All Posts Tagged With: "Democrat"

Last week, I wrote about one of my most faithful readers, Jim Martin of Fried Green Onions, who frequently attacked some of my posts both in comments on this blog and in commentary on his own blog. While I welcome passionate debate about any given issue, I took issue with the manner in which he disagreed, especially the prevalence of vitriolic ad hominem attacks and extremely personal aspersions.

Yesterday, Mr. Martin seemed to offer an olive branch of sorts with this post:

Yes I am a daily reader of the Brad Neese…living large in Oklahoma site

I find Brad to be the most articulate spokesperson in Oklahoma blogging for his current view of things politic.
I think he will go far in liberal progressive circles.
The vast divide that separates us can be measured in years (perhaps 40 years between us). The vast difference between those reared in Tiny Town or Urban Utopia could figure in to the equation.
Brad really believes almost opposite to the views I hold. Unlike the other liberal bloggers I run across he appears to have no personal axe to grind other than his belief system.
I count him along with Oklahoma Lefty as a Worthy Adversary.
God bless and keep our country free!

I am grateful for his kind remarks. I certainly welcome respectful, reasoned discourse and disagreement about the issues we face here in Oklahoma, in our nation and in the world. It is indeed possible to have a great divide in political positions and yet respect and even admire our political opponents. And it is possible to have honest disagreement without making it a bitter war filled with animus, insults and slanderous insults. I would hope that we can have this type of dialogue here in the Oklahoma blogosphere as well as the American and worldwide blogospheres. Continued

The following map has become quite popular amongst right-wing bloggers, seemingly to demonstrate that the country is more “red” (or right-leaning) than the last election’s results would indicated.

It looks pretty impressive, doesn’t it? But it really doesn’t tell the whole story. The above map is a winner-take-all representation for each county, which is okay except it’s not a very accurate gauge of the “temperature” of the nation. Here’s how the map would look based on actual voting percentages.

Not quite so stark anymore is it. No longer are there large areas of red with only blue fringes. But wait, there’s more. Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, explains. Continued

…nor is he a Democrat. He cannot be boxed in, or appropriately represented, by any political party — especially in the American political system. But that doesn’t stop some Christianist pastors from projecting divine partisan preferences upon the Almighty.

Evangelical pastor’s opening prayer at a McCain-Palin rally in Bethlehem, PA, last week —

“O God, we are in a battle that is raging for the soul of this nation. You, O God, have raised up Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for such a time as this … Help them, O God, to strengthen our economy, to keep our taxes and spending low … and grant them the privilege of being elected the next president and vice president.”

Pastor Arnold Conrad at John McCain’s rally in Davenport, IA, last week —

“I would also add, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and election day.”

If God’s reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, was it not involved in everything between now and January 2001? Was His reputation honored and guarded with an unjust war that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children — His created beings? Was His reputation honored and guarded when our country abandoned its fundamental principles by suspending basic human rights — including habeas corpus — and engaging in torture (and blatantly lying about it with legalistic euphemisms)? Was His reputation honored and guarded during one of the most dishonest and secretive administrations of my lifetime?

I agree with the pastor on one thing: “God, I pray that You will step forward and honor Your own name with all that happens between now and election day.” It just might not be the same results this pastor is expecting. I just don’t presume to know what preference God actually has, if any. Both men and both parties fall woefully short of His plan, His desire and His reputation.

It’s very dangerous to inject partisanship into the Christian faith. God is not partisan. God is holy and just. God’s agenda is far bigger than any election or any political party. I don’t believe that God has chosen sides in this election. And pastors should be careful in doing so; to do so unwisely in the name of God is unwise and foolhardy indeed.

I echo what Abraham Lincoln said,

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

That is chiefly why I am no longer Republican… and I am assuredly not a Democrat. In my humble opinion, it’s unwise for God-fearing and Bible-believing churches to do otherwise. Partisan loyalty can divide allegiances. And as Christians, we are to have but one allegiance. Tony Campolo summed it up best:

“Evangelicalism getting wedded to any political party is like ice cream mixing with horse manure. It’s not going to hurt the horse manure, but it sure will mess up the ice cream.”

*

This just plain irritates me. Jesus is not a Republican (or a Democrat). I believe with all my heart that He cares about more than just the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue.

Indeed, Jesus is pro-life, but pro-life is more than just about pregnancy and birth; pro-life extends beyond the womb and encompasses all the life issues each and every individual all around the world faces, including extreme poverty and obscene disparity of wealth, famine and hunger, genocide and war.

Jesus certainly cares about the sanctity of marriage, but that extends beyond the issue of a union between homosexual couples and encompasses the union and marriages of heterosexual couples, including fidelity and marriage “until death do us part.” Why do the divorce rates within the Christian Church so closely mirror that of divorce rates outside the Church? If fundamentalist Christians, like the gentleman in the video, care so much about the sanctity of marriage, why doesn’t he focus on the truest threat to the “traditional marriage” — rampant divorce rates among heterosexual couples who even occupy our church pews?

Do I condemn those who have been divorced? Absolutely not. I simply want the same standard of “sanctity” to apply to heterosexual couples as these Christianists want it to apply to non-heterosexual couples. I do not oppose civil unions between two adults, heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage is an institution that should remain within the religious context, and it can be defined by the respective religious institution.

What irritates and frustrates me most are that Christianists like this gentleman continue to reduce every election down to these two issues. And how successful has that proven to be. They’ve had eight years of a pro-Christianist presidency with control of at least two branches of government for the first six years. Look at where it has gotten us.

Has there been significant improvement in our nation and in the world with these two issues? Has the Christianist agenda really worked?

There are more issues than just these two that devoted followers of Christ should consider when voting this November. Failing to consider the other bigger issues — poverty, hunger, war, the Gospel message of faith, hope and agape love — is ignoring the larger messages of Jesus and the Bible.

*
[Stepping down from my soapbox now.]

Attacks and anti-Obama hysterics aren’t confined to people on the right. There are plenty of lunatic fringe on the left who pile on as well, like Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy. Here’s a brief excerpt from her rather long diatribe:

… seeing these articles and photographs of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama together, him with his hand on her back, just makes me cringe. Frankly, it makes me almost physically ill. See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like - Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, “Oh, he didn’t really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn’t have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don’t be mad at him!” Not only did Obama make sexist remarks about Senator Clinton, INCLUDING at the fundraiser the other night, but he reaped the benefit of the sexist and misogynistic remarks made by others, the veiled death threats (talking to YOU, Keith), the threats of violence, the degradation, not on her record, or on her speeches, but because she was a woman.

Keep in mind that this is a left-wing website. The hysterics get even better in the comment section: Continued

Seemingly a little late in the game for some (including myself), Democratic Party statesman and “formerly the next President of the United States” Al Gore enthusiastically and passionately endorses Barack Obama.

Yesterday was a really big day, as you probably already know. Super Tuesday, the most significant primary election date so far this presidential campaign, with almost half of the states voting. In Oklahoma, there was a big turnout, with Oklahomans finally having a say in this race — well, except for those who are shut out of the primary process… like myself.

You see, like many other states, Oklahoma has a closed primary system, which simply means that you have to belong to one of the political parties to have a voice in the primaries, and even then you can only vote for a candidate within your own party. If you are a Democrat, but you happen like John McCain and want to cast your vote for him, the only way to do it is to switch parties. If you are a Republican, but you wanted to vote for Barack Obama as your guy, you couldn’t — unless you switched parties. If you are an independent, like myself, you’re out of luck, persona non grata, your voice has no place in Oklahoma politics — unless you joined the party, whichever has the candidate of your choice.

When I brought this point up in the comment section for one of Okiedoke’s blog posts, I was asked a very common question, “If an independent chooses not to support a particular party, why should that independent be allowed to help choose the candidate who will represent that party in the general election?” As I said there, that’s a fair point. But that’s what I don’t like about our system as it’s set up now. The two-party system is more about self-preservation of power than about who will best run this country. It’s resulted in some of the most bitter partisanship in recent memory.

I would simply like the opportunity to vote for the candidate whom I believe would best lead this country, be it a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or some other party’s candidate. I like how the local races for mayor and city council are handled, where it’s not party driven, but idea driven. You can vote for any ONE of the candidates in the field. The top two vote-getters face off in a runoff election.

Imagine how much different Washington might look if we applied the same principle to the presidential election. Allow everyone in the country to vote on the same primary election day to choose the candidate they most want to lead this nation. If no one candidate wins a majority (at least 50% plus one vote), then the top two vote-getters run off in the general election.

Take the political party apparatus out of the equation. Let the candidates run on their own ideas, records and organization. Let voters have the opportunity to vote for the best person, regardless of their party identity.

I presently cannot do that without aligning myself with a political party I don’t otherwise support (which includes both parties). It’s a matter of principle… and standing on that principle disenfranchises me from the primary process.

It’s a simple idea. Let the people vote for whom they believe is best, without arbitrary and unnecessary impediments. But that might be too democratic for The Powers That Be of this nation — the purported grand exporter of “democracy” around the world.

(I now step down from my political soap box.)