What do you hope the democratic candidate in 2004 says about the pledge issue?
Take a strict sep. of church and state stance, and disagree with 90 percent of the US?
Follow the lemmings and say he wants “under God” in the pledge, and not risk taking a beating on the issue?
Somehow dodge the issue?
Based on his support of gov’t funding of faith-based charities, almost certainly Gore would support “under God” in the pledge. And based on how Washington acted in the last few days, I’d be surprised if anyone in any party wouldn’t support it.
As infuriating as it is to me, I’m going to have to say I want the candidate to not give the Republican party ammo, and support “under God”. If the last few elections are any indication, I will almost certainly prefer the Dem platform, and in reality I have to admit the pledge thing really isn’t the biggest problem out there and not worth the election.
The liars have very successfully framed the issue as “you’re either for religion, or against it.” No one is going up against that sort of false dilemna, and it’s way too late to convince the public that anything else is at stake.
I support a modified lemming approach. Make it a nonissue by publicly and unequivocally supporting the inclusion of “under God,” then bash the heck out of any diversionary attempt by Rove, et al. to turn it into a wedge issue. It’s a distasteful stand, to be sure, but this is not an issue worth committing political suicide over.
The way things are going at home and abroad, I hope W and his opponent are able to see how trivial the matter is when compared with more pressing issues.
Trivial? Elections turn on matters like these, not boring things like corporate malfeasance and technical issues like how to manage land properly for future generations! No matter that the pledge issue is as relevant to the future as a fart in a windstorm, while the other problems do really matter. If the Hoi Polloi is more concerned with the words “under God” than with long-term financial and environmental policty, then we’ll get the government we deserve.
Qadgop is correct. What were the big issues in 2000? “Gore is a sleazy lying politician!” “Bush is stupid!” Nobody really cares what their party’s platforms are.
Any politician who isn’t “Pro-God” might as well go nail his pecker to a tree.
Why does this shit seem to plop happily into the laps of the Forces of Darkness? Are they going to use it? Bet yer sweet ass they will! They’re gonna need it!
Because this corporate coprophilia outbreak is just gathering steam. Take a guess: how many of the top ten corporate contributors to the Republican party are indictable?
Of course, they’re not gonna say “my opponent is anti-God”. They’ll say he isn’t “pro-God” enough.
Wouldn’t it be great if treating the people like they are morons didn’t work?
Before we all go getting all huffy and out of breath, why don’t we at least wait and see what the panel of judges out in CA decides and whether it goes to the Supreme Court, ok?
That being said, this is as big a non-issue, issue as I’ve ever seen.
I would prefer that he dodge it. In a perfect world, the 2004 Democratic nominee would say nothing about the “under God” line in the Pledge of Allegiance, nor would he say anything about mom, apple pie or baseball.
However, as others have pointed out, it’s unrealistic for a presidential candidate to dodge this sort of pap. Suffice it to say, several of the potential 2004 Democratic candidates already have backed the “under God” bit. Notably, the following Senators who are said to be eyeing the White House voted yes to reaffirm the “under God” reference: John Edwards (D-NC), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Biden (D-DE), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Dodd (D-CT).
The Senate voted 99-0 in favor. Who didn’t vote? Jesse Helms (R-NC). But what does it matter? He’s not running for reëlection, anyway.
Your OP seems to be based on two assumptions: I agree with the Democrats’ platform, and that for a Democrat to agree with the majority opinion would be dishonest. For most Democrats, the majority opinion is what they believe, which makes the second assumption false, and consequently the first as well.
Well, we think he died quite awhile ago in mind, and then his body just didn’t rot fast enough for us to find out.
And I have to agree, distasteful as it is for me, that the Democrats are going to have to support it being in the pledge, simply because it is complete and utter suicide right now to do anything otherwise. I wish that the public would focus on somewhat less trivial issues, but alas, tis not to be…
The Ryan, as described in the subject line, this question was directed to atheist democrats. Did you miss that, or are you actually an atheist democrat who wants “under God” in the pledge? Do you really think most atheist Dems are with the majority opinion and want “under God” in the pledge?
Well, in a perfect world this wouldn’t be an issue. In a better world than this one someone would have the balls to stand up for what is right and explain the issues to the “hoi palloi”.
This is the real world, so I know the Dems will nominate some roll-over-and-play-dead fool who will wind up doing more harm than the republicans ever could- see Clinton and DOMA for just one example.
For the record, I am an athiest but I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Libertarian before the last election. I still feel the Democratic party platform is more sane and humane than the Republican platform, but they don’t do much to uphold it.
Motarts: That link is only visible to people who have registered with that website. Can you give us the ten-second-sound-bite version of what that article says?
Motarts, I started to register for the site (latimes) but they want too much info for my taste. In any case, I never claimed every single atheist dem in the country is against “under god”, I only stated that I think most were.
I am interested in your article though, maybe you can give us a synopsis as tracer suggests. Dont copy the whole article though, that’s a copyright violation.