The Final US Election Thread

[Askthepizzaguy]

Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.

That being said, if he votes with the Democratic majority, that's useful for the nation in getting legislation passed. We can toss him out if he becomes a problem, and if the legislation that gets passed is too extreme, it will be reversed by a less partisan congress. The beauty of elections is that they aren't permanent.

Finally, I have no problem with a full investigation into a race as close as this. I don't want Franken getting in due to any kind of funny business. I'd also be interested in a runoff election. Didn't both top candidates only get some 43% of the vote? I think the supporters of the third candidate should be given the option to weigh in on which one of the remaining candidates they would prefer.

However that's wishing, not a solution. Recount it by hand, and allow a Republican, a Democrat, and a non-partisan to review each individual ballot which is even remotely questionable. There should be clear guidelines as to what ballots should be counted and which ones should not.

The Dems already have a clear majority, so it doesn't bother me if Franken gets in or not. Just how he gets in.



EDIT: I do technically have to consider anything Faux News presents as a legitimate news story, but frankly they have serious bias and conflict of interest problems.

[Martok]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html



There gets to be a point where coincidence just don't cut it.

CR

Sorry CR, but Fox News is no more credible a source than MSNBC....and in many ways, it's even less so.

In any case, I think the answer is simpler than what the article implies: While overall we're fairly centrist, Minnesota does tend to lean to the left more often than to the right -- it's hardly a coincidence that both Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale hail from here. In any statewide race that's close enough to warrant a recount, simple Law of Averages is more likely to favor the Democratic candidate. Now whether Franken will benefit from that remains to be seen, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.

I'm not exactly enamored of him either, but I'll be damned if I was going to vote for the man who moved in lockstep with Bush 99% of the time (and only bailed when the situations with Iraq and the economy started visibly souring). This year's Senate race presented us Minnesotans with the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario -- pick your poison.

That being said, if he votes with the Democratic majority, that's useful for the nation in getting legislation passed. We can toss him out if he becomes a problem, and if the legislation that gets passed is too extreme, it will be reversed by a less partisan congress. The beauty of elections is that they aren't permanent.

Finally, I have no problem with a full investigation into a race as close as this. I don't want Franken getting in due to any kind of funny business. I'd also be interested in a runoff election. Didn't both top candidates only get some 43% of the vote? I think the supporters of the third candidate should be given the option to weigh in on which one of the remaining candidates they would prefer.

However that's wishing, not a solution. Recount it by hand, and allow a Republican, a Democrat, and a non-partisan to review each individual ballot which is even remotely questionable. There should be clear guidelines as to what ballots should be counted and which ones should not.

The Dems already have a clear majority, so it doesn't bother me if Franken gets in or not. Just how he gets in.

Ditto that. At this point, my main concern is that whoever wins the seat will have done so legitimately -- no shenanigans for me, please.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.

Minnesotans have a fairly long tradition of electing "unusual" politicos. In my opinion, they have a rather rich collective sense of humor and they do it for the entertainment value.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

The Church deals in morality, not popularity.

Abortion has long been held, by the Church, to be little different than murder. Therefore, it considers it sinful to support a politician who unequivocally advocates/supports such a practice in the same fashion as it would decry -- on moral grounds -- a politician who wished to legalize manslaughter or agravated assault. To question the sanity of those following this line of reasoning is unkind -- it is neither poorly thought out nor done frivolously.

Catholics vote in the privacy of a voter's booth like anyone else. How they vote is their business. The Church renders judgement of the morality of one's choices -- including voting -- and encourages any who have 'strayed from the path" to seek Reconciliation.

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.

[Lemur]

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.

I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

[Martok]

Minnesotans have a fairly long tradition of electing "unusual" politicos. In my opinion, they have a rather rich collective sense of humor and they do it for the entertainment value.

[/innocent]

My dear Seamus, whatever are you talking about? Surely I know know not of which you speak....

[/innocent]

[Lemur]

Another highly questionable move from another Catholic priest:

Elizabeth Caster said the Rev. Sebastian Meyer humiliated her in front of the congregation at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Fairfield, saying from the pulpit, "We cannot have a car with Obama signs written on it on these premises. And I don't care who Obama is."

He continued: "I want this car off the premises in 10 minutes or it will be towed. Whoever's vehicle this is, I want it removed. I don't want to see that car anywhere around here," she said. [...]

Caster said the priest followed her and her 10-year-old son out of the church and refused to let her move her Toyota Sequoia, which was parked between two other cars in a loading zone outside the church, anywhere else in the parking lot.

Caster, who was contacted by many concerned church members the next day, believes it was the Obama slogans that riled the priest. Among those who watched Sunday's incident was Joanne Smith, who said she has seen vehicles parked in the yellow zone with signs supporting John McCain. She also was curious about why Caster's vehicle was singled out.

If you read the article, you'll see the priest also gets physical with a reporter who asks him about this incident.

It's not surprising that the Catholic Church contains some priests who are a few wafers short of communion; what's interesting is how they are dealt with by the Church hierarchy. Or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"It took a lot out of me to sit there and not walk out," Sherrod said.

How about they do walk out then?

I mean, it's fine with me that people spend their weekends listening to grown up men prancing about in purple Roman toga-party outfits and telling them that wine is blood and Obama the antichrist. Why would anyone cry over it?

I once went to a hippie gathering. Lots of old guys in druid dresses who gave out magic potions that made me invincible and who told me to vote green or the sky would come falling down. Didn't mean I went crying to the press over it either.

What's next? People complaining that their Santa Claus at the shopping mall was collecting for the wrong charity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.

You are correct in assessing the likely efforts of a McCain administration on this issue, and you make telling points about how other inconsistencies undermine the efforts of the Church to communicate clearly and effectively on some moral issues. The Church does not agree with a number of the policy decisions made by the Bush administration and has spoken against them, but the pre-vote message from the bishops did not address this inconsistency -- which may well have washed out any effort made.

I certainly think you make a good point on the "hissy fit" comment, as your "parking lot priest" example in a later post underlines.

[Lemur]

I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.

Hmm, I certainly don't mean that the Catholic Church is insane, but rather that this particular take on this particular issue* is insane. I never intend to insult or demean the Church, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression somehow.

Reading a bit further on the subject, it seems that what we have here is a few isolated priests allowing their political disappointment to overwhelm their good sense. There is a bit of movement from a certain Archbishop, but he's not the force behind these two priests' looniness.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Priests must not be allowed to watch Fox News immediately before services.

*And as it turns out, it was only a particular priest whose actions may or may not be within orthodoxy.

[Xiahou]

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

Do the numbers. Yes, the church has come out against the war and torture, but we're still looking at around 1 million abortions a year aren't we? If those really are murders, as the church believes, why wouldn't that be the number 1 issue?

[Lemur]

Xiahou, as I have made clear in two posts since the one you quoted, it's now clear that these actions were the aberrant hissy fits of a couple of priests with no backing from the Church hierarchy. It's also clear that a few priests with Republican sympathies have become unhinged by the notion that a majority of their flock supported Obama.

Speaking of which, Joe Carter finds an interview where Obama expresses views that diverge from the Nicene Creed, and concludes that the President-elect is a "fake Christian." Lovely. Never mind the fact that Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses also fall outside the Nicene Creed. It seems to me that this is a nasty little road that has no ending, where Christians of no real standing or authority get to decide who is a "real" Christian and who is not.

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

What is wrong with that? He is entitled to his own opinion. Unitarians that I've met are rarely any more Christian than Muslims that I've met. The United Church of Christ is pretty much the official church of U.S. Progressives who don't want to give up Religious affiliation.

Obama doesn't seem to have an in-depth knowledge of his faith aside from a few key buzzwords. (I'm still in search of Dreams and Audacity). He's probably a "Sibboleth Sayer" - he wouldn't be the first US president to be one. His Religion is a socially progressive brand of U.S. Politics. He views God as a tool to communicate with constituents.

Christians need to pray for everyone's soul - from the murderous atheist to the Pious Pope.

[Martok]

Update on the Coleman-Franklin recount: With 46% of the votes counted, Coleman's lead is down, but he's still ahead by 136 votes.

The way things are going, I suspect this is going to end up in court, no matter the official results of the recount.