I’m an atheist and would prefer an atheist candidate. But that’s not the debate here. The debate is:
Is Dean actually religious? Clearly not. The BS about New Englanders being more private about their religion is just that: BS. I grew up in Boston, and one of the first things someone there will ask you is what religion you are (if they don’t know). Absolute BS, but yes, all politicians do it. Ronnie was not religious (contrary to whoever above said he was “born again”), but he did a good job convincing people that he was.
Can a secular person win the presidency? Probably not. Maybe someone who is silent about religion, but not someone who says even one bad word about it. Dean will have a tiny problem (among many hard core Christians) because his wife is Jewish, but a much bigger problem because his kids were raised Jewish. It’s a rare serious Christian who would allow his kids to be raised Jewish. That’s more the actions of someone who says to his wife: “Hey, I don’t give a shit about religion. If you want to raise the kids Jewish, go ahead.”
I agree, it is on par with George Bush gushing about how Jesus is his most admired person, yet he is unwilling to turn his other cheek, nor give away his cloak.
I’d like to see them all be silent about religion. I believe in G-d, but don’t see why it matters if the president does. Morals and values are important, religion is not.
As someone who has lived in VT under Dean for many years I can say that I cannot ever remember him mentioning his religion or faith in more than passing ever. Whether this is because he didn’t/doesn’t have any or because it just didn’t play a part (or he didn’t want it to) in his state politics I cannot say, though if polycarp’s info is correct then I’d be apt to believe he’s not making this up.
Despite what John Mace feels about New Englanders in general, I can tell you that I don’t have any clue what faith any of my elected officials are (though I imagine most of them are some flavor of Christian), and very very few of them make much a deal about it. So, at least in contemporary VT politics, religion takes a major back burner.
So, I guess I’d believe that he is understanding that he needs to bring his faith to the fore in order to impress certain constituancies. I am kind of bummed about this; the less I see Dean play the game the happier I am.
This next election is going to be one butt-ugly mo-fo, and don’t you doubt it for a second. If the polls show that GeeDubya will cruise to a 80%-20% massacree on voting day, then the Forces of Darkness will be quite content to play like gentlemen, murmuring genteel debate while sipping tea, pinkies akimbo.
But if there is any chance of a close election, the gloves come off and the shivs come out. The “Willie Horton” episode will seem like a fraternity prank, stealing the other teams mascot.
I wonder if Mr. Dean will have the option of having the Secret Service enforce “free speech” zones for him? In the interests of national security, of course.
Maybe I’m still young and idealistic, but I’d like to imagine that a completely honest, straightforward, and frank candidate could give Bush a run for his money, or at least leave a big footprint on politics of the future (whether or not that candidate is Dean, I don’t know).
What with the plethora of religions one finds in VT, I’m sure it’s a tough call to guess that they’re Christian, as you actually pointed out yourself. Maybe Protestant VT is a bit different from Catholic Boston. Heck, you folks elected a godless socialist to Congress.
I don’t doubt that religion plays a bigger role in the South, generally speaking, than in N.E. But Dean’s comment says more about his personal social circle, though, than it does about N.E. as a whole.
I actually find a lot to like in Dean’s candidacy. He makes a more compelling case to me than most of the other Dems. I don’t mind his “gaffs” such as this one, but just wish he’d own up to his beliefs. I’d have more resepct for him if didn’t seem so eager to pander. I watched the Dem debate today in large part to get a picture of where he stands on things and was quite disappointed in the way he backpeddled about religion, ObL, and other topics.
Still, he’s got a lot more going for him than Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards.
I think I do. It may be designed to show religious tolerance, something that’s generally supported by his target demographic.
Dean knows that the hard-core Christian vote is already firmly Bush’s: he doesn’t need to worry about offending them, because he hasn’t a chance in hell of drawing them to his side, anyway.
Ah, the RW ahte-machine’s effort to portray Dr. Dean as either stupid or ignorant has begun, I see. Ever occur to any of you that it just might backfire out of sheer implausibility, just like so many other of its/your personal-destruction efforts in recent years?
If you can’t win on the issues, you don’t deserve to.
Let’s see, we have no way to discern what Dean’s belief’s really are and he’s telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Not very compelling to me, unless the other Dems. are worse! :eek: I admit I don’t know enough yet to make any decision beyond not voting for Bush, but I keep hoping there’ll be a better reason to vote than to try and keep someone out of office.
The trouble being, when we do win, you assume that it wasn’t based on the issues. Getting all upset when perfectly legitimate questions are asked about a candidate doesn’t seem so implausible to me.
For instance, Dean seems to be trying rather hard to say that Bush is on the wrong track with regards to national security. Dean has said, for instance, that he doesn’t feel any safer just because Iraq’s dictator has been captured, and that the country should be taking other steps to ensure our security against terror attacks.
And yet, for the last decade or so, Dean has ignored repeated warnings that the nuclear facilities in Vermont are vulnerable to terrorist attack. [
Apparently those Saudis who Dean speculates tipped off Bush in advance of 9/11 didn’t give Dean the same heads-up - he did essentially nothing during the 90s, even after a mock raid on the plant got several simulated terrorists inside the reactor building.
Dean not only believes this - he seems to have based his entire foreign policy on it.
I don’t know what you mean by this. My statement was pretty clear that I condemn hypocracy in both parties; do you? I do find Bush’s unctuous variety of Christianity more offensive than Dean’s holy-come-lately conversion, but both are worthy of criticism.
Also a mainstream position. Ridge raised the color code just a few days after Saddam’s capture, and there it stays.
Don’t you get dizzy from all that spin? Who was really doing what during that time frame?
Good Burke quote, noting as it does the current triumph of evil facilitated by inadequate efforts by the good. But the silly, simplistic manichaeanism is your own.
To repeat, if you can’t win on the issues, you don’t deserve to.
A political candidate is asked about his/her religious views, and answers “My religious views are my business. Since we have a seperation of church and state, they are inconsequential to anybody but myself. Ask me about issues, and I will gladly tell you my views on them.”
I have another one involving Nicole Kidman and various lubricants, but that’s beside the issue. But probably about as likely to be realized.
