06 December, 2006

I'm Starting To Sympathise With Mainstream News Organisations

I was all set to write a post going into detail about Susan Estrich's column on the lack of conservative Presidential candidates. But then I realised something. I don't want to spend the next year talking about whether or not "the Evangelical Right" will vote for a Mormon.***

I complain alot about the "news" being large amounts of fluff, while omitting serious stories about the multi-front war we're fighting and other grown-up topics. Right now, though, I get it. I'm in Serious News Overload. Maybe it's the post-election malaise, lingering longer than it should. Or maybe I really do care if Eddie Murphy is the father of some Spice Girl's baby.

Right now things in my life are kinda good. I'm happy with my husband, I've got two magnificent dog-children. I like what I do. My home is comfortable. My health is pretty good overall. Yes, there's a fair amount of kreptaculousness from time to time but I've just come out of a terribly difficult five years. I'm wanting to enjoy this ebbtide without digging up concerns about which I can do nothing. Does that seem horribly irresponsible? Perhaps, and if so I'm sorry. But I just don't think I can rage against the wind forever.

***My take on the Mitt Romney thing is this:

The "Evangelical Right" has now officially split. You have those who are overridingly Authoritarian/Conservative. Their authoritarian nature will lead them to support Romney despite his religious differences. I can't think of many faiths more authoritarian than Mormonism.

Those of us who are more libertarian in nature will not vote for Romney. That would include me. In short, the ER is no longer the singular voting bloc it once was.


At 9:37 AM, December 06, 2006, Blogger Chance said...

"Those of us who are more libertarian in nature will not vote for Romney. That would include me. In short, the ER is no longer the singular voting bloc it once was."

Exactly. I, being an Evangelical Christian, don't even have to worry about the Mormon thing because he likes government the way I like my quarter pounder meal.

At 10:06 AM, December 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of being authoritarian, the Mormon Church seems to be a little more liberal and/or tolerant than the ER or the Catholics.

Take abortion for example, the LDS view provides some exceptions such as in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. During the Terry Schiavo case, the LDS Church was asked their position and they took a more moderate stance than the ER. In the LDS Church, the use of birth control is fine, and yet, some other denominations view that as a sin.

I am finding that the church is not nearly as authoritative as some other Christian denominations.

As for Romney, until anyone can show me how he has created a Theocracy in the state of Mass., I have no problems with his religion.
Even the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon and a Democrat if you can believe it!

At 11:00 AM, December 06, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

I should have been more specific.

I'm not abstaining from a vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. I'm abstaining from voting for Romney because of two main things:

1. He supports the federal assault weapons ban.
2. He's doing a lot of running on the "I didn't raise taxes to cut MA's deficit." Of course, he did raise a LOT of "fees"--marriage licenses, auto registration, etc. Sorry, Charlie. "Fees" are TAXES. To say that he balanced the budget without raising taxes is disengenuous.

There are other little things that he's said and done that go against my philosophy of government. None of those things has to do with his Mormonism. I don't think so, anyway. Maybe there IS something in the Book of Mormon about infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I don't know.

At 11:11 AM, December 06, 2006, Blogger Slartibartfast said...

I don't want to get Dems all excited, but as of right now, NONE of the names that have been thrown out excite me. I'd say I'm pretty representative of "the base".

Guiliani has no chance in hades of geting through the primaries, and I learned everything I need to know about him by the way he treated his first wife.

I'm not totally convinced McCain has a full grasp on his sanity. At the very least he's vindictive and untrustworthy.

Romney, besides his other faults, is BORING.

Sec of State Rice doesn't want to run, and I don't think she'd make it through the primaries.

Newt has too much baggage. Plus he's an egomaniac.

I'm secretly hoping some relative unknown put his/her name in the hat and makes a serious run, much like Clinton did for the Dems in 1992. I REALLY don't want to have to hold my nose and vote again in 2008, but we'll see. For now, I'd just rather not think about it.

At 12:23 AM, December 07, 2006, Anonymous Ned Williams said...

I'm with Slartbartifast for the most part, but I'm not sure what to say about your take on Romney. Though I can't imagine backing Romney, I don't know that support for judicial restraint and smaller gov't or opposition to re/un-defining marriage and abortion on demand is "authoritarian." What public policies would you say are favored by "authoritarians"?


Post a Comment

<< Home