Politics That Knows No Bounds

Patheos’s political question of the week is “For whom will you vote, and why?” The e-mail that went out to all of the relevant bloggers explained, “The challenge is to make a case for your preferred candidate in light of your most deeply held convictions.”

Normally, I’d blow this one right off because most of my deeply held convictions have nothing to do with politics. Indeed, that is the thing I react most violently against in American politics today: it knows no bounds.

The government grows ever larger and it dominates more of our time, our anxieties, our decisions. This is not healthy. Nor is it sustainable.

Democrats in DC truly believe the right solution to almost every problem is more government, even when that government threatens to trample religious liberties underfoot — as the Obama administration is set to do in a second term with its implementation of Obamacare. Some would assign to Obama and company base motives, but I truly believe they are incapable of seeing the issues any other way. A better, Buckleyan term for it would be invincible ignorance.

I am not a Republican but one of the reasons I end up voting that way more often than not is that the GOP has made some effort to restrain politics to its rightful place. It’s best to vote for Republicans with both eyes open, however, and selectively.

The other day I filled out my ballot here in Washington state, which has not the remotest chance of casting its Electoral College votes for Romney. This means my vote is really just a statement of preference. And so, as in the last election cycle, I voted for my dad, Bob Lott. (The last time I voted for a Republican for president was in 2000.)

The Bob Lott vote was no joke, though if I voted in a swing state like Virginia, I would have at least considered voting for Romney. Not because I trust him politically, mind you, but because Obama has been so awful on so many issues of great import — from spending to Obamacare to now just flat out lying about what happened in Libya. It might be nice if somebody showed him the door.

Many of my other votes for statewide races and for Congress went to Republicans, with one very obvious exception. Brad Owen is Democrat, but something of a throwback who recognizes that politics ought to have limits. He’s Washington State’s Lieutenant Governor who has served with distinction in that constitutionally small office since 1996.

As the world’s most living expert on the vice presidents, I never take lightly the possibility that the number two will have to step into a larger role. My political disagreements with the lieutenant governor are considerable, but everything we’ve seen of the man over the past 16 years leads me to believe Owen would make a fine governor, should the need arise.

Content Director’s Note: This post is a part of our Election Month at Patheos feature. Patheos was designed to present the world’s most compelling conversations on life’s most important questions. Please join the Facebook following for our new News and Politics Channel — and check back throughout the month for more commentary on Election 2012. Please use hashtag #PatheosElection on Twitter.

Reminder: Free Mitt, Obama and US Religion E-book

Hate to flog this again but, well, actually no I don’t. Yesterday, I announced the release of the short e-book Mitt Romney’s Mormon-Christian Coalition, written by yours truly and published for free through the sponsorship of the conservative weekly Human Events.

I’ll have more to say about the substance of that book this week, but for now here’s the link to the page where you can sign up to have it sent to you immediately and for no dollars and zero cents. Download it, digest it and tell Jeremy Lott’s Diary what you thought of it in comments.

Free Jeremy Lott E-book on Mitt, Obama & Mormonism

Your diarist wrote it up as a “special report” for Human Events. The e-book in pdf format is about 7,500 words long, laid out for easy reading, and is absolutely free. Please get your copy right here and then post in comments what you thought of it.

Republicans vs. Good News

In a post at Politix, I look at how conservatives and Republicans reacted to the new jobs report. In two words: not well:

Former GE CEO Jack Welch tweated that the jobs numbers were “unbelievable.” He charged, “these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers.” So many right-of-center critics followed Welch’s lead that Redstate’s Erick Erickson cautioned, “I don’t think it is healthy for conservatives to scream that both the polls and the jobs report are cooked.”

[Read more...]

My Case that Obama Threw the Debate

It’s published in Splice Today today. I argue that the president likely threw off the first debate to stave off boredom. Seriously:

It’s broadly acknowledged that President Obama got beat like a drum by Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate in Denver. Even Slate, that bastion of phony contrarianism, couldn’t find a single pundit foolish enough to argue Obama had won it on points or on style. Every poll of debate watchers found at least a clear plurality thought Romney had won. When you take out all the undecideds and people who would never say anything nice about a Republican, the verdict was unanimous. [Read more...]

Rope-a-Mope

Serious question: Did President Obama intentionally throw last night’s debate? And if so, why?

Less Stalker-y Than Usual!

“I want to win.”

That’s the subject line of Barack Obama’s latest e-mail in my inbox.

I was going to give him some grief about it. However, given my long history of complaints about the stalker-y tone of e-mails from the Obama campaign, this one really isn’t so bad. The president gets a pass, just this once.

obama


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X