of intellectual discipline and exertion to appreciate and apply. Therefore, it isn’t worth the effort, either. Opinion is the new fact, and this “fact” is more empowering now than ever: everyone now has “facts,” and their facts are always just as valid as the next person’s facts. This dispersion of truth and fact across the subjective experiences of individuals is the foundation of postmodern epistemology, and the American electorate has been seduced by pop-culture (which has exploited the vices of human sloth and gluttony in the pursuit of profit) into frame of mind that not only accepts this foundation, but also accepts consensus as a valid characterization of this dispersed truth and fact.

    (Continued next comment…)

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    I read Cranach almost every morning, along with having my first cup of coffee for the day. Cranach is a substitute for the morning paper. Even so, I don’t think I’ve ever posted here before. I have a few thoughts on the significance of this election for Conservatives and Libertarians, whose ideas are sound but who evidently failed to persuasively communicate them, and who seem to have successively more difficultly doing so with each election season. I have a hard time expressing myself in few words (a personal failing…), so I apologize in advance for being long-winded.

    I’ve learned that Conservatives and Libertarians are trying to understand and communicate with America through a cultural lens that is becoming less and less relevant. As a result, their interpretations and expectations of American voters have become skewed, and they are surprised when they lose elections as a result. If Conservatives are trying to “conserve” something through fidelity to the greatness of the past, they need to understand that the majority of Americans have no acquaintance with this greatness, and even if they were, probably wouldn’t appreciate its significance for them today. Libertarians need to understand their idea of “Liberty” is essentially without meaning in a society in which the individual himself is disappearing. Reducing political campaigning to policy trivia, as we’ve suffered it for over a decade, is a crutch for the obvious: they are increasingly unable to communicate and establish their political ideology as a valid platform. Liberals, on the other hand, enjoy the luxury of not having to publicly debate their political ideology – a growing majority of the public has a latent understanding and approval of it already, and identifies Liberal policies as consistent with their worldview.

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.

    He displayed an insightful prescience, here, identifying why truth and fact no longer seem to be relevant in American political discourse. As the marketplace of contemporary pop-culture has become the common and unifying cultural experience in America, its prime value has become dominant, as well: “maximum self-amusement with the least personal effort.” (if I recall correctly, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 uses this image, of a society in which the worst punishment imaginable is to confiscate someone’s “personal titillation device.” Today, it seems that the worst punishment one can dish out is to confiscate someone’s “personal entertainment device” – if folks have their cell phones, they’re happy.) The objectivity of truth and fact doesn’t serve this prime value. It is irrelevant, and worse, requires a modicum of intellectual discipline and exertion to appreciate and apply. Therefore, it isn’t worth the effort, either. Opinion is the new fact, and this “fact” is more empowering now than ever: everyone now has “facts,” and their facts are always just as valid as the next person’s facts. This dispersion of truth and fact across the subjective experiences of individuals is the foundation of postmodern epistemology, and the American electorate has been seduced by pop-culture (which has exploited the vices of human sloth and gluttony in the pursuit of profit) into frame of mind that not only accepts this foundation, but also accepts consensus as a valid characterization of this dispersed truth and fact.

    (Continued next comment…)

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    (…continued from previous comment)

    I think the most poignant and recent example of this decline in the relevance of truth and fact is the delusion Obama entertained in his Madison speech, on Monday. Rush Limbaugh critiqued some his comments that same day, and his observations were correct in my opinion. Limbaugh states, in part: “This deeply concerns me… This is not just political lying. This isn’t trying to pull wool over people’s face. Nobody in this country thinks right now the economy’s working. That’s not why Obama’s supporters support him. It’s not because his ideas are working.” It’s not like this is the only time Obama had mishandled the truth. It’s not like such mistakes had happened only infrequently. The fact is, he’s done so with impunity, and had been criticized for it (with some political hyperbole…) throughout his campaign as a “serial lair.” So how can Obama, or any politician, get away with anything that even approaches this kind of thing – claiming as true what everyone who hears him knows is false? My answer: Being “correct” doesn’t really matter anymore. It certainly doesn’t in a social context. It’s being part of “the group” that matters these days. And this is the genius of Obama. According to postmodernism, the fundamental unit in society is not the individual. Rather, the fundamental unit is the social group. In a society fractured by myriad subgroups competing for limited resources, Obama has discovered the one unifying factor that makes him a member of every group: his public presence, in all of its aspects, telegraphs to those trapped in the narrow world of pop-culture that he is the haphazard mediocre everyman they all like to hang out with, the one who, though a poor speaker and imprecise with the truth, is still pretty cool. As long as he means well, it’s all okay. Mediocrity is the new excellence, and has become the great leveling criteria in America. It is arrogant and offensive to want or achieve more than the mediocrity to which the everyman aspires. Thus, to desire anything beyond mediocrity is anti-social and thus also to war against the fundamental unit of society. For the sake of the social group, such individuals ought to voluntarily restrain themselves, and if they are so naturally gifted that towering excellence and achievement is helplessly automatic, they ought to be handicapped for the good of society. I think Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story on this theme (Harrison Bergeron?)…

    (Continued next comment…)

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    (…continued from previous comment)

    I think the most poignant and recent example of this decline in the relevance of truth and fact is the delusion Obama entertained in his Madison speech, on Monday. Rush Limbaugh critiqued some his comments that same day, and his observations were correct in my opinion. Limbaugh states, in part: “This deeply concerns me… This is not just political lying. This isn’t trying to pull wool over people’s face. Nobody in this country thinks right now the economy’s working. That’s not why Obama’s supporters support him. It’s not because his ideas are working.” It’s not like this is the only time Obama had mishandled the truth. It’s not like such mistakes had happened only infrequently. The fact is, he’s done so with impunity, and had been criticized for it (with some political hyperbole…) throughout his campaign as a “serial lair.” So how can Obama, or any politician, get away with anything that even approaches this kind of thing – claiming as true what everyone who hears him knows is false? My answer: Being “correct” doesn’t really matter anymore. It certainly doesn’t in a social context. It’s being part of “the group” that matters these days. And this is the genius of Obama. According to postmodernism, the fundamental unit in society is not the individual. Rather, the fundamental unit is the social group. In a society fractured by myriad subgroups competing for limited resources, Obama has discovered the one unifying factor that makes him a member of every group: his public presence, in all of its aspects, telegraphs to those trapped in the narrow world of pop-culture that he is the haphazard mediocre everyman they all like to hang out with, the one who, though a poor speaker and imprecise with the truth, is still pretty cool. As long as he means well, it’s all okay. Mediocrity is the new excellence, and has become the great leveling criteria in America. It is arrogant and offensive to want or achieve more than the mediocrity to which the everyman aspires. Thus, to desire anything beyond mediocrity is anti-social and thus also to war against the fundamental unit of society. For the sake of the social group, such individuals ought to voluntarily restrain themselves, and if they are so naturally gifted that towering excellence and achievement is helplessly automatic, they ought to be handicapped for the good of society. I think Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story on this theme (Harrison Bergeron?)…

    (Continued next comment…)

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    (…continued from previous comment)

    One may grow tired of talk about postmodernism – especially we Christians who’ve suffered warnings about it for two decades – but we all need to understand it, not only because it is at war with Truth, not only because it is causing the disintegration of language, not only because it impedes achievement, but also because it is the dominant reality in pop-culture today, and thus, as a prime cultural factor in a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” threatens the destruction of individual liberty and human rights. The epistemology of postmodernism is a collectivist epistemology, and feeds the errors of Marxism (a collectivist social, political and economic ideology) in several ways. It begins by eliminating the individual – he is subsumed into the collective. It proceeds by breeding dependance on the collective as the source of knowledge and truth, creating in society the inevitable social crisis Marxism was invented to solve: “myriad subgroups in society competing for limited resources.” And make no mistake, as are most Liberals in America (whether by conscious choice or otherwise), Obama is a Marxist. European Marxists failed to create the social conditions in America that their ideology was created to solve, when they exported the labor solidarity movements here in the 19th Century. They ultimately failed to do the same in the 20th Century as “Progressives” rose to political power and legislated into political existence the factors of social division in America. But they succeeded in taking over education, resulting in the ascendency of postmodern epistemology in the field of pedagogics. The new “epistemological learning theories” (i.e., Constructivism in its varieties), which are now dominant in America’s public schools, are built on postmodern collectivist epistemology, and it is this epistemology in which the current generation of American students are purposely steeped – not by being taught this collectivism directly, but by experiencing it day after day after day in the schools. Collectivism has become their social and epistemological reality, while individualism, whether “rugged” or not, has become largely foreign to their experience. Someone above said “talk to kids these days and listen to what they say.” I would agree. Specifically, listen to how they express themselves and consider what their collectivist rhetoric means in terms of their worldview. You’ll likely discover, as I have, that, if it hasn’t already, Marxism is fast becoming the new political reality.

    Sorry for the long inaugural series of comments. I just had to get that off my chest.

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    (…continued from previous comment)

    One may grow tired of talk about postmodernism – especially we Christians who’ve suffered warnings about it for two decades – but we all need to understand it, not only because it is at war with Truth, not only because it is causing the disintegration of language, not only because it impedes achievement, but also because it is the dominant reality in pop-culture today, and thus, as a prime cultural factor in a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” threatens the destruction of individual liberty and human rights. The epistemology of postmodernism is a collectivist epistemology, and feeds the errors of Marxism (a collectivist social, political and economic ideology) in several ways. It begins by eliminating the individual – he is subsumed into the collective. It proceeds by breeding dependance on the collective as the source of knowledge and truth, creating in society the inevitable social crisis Marxism was invented to solve: “myriad subgroups in society competing for limited resources.” And make no mistake, as are most Liberals in America (whether by conscious choice or otherwise), Obama is a Marxist. European Marxists failed to create the social conditions in America that their ideology was created to solve, when they exported the labor solidarity movements here in the 19th Century. They ultimately failed to do the same in the 20th Century as “Progressives” rose to political power and legislated into political existence the factors of social division in America. But they succeeded in taking over education, resulting in the ascendency of postmodern epistemology in the field of pedagogics. The new “epistemological learning theories” (i.e., Constructivism in its varieties), which are now dominant in America’s public schools, are built on postmodern collectivist epistemology, and it is this epistemology in which the current generation of American students are purposely steeped – not by being taught this collectivism directly, but by experiencing it day after day after day in the schools. Collectivism has become their social and epistemological reality, while individualism, whether “rugged” or not, has become largely foreign to their experience. Someone above said “talk to kids these days and listen to what they say.” I would agree. Specifically, listen to how they express themselves and consider what their collectivist rhetoric means in terms of their worldview. You’ll likely discover, as I have, that, if it hasn’t already, Marxism is fast becoming the new political reality.

    Sorry for the long inaugural series of comments. I just had to get that off my chest.

  • Abby

    @47,48,49 Long or not — thank you. So what is the new name for Marxist? That could be our one political party and everyone will be happy.

  • Abby

    @47,48,49 Long or not — thank you. So what is the new name for Marxist? That could be our one political party and everyone will be happy.

  • SKPeterson

    If you have not already come to the stunning conclusion, the best lesson the Republicans can learn from this election is to nominate me next round. Peterson 2016!

    I can bandy about like the best post-modernist around, I have a great set of Pandora channels that proves my coolness bonafides, and chicks dig me.

    Moreover, I’m exceedingly opinionated to a fault, blind to the merits of homosexual culture, and I’ve never, ever held public office, worked for a public official as a policy aide, cared to ever meet a politician on purpose, nor voted for anyone who’s come anywhere close to winning an election for the last 20 years. What’s not to love?

  • SKPeterson

    If you have not already come to the stunning conclusion, the best lesson the Republicans can learn from this election is to nominate me next round. Peterson 2016!

    I can bandy about like the best post-modernist around, I have a great set of Pandora channels that proves my coolness bonafides, and chicks dig me.

    Moreover, I’m exceedingly opinionated to a fault, blind to the merits of homosexual culture, and I’ve never, ever held public office, worked for a public official as a policy aide, cared to ever meet a politician on purpose, nor voted for anyone who’s come anywhere close to winning an election for the last 20 years. What’s not to love?

  • Abby

    @51 You would be the perfect candidate! :) What is your party name?

  • Abby

    @51 You would be the perfect candidate! :) What is your party name?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.”

    , Obama is a Marxist.

    No, he is not. Marx was an advocate of the productive worker. Obama is far more sympathetic both to the very elite, his friends, and people who have trouble getting their act together. Obama considers productive workers as just lucky. Lucky they work and can be useful. Under Obama, productive workers are taxed and it is given to gov’t workers to send benefits to various groups who spend all of it on stuff that creates profits for those at the top, his friends. Obama is the anti-Marxist. He wants to socialize the unproductive and dysfunctional with the productive workers so that the unproductive can consume like the productive and generate more profits for capital, his friends. The exact opposite of Marx. Marx did advocate socialism but of the productive and capital, not the unproductive and the productive to gin up more profit for capital. Obama allows the elites to opt out!! Even giving what capital the productive workers have to the capital elites. Solyndra anyone?

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.”

    Indeed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.”

    , Obama is a Marxist.

    No, he is not. Marx was an advocate of the productive worker. Obama is far more sympathetic both to the very elite, his friends, and people who have trouble getting their act together. Obama considers productive workers as just lucky. Lucky they work and can be useful. Under Obama, productive workers are taxed and it is given to gov’t workers to send benefits to various groups who spend all of it on stuff that creates profits for those at the top, his friends. Obama is the anti-Marxist. He wants to socialize the unproductive and dysfunctional with the productive workers so that the unproductive can consume like the productive and generate more profits for capital, his friends. The exact opposite of Marx. Marx did advocate socialism but of the productive and capital, not the unproductive and the productive to gin up more profit for capital. Obama allows the elites to opt out!! Even giving what capital the productive workers have to the capital elites. Solyndra anyone?

    The fact is, the result of this election has the fingerprints of postmodernism all over it. Dr. Veith was more than correct when he wrote last August: “My fear, though, is that we have crossed the event horizon of the black hole of postmodernism, so that as a culture we are oblivious not only to objective truth but now to objective facts, including those facts that impact us the most.”

    Indeed.

  • Abby

    Actually the “reds” increased this time around. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2012-election-county-by-county/

    sg@52: If not Marxist (and I can see your point — also, is not Russia like this as well?), what is the name of this new Party/philosophy? Does it exist anywhere else?

  • Abby

    Actually the “reds” increased this time around. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2012-election-county-by-county/

    sg@52: If not Marxist (and I can see your point — also, is not Russia like this as well?), what is the name of this new Party/philosophy? Does it exist anywhere else?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @51 SKiPy for pres!

    I had to say that, because chicks dig SKiP

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @51 SKiPy for pres!

    I had to say that, because chicks dig SKiP

  • SKPeterson

    Abby – I was thinking Republican Party, but maybe All Night Long Republican Pajama Party would be a good alternative. Or the Anarchist Republicans. Maybe the Knights of the Odd Republic, but George Lucas might object. It’s a work in progress.

  • SKPeterson

    Abby – I was thinking Republican Party, but maybe All Night Long Republican Pajama Party would be a good alternative. Or the Anarchist Republicans. Maybe the Knights of the Odd Republic, but George Lucas might object. It’s a work in progress.

  • Abby

    @56 All Night Long Republican Pajama Party might work :)

  • Abby

    @56 All Night Long Republican Pajama Party might work :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Or the Anarchist Republicans.

    Ooh ooh, I vote for that one. It sounds so against The Man

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Or the Anarchist Republicans.

    Ooh ooh, I vote for that one. It sounds so against The Man

  • SAL

    #56 I was assuming with your name it would be the Peter(son) Principle Party.

  • SAL

    #56 I was assuming with your name it would be the Peter(son) Principle Party.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@14), you’ve pretty obviously been in a foul mood lately — presumably, because of the election. Just letting you know: it’s really apparent.

    Take gay marriage. If the media didn’t promote it, the idea would never occur to 99.9% of people. Because 99.99% of people would never even want to marry a same sex partner. The places that have legal gay marriage only about 0.01% of people are taking advantage of the law. So, gays are about 1% and of that only 1% want to marry their partner.

    You know, there was a time when you were somewhat known on this blog for being good with statistics, not for pulling them out of your … head.

    The Williams Institute had a 2011 study that estimated that “1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual”. So your guess is likely a bit low there.

    And “A consultant to the Census Bureau estimated there were roughly 100,000 official same-sex weddings, civil unions and domestic partnerships in 2008.” Think about how many states there were where such things were even legal in 2008, and how many marriages one would expect to see per year in a marriageable population, and tell me if your 1% number is anywhere near correct.

    And then there’s the slight problem that you seem to have forgotten that gay people have family, friends, and co-workers who are not gay. I know of several in my circles. And you know what? Some of those straight people care about those gay people and want them to be able to marry legally. No, really!

    Beyond all that, there’s the question of how we treat minorities, of whatever stripe. America isn’t, and never has been, a pure democracy, and has always had systems in place to protect minorities from what has been called the tyranny of the majority. But you seem to enjoy that tyranny. Whee.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@14), you’ve pretty obviously been in a foul mood lately — presumably, because of the election. Just letting you know: it’s really apparent.

    Take gay marriage. If the media didn’t promote it, the idea would never occur to 99.9% of people. Because 99.99% of people would never even want to marry a same sex partner. The places that have legal gay marriage only about 0.01% of people are taking advantage of the law. So, gays are about 1% and of that only 1% want to marry their partner.

    You know, there was a time when you were somewhat known on this blog for being good with statistics, not for pulling them out of your … head.

    The Williams Institute had a 2011 study that estimated that “1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual”. So your guess is likely a bit low there.

    And “A consultant to the Census Bureau estimated there were roughly 100,000 official same-sex weddings, civil unions and domestic partnerships in 2008.” Think about how many states there were where such things were even legal in 2008, and how many marriages one would expect to see per year in a marriageable population, and tell me if your 1% number is anywhere near correct.

    And then there’s the slight problem that you seem to have forgotten that gay people have family, friends, and co-workers who are not gay. I know of several in my circles. And you know what? Some of those straight people care about those gay people and want them to be able to marry legally. No, really!

    Beyond all that, there’s the question of how we treat minorities, of whatever stripe. America isn’t, and never has been, a pure democracy, and has always had systems in place to protect minorities from what has been called the tyranny of the majority. But you seem to enjoy that tyranny. Whee.

  • SKPeterson

    SAL – My platform always includes not only promoting incompetence, but also defining mediocrity downward. That way everyone can be above average while achieving excellence every day. My motto is “Excellence in Mediocrity, Competence in Moderation.”

  • SKPeterson

    SAL – My platform always includes not only promoting incompetence, but also defining mediocrity downward. That way everyone can be above average while achieving excellence every day. My motto is “Excellence in Mediocrity, Competence in Moderation.”

  • SKPeterson

    Todd @ 60 – Interesting numbers on gay marriages. I suspect that there is/was some pent up demand behind that 100,000 figure. Anyhow, the CDC (who knew the CDC kept marriage stats?) indicates about 2,077,000 marriages in 2009 (not sure if that is YTD, and no breakdown of the number of gay marriages in that number), but assuming many of those are heterosexual couples the 100,000 figure represents just under 5%. Interestingly, there was a decline in marriages from 2008 to 2009 by about 80,000, which invites all sorts of speculation. Unfortunately, the CDC numbers can’t say why.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd @ 60 – Interesting numbers on gay marriages. I suspect that there is/was some pent up demand behind that 100,000 figure. Anyhow, the CDC (who knew the CDC kept marriage stats?) indicates about 2,077,000 marriages in 2009 (not sure if that is YTD, and no breakdown of the number of gay marriages in that number), but assuming many of those are heterosexual couples the 100,000 figure represents just under 5%. Interestingly, there was a decline in marriages from 2008 to 2009 by about 80,000, which invites all sorts of speculation. Unfortunately, the CDC numbers can’t say why.

  • Abby

    @61 “. . . not only promoting incompetence, but also defining mediocrity downward. That way everyone can be above average while achieving excellence every day. My motto is “Excellence in Mediocrity, Competence in Moderation.” I think the schools are already doing this. Good motto for winning.

  • Abby

    @61 “. . . not only promoting incompetence, but also defining mediocrity downward. That way everyone can be above average while achieving excellence every day. My motto is “Excellence in Mediocrity, Competence in Moderation.” I think the schools are already doing this. Good motto for winning.

  • Abby

    Todd @60 “Some of those straight people care about those gay people and want them to be able to marry legally. No, really!”

    There is no such thing as a same-sex “marriage.”

    “Marriage: legal union of a man and a woman.” The Oxford American Desk Dictionary, 2nd Edition

    “And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by saying, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. ‘What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’” Matt 19 3-6

    So, you see, it is impossible for gays to be “married.” They can never be “one flesh.” The two shall become one can only be between a man and a woman. Now if you want to find another name to bless their co-habitation and give them secular “legal rights” go right ahead. But let’s get rid of the “marriage” dilemma.

  • Abby

    Todd @60 “Some of those straight people care about those gay people and want them to be able to marry legally. No, really!”

    There is no such thing as a same-sex “marriage.”

    “Marriage: legal union of a man and a woman.” The Oxford American Desk Dictionary, 2nd Edition

    “And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by saying, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. ‘What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’” Matt 19 3-6

    So, you see, it is impossible for gays to be “married.” They can never be “one flesh.” The two shall become one can only be between a man and a woman. Now if you want to find another name to bless their co-habitation and give them secular “legal rights” go right ahead. But let’s get rid of the “marriage” dilemma.

  • PinonCoffee

    To go way back to Random Lutheran @13 – I agree, Republicans desperately need decent-to-inspired graphic design. It’s just embarrassing.

    Dr. Veith, do the journalism students at PHC learn graphic design? I know some of the alumni are good at it, but I don’t know details. On a related note, PHC really should start a fashion design course. :-)

  • PinonCoffee

    To go way back to Random Lutheran @13 – I agree, Republicans desperately need decent-to-inspired graphic design. It’s just embarrassing.

    Dr. Veith, do the journalism students at PHC learn graphic design? I know some of the alumni are good at it, but I don’t know details. On a related note, PHC really should start a fashion design course. :-)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    America isn’t, and never has been, a pure democracy, and has always had systems in place to protect minorities from what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

    Actually America did not put those in place, rather various persons conceived of these ideals based on their firmly held convictions and principles and were able to sell these ideas to their countrymen. However, there is no guarantee that generations of Americans in the future are going to be so easy to sell on these ideas. So, while you and I may deplore the tyranny of the majority, it does not follow that the majority will necessarily continue in that tradition.

    Okay, gay marriage in Canada. 2011 census counted 21,015 same sex married couples. Canada’s population is 35.5 million. So, in Canada that is 0.001%. So I actually over estimated by an order of magnitude. I sit corrected. The point is just that it is not an issue that the public was clamoring for. Also, it isn’t like there is some sort of dire consequence if they can’t get married. Notice the massive grassroots interest in the debt, deficit and financial malfeasance of our government from groups as different as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. People really do care about the economy and money. These fiscal issues are what people care about. Even the health care act and contraceptive coverage was primarily about money, not healthcare. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees what should be done, but stuff like gay marriage is not a grass roots issue because too few people are affected. Abortion is a grass roots issue because a fairly large plurality are very opposed to it on principle. Ironically women didn’t organize themselves to advocate for contraceptive coverage. The grass roots opposition came from various religionists including women.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    America isn’t, and never has been, a pure democracy, and has always had systems in place to protect minorities from what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

    Actually America did not put those in place, rather various persons conceived of these ideals based on their firmly held convictions and principles and were able to sell these ideas to their countrymen. However, there is no guarantee that generations of Americans in the future are going to be so easy to sell on these ideas. So, while you and I may deplore the tyranny of the majority, it does not follow that the majority will necessarily continue in that tradition.

    Okay, gay marriage in Canada. 2011 census counted 21,015 same sex married couples. Canada’s population is 35.5 million. So, in Canada that is 0.001%. So I actually over estimated by an order of magnitude. I sit corrected. The point is just that it is not an issue that the public was clamoring for. Also, it isn’t like there is some sort of dire consequence if they can’t get married. Notice the massive grassroots interest in the debt, deficit and financial malfeasance of our government from groups as different as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. People really do care about the economy and money. These fiscal issues are what people care about. Even the health care act and contraceptive coverage was primarily about money, not healthcare. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees what should be done, but stuff like gay marriage is not a grass roots issue because too few people are affected. Abortion is a grass roots issue because a fairly large plurality are very opposed to it on principle. Ironically women didn’t organize themselves to advocate for contraceptive coverage. The grass roots opposition came from various religionists including women.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@64), this may come as a shock to you, but neither the dictionary (and you’re lucky you just so happened to use that one; others’ definitions might give you the vapors) nor the Bible are considered superior to actual laws here in the US. So whatever theological point you may have, it doesn’t matter when it comes to legal definitions. Sorry.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@64), this may come as a shock to you, but neither the dictionary (and you’re lucky you just so happened to use that one; others’ definitions might give you the vapors) nor the Bible are considered superior to actual laws here in the US. So whatever theological point you may have, it doesn’t matter when it comes to legal definitions. Sorry.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    SG (@14), you’ve pretty obviously been in a foul mood lately — presumably, because of the election. Just letting you know: it’s really apparent.

    Interesting feedback. Actually, it didn’t really bother me, which kinda surprised even me. I think my son was more bothered by it than I am. I am more annoyed at people saying you should change what you believe so you can win and have more power. Oh goody. Let’s elect people who promise stuff we don’t agree with, so our team can win. How is that a win. Anyway, I had to spend time telling my son that the election wasn’t that important. I told my friends I was more interested in the local races here in our county than the national election. It would have been nice if Romney had won because he probably could at least have tweaked many policies with the support of Democrats that would have been a win win for most Americans both left and right. So, that is too bad. Obama is just a lawyer, so there is only so much you can expect in the way of him leading anything. He had never really led anything else let alone some massive complicated enterprise.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    SG (@14), you’ve pretty obviously been in a foul mood lately — presumably, because of the election. Just letting you know: it’s really apparent.

    Interesting feedback. Actually, it didn’t really bother me, which kinda surprised even me. I think my son was more bothered by it than I am. I am more annoyed at people saying you should change what you believe so you can win and have more power. Oh goody. Let’s elect people who promise stuff we don’t agree with, so our team can win. How is that a win. Anyway, I had to spend time telling my son that the election wasn’t that important. I told my friends I was more interested in the local races here in our county than the national election. It would have been nice if Romney had won because he probably could at least have tweaked many policies with the support of Democrats that would have been a win win for most Americans both left and right. So, that is too bad. Obama is just a lawyer, so there is only so much you can expect in the way of him leading anything. He had never really led anything else let alone some massive complicated enterprise.

  • Abby

    Todd @67 I’ll stick with Jesus.

  • Abby

    Todd @67 I’ll stick with Jesus.

  • Abby

    “. . .nor the Bible are considered superior to actual laws here in the US.” Wow.

  • Abby

    “. . .nor the Bible are considered superior to actual laws here in the US.” Wow.

  • Lou G.

    Douglas Lindee @47, 48, &49!!
    Where have you been all my life? Absolutely amazing summarization of the hold that post-modernism now has on our great country. I’m in full agreement with each and every one of your points.
    To a much lesser degree and on a weaker scale, I’ve tried to communicate similar thoughts here on this site, but you, sir, have succeeded in ways I could not.
    Thank you for that.
    Lou.

  • Lou G.

    Douglas Lindee @47, 48, &49!!
    Where have you been all my life? Absolutely amazing summarization of the hold that post-modernism now has on our great country. I’m in full agreement with each and every one of your points.
    To a much lesser degree and on a weaker scale, I’ve tried to communicate similar thoughts here on this site, but you, sir, have succeeded in ways I could not.
    Thank you for that.
    Lou.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Dan Kempin@30: I had forgotten that not only did I predict Obama’s re-election, I also predicted Romney’s nomination. And made both predictions before the primaries even started. I hate always being right! And thanks, SK @1, for hailing the Cranach blog as the only conservative media site that wasn’t taken in by wishful thinking. And thanks, Douglass Lindee@47ff., not just for your kind words but for your insightful analysis. Keep commenting!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Dan Kempin@30: I had forgotten that not only did I predict Obama’s re-election, I also predicted Romney’s nomination. And made both predictions before the primaries even started. I hate always being right! And thanks, SK @1, for hailing the Cranach blog as the only conservative media site that wasn’t taken in by wishful thinking. And thanks, Douglass Lindee@47ff., not just for your kind words but for your insightful analysis. Keep commenting!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Abby @ 70 – You are completely misreading Todd. He is making a statement about reality as it is, not as people want it to be. The USA is not a Theocracy, nor a Bibleocracy (to invent a word).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Abby @ 70 – You are completely misreading Todd. He is making a statement about reality as it is, not as people want it to be. The USA is not a Theocracy, nor a Bibleocracy (to invent a word).

  • Jenkins

    Todd: “So whatever theological point you may have, it doesn’t matter when it comes to legal definitions. Sorry.”

    My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place. Like Abby said, let the government create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws, but law makers need to know that they don’t get to define marriage. Just another poor consequence of mixing Church and state roles, imo.

  • Jenkins

    Todd: “So whatever theological point you may have, it doesn’t matter when it comes to legal definitions. Sorry.”

    My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place. Like Abby said, let the government create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws, but law makers need to know that they don’t get to define marriage. Just another poor consequence of mixing Church and state roles, imo.

  • Lou G.

    #72 – Dr. Veith: Congrats on your correct predictions! I’ll never doubt you again ;) . You called it on both accounts.

  • Lou G.

    #72 – Dr. Veith: Congrats on your correct predictions! I’ll never doubt you again ;) . You called it on both accounts.

  • #4 Kitty

    @72

    I had forgotten that not only did I predict Obama’s re-election, I also predicted Romney’s nomination.

    That’s actually quite impressive. Care to take a shot at what kind of election we’ll see in 2016?

  • #4 Kitty

    @72

    I had forgotten that not only did I predict Obama’s re-election, I also predicted Romney’s nomination.

    That’s actually quite impressive. Care to take a shot at what kind of election we’ll see in 2016?

  • DonS

    To update my comments from earlier, although white turnout looks like it will end up about 3 or so million votes lower than 2008, it was NOT white evangelicals who caused that. White evangelicals made up 26% of electorate in 2012, vs. 23% in 2008. So, no Mormon problem.

    It looks like the GOP has conceded FL to Obama.

    2016 election: Interesting. I already stated I think the GOP frontrunner is Marco Rubio, but the GOP actually has a very deep bench. Who will be the Dem successor to Obama? 69 year old (at that time) Hilary Clinton? 73 year old Joe Biden? The GOP now owns 32 of the 50 governorships, so there aren’t many Dem governors to choose from. It’ll be interesting to see who arises out of that party, which does not seem to have a deep bench.

  • DonS

    To update my comments from earlier, although white turnout looks like it will end up about 3 or so million votes lower than 2008, it was NOT white evangelicals who caused that. White evangelicals made up 26% of electorate in 2012, vs. 23% in 2008. So, no Mormon problem.

    It looks like the GOP has conceded FL to Obama.

    2016 election: Interesting. I already stated I think the GOP frontrunner is Marco Rubio, but the GOP actually has a very deep bench. Who will be the Dem successor to Obama? 69 year old (at that time) Hilary Clinton? 73 year old Joe Biden? The GOP now owns 32 of the 50 governorships, so there aren’t many Dem governors to choose from. It’ll be interesting to see who arises out of that party, which does not seem to have a deep bench.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@66):

    Actually America did not put those in place, rather various persons conceived of these ideals based on their firmly held convictions and principles and were able to sell these ideas to their countrymen.

    That’s incoherent. You seem to be pitting America, the non-personal entity, against its citizen-legislators. Yes, “selling ideas” to our countrymen is how America does things.

    Still, a quick perusal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights finds not a few examples of what I was saying. Sure, we may yet repeal those parts of the Constitution, I guess, but I’m still not buying your overall paranoia. Nor am I sure that you agree with me about the tyranny of the majority.

    Also, no idea why you suddenly pivoted to talking about Canada. Let’s look at Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage for long enough to get rid of any initial effects:

    The latest report from the 2010 census showed there were 131,729 same-sex married households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States, compared with 349,377 married couple households and 552,620 same-sex unmarried partners reported by the bureau earlier this month.

    Remember that your claim is that “only 1% [of gays] want to marry their partner”. Which, you know, means that you can only compare gays who have a partner. Something you’re obviously not doing. You’re getting really sloppy here. So, again, look at the statistics above. 39% of gays with partners are married. That is nowhere near your 1% estimate.

    The point is just that it is not an issue that the public was clamoring for.

    And you continue to assume (quite wrongly, obviously) that only gays care about gay marriage. In fact, your statement above is a total non sequitur. You can’t deduce from the number of gays or gays getting married what the public is or is not clamoring for. Most people “clamoring for” gay marriage are not themselves gay. Come on.

    Also, it isn’t like there is some sort of dire consequence if they can’t get married.

    Nor is there a dire consequence if blacks and whites can’t get married. And yet, the public seems to feel otherwise. Again, sometimes people care about what happens to minorities outside of a narrow economic interest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@66):

    Actually America did not put those in place, rather various persons conceived of these ideals based on their firmly held convictions and principles and were able to sell these ideas to their countrymen.

    That’s incoherent. You seem to be pitting America, the non-personal entity, against its citizen-legislators. Yes, “selling ideas” to our countrymen is how America does things.

    Still, a quick perusal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights finds not a few examples of what I was saying. Sure, we may yet repeal those parts of the Constitution, I guess, but I’m still not buying your overall paranoia. Nor am I sure that you agree with me about the tyranny of the majority.

    Also, no idea why you suddenly pivoted to talking about Canada. Let’s look at Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage for long enough to get rid of any initial effects:

    The latest report from the 2010 census showed there were 131,729 same-sex married households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States, compared with 349,377 married couple households and 552,620 same-sex unmarried partners reported by the bureau earlier this month.

    Remember that your claim is that “only 1% [of gays] want to marry their partner”. Which, you know, means that you can only compare gays who have a partner. Something you’re obviously not doing. You’re getting really sloppy here. So, again, look at the statistics above. 39% of gays with partners are married. That is nowhere near your 1% estimate.

    The point is just that it is not an issue that the public was clamoring for.

    And you continue to assume (quite wrongly, obviously) that only gays care about gay marriage. In fact, your statement above is a total non sequitur. You can’t deduce from the number of gays or gays getting married what the public is or is not clamoring for. Most people “clamoring for” gay marriage are not themselves gay. Come on.

    Also, it isn’t like there is some sort of dire consequence if they can’t get married.

    Nor is there a dire consequence if blacks and whites can’t get married. And yet, the public seems to feel otherwise. Again, sometimes people care about what happens to minorities outside of a narrow economic interest.

  • Jon H.

    Florida was just declared for Pres. Obama. EV is 332-206. By contrast, the 2004 EV was 286-251.

  • Jon H.

    Florida was just declared for Pres. Obama. EV is 332-206. By contrast, the 2004 EV was 286-251.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@70), talk to a lawyer. See if they have any books in their office besides the Bible and a dictionary. If they do, ask them why.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@70), talk to a lawyer. See if they have any books in their office besides the Bible and a dictionary. If they do, ask them why.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jenkins (@74) said:

    My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place.

    How to disprove this statement in one easy question: Jenkins, if you are married, did you alert the state to your marriage by filling out the appropriate paperwork?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jenkins (@74) said:

    My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place.

    How to disprove this statement in one easy question: Jenkins, if you are married, did you alert the state to your marriage by filling out the appropriate paperwork?

  • Abby

    Todd @80 I’ll still stick with Jesus. He did some talking to some lawyers already.

  • Abby

    Todd @80 I’ll still stick with Jesus. He did some talking to some lawyers already.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@82), I know you think you’re making some kind of brave stand or whatever, but all you’re doing is making clear that you don’t understand how our legal system works.

    Seriously, whether or not you think gay people should be married, or whether that marriage is theologically valid, has exactly zero impact on its legal standing. I’m sorry to break this news to you.

    Theocracy. Please look it up. Let me know if your dictionary follows with “(e.g., the United States)”, and I’ll mail you a new dictionary.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@82), I know you think you’re making some kind of brave stand or whatever, but all you’re doing is making clear that you don’t understand how our legal system works.

    Seriously, whether or not you think gay people should be married, or whether that marriage is theologically valid, has exactly zero impact on its legal standing. I’m sorry to break this news to you.

    Theocracy. Please look it up. Let me know if your dictionary follows with “(e.g., the United States)”, and I’ll mail you a new dictionary.

  • Abby

    Todd @83 I think you are misunderstanding me. My point was about the definition of the word “marriage.” Believe me, I am a very simple minded person and not able to compete with all of you here. My point was simply, that a word be found to describe co-habitation between same-sex couples for the sake of laws and benefits. That is all. The “two become one flesh” according to Jesus can only apply to a man and a woman. That is created marriage by God, since Adam and Eve. That is why the Christian community seeks to deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples to bless their household. To do that is to say to them as Christians, “Yes, we now accept that your lifestyle is ok with us. We accept you as one with us and God is ok with it too.” Have I known gay people. Yes, and appreciate and love them. My best friend’s grandson has now said he is gay. She, now says that she will not turn her back on him even if she has to leave the Christian community she has been in, and been a leader in, all her life. I told her she does not have to turn her back on him. She is to love him all the more. But it is one thing to be homosexual in inclination but another to be one in practice. The Bible is very clear on the to be “in practice” aspect.

    I already understand that the United States is not a theocracy. That is what I was trying to explain to Grace in her attempt to disqualify Romney as a presidential candidate based on the fact that he is a Morman. But as Paul Ryan said, his personal faith and beliefs will infiltrate to his work. That is why Luther said it is ok for Christians to serve in the government and try to influence outcomes and laws for the good of society. It is very hard for me to understand how good fellow Christians oppose each other on very fundmental Biblical principles such as this issue and abortion. It is like having a Joe Biden view of things. Yeah, I believe in such and such personally, but I won’t govern that way [so I can get elected].

  • Abby

    Todd @83 I think you are misunderstanding me. My point was about the definition of the word “marriage.” Believe me, I am a very simple minded person and not able to compete with all of you here. My point was simply, that a word be found to describe co-habitation between same-sex couples for the sake of laws and benefits. That is all. The “two become one flesh” according to Jesus can only apply to a man and a woman. That is created marriage by God, since Adam and Eve. That is why the Christian community seeks to deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples to bless their household. To do that is to say to them as Christians, “Yes, we now accept that your lifestyle is ok with us. We accept you as one with us and God is ok with it too.” Have I known gay people. Yes, and appreciate and love them. My best friend’s grandson has now said he is gay. She, now says that she will not turn her back on him even if she has to leave the Christian community she has been in, and been a leader in, all her life. I told her she does not have to turn her back on him. She is to love him all the more. But it is one thing to be homosexual in inclination but another to be one in practice. The Bible is very clear on the to be “in practice” aspect.

    I already understand that the United States is not a theocracy. That is what I was trying to explain to Grace in her attempt to disqualify Romney as a presidential candidate based on the fact that he is a Morman. But as Paul Ryan said, his personal faith and beliefs will infiltrate to his work. That is why Luther said it is ok for Christians to serve in the government and try to influence outcomes and laws for the good of society. It is very hard for me to understand how good fellow Christians oppose each other on very fundmental Biblical principles such as this issue and abortion. It is like having a Joe Biden view of things. Yeah, I believe in such and such personally, but I won’t govern that way [so I can get elected].

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@84):

    My point was simply, that a word be found to describe co-habitation between same-sex couples for the sake of laws and benefits.

    Your wish has been granted! A word has been found! And already made its way into one of the most popular dictionaries, Merriam-Webster:

    the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    I’ll let you follow that link to discover the identity of this mysterious word. (Not, again, that the dictionary has any bearing on the legal situation. Quite the reverse, actually.)

    That is why the Christian community seeks to deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples to bless their household. To do that is to say to them as Christians, “Yes, we now accept that your lifestyle is ok with us. We accept you as one with us and God is ok with it too.”

    As a community, Christians can do whatever they want with words. But you’re continuing to confuse “the Christian community” — whatever you imagine that to be — with our system of laws. We are not a theocracy. You say you understand that, and yet you argue that changing legal definitions would alter what we “say to them as Christians”. You can’t have it both ways.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Abby (@84):

    My point was simply, that a word be found to describe co-habitation between same-sex couples for the sake of laws and benefits.

    Your wish has been granted! A word has been found! And already made its way into one of the most popular dictionaries, Merriam-Webster:

    the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    I’ll let you follow that link to discover the identity of this mysterious word. (Not, again, that the dictionary has any bearing on the legal situation. Quite the reverse, actually.)

    That is why the Christian community seeks to deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples to bless their household. To do that is to say to them as Christians, “Yes, we now accept that your lifestyle is ok with us. We accept you as one with us and God is ok with it too.”

    As a community, Christians can do whatever they want with words. But you’re continuing to confuse “the Christian community” — whatever you imagine that to be — with our system of laws. We are not a theocracy. You say you understand that, and yet you argue that changing legal definitions would alter what we “say to them as Christians”. You can’t have it both ways.

  • http://www.pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com Rev. Larry A. Peters

    It could be that many people did not want to believe that hope and change were dead and, despite the evidence to the contrary, decided that Obama would be given another chance to deliver on his four year old promises.

    It could be that Romney was a decent fellow who failed to provide a compelling reason to change and was, unfairly to be sure, tarred and feathered by Obama and his media surrogates.

    It could be that the electorate has changed and that people are not who we thought they were or who we wanted them to be. There are many who prefer to believe that the rich have enough to pay the full freight and that the hard realities of our economic life do not have to be faced.

    It could be all politics is local and there were many factors that none of us can know that led people to vote as they voted — perhaps from the bottom up instead of the top down of the wallet.

    In any case, I am sick of the American political season — both its length over 4-6 years and the constant polling. I prefer the British way that prevents campaigning except for the could of months or so prior to the election.

    Or maybe I am just tired and bitter….

  • http://www.pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com Rev. Larry A. Peters

    It could be that many people did not want to believe that hope and change were dead and, despite the evidence to the contrary, decided that Obama would be given another chance to deliver on his four year old promises.

    It could be that Romney was a decent fellow who failed to provide a compelling reason to change and was, unfairly to be sure, tarred and feathered by Obama and his media surrogates.

    It could be that the electorate has changed and that people are not who we thought they were or who we wanted them to be. There are many who prefer to believe that the rich have enough to pay the full freight and that the hard realities of our economic life do not have to be faced.

    It could be all politics is local and there were many factors that none of us can know that led people to vote as they voted — perhaps from the bottom up instead of the top down of the wallet.

    In any case, I am sick of the American political season — both its length over 4-6 years and the constant polling. I prefer the British way that prevents campaigning except for the could of months or so prior to the election.

    Or maybe I am just tired and bitter….

  • http://www.pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com Rev. Larry A. Peters

    and, apparently, blind… since the “wallet” I typed was supposed to be “ballot…” *{]:-)

  • http://www.pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com Rev. Larry A. Peters

    and, apparently, blind… since the “wallet” I typed was supposed to be “ballot…” *{]:-)

  • Tom Hering

    Lessons from the election?

    (1.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans to say whatever has to be said to appeal to their base. (It’s especially good to make promises concerning abortion.)

    (2.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans to run down every last voter in the ground game.

    (3.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans that unfairly attacking the character of your opponent works. (Ask John Kerry.)

  • Tom Hering

    Lessons from the election?

    (1.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans to say whatever has to be said to appeal to their base. (It’s especially good to make promises concerning abortion.)

    (2.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans to run down every last voter in the ground game.

    (3.) Democrats finally learned from Republicans that unfairly attacking the character of your opponent works. (Ask John Kerry.)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And maybe we’ve all finally learned a lesson about nominating very wealthy, Ivy-League-educated Massachusetts politicians with a habit of changing their positions on major issues to run against incumbents for the office of President? Maybe?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And maybe we’ve all finally learned a lesson about nominating very wealthy, Ivy-League-educated Massachusetts politicians with a habit of changing their positions on major issues to run against incumbents for the office of President? Maybe?

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Instead of giving my two cents worth, here’s a quote from Dr. Brian Mattson of the Center for Cultural Leadership:

    “I am also convinced, now more than ever, that the conservative movement in America will be a minority party as far into the future as the eye can see if they continue to spout the rhetoric of rounding up Hispanics and Latinos and shipping them back to lands of poverty. Just one word: Stop. Building a fence is fine and necessary. Denying citizenship is fine and probably necessary. Mass deportations? Get a grip on reality. The Hispanic and Latino communities are largely Catholic and socially conservative. That is, natural allies of the Republican party. They will never vote for a party that talks about busing their loved ones back to poverty. Again: Stop.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Instead of giving my two cents worth, here’s a quote from Dr. Brian Mattson of the Center for Cultural Leadership:

    “I am also convinced, now more than ever, that the conservative movement in America will be a minority party as far into the future as the eye can see if they continue to spout the rhetoric of rounding up Hispanics and Latinos and shipping them back to lands of poverty. Just one word: Stop. Building a fence is fine and necessary. Denying citizenship is fine and probably necessary. Mass deportations? Get a grip on reality. The Hispanic and Latino communities are largely Catholic and socially conservative. That is, natural allies of the Republican party. They will never vote for a party that talks about busing their loved ones back to poverty. Again: Stop.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Also, no idea why you suddenly pivoted to talking about Canada.”

    I just picked Canada because they have had same sex marriage for a while now. So those who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity have had a fair amount of time to do it and there has been time to collect and report the data.

    Do you think gays in Canada and like way totally different from gays in America, and therefore it is just crazy to use Canada as an example? As far as I know there isn’t a nation that has had gay marriage for like 50 years. So the possibilities for a reasonable example are not endless.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Also, no idea why you suddenly pivoted to talking about Canada.”

    I just picked Canada because they have had same sex marriage for a while now. So those who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity have had a fair amount of time to do it and there has been time to collect and report the data.

    Do you think gays in Canada and like way totally different from gays in America, and therefore it is just crazy to use Canada as an example? As far as I know there isn’t a nation that has had gay marriage for like 50 years. So the possibilities for a reasonable example are not endless.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    they continue to spout the rhetoric of rounding up Hispanics and Latinos and shipping them back to lands of poverty.

    What kind of people create a land of poverty, and what is there to stop them from doing it here?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    they continue to spout the rhetoric of rounding up Hispanics and Latinos and shipping them back to lands of poverty.

    What kind of people create a land of poverty, and what is there to stop them from doing it here?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @89

    Or maybe we learned our lesson about nominating Mormons. Where is Grace. She needs to come gloat.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @89

    Or maybe we learned our lesson about nominating Mormons. Where is Grace. She needs to come gloat.

  • The Jones

    1. “It’s the economy, stupid” is a crutch for a conservative who does not actually know how to explain liberty and the proper role of government.

    2. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses with advanced degrees” is not the position on immigration this country has traditionally taken, and it is not the immigration policy that Republicans should have adopted. We need to fix that quick.

  • The Jones

    1. “It’s the economy, stupid” is a crutch for a conservative who does not actually know how to explain liberty and the proper role of government.

    2. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses with advanced degrees” is not the position on immigration this country has traditionally taken, and it is not the immigration policy that Republicans should have adopted. We need to fix that quick.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    And you continue to assume (quite wrongly, obviously) that only gays care about gay marriage. In fact, your statement above is a total non sequitur. You can’t deduce from the number of gays or gays getting married what the public is or is not clamoring for. Most people “clamoring for” gay marriage are not themselves gay. Come on.

    Not sure what your point is. I already agree with all of that.

    My point is that there was never any particular interest among many people until the media decided to cover the issue non-stop. After it was presented in the proper light, people got on the bandwagon.

    Economic issues are different. You don’t have to tell people to care about those issues. They figure it out all on their own.

    I was just pointing out the contrast between an issue that comes up from the bottom and one that we are sold by the folks at the top.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    And you continue to assume (quite wrongly, obviously) that only gays care about gay marriage. In fact, your statement above is a total non sequitur. You can’t deduce from the number of gays or gays getting married what the public is or is not clamoring for. Most people “clamoring for” gay marriage are not themselves gay. Come on.

    Not sure what your point is. I already agree with all of that.

    My point is that there was never any particular interest among many people until the media decided to cover the issue non-stop. After it was presented in the proper light, people got on the bandwagon.

    Economic issues are different. You don’t have to tell people to care about those issues. They figure it out all on their own.

    I was just pointing out the contrast between an issue that comes up from the bottom and one that we are sold by the folks at the top.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “2. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses with advanced degrees” is not the position on immigration this country has traditionally taken, and it is not the immigration policy that Republicans should have adopted. We need to fix that quick.”

    Remind me why a country with high unemployment and low labor participation rates needs more immigrants? To create more consumers so that corporations can make more profits and depress wages? Hey it is a win win for corporations and a lose lose for working and middle class citizens.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “2. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses with advanced degrees” is not the position on immigration this country has traditionally taken, and it is not the immigration policy that Republicans should have adopted. We need to fix that quick.”

    Remind me why a country with high unemployment and low labor participation rates needs more immigrants? To create more consumers so that corporations can make more profits and depress wages? Hey it is a win win for corporations and a lose lose for working and middle class citizens.

  • Dan Kempin

    Seriously, I think McCain at #12 had a point.

    The republicans turned out millions LESS than they did in 2008. Given the political landscape, that doesn’t make any sense. They shoud have had a huge turnout.

    Nevertheless, many republicans sat on the bench, and not only sat but sat quietly. The only circumstance I can think of that explains this is Romney’s Mormonism. I think many on the right who are serious about the Christian faith simply could not vote for a Mormon president.

    I said from the very beginning that it was a huge issue, and I think it may have been the deciding factor in this election.

    (That said, the conservatives are also now officially outnumbered nationally and electorally.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Seriously, I think McCain at #12 had a point.

    The republicans turned out millions LESS than they did in 2008. Given the political landscape, that doesn’t make any sense. They shoud have had a huge turnout.

    Nevertheless, many republicans sat on the bench, and not only sat but sat quietly. The only circumstance I can think of that explains this is Romney’s Mormonism. I think many on the right who are serious about the Christian faith simply could not vote for a Mormon president.

    I said from the very beginning that it was a huge issue, and I think it may have been the deciding factor in this election.

    (That said, the conservatives are also now officially outnumbered nationally and electorally.)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Remember that your claim is that “only 1% [of gays] want to marry their partner”. Which, you know, means that you can only compare gays who have a partner. Something you’re obviously not doing. You’re getting really sloppy here. So, again, look at the statistics above. 39% of gays with partners are married. That is nowhere near your 1% estimate.

    Okay, this is like Grace level nitpicking.

    Fine.

    Only 0.1% of gays are married in Canada where it has been legal for 8 years.

    Is that really that big of a deal? I was making a generalization about the fact that gays are a tiny minority, and those who marry, (where legal) are and extremely tiny minority.

    Was my general way way off, such that the point I was making was negated by the gross inacuracy of the assertion that this is a tiny group?

    No.

    So, why nitpick it?

    The part you disagree with isn’t the numbers but the relevance of the numbers to the public’s interest in the issue.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Remember that your claim is that “only 1% [of gays] want to marry their partner”. Which, you know, means that you can only compare gays who have a partner. Something you’re obviously not doing. You’re getting really sloppy here. So, again, look at the statistics above. 39% of gays with partners are married. That is nowhere near your 1% estimate.

    Okay, this is like Grace level nitpicking.

    Fine.

    Only 0.1% of gays are married in Canada where it has been legal for 8 years.

    Is that really that big of a deal? I was making a generalization about the fact that gays are a tiny minority, and those who marry, (where legal) are and extremely tiny minority.

    Was my general way way off, such that the point I was making was negated by the gross inacuracy of the assertion that this is a tiny group?

    No.

    So, why nitpick it?

    The part you disagree with isn’t the numbers but the relevance of the numbers to the public’s interest in the issue.

  • dust

    sg….nitpick is as nitpick does :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    sg….nitpick is as nitpick does :)

    cheers!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    100

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    100

  • dust

    sg…..right on sista :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    sg…..right on sista :)

    cheers!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SG (@98):

    Okay, this is like Grace level nitpicking.

    That’s funny. You used to complain about ad hominem attacks. No longer, eh?

    I’m critiquing your numbers because you’re pulling them out of your butt, and you don’t seem to care. What’s more, you seem rather intent on holding to them.

    Again, in Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage about as long as Canada has, 39% of those gays who actually had a partner to marry did so. That is not an “extremely tiny minority”.

    The only reason I could see for holding to your miniscule figures is because they make a better emotional impact for your argument here. Oh, I know, you probably think you’re above emotions and opinions. Perfectly objective, logical SG.

    And yes, you continue to miss the point, even as you say that you agree with it, that people who are not gay care about gay people getting married. Maybe not a strict majority in every state (though we certainly have seen a shift this election), but certainly far more than would be implied by your b___s___ numbers here.

    And Dust (@99, 101), as ever, your contributions to the discussion here are supremely valuable.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SG (@98):

    Okay, this is like Grace level nitpicking.

    That’s funny. You used to complain about ad hominem attacks. No longer, eh?

    I’m critiquing your numbers because you’re pulling them out of your butt, and you don’t seem to care. What’s more, you seem rather intent on holding to them.

    Again, in Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage about as long as Canada has, 39% of those gays who actually had a partner to marry did so. That is not an “extremely tiny minority”.

    The only reason I could see for holding to your miniscule figures is because they make a better emotional impact for your argument here. Oh, I know, you probably think you’re above emotions and opinions. Perfectly objective, logical SG.

    And yes, you continue to miss the point, even as you say that you agree with it, that people who are not gay care about gay people getting married. Maybe not a strict majority in every state (though we certainly have seen a shift this election), but certainly far more than would be implied by your b___s___ numbers here.

    And Dust (@99, 101), as ever, your contributions to the discussion here are supremely valuable.

  • dust

    tODD…thank you, but alas, though not as snarky, not as valuable as yours :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    tODD…thank you, but alas, though not as snarky, not as valuable as yours :)

    cheers!

  • http://chriskrycho.com/theology Chris Krycho

    Regular reader, irregular commenter here. On the question of lower voter turnout: I can say that for most of the folks my age (mid-20s) I know that have broadly conservative leanings but didn’t turn out, Romney’s Mormonism had nothing to do with it. It wasn’t even on the radar in terms of the problems they had with him. Rather, the resistance fit into two broad categories: (1) a perception that he wasn’t substantively different from Obama in ways that mattered, and (2) a perception that he was profoundly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. The Republican party has the image of being largely, if not completely, sold out to corporate interests among people my age – for good or ill. And lots of folks my age who think free market capitalism is great still think that major corporations have far too much political clout.

    In any case, in my observations of folks both my age and those in the broad range older than me, Romney inspired no passion from most folks; he was at best a “better than the alternative” sort of candidate. There was a hint of a spark when he picked Ryan – a moment of finally, someone actually saying something, even if it might be wrong! – and then everything went back to boredom as he buried all the interesting, controversial bits of Ryan’s platform.

    I’d blame low Republican turnout on the combination of general disenchantment and simple boredom with the candidate.

  • http://chriskrycho.com/theology Chris Krycho

    Regular reader, irregular commenter here. On the question of lower voter turnout: I can say that for most of the folks my age (mid-20s) I know that have broadly conservative leanings but didn’t turn out, Romney’s Mormonism had nothing to do with it. It wasn’t even on the radar in terms of the problems they had with him. Rather, the resistance fit into two broad categories: (1) a perception that he wasn’t substantively different from Obama in ways that mattered, and (2) a perception that he was profoundly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. The Republican party has the image of being largely, if not completely, sold out to corporate interests among people my age – for good or ill. And lots of folks my age who think free market capitalism is great still think that major corporations have far too much political clout.

    In any case, in my observations of folks both my age and those in the broad range older than me, Romney inspired no passion from most folks; he was at best a “better than the alternative” sort of candidate. There was a hint of a spark when he picked Ryan – a moment of finally, someone actually saying something, even if it might be wrong! – and then everything went back to boredom as he buried all the interesting, controversial bits of Ryan’s platform.

    I’d blame low Republican turnout on the combination of general disenchantment and simple boredom with the candidate.

  • kerner

    Jenkins @74: The reason that marriage has to be defined by law is that without that definition courts won’t know who gets the rights that spouses have. If a man dies without a will and a woman claims she should inherit his property, how do we know whether she is his wife if we have no legal definition? If a man claims that he has been in a relationship with a woman and that she has left him, but now he wants some of the property she has acquired over the years, how do we know whether to give it to him if we have no legal definition of the word “husband”? We can probably forget about joint tax returns if there is no way of knowing whether the taxpayers are married or not. And there are certainly other legal issues in which we have to know with some certainty who is married and who is not before those issues can be resolved.

    If we did as you suggest, we would also have to say that marriage has no enforceable legal significance. Which is tantamount to saying that marriage is insignificant in an organized society. Is that really what you are going for?

  • kerner

    Jenkins @74: The reason that marriage has to be defined by law is that without that definition courts won’t know who gets the rights that spouses have. If a man dies without a will and a woman claims she should inherit his property, how do we know whether she is his wife if we have no legal definition? If a man claims that he has been in a relationship with a woman and that she has left him, but now he wants some of the property she has acquired over the years, how do we know whether to give it to him if we have no legal definition of the word “husband”? We can probably forget about joint tax returns if there is no way of knowing whether the taxpayers are married or not. And there are certainly other legal issues in which we have to know with some certainty who is married and who is not before those issues can be resolved.

    If we did as you suggest, we would also have to say that marriage has no enforceable legal significance. Which is tantamount to saying that marriage is insignificant in an organized society. Is that really what you are going for?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Let me put it another way, SG (@98).

    According to Statistics Canada, 0.7% of all couples in Canada in 2011 were same-sex couples. (Or, if you want to discount common-law couples, which are more common among gays, 0.3% of all married couples were same-sex.)

    That’s pretty much the same percentage as the number of Japanese-Americans in the US.

    So here’s the question. Is it an important national issue whether or not Japanese-Americans can technically marry? There aren’t many of them. So, honestly, who cares? Can’t we just create a special “Japanese union” for people like them?

    Or, to be even more historically poignant, let’s talk Japanese-American internment. Again, who cares? They’re less than 1% of the population. Was all that hubbub back in the day just so much media-driven nonsense?

    Or, you know, did other people, who weren’t themselves Japanese-Americans, still care about the issue?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Let me put it another way, SG (@98).

    According to Statistics Canada, 0.7% of all couples in Canada in 2011 were same-sex couples. (Or, if you want to discount common-law couples, which are more common among gays, 0.3% of all married couples were same-sex.)

    That’s pretty much the same percentage as the number of Japanese-Americans in the US.

    So here’s the question. Is it an important national issue whether or not Japanese-Americans can technically marry? There aren’t many of them. So, honestly, who cares? Can’t we just create a special “Japanese union” for people like them?

    Or, to be even more historically poignant, let’s talk Japanese-American internment. Again, who cares? They’re less than 1% of the population. Was all that hubbub back in the day just so much media-driven nonsense?

    Or, you know, did other people, who weren’t themselves Japanese-Americans, still care about the issue?

  • kerner
  • kerner
  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Kerner, from your article (@107), Krauthammer claims:

    Republicans are the party of smaller government.

    Ha! Would that it were so! But, sorry, I’ll believe that when I see it.

    But, sorry, I remember what I actually saw the last time Republicans were in control. “Smaller government” wasn’t it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Kerner, from your article (@107), Krauthammer claims:

    Republicans are the party of smaller government.

    Ha! Would that it were so! But, sorry, I’ll believe that when I see it.

    But, sorry, I remember what I actually saw the last time Republicans were in control. “Smaller government” wasn’t it.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Public Law 104-199
    104th Congress

    SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.–Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
    amended by adding at the end the following:

    “Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
    ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
    bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

    Its pretty clear, tODD, that the Bible and U.S. law are in sync… well at least to most of us.

    Abby,

    Don’t waste your time arguing with tODD about same sex “marriage,” especially using Holy Scripture in defense of His creation of that blessed union. I did that last summer and it was a colossal waste of a Friday evening. Its just one of his quirks.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Public Law 104-199
    104th Congress

    SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.–Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
    amended by adding at the end the following:

    “Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
    ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
    bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

    Its pretty clear, tODD, that the Bible and U.S. law are in sync… well at least to most of us.

    Abby,

    Don’t waste your time arguing with tODD about same sex “marriage,” especially using Holy Scripture in defense of His creation of that blessed union. I did that last summer and it was a colossal waste of a Friday evening. Its just one of his quirks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@109), oh great, another right-winger who doesn’t understand federalism.

    Yes, well done, DOMA exists. And has exactly zero bearing on the fact that gays can, yes, get married in nine states now.

    Deny it all you want. It doesn’t change the facts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@109), oh great, another right-winger who doesn’t understand federalism.

    Yes, well done, DOMA exists. And has exactly zero bearing on the fact that gays can, yes, get married in nine states now.

    Deny it all you want. It doesn’t change the facts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, P.C. (@109), sorry, but I laughed again when I read this point:

    Its pretty clear, tODD, that the Bible and U.S. law are in sync…

    Oh, yes. Like divorce. U.S. law practically cribbed straight from Scripture on that topic, didn’t it? (Hint: it’s partially a joke, son; divorce, like marriage, is also legislated at the state level.)

    And, you know, the First Amendment goes hand-in-hand with the First Commandment. I can’t even tell the difference anymore.

    Yup, everything that God calls sin, we’ve outlawed. Mm-hmm. Of course.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, P.C. (@109), sorry, but I laughed again when I read this point:

    Its pretty clear, tODD, that the Bible and U.S. law are in sync…

    Oh, yes. Like divorce. U.S. law practically cribbed straight from Scripture on that topic, didn’t it? (Hint: it’s partially a joke, son; divorce, like marriage, is also legislated at the state level.)

    And, you know, the First Amendment goes hand-in-hand with the First Commandment. I can’t even tell the difference anymore.

    Yup, everything that God calls sin, we’ve outlawed. Mm-hmm. Of course.

  • SKPeterson

    I wonder how property rights were assigned to surviving spouses and children in all those years prior to legal definitions of marriage being entered on the books. Think of all those illegitimate children!

    The reality is that we have two modern reasons for codifying marriage within a body of law:

    1) To define who and who cannot be married. Interracial marriage was the first impetus toward marriage licensing (having another revenue source didn’t hurt either).

    2) Assignment of rights of survivorship in the absence of present witnesses. In ages past, most people lived and married and died in relatively small spatial extents. As a result, marriage and its privileges were subject to greater levels of continuity in community oversight, for good or ill. The Scarlet Letter provides an example of community policing in terms of marriage and marriage expectations. As mobility has increased with technology, the ability of communities to police, or to attest to the marriage of a couple, puts certain strains on the legality of property and its due assignation. Formal licenses as a form of contract then emerge to codify the relationship and the rights, duties and obligations of the parties involved.

  • SKPeterson

    I wonder how property rights were assigned to surviving spouses and children in all those years prior to legal definitions of marriage being entered on the books. Think of all those illegitimate children!

    The reality is that we have two modern reasons for codifying marriage within a body of law:

    1) To define who and who cannot be married. Interracial marriage was the first impetus toward marriage licensing (having another revenue source didn’t hurt either).

    2) Assignment of rights of survivorship in the absence of present witnesses. In ages past, most people lived and married and died in relatively small spatial extents. As a result, marriage and its privileges were subject to greater levels of continuity in community oversight, for good or ill. The Scarlet Letter provides an example of community policing in terms of marriage and marriage expectations. As mobility has increased with technology, the ability of communities to police, or to attest to the marriage of a couple, puts certain strains on the legality of property and its due assignation. Formal licenses as a form of contract then emerge to codify the relationship and the rights, duties and obligations of the parties involved.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That’s funny. You used to complain about ad hominem attacks. No longer, eh?”

    It’s not ad hominem. She isn’t even arguing. Neither were you or I really. Besides, it’s just like saying tODD like humor.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That’s funny. You used to complain about ad hominem attacks. No longer, eh?”

    It’s not ad hominem. She isn’t even arguing. Neither were you or I really. Besides, it’s just like saying tODD like humor.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Again, in Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage about as long as Canada has, 39% of those gays who actually had a partner to marry did so. That is not an “extremely tiny minority”.

    39% of what number? Oh, yeah, 0.003%

    That is a tiny fraction of the total population. That was the point.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Again, in Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage about as long as Canada has, 39% of those gays who actually had a partner to marry did so. That is not an “extremely tiny minority”.

    39% of what number? Oh, yeah, 0.003%

    That is a tiny fraction of the total population. That was the point.

  • kerner

    SKP:

    Just because there was no marriage license didn’t mean there was no readily ascertainable legal definition of marraige. In culturally Christian countries a woman still had to prove she was the “wife” of the late husband. Even if it was just by a “common law” period of co-habitation. Most people in the world have never been Christians, but their legal systems all have some way of determining who is married to whom.

    If we eliminated marriage certificates tomorrow that wouldn’t remove government from the legal decision of who is married and who is not. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon didn’t have a marriage license. That didn’t prevent their break-up from becoming an international legal battle that changed the world.

  • kerner

    SKP:

    Just because there was no marriage license didn’t mean there was no readily ascertainable legal definition of marraige. In culturally Christian countries a woman still had to prove she was the “wife” of the late husband. Even if it was just by a “common law” period of co-habitation. Most people in the world have never been Christians, but their legal systems all have some way of determining who is married to whom.

    If we eliminated marriage certificates tomorrow that wouldn’t remove government from the legal decision of who is married and who is not. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon didn’t have a marriage license. That didn’t prevent their break-up from becoming an international legal battle that changed the world.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Anyway, it seems from this thread and others that many GOP supporters JUST DON’T GET IT.

    See this article from the Atlantic – it picks on Limbaugh, but he is just a more extreme example of the prejudice and racial insanity that will push the GOP into demographic oblivion: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Anyway, it seems from this thread and others that many GOP supporters JUST DON’T GET IT.

    See this article from the Atlantic – it picks on Limbaugh, but he is just a more extreme example of the prejudice and racial insanity that will push the GOP into demographic oblivion: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/

  • Jenkins

    tODD: “How to disprove this statement in one easy question: Jenkins, if you are married, did you alert the state to your marriage by filling out the appropriate paperwork?”

    tODD, that little statement of yours proves nothing. Filling out paperwork “to alert” the state of my status doesn’t actually define my status. By necessity, my status existed before any paperwork got filled out. When I fill out the sensus to state my age or race, those things are not defined by filling out paperwork. The facts are true a priori. Geez.. You postmoderns kill me.

  • Jenkins

    tODD: “How to disprove this statement in one easy question: Jenkins, if you are married, did you alert the state to your marriage by filling out the appropriate paperwork?”

    tODD, that little statement of yours proves nothing. Filling out paperwork “to alert” the state of my status doesn’t actually define my status. By necessity, my status existed before any paperwork got filled out. When I fill out the sensus to state my age or race, those things are not defined by filling out paperwork. The facts are true a priori. Geez.. You postmoderns kill me.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    There is another reason the GOP lost: Public perception. Of Mitt. But also of the whole caboodle. Why? Because, over the last decade, an image of the GOP as a racist, brash, militaristic, everybody else can go to hell, image has grown tremendously. This is not reflective of reality, but it is an image that exists, and in some cases, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    What is the main source of this image? Fox News (and especially their columnists), and thus, by proxy, Rupert Murdoch. Yes, the same man who precedes over the corporation whose maneuverings are threatening Prime minister Cameron, whose journalists have been caught in unimaginable chicanery.

    Think of that.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    There is another reason the GOP lost: Public perception. Of Mitt. But also of the whole caboodle. Why? Because, over the last decade, an image of the GOP as a racist, brash, militaristic, everybody else can go to hell, image has grown tremendously. This is not reflective of reality, but it is an image that exists, and in some cases, have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    What is the main source of this image? Fox News (and especially their columnists), and thus, by proxy, Rupert Murdoch. Yes, the same man who precedes over the corporation whose maneuverings are threatening Prime minister Cameron, whose journalists have been caught in unimaginable chicanery.

    Think of that.

  • Jenkins

    Kerner @105. Apparently, you did not read my comment??
    For reference here it is:
    “My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place. Like Abby said, let the government create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws, but law makers need to know that they don’t get to define marriage. Just another poor consequence of mixing Church and state roles, imo.”

    So, which part of this is in conflict with anything you wrote in @105? Perhaps I should expand upon “create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws” by adding spouse rights and other such legalities, but I was implying them originally. Sorry for not being clearer.

    Let me ask you this: Where did marriage come from?
    Wait let me answer, too: God. In His Word. To the people He created. Simple question. Simple answer. Right?

    The issue at the end of the day really is mixing the divinely ordained institution of marriage, to which the Church is given the keys with the civic institution of government. Government never had the right to co-opt marriage in the first place and the Church was wrong to allow it. (imo). Government should have a civil category that includes general arrangements that parallel marriage for legal purposes, but which are not in synch with God’s divine ordinance. Too much mixing of the two kingdoms causes most of these silly conflicts, I think.

  • Jenkins

    Kerner @105. Apparently, you did not read my comment??
    For reference here it is:
    “My take is that marriage is defined by God and that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage in the first place. Like Abby said, let the government create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws, but law makers need to know that they don’t get to define marriage. Just another poor consequence of mixing Church and state roles, imo.”

    So, which part of this is in conflict with anything you wrote in @105? Perhaps I should expand upon “create a civil category in order to legislate taxes or custody laws” by adding spouse rights and other such legalities, but I was implying them originally. Sorry for not being clearer.

    Let me ask you this: Where did marriage come from?
    Wait let me answer, too: God. In His Word. To the people He created. Simple question. Simple answer. Right?

    The issue at the end of the day really is mixing the divinely ordained institution of marriage, to which the Church is given the keys with the civic institution of government. Government never had the right to co-opt marriage in the first place and the Church was wrong to allow it. (imo). Government should have a civil category that includes general arrangements that parallel marriage for legal purposes, but which are not in synch with God’s divine ordinance. Too much mixing of the two kingdoms causes most of these silly conflicts, I think.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – What you illustrate is precisely in line with my comments. The case of Henry VIII and the legitimacy of his marriage was precisely one of international convention – his marriage was policed by the international community of which he and Catherine were a part. At the local scale, this policing was done by the community in which people lived.

    What I am saying is that the need for formal, legal marriage provisions is not necessary – communities and cultures have settled this as a matter outside formal law and in the realm of common law for generations on end.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – What you illustrate is precisely in line with my comments. The case of Henry VIII and the legitimacy of his marriage was precisely one of international convention – his marriage was policed by the international community of which he and Catherine were a part. At the local scale, this policing was done by the community in which people lived.

    What I am saying is that the need for formal, legal marriage provisions is not necessary – communities and cultures have settled this as a matter outside formal law and in the realm of common law for generations on end.

  • Jenkins

    Correction to #117 above: sensus should be changed to census.

  • Jenkins

    Correction to #117 above: sensus should be changed to census.

  • kerner

    SKP:

    ” his marriage was policed by the international community of which he and Catherine were a part. At the local scale, this policing was done by the community in which people lived.

    When Communities decide to “Police” something this is called “government”. When communities decide that government should police that something in a consistent way, this is called “a law”.

    Your whole position is based on form rather than substance. By saying that communities will police marriage you are conceding that government should define and regulate that which the community “polices”, i.e. Marriage.

  • kerner

    SKP:

    ” his marriage was policed by the international community of which he and Catherine were a part. At the local scale, this policing was done by the community in which people lived.

    When Communities decide to “Police” something this is called “government”. When communities decide that government should police that something in a consistent way, this is called “a law”.

    Your whole position is based on form rather than substance. By saying that communities will police marriage you are conceding that government should define and regulate that which the community “polices”, i.e. Marriage.

  • kerner

    p.s. the “communities” of Maryland and Maine have just decided to expand the universe of relationships they intend to regulate to include homosexual relationships, so i guess you have no problem with that.

  • kerner

    p.s. the “communities” of Maryland and Maine have just decided to expand the universe of relationships they intend to regulate to include homosexual relationships, so i guess you have no problem with that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @116 What do you think the Republican party has to offer minority voters vs. just voters? If the GOP is going to have the same policies as the Democrats then there is no need to have a Republican party.

    Why do you think more whites than minorities like the policies of the Republican party?

    Is it just as simple as Kerner says, that Democrats tell minorities that whites hate them and they just believe it absent evidence, and that minorities want freebies from the taxpayer? Are they just voting tribally?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @116 What do you think the Republican party has to offer minority voters vs. just voters? If the GOP is going to have the same policies as the Democrats then there is no need to have a Republican party.

    Why do you think more whites than minorities like the policies of the Republican party?

    Is it just as simple as Kerner says, that Democrats tell minorities that whites hate them and they just believe it absent evidence, and that minorities want freebies from the taxpayer? Are they just voting tribally?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @118

    I don’t get that. I don’t see that Fox news is labeling the GOP negatively. Of course, I don’t watch much of it or any others either. It seems the other networks say as much or more negative things about the GOP.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @118

    I don’t get that. I don’t see that Fox news is labeling the GOP negatively. Of course, I don’t watch much of it or any others either. It seems the other networks say as much or more negative things about the GOP.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    DOMA exists. And has exactly zero bearing on the fact that gays can, yes, get married in nine states now.

    Nah, they can just get a piece of paper that says they are married. :D

    I can call my dog a cat, but it doesn’t make it so.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    DOMA exists. And has exactly zero bearing on the fact that gays can, yes, get married in nine states now.

    Nah, they can just get a piece of paper that says they are married. :D

    I can call my dog a cat, but it doesn’t make it so.

  • rgk

    “5. The Republican party needs to re-invent itself.”

    I disagree. The media has the power to shape perceptions in our country because American’s don’t question or aren’t able to question what the media tells them. It doesn’t matter what the Republican party stands for, the media will distort and denigrate their positions. The real problem is the media and that our population is unable to critically think. If the Republican’s got a fair shot in explaining their ideas they would do just fine. Obama won because he slandered Mitt Romney’s character by saying, he is a felon, doesn’t pay taxes, and he indirectly murdered a worker’s wife who got laid off from his company because she didn’t have health insurance. All these attacks are false, but they stuck because people believe what the media says. Polls show that people don’t trust the media but the media still has power to shape the views people have. The one or two minute news sound bites on tv and radio that most people get on a regular basis due shape our views. Also, the Senate races were lost mostly due to candidates who had gaffes and the media made them pay. When Democrats have gaffes it is just laughed off by the media, no big deal.

    The problem isn’t the Republicans , it is a propagandizing media and a weak minded electorate.

  • rgk

    “5. The Republican party needs to re-invent itself.”

    I disagree. The media has the power to shape perceptions in our country because American’s don’t question or aren’t able to question what the media tells them. It doesn’t matter what the Republican party stands for, the media will distort and denigrate their positions. The real problem is the media and that our population is unable to critically think. If the Republican’s got a fair shot in explaining their ideas they would do just fine. Obama won because he slandered Mitt Romney’s character by saying, he is a felon, doesn’t pay taxes, and he indirectly murdered a worker’s wife who got laid off from his company because she didn’t have health insurance. All these attacks are false, but they stuck because people believe what the media says. Polls show that people don’t trust the media but the media still has power to shape the views people have. The one or two minute news sound bites on tv and radio that most people get on a regular basis due shape our views. Also, the Senate races were lost mostly due to candidates who had gaffes and the media made them pay. When Democrats have gaffes it is just laughed off by the media, no big deal.

    The problem isn’t the Republicans , it is a propagandizing media and a weak minded electorate.

  • Abby

    “The problem isn’t the Republicans , it is a propagandizing media and a weak minded electorate.” Amen.

  • Abby

    “The problem isn’t the Republicans , it is a propagandizing media and a weak minded electorate.” Amen.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SG @ 125 – you misunderstood. Fox is not labeling them negatively, they are helping a to create an image which is perceived negatively from the outside. They are creating a more extremist image, if that helps.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SG @ 125 – you misunderstood. Fox is not labeling them negatively, they are helping a to create an image which is perceived negatively from the outside. They are creating a more extremist image, if that helps.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, it seems from this thread and others that many GOP supporters JUST DON’T GET IT.

    See this article from the Atlantic – it picks on Limbaugh, but he is just a more extreme example of the prejudice and racial insanity that will push the GOP into demographic oblivion:

    I think there is a lot of truth to this. WASP GOP voters really thought that immigrants would assimilate and learn American values and want the same kind of country that they or their parents were initially attracted to come to. But they don’t. In fact they want a totally different kind of country, and they have totally different values.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, it seems from this thread and others that many GOP supporters JUST DON’T GET IT.

    See this article from the Atlantic – it picks on Limbaugh, but he is just a more extreme example of the prejudice and racial insanity that will push the GOP into demographic oblivion:

    I think there is a lot of truth to this. WASP GOP voters really thought that immigrants would assimilate and learn American values and want the same kind of country that they or their parents were initially attracted to come to. But they don’t. In fact they want a totally different kind of country, and they have totally different values.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    #127, 128: IOW – it always “them”, never us.

    Reminds me of the old story of Johannes Kepler, the German astronomer: His first marriage wasn’t happy. So, after his first wife died, he made a list of attributes his new wife should have, and with the help of friends, found someone that fitted the bill. Of course, his second marriage was just as unhappy as the first.

    We have met the enemy, and he is us….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    #127, 128: IOW – it always “them”, never us.

    Reminds me of the old story of Johannes Kepler, the German astronomer: His first marriage wasn’t happy. So, after his first wife died, he made a list of attributes his new wife should have, and with the help of friends, found someone that fitted the bill. Of course, his second marriage was just as unhappy as the first.

    We have met the enemy, and he is us….

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @129 Which program on Fox do you think is doing that? You sound like you must watch it a lot more than I do. What have you seen or heard that you thought put the GOP in a bad light?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @129 Which program on Fox do you think is doing that? You sound like you must watch it a lot more than I do. What have you seen or heard that you thought put the GOP in a bad light?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @131 Oh how that tugs at my heart! Oh, I was born too late! I could have made him happy! Uh oh, my old teen aged Kepler crush is rearing its head.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @131 Oh how that tugs at my heart! Oh, I was born too late! I could have made him happy! Uh oh, my old teen aged Kepler crush is rearing its head.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Fox news not available here (Thank God!). But, all you have to do is the follow the popular debate and image – it is about perceptions, not reality. Politics is much more of a perception game than actual facts. And the image that the left side of the spectrum has been putting up wrt the right side of the spectrum seems to be so full of Fox references – and each of those are radical ones, it’s not funny.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Fox news not available here (Thank God!). But, all you have to do is the follow the popular debate and image – it is about perceptions, not reality. Politics is much more of a perception game than actual facts. And the image that the left side of the spectrum has been putting up wrt the right side of the spectrum seems to be so full of Fox references – and each of those are radical ones, it’s not funny.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The media has the power to shape perceptions in our country because American’s don’t question or aren’t able to question what the media tells them. It doesn’t matter what the Republican party stands for, the media will distort and denigrate their positions. The real problem is the media and that our population is unable to critically think.

    Okay, let’s take a step back and see if we can get some objectivity. Now, let’s say we took positions from each of the parties’ platforms and put them in random order and then asked people to label them as coming from one party or the other. In this way, it could be determined whether people actually know what polices the parties have. So, now this seems like a fairly relevant political science kind of survey. Has anyone done it?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The media has the power to shape perceptions in our country because American’s don’t question or aren’t able to question what the media tells them. It doesn’t matter what the Republican party stands for, the media will distort and denigrate their positions. The real problem is the media and that our population is unable to critically think.

    Okay, let’s take a step back and see if we can get some objectivity. Now, let’s say we took positions from each of the parties’ platforms and put them in random order and then asked people to label them as coming from one party or the other. In this way, it could be determined whether people actually know what polices the parties have. So, now this seems like a fairly relevant political science kind of survey. Has anyone done it?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @134 So where did you get the perception that Fox news is portraying the GOP negatively? I mean if you know that people think that, you must have come by this info somewhere.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @134 So where did you get the perception that Fox news is portraying the GOP negatively? I mean if you know that people think that, you must have come by this info somewhere.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SG – Comments on the internet are generally banal, and devoid of facts. Newspaper columns are slightly better, but only slightly so. However, whereas you are unlikely to learn anything of value from the contents of these, they are wonderful to gauge public perception.

    I read/watch a wide variety of news sources, from different perspectives, countries etc. This feeling regarding the influence of Fox has been growing through the years. I might be wrong, of course, but it is a perception :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SG – Comments on the internet are generally banal, and devoid of facts. Newspaper columns are slightly better, but only slightly so. However, whereas you are unlikely to learn anything of value from the contents of these, they are wonderful to gauge public perception.

    I read/watch a wide variety of news sources, from different perspectives, countries etc. This feeling regarding the influence of Fox has been growing through the years. I might be wrong, of course, but it is a perception :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, I used google to see if I could find something about the show I watch every now and then, Neil Cavuto.

    I found him being called the worst person in the world on youtube:

    He said exactly the same thing that the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank auditors said in their report pp. 13-14:

    We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.12 The income of the neighborhood also seems to have some effect on the foreclosure rate. Loans located in low-income tracts were 2.7 times more likely to be in foreclosure than those in upper-income tracts, with the risk declining monotonically as the income of the neighborhood increases.

    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

    So, should the Federal Reserve Accountants, Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, also be labeled the worst people in the world?

    They said the same thing in their report.

    Does the truth matter?

    Why is it wrong or racist to report the truth?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, I used google to see if I could find something about the show I watch every now and then, Neil Cavuto.

    I found him being called the worst person in the world on youtube:

    He said exactly the same thing that the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank auditors said in their report pp. 13-14:

    We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.12 The income of the neighborhood also seems to have some effect on the foreclosure rate. Loans located in low-income tracts were 2.7 times more likely to be in foreclosure than those in upper-income tracts, with the risk declining monotonically as the income of the neighborhood increases.

    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

    So, should the Federal Reserve Accountants, Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, also be labeled the worst people in the world?

    They said the same thing in their report.

    Does the truth matter?

    Why is it wrong or racist to report the truth?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I read/watch a wide variety of news sources, from different perspectives, countries etc. This feeling regarding the influence of Fox has been growing through the years. I might be wrong, of course, but it is a perception

    Okay, so no evidence that would either substantiate the claims that Fox is bad nor any that exonerates the media for promoting this perception. So, this is the way people decide how to vote? How is this not idiocracy?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I read/watch a wide variety of news sources, from different perspectives, countries etc. This feeling regarding the influence of Fox has been growing through the years. I might be wrong, of course, but it is a perception

    Okay, so no evidence that would either substantiate the claims that Fox is bad nor any that exonerates the media for promoting this perception. So, this is the way people decide how to vote? How is this not idiocracy?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But, all you have to do is the follow the popular debate and image – it is about perceptions, not reality. Politics is much more of a perception game than actual facts.

    So, are you endorsing or deploring this state of affairs? Sarcasm can be too subtle in writing. And further, is this the kind of democracy we want to live in? where facts don’t matter and the game is to manipulate the stupid to vote your way? Is this really what we aspire to?

    This goes back to what I was saying about the media laughing at us for being stupid enough to care about gay marriage which no one in the history of the world ever cared about before. It is just ridiculous that people are gullible enough even to take it seriously.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But, all you have to do is the follow the popular debate and image – it is about perceptions, not reality. Politics is much more of a perception game than actual facts.

    So, are you endorsing or deploring this state of affairs? Sarcasm can be too subtle in writing. And further, is this the kind of democracy we want to live in? where facts don’t matter and the game is to manipulate the stupid to vote your way? Is this really what we aspire to?

    This goes back to what I was saying about the media laughing at us for being stupid enough to care about gay marriage which no one in the history of the world ever cared about before. It is just ridiculous that people are gullible enough even to take it seriously.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – Have you never “policed” a campsite after you’ve gone camping? You know – pick up the trash, make sure the fire is out, reset everything back in order. Does that become a “law”? Or is it not substantive if there isn’t a park ranger overseeing the policing?

    Where you think marriage needs the force of government or mandatory law, I defer to family, custom and community – the bedrock of the common law.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – Have you never “policed” a campsite after you’ve gone camping? You know – pick up the trash, make sure the fire is out, reset everything back in order. Does that become a “law”? Or is it not substantive if there isn’t a park ranger overseeing the policing?

    Where you think marriage needs the force of government or mandatory law, I defer to family, custom and community – the bedrock of the common law.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    IOW – it always “them”, never us.

    Assuming there is fault on both sides.

    What do you think is their fault?

    And what is our fault?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    IOW – it always “them”, never us.

    Assuming there is fault on both sides.

    What do you think is their fault?

    And what is our fault?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sg @ 140 – I am observing reality, not judging it. It is what it is.

    sg @ 142: I was commenting on the phenomenon that it is always someone else’s fault.

    I’ve said my say. One thing though, is that it might help to self-examine first, before casting stones.

    As if that would ever happen……

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sg @ 140 – I am observing reality, not judging it. It is what it is.

    sg @ 142: I was commenting on the phenomenon that it is always someone else’s fault.

    I’ve said my say. One thing though, is that it might help to self-examine first, before casting stones.

    As if that would ever happen……

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan Kempin (@97 and others), I’m afraid the statistics I’ve seen so far don’t really bear out your conclusion.

    According to Pew, Romney got 57% of the Protestant vote in 2012 — the highest percentage in the past four elections except for Bush’s 59% pull in 2004.

    Romney got 69% of the “White Protestant” vote in 2012, the highest percentage in the past four elections. He also got 79% of the “Born-again/Evangelical” vote, tying Bush in 2004 for the highest. Heck, Romney even got the highest percentage of “White Catholics” in the past four elections — at 59%, three percentage points higher than what Bush got in 2004.

    So I see no basis for the conclusion that the problem was Evangelical Christians who had a problem with Romney’s Mormonism. They were every bit as happy with him as they were with Bush.

    However, Romney only got 5% of the “Black Protestant” vote, compared with Bush’s 13% in 2004. And Romney got 21% of the “Hispanic Catholic” vote, significantly lower than Bush’s 33% (and even lower than McCain’s 26%). That could be more telling than your Mormonism theory, hmm?

    Also, it’s interesting to note that Romney actually got two percentage points less of the Mormon vote (78%) than did Bush in 2004 (80%). I’m guessing Mormonism wasn’t the issue for that decline.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan Kempin (@97 and others), I’m afraid the statistics I’ve seen so far don’t really bear out your conclusion.

    According to Pew, Romney got 57% of the Protestant vote in 2012 — the highest percentage in the past four elections except for Bush’s 59% pull in 2004.

    Romney got 69% of the “White Protestant” vote in 2012, the highest percentage in the past four elections. He also got 79% of the “Born-again/Evangelical” vote, tying Bush in 2004 for the highest. Heck, Romney even got the highest percentage of “White Catholics” in the past four elections — at 59%, three percentage points higher than what Bush got in 2004.

    So I see no basis for the conclusion that the problem was Evangelical Christians who had a problem with Romney’s Mormonism. They were every bit as happy with him as they were with Bush.

    However, Romney only got 5% of the “Black Protestant” vote, compared with Bush’s 13% in 2004. And Romney got 21% of the “Hispanic Catholic” vote, significantly lower than Bush’s 33% (and even lower than McCain’s 26%). That could be more telling than your Mormonism theory, hmm?

    Also, it’s interesting to note that Romney actually got two percentage points less of the Mormon vote (78%) than did Bush in 2004 (80%). I’m guessing Mormonism wasn’t the issue for that decline.

  • kerner

    SKP:

    “Where you think marriage needs the force of government or mandatory law, I defer to family, custom and community – the bedrock of the common law.”

    But thats just the point. Common law is just what its name implies: law. And like any other law, common law is enforceable in court and by the officers who enforce the court’s orders in society.

    Sure, I try to pick up my trash at a campsite. But what if I don’t? Can the community force me to pick up my trash or penalize me if I don’t? If they can, its a law and the community is a government, however informal the community enforcement may seem. If they can’t, its nothing.

    Applying this to marriage, lets say that I am married according to community custom in a place where, as you suggest, there are no marriage certificates. If I am “married” in any real sence at all, this fact generates rights and responsibilities, first as between each other, and to some extent as between the two of us and the outside world.

    But the next question is whether those so called rights and responsibilities can be enforced by the community. If they can, they are laws and the community is a government. If they cannot be enforced, only then are they not laws and only then is the government truly not involved.

    There is less common law in America because our constitution doesn’t really favor it. The legislative branch is supposed to make the laws. In England, the common law was considered as sort of a “written on your heart” sort of thing that the government didn’t actually make. But the thing was, judges would announce the common law when ever there was a disagreement over what somebody’s rights and duties were. As soon as that occurred, the court would announce the common law: X is right, Y is wrong. And once that happened a legal precedent is set. Geat Britain has countless such precedents all of which can be invoked whenever a similar situation comes along.

    If we tried to do as you suggest and declare that all statutory laws regarding marriage were abolished, our unregulated state would last only until there was some kind of disagreement. At that point the matter would come before a court to decide just what the relationship between these two people is and what it means re this dispute. And immediately the government is involved in marriage just like before. Of course, this time the courts would be reinventing marriage piecemeal. Are you sure that’s what you want?

  • kerner

    SKP:

    “Where you think marriage needs the force of government or mandatory law, I defer to family, custom and community – the bedrock of the common law.”

    But thats just the point. Common law is just what its name implies: law. And like any other law, common law is enforceable in court and by the officers who enforce the court’s orders in society.

    Sure, I try to pick up my trash at a campsite. But what if I don’t? Can the community force me to pick up my trash or penalize me if I don’t? If they can, its a law and the community is a government, however informal the community enforcement may seem. If they can’t, its nothing.

    Applying this to marriage, lets say that I am married according to community custom in a place where, as you suggest, there are no marriage certificates. If I am “married” in any real sence at all, this fact generates rights and responsibilities, first as between each other, and to some extent as between the two of us and the outside world.

    But the next question is whether those so called rights and responsibilities can be enforced by the community. If they can, they are laws and the community is a government. If they cannot be enforced, only then are they not laws and only then is the government truly not involved.

    There is less common law in America because our constitution doesn’t really favor it. The legislative branch is supposed to make the laws. In England, the common law was considered as sort of a “written on your heart” sort of thing that the government didn’t actually make. But the thing was, judges would announce the common law when ever there was a disagreement over what somebody’s rights and duties were. As soon as that occurred, the court would announce the common law: X is right, Y is wrong. And once that happened a legal precedent is set. Geat Britain has countless such precedents all of which can be invoked whenever a similar situation comes along.

    If we tried to do as you suggest and declare that all statutory laws regarding marriage were abolished, our unregulated state would last only until there was some kind of disagreement. At that point the matter would come before a court to decide just what the relationship between these two people is and what it means re this dispute. And immediately the government is involved in marriage just like before. Of course, this time the courts would be reinventing marriage piecemeal. Are you sure that’s what you want?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg @ 142: I was commenting on the phenomenon that it is always someone else’s fault.

    Okay, but shouldn’t there be a way to actually determine fault/cause? Isn’t that a better system? What if we evidence and reason and determine that yeah, they are at fault? Then what? Do you just believe in might makes right? Whoever can cheat and defame his opponents to a win has shown by trial by ordeal that he has earned the right to rule? Is reason so faint a memory?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg @ 142: I was commenting on the phenomenon that it is always someone else’s fault.

    Okay, but shouldn’t there be a way to actually determine fault/cause? Isn’t that a better system? What if we evidence and reason and determine that yeah, they are at fault? Then what? Do you just believe in might makes right? Whoever can cheat and defame his opponents to a win has shown by trial by ordeal that he has earned the right to rule? Is reason so faint a memory?

  • Lou G

    Kerner #105 wrote:
    “If we did as you suggest, we would also have to say that marriage has no enforceable legal significance.”

    Wrong. Again, you must not have read what I wrote. I think sometimes you guys just have these canned answers and responses prepared to what you think people are going to say. That way you don’t listen to other people or read what they write in comments.

    ” Which is tantamount to saying that marriage is insignificant in an organized society. Is that really what you are going for?”

    No, that is not what I was going for. If you would read my comment, you would see what I was going for. I’m pretty clear about it.

  • Lou G

    Kerner #105 wrote:
    “If we did as you suggest, we would also have to say that marriage has no enforceable legal significance.”

    Wrong. Again, you must not have read what I wrote. I think sometimes you guys just have these canned answers and responses prepared to what you think people are going to say. That way you don’t listen to other people or read what they write in comments.

    ” Which is tantamount to saying that marriage is insignificant in an organized society. Is that really what you are going for?”

    No, that is not what I was going for. If you would read my comment, you would see what I was going for. I’m pretty clear about it.

  • Jenkins

    The above is posted by me, Jenkins.
    I’m using my roommate Lou’s computer. Sorry, Lou.

  • Jenkins

    The above is posted by me, Jenkins.
    I’m using my roommate Lou’s computer. Sorry, Lou.

  • Jenkins

    Crap. Sorry, kerner. I already responded to you in 119. I totally lost track of this conversatoin. Guess I’ll be giving up my ideas of a career in blog commenting! What a dork…

  • Jenkins

    Crap. Sorry, kerner. I already responded to you in 119. I totally lost track of this conversatoin. Guess I’ll be giving up my ideas of a career in blog commenting! What a dork…

  • dust

    The lesson we should learn is that there is no lesson we can learn :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    The lesson we should learn is that there is no lesson we can learn :)

    cheers!

  • Lou G

    Jenkins, I wouldn’t say that you should quit your entire blogging/commenting career in one fell swoop. But you might not want to quit your day job just yet…
    Oh, and btw…. dude, stay off the laptop, alright? I need to password protect my workstation. It’s not communal property – like the kitchen is.

  • Lou G

    Jenkins, I wouldn’t say that you should quit your entire blogging/commenting career in one fell swoop. But you might not want to quit your day job just yet…
    Oh, and btw…. dude, stay off the laptop, alright? I need to password protect my workstation. It’s not communal property – like the kitchen is.

  • John C

    Romney had to fight two campaigns. The first, for most of the year, against the extremes in his own party in the Primaries and in the last couple of months, against the Democrats. By the first debate, the game was over. Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Norquist, Caine, Limbaugh and Fox had branded the republicans as anti government, anti tax, anti gay, anti health care, anti 47%, anti global warming and anti science.
    It is a difficult story to sell and Romney was reduced to the unconvincing, “I am a successful business man, I have a plan. I will help create 12 million new jobs”.
    A voter might well ask: why does a political party run for office if it doesn’t believe in government?
    Given the hand the Republicans gave him, he did rather well.

  • John C

    Romney had to fight two campaigns. The first, for most of the year, against the extremes in his own party in the Primaries and in the last couple of months, against the Democrats. By the first debate, the game was over. Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Norquist, Caine, Limbaugh and Fox had branded the republicans as anti government, anti tax, anti gay, anti health care, anti 47%, anti global warming and anti science.
    It is a difficult story to sell and Romney was reduced to the unconvincing, “I am a successful business man, I have a plan. I will help create 12 million new jobs”.
    A voter might well ask: why does a political party run for office if it doesn’t believe in government?
    Given the hand the Republicans gave him, he did rather well.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #144,

    Perhaps not. It is not a very vociferous theory on my part, nor was it researched. The numbers you share are certainly very interesting–persumably from the exit polls.

    Still, I don’t really know if it speaks to my theory, since it is an analysis of the people who voted, and my theory is really about the large number of people who DIDN’T vote. It is hard to measure why people did NOT turn out, and in any case no one seems interested in finding out.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #144,

    Perhaps not. It is not a very vociferous theory on my part, nor was it researched. The numbers you share are certainly very interesting–persumably from the exit polls.

    Still, I don’t really know if it speaks to my theory, since it is an analysis of the people who voted, and my theory is really about the large number of people who DIDN’T vote. It is hard to measure why people did NOT turn out, and in any case no one seems interested in finding out.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    anti tax, anti gay, anti health care, anti 47%, anti global warming and anti science.

    What BS.

    Anti sky high taxes on us and not on them.

    Anti special and stupid recognition of gays as “married.”

    Anti higher cost, lower quality, less access to health care.

    Anti exempting 47% of people from paying to support this project called the USA.

    Anti taxes to transfer to those who stand to profit from schemes that they allege with reduce climate change.

    Pro science, ie. an individual’s life begins at conception. Duh.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    anti tax, anti gay, anti health care, anti 47%, anti global warming and anti science.

    What BS.

    Anti sky high taxes on us and not on them.

    Anti special and stupid recognition of gays as “married.”

    Anti higher cost, lower quality, less access to health care.

    Anti exempting 47% of people from paying to support this project called the USA.

    Anti taxes to transfer to those who stand to profit from schemes that they allege with reduce climate change.

    Pro science, ie. an individual’s life begins at conception. Duh.

  • John C

    This is not the only time your comments have supported my argument, sg.

  • John C

    This is not the only time your comments have supported my argument, sg.

  • Pingback: Predicting the election

  • Pingback: Predicting the election

  • Lou G.

    John C. – you’ve got a good point. Romney did have to fight two campaigns on two fronts. He didn’t have much of shot going into it. I agree.

  • Lou G.

    John C. – you’ve got a good point. Romney did have to fight two campaigns on two fronts. He didn’t have much of shot going into it. I agree.