Article in Lancaster newspaper on Bush campaign and ethics

[Mitchell]

There was an article on page A11 of this morning's Lancaster Intelligencer Journal that was highly disturbing. According to the article, the Bush campaign is attempting to use church rosters for the purpose of recruiting voters for its' campaign, which is a blatant violation of seperation of church and state. There was a quote from a gentleman named Richard Land from the Southern Baptist convention, a group that is ironically, allegedly closely associated with Bush. In the quote, Mr Land expressed his outrage, saying quote: "Iam appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation this way. When a church engages in these actions, it is non partisan and appropriate, but when a campaign does it, it is partisan and inappropriate" (End quote)
Naturally, the Bush campaign defended its actions, as campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said that the document was well within the law, saying quote: "People of faith have a right to take part in the political process, and we are reaching out to every supporter of President Bush to become involved in the campaign." (End quote)
Apparently, Mr Land was not the only one who was disturbed by the Bush campaign's actions. Another source, the Rev Barry Lynn, had this to say:" The effort is a shameless attempt to misuse and abuse churches for partisan political ends. We will be watching closely to see how this plays out in the pews" (End quote)
Yet a third source, this coming from the from the Rev Walton Gaddy. president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group said quote: "The document is totally inappropriate" (End quote)
This is an extremely disturbing trend and pattern, this country prides itself on seperation of church and state, and, apparently, this administration is content with using any means it can to achieve its goals, by sparking outrage amongst religious leaders, some of whom are it's own supporters. Iam sure that my post will cause strong response, especially from Bush supporters, but I hope that before the mods edit or delete my post, they will see that I have backed up this serious issue with evidence quoted from reputable sources, religious leaders, who are closely alligned with Bush himself, ironically. This evidence is very disturbing, and is apparently blatant abuse of the political process, and seperation of church and state. Quite frankly, this administration should focus on attempting to get elected in the proper way, instead of misusing certain avenues to achieve its goals. If they have already angered church leaders who are their supporters, it makes one have to ponder the question to think very, very, carefully about their ethics, and to use careful consideration when casting your vote in November. Quite frankly, from a personal standpoint, I found the article and the Bush campaigns' actions appalling, and apparently my sentiments were echoed from the religious leaders who were quoted in the article.

Mitch
P'S: Just to clarify, this article was a straight news article directly from the Associated Press, and not on the editorial page, so it is not if some left wing columnist was attacking the Bush campaign for partisan purposes, this was from a completely impartial and unbiased news source that was not politically motivated.

[venray]

On the matter of separation of church and state. There is no such thing as discussed in many threads here.

On the matter of recruiting voters, are you and that particular paper now limiting who the candidates can gear their campaign towards to get votes?

Sounds a little bizaare in a free country with free elections.

Do they think we should make it illegal to send out campaign flyers to me and others through the mail. I get junk from both sides because I am a registered independent.

The names can be obtained through many public mailing lists as well, just look in my mailbox and you will see the results.

Ray

[Mitchell]

Ray, let me ask you this question. If this was coming from me as an editorial or my own views, then why did it outrage leaders of churches who are admitted Bush supporters? Also, this was not, as I stated, an editorial from the editorial page of a columnist slanted toward a particular political persuasion, it was AP sourced, an impartial news source.
You mentioned there being no such thing as seperation of church and state. Unfortunately, I do have to agree that there is a high degree of merit to that point. It seems that many leaders nowadays, especially those who are Republican, align themselves with the Christian coalition or right to life.
I was merely stating the article, and points made by the leaders, with my own views at the end. Iam aware, however, that this is a sensitive area and all parties and views have their opinion. That is their right, and this I accept. It would not be a two party system in the United States if it were not this way.

Mitch

[qjakal]

NOT all churches are aligned with the Republican Party. This is where the reasoning breaks down, imo. You have quotes from 3 church affiliated representatives, but I'm sure if you polled a few hundred there would be diversity on the issue with some saying it was "wonderful" and others lamenting it as "despicable".

You could most likely get the same results on nearly any issue that you care to name. Even a papal decree wouldn't guarantee a unified position within that particualr organization, as we've seen on many other controversial issues...

If they want to find you, your name appears *somewhere*...lol. Hence my 4 stints on jury duty in the last decade.

Q

[venray]

Here is the article in it's entirety..

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/9067136.htm

[MrMacphisto]

All I gotta say is... the more that religion and politics mix, the more cynical that observant people out there will become toward both aspects of life. If this trend makes us a more cynical society, I'm all for it. As we slowly become a more secular society due to the corruption of religion and of the state, perhaps, there will be a mass realization that organized religion (not faith, mind you) is bullshit and that the state will stoop to absolutely any level to whore itself for your votes. This includes using God as political fodder....

[Mitchell]

Macphisto, this is my view on your post.
I want to first say that I do not observe organized religion in any form. I was born Jewish, but was not Bar Mitvahed, and do not attend temple. That being said, I do respect others rights to worship as they please, and if they view religion as important and not bullshit, that is their right.
I do agree wholeheartedly with one part of your post, the idea of politicians using churches and God as political fodder to get votes. This to me, is a low tactic, even if some disagree with me. I know most people who disagree with me on my points are Bush supporters, but I want to pose you this question. Even if you do not feel as negative toward John Kerry as many Republican voters might feel towards say, Bill Clinton, what would your reactions be if Bill Clinton or Democratic groups supporting him got the vote this way? You might rip me, and say I'm wrong, but is part of the reason not in fact that it is your guy, George Bush, who is doing this? Iam wondering if there may be a double standard here among Bush supporters. I may be reaching for it with this statement, but it just seems like a possible scenario to me. Do you agree, Macphisto?

Mitch

[venray]

To recruit voters from churches that are in support of a candidate to begin with is what politicians do. Plain and simple. Kerry's capaign and those that support him are trying to drive the vote of the youth who have never participated in politics in any way.

Is this wrong. No. Michael Moore is trying to assist in this with his new movie. Is this wrong. No. It is their right to do so and the only way for any candidate to win an election is to make sure that more of the people that support him go to the polls than those that support his opponent. I believe if you look at the last election, you will find that the Gore campaign was targeting seniors and other groups that werent registered and driving them to where they could register and vote for Gore. Was this wrong. NO.

It's all part of every political campaign and to say they are using God as political fodder is nonsense in my opinion.

As to your point on organized religion ,Mac, It is a subject for another thread and I do indeed agree with you yet again. (scary isnt it?;) )

Ray

[MrMacphisto]

There's no doubt that there is a double standard. Both parties have them, but the Republicans are generally the ones guilty of religious double standards. They love to throw in "Christian values" because it's an easy sell to uneducated, rural folk. Of course, if any Democrat were to do the same thing, Fox News would be orgasming over it with 24 hour commentary. Hell, look at how much time they spent on the Gary Condit thing a few years ago.

The left has its own agendas involving racism and political correctness. A good example of this is how Trent Lott got axed for saying something really stupid about his wishes for Strom Thurmond having been elected president back during the Dixiecrat days. It was a harmless but dumb comment, but it wasn't really deserving of him to getting kicked out of office. I'm sure he's done far worse things to earn that, but of course, being Republican, he has to be more racially sensitive due to his affiliation with a party known for being callous toward minority interests. The whole Republican opposition to the civil rights movement kind of put them in a vulnerable position back in the '50s and '60s, but the Democrats have been using it to their advantage ever since. So, as you can see, both sides have their double standards, but it seems like the Republicans are more vocal toward theirs currently....

[venray]

Which is why I have always said that both parties are the same in many respects and why I never vote a straight party ticket in any election. It is better to at least make the attempt to pick and choose which candidate is best for the job.....and who will do the least damage.

Ray

[Mitchell]

Ray, in response to your previous post, I agree with one part but disagree with another. Let me break it down.
I agree with you 100% that it is best to vote for the party who will do the least damage, as that is the fundamental backbone of American politics, who is the best person for the job? Of course, each person's definition of best, is their own interpretation.
I disagree with your point about both parties being fundamentally the same. In the old days, back even to the 90s, the Republicans had many moderates whose views just differed a bit from the Democrats, but whose fundamental values were the same. I believe that since the 94 election, with the inception of people like Gingrinch, Dole, Lott, and now Bush, the GOP seems to have moved further and further to the right, while the Democrats had moved to be more centurist. The new Democrats are in fact like the Nixon and Eisenhower Republicans used to be. People talk about George W Bush governing from center right, but I dont see this as so. I see it that his policies on taxes, Social Security (With his idea of private investment and his favorite term "Your money") and other issues are in alignment with far right values. Bush is in a difficult position. He needs to be centurist enough to be appealing to voters, yet has a lot of pressure to fulifill policies and promises he made to the far right. I feel if he is voted in again, with nothing to lose, and no election to have to win in 2008, he will be more inclined to move further to the right, and this, combined with the direction of the country, and the sluggish economy, are why I hope he loses in November. I'm not saying John Kerry is by any means perfect, because he has his flaws, but I still feel he is a better alternative to Bush. In my mind, I wish that the Democrats were more liberal, the way they used to be, while the Republicans, although different, were more centurist. This far right governing bothers me, as they seem to favor and implement policies that are best for their wealthy backers and constituents, and the far right religious groups, while seemingly not giving enough consideration to how moderates feel, as not everyone who even votes Republican is as far right as many of them have become.

Mitch