Encryptshun wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote: Please note, I am not saying that politics should be devoid of any religion. Nor am I saying that politicians should be without religion either.

I have given up hope of an atheist president in my lifetime.

But, within the next 75 years maybe it'll happen.

szh wrote:IMHO, the President's religion is simply not of value, in any way whatsoever, to determine whether he or she will do a good job.

Z

szh wrote:IMHO, the President's religion is simply not of value, in any way whatsoever, to determine whether he or she will do a good job.

Z

IBCoupe wrote:He's too eager to mix religion into his politics, for my tastes.

Encryptshun wrote:

szh wrote:IMHO, the President's religion is simply not of value, in any way whatsoever, to determine whether he or she will do a good job.

Z

I keep wanting to read that as "IMHO, the president's religion has no bearing on how good a job he/she does as president".

Is that what you are saying?

telcoman wrote:

szh wrote:IMHO, the President's religion is simply not of value, in any way whatsoever, to determine whether he or she will do a good job.

Z

I Agree

Religion has no place in politics

If religion is important to an individual they should not be in politics to represent me

IBCoupe wrote:Come on, Jews!

Encryptshun wrote:Ultimately, that's the specific trope which brought me back to the liberal side from being a pretty hard-core conservative prior to the 2008 election.

Encryptshun wrote:I do not think it's possible for someone with true religious convictions to be impartial when the issue at hand crosses a matter of faith for that person.

Encryptshun wrote:It's religion which denotes virtually all hot-topic conservative social values (stance on gay rights, abortion, sex education, abstinence, creation/evolution, etc) which is how Republican candidates are selected by their party. Therefore, if we elect a President based on his or her social values we are electing someone who, by virtue of the campaign, is VOWING to legislate morality based on religious conviction.

Encryptshun wrote:Ultimately, that's the specific trope which brought me back to the liberal side from being a pretty hard-core conservative prior to the 2008 election.

stebo0728 wrote:Haven't really decided on Perry yet, dont know much about him, but R/T coming out against him is probably a WIN

Now if Telco would just post something that might seal the deal

themadscientist wrote:Obama scares me less than Perry.

telcoman wrote: Here you go

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... teach-evo/

Telcoman

IBCoupe wrote:

themadscientist wrote:Obama scares me less than Perry.

And he's banking on voters like you.

The Fiscal Times wrote:On June 25, 2008, Sen. Russ Feingold criticized him for supporting legislation giving telephone companies immunity for permitting government surveillance in national security cases, as well as for opting out of federal campaign funds, thereby undermining liberal support for campaign finance reform.

On June 30, 2008, Arianna Huffington assailed Obama for abandoning his base, saying it was politically counterproductive. “When Obama kneecaps his own rhetoric and dilutes his positioning as a different kind of politician, he is also giving his opponents a huge opening to reassert the McCain as Maverick brand,” she complained.

The next day, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the widely-read Daily Kos web site, penned a bitter attack on Obama for betraying liberals, taking swipes at left-wing groups and other offenses. “There is a line between ‘moving to the center’ and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized,” Moulitsas said. “And, of late, he’s been doing a lot of unnecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician.”

On July 13, 2008, the New York Times published an article quoting a number of liberal activists who were deeply disappointed that Obama was giving short shrift to their issues. The article was entitled, “Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul.”

Simultaneously, some conservatives began warming to Obama. In a July 15, 2008, column, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal editorial page praised his moderate views on race, calling Obama the Mikhail Gorbachev of the civil rights movement.

Fareed Zakaria, in a July 18, 2008, column for Newsweek, praised Obama for his foreign policy realism. “What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist,” he wrote. “It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.”
Even arch supply-sider Larry Kudlow professed admiration for Obama’s pragmatism when he wrote, “Lo and behold, Team Obama is moving toward the supply-side and pivoting toward the political center on key aspects of its tax policy.” He was impressed that Obama had promised not to raise the tax rate on capital gains any higher than 20 percent, a promise he has kept.

Soon, a large number of prominent Republicans and conservative intellectuals were publicly endorsing Obama. Following is a short list:

Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s White House chief of staff;

Charles Fried, Reagan’s Solicitor General;

Ken Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for Reagan;

Colin Powell, Secretary of State under George W. Bush;

Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary;

And Jeffrey Hart, former senior editor at National Review magazine and speechwriter for Reagan and Richard Nixon;

Radio talker Rush Limbaugh was so alarmed by conservative defections to Obama that he read the riot act to his “ditto heads.” He said it was “maddening” that Obama “is moving right” and sounding as conservative on many things as McCain. To counter these inroads among conservatives, Limbaugh handed down his marching orders: “We have to portray this guy as inexperienced, far leftist, despite what he’s saying about moving to the center.”

...

After the election, many conservatives who thought that Obama’s centrism was a campaign ploy were shocked when he followed through with appointees that could – and often did – hold positions in Republican administrations. Looking at Obama’s national security team, foreign policy hawk Max Boot professed himself “gobsmacked.” Most of them, he admitted, “could just as easily have come from a President McCain.” On economic policy, many conservatives expressed comfort with Obama advisers Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Austan Goolsbee, and Jason Furman.

Fred Barnes of the right-wing Weekly Standard spoke for many conservatives when on December 8, 2008, he said: “It’s not that Obama, despite his unswervingly liberal record in the Senate, turns out to be a pragmatist. The point is he’s pragmatic (so far) in one direction – rightward. Who knew?”

Cold_Zero wrote:

carloslebaron wrote:A true religious dude in the US presidency will be a real change in politics.

Why did you not include all of the other candidates into this comment? Why is Gov. Perry the only ‘true religious dude?’
I would also ask of the last 6 presidents we have had here in the United States, which one in your opinion was 'a true religious dude.'? The reason why I ask is because if you believe the paradigm of the religious right that the President must be evangelical (using the political term not ecclesiastical term) then your answer has to be the Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter because they were Baptist. The rest of the Republican Presidents did not fit into this group as they ALL were members of Mainline Liberal Protestant churches (Ford and G HW Bush were Episcopal, Nixon was Quaker, Reagan Presbyterian and GW Bush Methodist).
I would also point out that President Obama, who I senses you are hinting in your comments as not being a ‘true religious dude’ would fall very much into the religious category of the Republican Presidents. Yet it is the Republican Presidents who the Religious Right (unrightfully so) hold up as being a quasi ‘defender of the faith’ for our country. Personally, I think we need to migrate off these ideas in American politics and not confuse politics with religion (or vice versa.)

Please note, I am not saying that politics should be devoid of any religion. Nor am I saying that politicians should be without religion either.

IBCoupe wrote:Here's a nifty graphic: