Readers’ Responses to Our Question (80)

well i guess the new hampshir(ites?) responded the same way i did to hillary in person as opposed to hillary in the media representation

if anyone saw that cheek pat and chris matthews (lets face it, hes been tearing her up for some time)
i thought she had totally disarmed him-
not an easy thing to do- and i further thought what subtleties there are in a feminine approach to politics-

interesting

CTCNL:

We have become the stench. We are a facist state lead by a war criminal. The threat of Islamic terrorism is a facade and lie compared to the power of a facist US regime determined to rule the world by force of arms.

I hold no great love of respect of any on the cults of Abraham, but they are to the US what persecution of Germany by Jews and Hungarians was to the Third Reich.

If we do not impeach our leader Darth Cheney, then his hand puppet, Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy, and return the power to make war to the congress as the Constitution mandates, we have become just as much war criminals as the citizens of Germany who stood back until it was too late, and Became the Monsters That Would Rule The World.

JOHN LOFTON, RECOVERING REPUBLICAN :
Wrong again, "Mr. Mark." I'm a Reformed Protestant, Calvinist, Postmillennialist.'

Wow. It's worse than I thought.

Good luck with that.

Wrong again, "Mr. Mark." I'm a Reformed Protestant, Calvinist, Postmillennialist.

VICTORIA...CHILDREN SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER, BEING THE FUEL THAT STIMULATING HUMANITY. THE POINT BEING, FOR ADULTS WHOM HAVING AN OVER ACTIVE SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN, THAT SEX NOT THE PURPOSE OF LIFE BUT A MEANS MAINTAINING HUMAN SURVIVAL. IN FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF BRAIN WITHIN UNDERSTANDING, HAVE AN REQUIRED CHEMICAL RESULT TO INDIVIDUAL, WHICH THEN ALLOWING THEM TO CONTROL DESIRE AS FEELINGS, NOT AS PRESENT, THAT MANY UNFORTUATE SOULS, CONTROLED BY SUCH DESIRES, FEELINGS, WHICH HAVING DESTROYED MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY LIFES... .. .

JOHN LOFTON, RECOVERING REPUBLICAN writes:
God will have the last laugh, "Mr Mark."

And doesn't that thought just set your retribution-craving soul all atwitter, John? You must be one of those Aquinas-inspired Christians who believes that one of the neat perqs of making it to heaven is the glee the believers feel as they gaze down on the suffering being meted out in hell.

You're one of those, aren't you, John?

Children are sexually attractive,that be not in question. It being sexual desire the cornerstone of human survival.

anan- that REALLY be in question

ananymous-

what the h#%*! are you talking about?

children are sexally attractive?
are you insane?

well ,with the information i have available to me now- i like denis kucinich- and ron paul too.

but sadly, i know that they have been sidelined- (look at how little tme kucinich got in the debate!) and ron paul isnt even allowed to the table in NH right now!
i also like john edwards fight and populist anti-corporate message.

obama is more of the same- i stll have no clue what his "change" will be towards.

ive liked mccain too- but hes too paranoid about muslims.

and surprisingly, even though ive had very little use for hillary-
i watched her for 2 hours and she answered every question from the audience-

and made alot of practical sense-
i noticed when she answered a question, every proposal she made was followed with ,"and here is how to do it"
so she got back in the running for me

i dont see on republican that even begins to break the mold (well ron paul but hes a libertarian)
so theyre out completely

as new information is made available, and the issues more deeply delved into-
i may make new decisions based on new info-

but thats how it is for now-
and none of them have anything to do with religion, race, or gender.

Evangelicals do the sports celebrated 'wave' across America at each death penalty execution - as if this is a victory for God. It is only a victory for the Republican Party thugs who have hijacked Christianity.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/07/death-penalty-politics/

The slowing down of mind being the problem, with such achieved there then a capability of leaving space allowing the brain time on understanding. Where speed come from a greater need of survival which be understanable, yet it be transformation from mind to brain have somewhat a slow process. As the situation of adults whom finding children a sexual attraction, to such a degree in having difficulty controlling the strength of feelings. Children are sexually attractive,that be not in question. It being sexual desire the cornerstone of human survival. The problem slow development of the the adult brain, where the understanding lacking. Thus, where not enabled in controlling emotions, feelings, mastering us. Development in understanding brings the changes to the chemical balance in the brain, which then furthering our capability in freedom of thought. Allowing more space, time in our spiritual development, to the eventuallity, of Spiritual Enlightenment... .. .

JL,

One assumes you are suffering from the Three B syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in your religion.

God will have the last laugh, "Mr Mark."

JLof@aol.com

People through centuries have continued to pay religious organizations, without question. That on death they gain entry to an fictional heaven. Now, being that, which one can be calling funny.

Dear John Lofton -

Thanks for the laughs.

We don't get many posters here willing to do parody. Your efforts are appreciated. I hope they're also therapeutic for you in your recovery. :)

It may the USA faces extreme climate conditions. It may for the many the final sight be awesome, that of gigantic waves, which rising above all. Yet it only an ((((((( may )))))) I advise the prophets of doom, in holding their celebrations. The American people's, in it's next Governmental election, having one more throw of the dice, as it's choice of president, it's river card... .. .

You may, alas, be right that in America "the days of bible thumping are coming to an end" -- one more reason why airplanes are crashing into buildings. Psalm 9:17 tells us that all Nations that forget God shall be turned into Hell. Thus saith the Lord.

You may, alas, be right that in America "the days of bible thumping are coming to an end" -- one more reason why airplanes are crashing into buildings. Psalm 9:17 tells us that all Nations that forget God shall be turned into Hell. Thus saith the Lord.

John Lofton,

Your statement should read, "Here's what Jewish scribes say about such change-mongers,in Proverbs 24:21-22:............

"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?"

And without a whole lot of difficulty, you can find a version of the same verse in some pre-OT, ancient Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek or Persian text.

And BTW, the days of bible thumping are coming to an end and it is getting a nice start with 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

P.S. And forget all that crap we're hearing about "change." Here's what God says about such change-mongers,in Proverbs 24:21-22:

"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?"

Interesting, huh?

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com

JLof@aol.com

What we should be looking for in a Presidential candidate, or any candidate for a God-ordained civil government office, is wisdom which God’s Word says begins with “the fear of the LORD” (Psalm 111:10).

And Cal Thomas’ assertion that a candidate’s view of God is interesting but tells him “nothing about how the candidate, if elected, would run the country,” is absurd. Knowing a person’s religion, their faith, whether they are Christians or unbelievers, tells you the most important thing you can know about an individual – who or what controls them when no one is looking.

Thomas says, again absurdly, that because some candidates have misused their religion to get votes then it’s better “not to put one’s faith up front….we are electing a president…We are not members of a search committee looking for a new pastor. They are two different ‘kingdoms.”

Wrong, Mr. Thomas! The church and the state – indeed ALL kingdoms -- are under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ! Remember? He is the King of kings, Lord of lords and has ALL power in heaven and on earth, and thus is Lord over politics.

To those who endorse Thomas’ Christ-denial, and who believe “religion” is irrelevant to politics, I ask: So, what would an oath mean if taken by an unbeliever, a non-Christian? Answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing.

If, as God says, we do not elect Godly men to public office we will have, as we do now, Godless government. Do you like the Godless government we have now? I don’t.

JLof@aol.com

Elizabeth -

Did you know that the US imports more oil from Canada than any other country? Saudi Arabia is second, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

The next country on the list is Iraq, but we import less than half the amount of oil from Iraq as we do from Nigeria.

See here: http://tinyurl.com/7ldt

It is asimple solution ,if we do not want Saudia Arabia Oil since technically The expedtion in 1933 gave the country a profit and our soldiers are protecting this OIL which has the AMERICAN PEOPLE at there MERCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP BUYING NO DEMAND NO PROFIT EMBARGO THE MIDDLE EAST THINK THEY HAVE US UNDER THERE CONTROL LIKE CHINA STOP IT IT IS KILLING OUR FREEDOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is asimple solution ,if we do not want Saudia Arabia Oil since technically The expedtion in 1933 gave the country a profit and our soldiers are protecting this OIL which has the AMERICAN PEOPLE at there MERCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP BUYING NO DEMAND NO PROFIT EMBARGO THE MIDDLE EAST THINK THEY HAVE US UNDER THERE CONTROL LIKE CHINA STOP IT IT IS KILLING OUR FREEDOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is asimple solution ,if we do not want Saudia Arabia Oil since technically The expedtion in 1933 gave the country a profit and our soldiers are protecting this OIL which has the AMERICAN PEOPLE at there MERCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP BUYING NO DEMAND NO PROFIT EMBARGO THE MIDDLE EAST THINK THEY HAVE US UNDER THERE CONTROL LIKE CHINA STOP IT IT IS KILLING OUR FREEDOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is asimple solution ,if we do not want Saudia Arabia Oil since technically The expedtion in 1933 gave the country a profit and our soldiers are protecting this OIL which has the AMERICAN PEOPLE at there MERCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP BUYING NO DEMAND NO PROFIT EMBARGO THE MIDDLE EAST THINK THEY HAVE US UNDER THERE CONTROL LIKE CHINA STOP IT IT IS KILLING OUR FREEDOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is asimple solution ,if we do not want Saudia Arabia Oil since technically The expedtion in 1933 gave the country a profit and our soldiers are protecting this OIL which has the AMERICAN PEOPLE at there MERCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP BUYING NO DEMAND NO PROFIT EMBARGO THE MIDDLE EAST THINK THEY HAVE US UNDER THERE CONTROL LIKE CHINA STOP IT IT IS KILLING OUR FREEDOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ironic. After all the agreement by contributors
to this blog that Bush lacks "integrity," Romney's new attack ad goes after McCain for questioning Bush's integrity. Of course McCain counters by avowing respect for the President's integrity. People we have been so wrong!

A central principle of morality: "It is immoral to force your beliefs on another."

The Taliban did it in Afghanistan. Islamic leaders in several countries do it today. Evangelical Christians do it in America.

Everyone with even half a brain agrees with the basic principle mentioned above. The fundamental problem is that, for almost the past century our educational system has failed to teach children how to discern where their knowledge ends and their beliefs begin.

Bush, Huckabee and their evangelical brethren aren't evil people - they're just ignorant!

ANONYMOUS.... a WIN $ WIN situation being no easy task. Such but achieved by few brave souls, those whom finding then followed the Yellow Brick Road. A journey which rich in reward, one gaining depth in understanding, balance in experience, giving a strength in courage sharpened, as tempered steel.

I look for a problem solver. Someone who can really create WIN-WIN situations. It is hard to do, but I know there are people out there that can do it.

I do not see any of them running for political office.

Recent discoveries of ancient primitive remains suggest that humans evolved in several different places at the same time. That fits all predictive models based on the British Political System - a close look at Whitehall the Houses of Parliament, Camp David, Downing Street, The Washington Post, The Ant Worshipers of Perugia, Buckingham Palace, Chinese Democracy ? USA Democracy ? ATHEISM ? The Flat Earth Society, BLACK GOLD $100 A BARREL, CHRISTIANITY, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, PAKISTAN, IRAN ? The PALESTINIAN Road Map? The Yellow Brick Road? Whose Been Eating My Porrage, Said, Mother Bear. Me, said, Goldielocks. Which all clearly showing that there is all sorts of monkey business going on all over the place... .. .

SORRY,ANONYMOUS WAS ME , AN AFGHAN BY BIRTH,

WRITTEN TO NEXT AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHOEVER THEY

ARE

Terrorism must be stringently fought and punished but not by declaring war against any country. It is equally brutal to punish another set of innocent people. Moreover Afghanistan is no match for American power. America is lowering its own position by taking on an impoverished country like Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion, the civil war and all that has hardly left anything worth fighting against.

If we live in the 21st century and really respect democracy, freedom and human rights we have to promote culture of peace. The US always maintains that these Muslims cannot tolerate our freedom and democracy. But question is, apart from veracity of this approach, is US itself promoting freedom and democracy outside its own country? Who does not love freedom and democracy – the Muslim masses or the rulers America supports? US even lifted all democratic bans imposed on Pakistan when General Musharraf had captured power just because it needed Pakistan’s help in its fight against terrorism. Is it the way to promote freedom and democracy in the world?

Also, the way it attacked Afghanistan violates all norms of democracy and rule of law as well as international behaviour. War against terrorism could have been more effectively fought by winning over peoples of Muslim countries, by persuading them to isolate likes of Osama, boycott them and create a strong public opinion against such highly condemnable acts of terrorism. It could have launched intensive propaganda on these lines. All Muslims are far from unanimous about accepting such terrorist acts as jihad. The moderates are staunchly opposed to even the need for jihad (in the sense of war, though the holy Qur’an does not use the word jihad for war) in the modern world, let alone condoning individual acts of terrorism as jihad.

The US would have enhanced its appeal by following the path of peace, democracy and international law. It would have not only won tremendous and unqualified sympathy of Muslims throughout the world, it would have greatly served the cause of peace and culture of peace. By declaring war against a weak and impoverished country like Afghanistan it has not only lowered its own dignity it has alienated itself from moderate Muslims. No one would approve if one uses sledge- hammer to kill a fly.

The declaration of war and raining of bombs will not ensure any success against terrorism. It might not only defeat the purpose but would also perhaps spread more terror, particularly against America. Simply dropping food packets along with bombs will hardly ensure any support for it much less endearing it to the people. Also, America can greatly help in promoting culture of peace in twenty-first century by thoroughly revising its policies and shedding its arrogance of power.

It is regrettable that America, which prides itself for values like freedom, democracy and human rights, has killed largest number of innocent people around the world after Second World War. Such behaviour naturally breeds terrorism in certain sections of population. Terrorism can never be fought with terrorism. This violence torn world needs more peace than ever before. America talks of freedom and democracy but freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is peace and justice in the whole world.

George,

Space the debate to the mainstream media and travel to Israel.
(amend to 10:57.)

The American elections be an unnessessary farce, the truth being America a dictatorship in all but name. America consume by far greater the planets resources, they put in place Govt as leader which they firstly expect supplying such resources. The ongoing slaughter in the Middle East, (example) which securing USA oil supply, it's vast profits. The next USA election will be a Democrat victory. For leader two choices HILLARY CLINTON whom still have some morals as sense. As President serve USA needs, yet, try balance such USA responsability to the rest of the world. The other choice being President BARACK OBAMA whom niave to the extreme. In return for glory in having political power, he being President. He will fully serve the powers that be. Giving full committment in securing the need of the USA, above all else.Which will result in an extention of present USA policies. Continue leaving a worldwide trail of destruction, death, injustice, torture, suffering... .. .

The Iowa caucuses just demonstrated the power of magical thinking in U.S. politics.

This is FUNNY. Big laffs.

After pandering to Booble-thumping Jethros for 30 years, the GOP is having its buttocks bitten.

Gomer Huckabee has just taken out the plutocracy's main marionettes.

(In case you listen to the blowhards denigrating the importance of the Iowa caucuses, Max Factor Mitt spent 10 MILLION bucks in Iowa -- and had his behind handed to him by a rube with an imaginary friend.)

Play around with these magical thinkers and they WILL burn you alive.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! THIS is gonna be GOOD!

Athena,

Who will judge and decide if a President is Competent or not ?

The American elections be an unnessessary farce, the truth being America a dictatorship in all but name. America consume by far greater the planets resources, they put in place Govt as leader which they firstly expect supplying such resources. The ongoing slaughter in the Middle East, (example) which securing USA oil supply, it's vast profits. The next USA election will be a Democrat victory. For leader two choices HILLARY CLINTON whom still have some morals as sense. As President serve USA needs, yet, try balance such USA responsability to the rest of the world. The other choice being President BARACK OBAMA whom niave to the extreme. In return for glory in having political power, he being President. He will fully serve the powers that be. Giving full committment in securing the need of the USA, above all else.Which will result in an extention of present USA policies. Continue leaving a worldwide trail of destruction, death, injustice, torture, suffering... .. .

Religious as political twinned working together over history of time. Rejoice in the freedom of the one, by not increasing the embrace of other. Freedom from religion, half the victory... .. .

I just love what Starhawk said. She might be the most rational person here. Since I can't find it on your site, I'll re-post her words:

A Pagan¹s Christmas Resolution
By Starhawk
www.starhawk.org

Would I vote for a resolution affirming the importance and contributions of
Christmas and Christianity? As my readers may have noted, I¹m a Pagan, but
I¹d vote for such a resolution‹heck, I¹d even introduce it, if it went like
this:

³Whereas Christians and Christianity are of undeniable importance in the
world and the foundation of this country, in respect for his example and
story at this time of year we make the following statements:

³Whereas Jesus Christ was born in a stable because his parents could not
find shelter, and whereas in the last weeks we as a nation have allowed the
destruction of the last remaining housing for the poor in New Orleans, and
whereas our streets are full of the cold and the homeless, we repent of our
policies and in his memory commit to housing all who wander without a roof
or a welcome in our cities and our towns.

³Whereas Christ was born among the poor, lived and preached to the poor, we
repent of the selfishness and shortsightedness that has failed to provide
for all of our children, and commit ourselves to provide health care for all
children and for all of the poor.

³Whereas Christ commanded us to Œlove our neighbors as ourselves¹ we repent
of the walls we have drawn across borders, the deaths of those who have
tried to cross the deserts in search of a better life, the wall we have
supported that cleaves the Holy Land itself in two and confiscates the
farmland of the Palestinians, cleaves villages in two, and stands as a
lasting monument to our failure to achieve peace, and we commit ourselves to
establish justice which alone can provide true security.

³Whereas Christ has been called the Prince of Peace, we repent of our
eagerness to use war and violence as the answer to every international
situation, of the horrific and destructive war we have waged in Iraq which
has claimed tens of thousands of lives, and we commit ourselves to a
withdrawal of our armies, to a new foreign policy based on the building of
relationships, not the bombing of children, and to fostering and nurturing
peace.²

Anything less is just a bunch of empty words, and real Christians must be
cringing at the hypocrisy.

If I may quote Jackson Browne¹s beautiful song, The Rebel Jesus:

³Now pardon me if I have seemed

To take the tone of judgment

For I've no wish to come between

This day and your enjoyment

In a life of hardship and of earthly toil

There's a need for anything that frees us

So I bid you pleasure

And I bid you cheer

>From a heathen and a Pagan

On the side of the rebel Jesus.²

As light is born out of darkness, may hope, love and compassion be kindled
this season,

Starhawk

We see effect of religious brainwasing, for many the religious mumbo jumbo, so effective, that it a crutch, which, people convinced life dependent. Similar situation in political brainwashing where firm control of media giving the Governmentt free access to spin out it's daily doze of propaganda. As victims of religious deceit corruption, we see a similar result as situation upon the political front. Where a criminal republican party, guilty of vote rigging, fraud. Be then declared winners of such fraudulant election by USA court supreme judges. They declared winners, an election, which put them into Govt. An appalling period of Govt, the republican party abandoned international law. With full backing from military,declaring a holy crusade, a crusade which nought but an excuse, to plunder, robing planet of it's resources, actions which result, leaving a worldwide trail of death, suffering, injustice, destruction.... .. .

Athena,

I think you've got the cart before the horse. Competence certainly is important. But a person more competent to lead will not necessarily lead us in a better direction, he will only lead us better into whatever direction. That is, he might very effectively lead us into total destruction.

President Bush is actually, by all accounts, a competent administrator - his meetings run with military precision, his staff is professional and know their material, etc. The Clinton White House seems to have been a fiasco - nothing starting on time, nobody knew who was supposed to do what, etc. Fine.

If President Bush has been a bad president, it hasn't been for lack of technical, administrative know-how. It has been for lack of direction or clear purpose.

If you think about the sheer hubris very likely involved in volunteering to be The Most Powerful Single Person in the World, I think it is incumbent upon those offering out the four-year contract to do a thorough investigation of the persons volunteering for it to make sure that hubris is not in fact their motivation.

Having established that the person involved is a decent person (not looking for superheroes yet), we should then establish their competence, and check to see whether their vision for the country's direction suits our own.

If we go in the reverse order we get, well, the situation we have. Spouted visions that are meaningless because the candidates are incapable of bringing them about because of either lack of administrative skill or personal responsibility, or both.

The main thing that I'm concerned about is that the person running for President is COMPETENT. You can be a person of integrity, a stellar example of humanity, etc. and still not be mentally or physically equipped to handle the unique pressures of being POTUS. It's not just a matter of morals, or charisma, or whatever. That stuff will get you elected. But once a person actually gets into office, they will be expected to run a government and a military at war. For the next four years (at least). Is this person equipped to handle this job?

After 8 years of incompetent government - and no one can argue that the Bush administration has been competent - it's about time for someone who has a clue about running government to be in charge.

Bruce,

The most insightful comment I've heard about integrity was about Huckabee. The commentator said that authentic integrity should be obvious enough that it's possessor doesn't need to go around telling everybody about how much he's got. I chuckled because that has been one of Huckabee's major points: how much integrity he's got.

It's impossible to have integrity AND to be a bad person, because bad actions divide us against ourselves. Think about it: when we lie to someone in order to achieve some good thing, we have a hard time facing up to that person again, at least until we get very good at lying, which means that we have become very bad indeed. In the meantime, our interactions with that person will be hampered by our conscience which will not stop saying to us, "You lied to him," until we have killed our conscience entirely by continuing to lie. It is only when a person reaches the ultimate sort of badness that he regains something of an internal unity of purpose, something that can mimick real integrity. But still it's not real integrity.

It's funny. I'm not really a libertarian, though I know I come across that way. In an ideal world, or even in a country with a more functional government, this is what would happen. We would see social problems, and then meet and use our social organs (like government) to coordinate our social efforts and resources (like money) to do what can be done, even if any particular problem cannot be entirely solved.

What we have actually happening is that some people decide they are going to tax me at a much higher rate than they tax themselves or their friends, so that they can pay the salaries of people who seem to accomplish precious little and tend to be very unfriendly to me while (not) doing it. I hope I don't come across as too clever, because I'm not trying to be. This really is the state of our social services and our beaurocracy. I have so many friends who, after private practice or businesswork, have gone to work for the government - and all are amazed by how little is expected of them. Meanwhile, the problems are still unsolved because the people charged with coordinating the efforts (politicians) are self-serving, as are those "on the ground" who just don't seem to want to work that hard, but only make sure their budgets (and especially salaries) aren't cut for the following fiscal year.

So for now, I am a grass-roots, private-initiative sort of guy. I like those approaches because they speak of subsidiarity - people most affected and closest to an issue making the decisions about their own lives. In principle, I am more than a bit socialistic. But neither libertarians nor socialists have my first loyalty.

Anyhow, I apologize for having been so irritable. It's just that "integrity" is very important in a leader - it is what makes him trustworthy. The problem isn't that our leaders make too much of it, but that they have too little of it. They speak very impassionately about themselves and their beliefs by way of compensation - maybe they are trying to convince themselves. I don't believe them anyway.

But I do believe you. You seem like a very nice guy. Hope I haven't offended with my criticism, and again, please accept my apologies for having been so irritable.

Yours,
Ryan

What should we be looking for? Well, honesty, intelligence, wisdom, good sense, a desire to serve the interests of all the citizens. It’s a hard, extremely taxing job, I wouldn’t be able to do it well. It takes a whole group of people, not just one (which we can see from Cheney & Rumsfeld’s impact on how Bush acts). It requires something else too, what I call “vision”. A lot of people could be a competent CEO of this country, but a really great leader takes a country into a better situation. And there’s the father-like aspect too. If you listen to the tapes of Franklin Roosevelt talking to the country in his fireside chats, he sounded like a father or elder relative explaining the way things were to his younger relatives. I think people have a desire to believe their President knows much more than they do, that he’s much wiser than us. Bush has been so disappointing precisely because he seems common, average in intelligence, even below average.

I wish our President had more support from everyone. Presidents age in office, they have huge amounts of pressure on them, every year they’re in office they seem to age 5 yrs. They need all the support they can get. But they need to be told when they’re wrong, too. We as a country are growing up more, we are more educated, better informed, we need to have more input on the process of laws and actions that affect us.

Everyone running seems to have an agenda. The problem is we need to know what their agenda is, in detail. And they don’t tell us. I remember in one debate with Kerry, Bush said, “We have a plan. Do you?” But what was the “plan”? Bush never said. And that’s the problem; Bush’s been trying to do something the rest of the country now thinks is wrong, but we never demanded to know what it was before the election, did we? What has happened proves we need to know their “plan“.

In summary, we need to know the one in the job will do the same thing we’d want them to do if we were standing beside them watching, day by day.

Some people make good decisions, some people don’t. We need to choose the people who make the best decisions.

They need to care about us, they need the compassion & love of a parent, the devotion of a spouse, the wisdom of Solomon, the courage of Martin Luther King, the vision of Lincoln, the patience of Gandhi, the morals of Jesus, etc, etc, etc. We expect too much from our President. Frankly the job is too much for one person.

Ryan,

If you read my last entry, you'll see that I don't much like Bush. While I didn't vote for him I held out hope. Like you I now see him as deceitful.

Bush strangely fits part of your qualification for integrity: he certainly is "one, internally harmoniously integrated person." The man believes he can't be wrong, a confidence he perhaps gains by listening to his mysterious superior power.
Wouldn't the selection of President be much easier if we could preview the voices in each candidates head?

I admire your financial charity and admit I can't match your 10%plus standard. How many government social programs could be eliminated if all people were as generous?

While at times I feel that the government misuses my money, I don't feel that taxes "steal" from me. Unlike you, I give willingly, even charitably, even voting locally for more, since I know that government can provide services that the free market at times won't. (I don't believe adequate/affordable health care should be left to some charity.)

Finally, the people I would "steal" from to fund social programs are the rich, much as Edwards is proposing. Without getting too much into an economic diatribe, I'll cite Warren Buffet who questions why he and his billionaire friends are taxed at 17% and their staffs get taxed at 35%.
Something is wrong when 2% of the population owns 40% of this country's wealth. Something is wrong when CEOs of unprofitable companies get million dollar bonuses while stock owners get nothing and workers get fired. Etc.

I have socialistic tendencies...you seem libertarian. I know that I will be voting for the more liberal presidential candidate...you perhaps the more conservative. I bet that the candidate that wins is the one who, by radiating
"integrity," convinces the most people that he/she believes both simultaneously.

Enjoy

Bruce,

I'm sorry, but your post leaves me only feeling very critical.

"Why this exaltation of "integrity?" By that standard George Bush must be a great president."

1) Whoever said that Bush has personal integrity? I mean, to be fair, I voted for him twice because I thought he had some. I am not sure I'd vote for him again.

2) Integrity is a pretty important thing to have. It means that a person is one, integrated, internally harmonious person - the things he says, means, believes, feels, decides, and does are all in tandem with each other. It means he is what he appears to be. It means, among other things, that he will be honest, trustworthy, and unwavering without being recalcitrant or hard-headed.

3) We have, as Americans, fallen to an unprecedented national depravity when one (yes, perhaps even one) among us cannot see the value of personal integrity.

"While "integrity" is a wonderful quality it is not exclusively religious..."

1) That's true. Good.

"Who judges "integrity" of soul in a political season of "parsing" truth?"

1) Well, among other factors, Bruce, each voter must consider in his conscience from the limited and postured impressions he has received, how much integrity each candidate seems to have. Because politicians lie and play-act on TV isn't a reason to give up the search for a person of integrity to lead us - all the more reason for a refusal to accept anything less!

"Since I mostly want government to demonstrate
"charity" and "compassion" through expanded social programs, I pick a party, the Democrats, regardless of candidate, since I know that that candidate will most likely redistribute wealth."

1) Charity has to be freely given, Bruce, or it is not charity. It is theft. If the government (other people) take my money it is not charity.

2) Compassion means to enter into another's suffering, to share it with them, especially for the purposes of alleviating it. Anyone who has EVER been into a government office WIC office knows immediately that these institutions hardly embody compassion in any sense. Giving them more money that has been stolen (taken under threat of harm) from me will hardly make them more charitable.

3) By redistributing wealth, you presumably mean you want them to take some other person's money and give it to yet a third party. Bruce, I give, before paying any bills, 10% of my gross (pre-government theft) income to charities beneficial to the poor, whose overhead costs are low. Then I usually give more, in light of my lack of children and other intrinsic responsibilities. People who are eager for greater "wealth distribution" very often do very little of it themselves. I will even go so far as to offer that one as a polite accusation.

Bruce:

You're preaching to the choir, baby.

It sure would be a relief to have at least ONE candidate who flat-out states that he/she hasn't brought his/her imaginary friends into adulthood with him/her.

Lepid...

When you define integrity as "acting in the interest of the common good," you seem to be identifying policy. I think that everyone who identified integrity as a key value is saying:
"Look, not only tell me what I want to hear but act accordingly." Voters feel used, justifiably, by politicians that forget their promises once elected. Susan Jacoby's editorial seems to be right on by insisting on judging by deeds, not words.

Bushy's administration has been characterized as
"arrogant, incompetent, and cynical." Ironically, Evangelical leaders have concluded that Rove and company used them to get elected and then laughed at their simplistic expectations. "Compassionate
conservative" seems to come without financing. The eternal war against terrorism will be fought by someone else's' children and funds. The Constitution can be suspended and the Justice Department operates out of the VP's office.

Doubtful that George thinks too deeply about the word of John Adams that are supposedly carved into the mantel in the White House State Dining Room:"...May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." But George doesn't seem to think too deeply about anything. Not surprisingly, Robert Draper's biography ("Dead Certain") reveals that Bush had no ideological reason to seek the Presidency, just a competitive urge. That at 40 he managed to turn his life around, gave up partying and found God, and became President speaks well of our meritocracy
(particularly if your Dad's an ex-president).

I want a President who not only respects the Constitution but also is committed to growing social programs ("the common good") and doesn't play to fears. Since the Republican party has blown its image of restrained foreign involvement and prudent fiscal policy, the Republican candidates see to be reduced to appealing to a primordial fear that welfare-sucking, black/Hispanic, atheist-Muslim, gay-predator terrorists will slip over the border, invade their peaceful suburbs, rape their daughters...and litter their streets.
(Listening to the early Republican debates between 10 angry white Christians men in black was frightening.)

The Republican party platform seems bankrupt: where are the positives? The optimism? Hope?

All of the above is an explanation of why I pick party over personality. Any one of the top three Democratic candidates will bring more needed change than a reluctant Republican would.

I do believe we have gone astray precisely because we are using a corrupted definition of integrity (as some have noted in response to those challenging my original post). That said, I also said it's a start. Of course a little wisdom and a lot of humility would help too.

A woman went to see her psychiatrist. "I'm realy concerned, "she said. "Yesterday, I found my daughter and the little boy next door together, naked, examining each other's bodies and giggling." The psychiatrist smiled. "There's nothing to worry about," she said, "It's not unusual." "Well I don't know," said the woman, "It bothers me. It bothers my daughter's husband, too."

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rock nRoll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008 YEA! )))))))))

Thank You , me fellow Eclati-On(s) & not Off(s)! Ya Ya!

Romney Romney Romney Romney!

America is in good hands Mit Romney!

Bruce:

I guess I define integrity a little more broadly than you do. For me, it's not just believing what you preach, it's acting in the interest of the greatest good, even if it's not in your own immediate best interest. Shrubya certainly has not done that.

Lepid...

I certainly don't think that Bush is "totally" honest with information, but from what I have heard from TV commentators who have gotten close to Him, He really believes what He preaches. Isn't integrity, being forthright on your positions? (Many dictators have integrity.) The
larger question is His choices. My position is that he is totally into the Republican mantra that preaches capitalistic greed...and he's been very successful in using the system to increase his family and friends in wealth while destroying this country's economy...and more importantly the faith of the citizenry in the belief that government works. As with Nixon (and Reagan), the country needs time...and change...in order to recover.

Bruce,
Where do you get the notion that Shrubya is a man of integrity?

Mark DeMoss, the Christian PR executive and author, has an interesting essay on this question over at Beliefnet. (Linked to at our blog at
http://tinyurl.com/27c48s.)

DeMoss is a born-again Southern Baptist and former aide to Jerry Falwell whose views on faith probably come close to those of Mike Huckabee. But he's supporting Mitt Romney -- because he thinks Romney's ideas and experience make him the best candidate

"Personally," DeMoss writes, "I would like a president to be a man or woman of faith, whether or not it mirrors my own. But I also want them to have relevant executive experience, proven management experience, intellectual capital, crisis-tested decision-making skills, enough government experience to understand how government works—but not so much that they only know how to work for the government. In other words, as with every other personnel choice in life, I want competence."

Ahh, I see The Obfuscating Mo continues to skip the issue of the stench of Islamic "morality" by noting problems with democracy. How very typical of someone bred, born and brainwashed in theocratic Islam!!!!

at the shrine of democracey.
public mass are reverntly siting down ,every body have democratic cap on the head and democrasoray beads in the hands ,every body hyming the song of the songs democracey,all kind of people,different colors diferent accent,the melting pot is on,celcestial insence is burnning,waves and waves of homeless all over the place,pilgrims from all over the world,peace is shining ,the halo of justice brightin the world ,poor people are feed ,the air is clean,people with diferent psychs ,people with 2 psychs ,people with mutiple psychs ,people carrying their brains on their hands,people carrying 2 caps on their heads ,people with 2 minds, culinary artists are cooking ,food for every body ,delusional people are back to their minds.

the next show in town will be,
alhuckabee alamericani vs
alsistani alirani.

mankind is highly urgent to look for a shelter.

Amed,

You noted:

"Next, define your policies. In one sentence: "Love for others what you love for yourself."

I am assuming you are referring to the USA. And indeed we are doing that by coming to the aid of the Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Kuwait, and Iraq. And by giving substantial aide to the Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan.

Hopefully you are working on deleting the flaws in the koran. Until these are deleted, no one is safe.

For America the situation grim the conduct on the international stage over past decades having been dire, bad, to appalling. Decades of the cold war with RUSSIA replaced with hot war agin terrorism. Such the constant manipulation of the media over decades, such as the fear of a nuclear attack be used as cover, stripping away justice, fair play constantly removing, the rights of the, people's. The political scene in America today an complete farce, so corrupting that it matter little which party in power, one's vote be worthless, as to which party be in power. One must look for in a American political leader, as one whom may being best in putting a case, unto the Almighty, which calls, a merciful judgement on American people's. The obvious candidate in such case being, HILLARY CLINTON, THE ADDED OBSERVATION THAT MALE HAVING MADE SUCH A MESS OF THE MATTER, AS IN POLITICAL POWER. WITH A WOMAN IN POWER, THEY CAN TRANSFER AMERICA'S PROBLEMS UPON HER SHOULDERS. BE IT NOT ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TEACHING, WOMAN THE CAUSE OF ORIGINAL SIN ,THAT HAVING PUT MAN THROUGH THE ORDEALS OF HIS SEPERATION FROM GOD. With the two GB's in power, (a bad omen), G Bush & G Brown, we having been fortunate under their watch. That a nuclear attack on a nation having not being made, they a dire combination. The sooner removed from Govt be by far the better. For american people it being Hillary as head of Govt which best. Not to halt future events, but lessen the force , if one sowing the wind. Such, harvest the whirlwind... .

AHMED FROM BAHRAIN wrote (DECEMBER 31, 2007 7:56 PM): "What a US president needs... (etc.)... And please wake up to the power that you have... Let us hope you make a wise choice and demand accountability throughout the term. Perhaps then the rest of the world would give you credit for the good that you are about to do."

Ahmed... thank you for that. We all need a good dope-slap, every now and then.

Peace.

This question might be almost mute, as it is possible that the Presidential election could be effectively decided as early as the next few days (Iowa caucus) or month or so (by Super Tuesday). Of course, we probably won't know this except retrospectively, but that doesn't change the possibility that one or both races or even the general election could effectively be determined very soon; before such questions and considerations can really be addressed. After all, how many citizens have really been focusing on this very much in, say, the past few months?

As to the question itself, any President should be aware of the limitations of what any one person has and can do with respect to all we (unrealistically) expect him or her to be responsible for. This requires intellectual honesty and humility, which can both be considered character traits, but are also essential elements and even prerequisites for Reason.

Since the President of the U.S. - any President - is by far the most consequential person on earth, a good President would be constantly mindful, at some level, of the absurdity and irrationality of the institution of the Presidency itself at this point in history and therefore would work towards defacto different arrangements to make decisions and distribute power and authority.

Anyone really claiming to be promoting real and needed change would not be running for President, but rather using their status and influence to make the case to their fellow citizens that real change would entail rethinking the very institution of the Presidency in the modern era, as well as other fundamental ways we do things and assumptions that virtually never are questioned or addressed. For anyone who claims to embrace Reason and critical thinking, such fundamental questions and questioning are where critical thinking inevitably leads; critical thinking being fundamentally, critical questioning.

Since the failure to question and thus accept quick, simple easy answers is the characteristic state of human affairs - now and always - and is thus the fundamental problem and challenge of our nation and humanity, it is essential for someone as consequential as the President to offer leadership to promote such questioning, which means, in effect, promotion of Reason, critical thinking and science, but much more. It also means promoting creative, inventive, innovative, outside-the-box thinking and even moral reasoning, since these seemingly diverse modes of thinking are all really elaborations of the simple process of asking questions.

So to promote asking questions is really to promote any and all of them, and to do this is to promote the innate mental faculties almost all of us have (unless cognitively impaired to a very significant degree) to use them for problem-solving and needed, desired change. Indeed, the question is the very basis of possibility and thus change.

Al Gore said he had to write a book on Reason and what he saw as an assault on Reason ("The Assault on Reason") in order to solve the global warming process. If Gore really understood what Reason is and entails and was truly committed to its promotion as being essential to solving global warming (and, by extension, to solving virtually every other important problem we face) he could have sought the Presidency and, if elected, used it as a platform to educate on and promote critical thinking and Reason, and all that Reason leads to, including science, but also sound moral reasoning. There is probably nothing more needed or important for any President to take on in the year 2009!

Son of Socrates

Why this exaltation of "integrity?" By that standard George Bush must be a great president.

While "integrity" is a wonderful quality it is not exclusively religious...and the probable reason why the fringe candidates get so little support. Who judges "integrity" of soul in a political season of "parsing" truth?

Since I mostly want government to demonstrate
"charity" and "compassion" through expanded social programs, I pick a party, the Democrats, regardless of candidate, since I know that that candidate will most likely redistribute wealth.
Immigration, terrorism, family values, etc., all mask the major difference between parties: sharing pr