How Haggard is the evangelical vote?


by Ivan Seeking
Tags: evangelical, haggard, vote
LURCH
LURCH is offline
#19
Nov5-06, 01:46 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,507
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...=itn_confesses

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.

To this day, Clinton behaves as though he did nothing wrong, and Kerry only said he was sorry that people "missunderstood" what he said. If you read or hear his actual words, they most definitely were an insult to anyone in uniform, no room for intepretation. But he only appologised for other people's innability to understand what he meant to say. The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".
Astronuc
Astronuc is online now
#20
Nov5-06, 02:23 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
Quote Quote by LURCH
The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".
Not quite. This statement is misleading.

What Kerry said last Wednesday was
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said.

"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and [was] never intended to refer to any troop," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/...rss_topstories

He apologized for offending the troops and the fact that his words were misinterpreted. He botched a joke that was critical of president Bush, and Bush's apparent lack of education (and lack of knowledge and lack of being educated), but the way it was stated made it appear that he was saying that anyone without a proper education would end up in Iraq, which was not Kerry's intent.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#21
Nov5-06, 02:31 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by LURCH
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...=itn_confesses

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.

To this day, Clinton behaves as though he did nothing wrong, and Kerry only said he was sorry that people "missunderstood" what he said. If you read or hear his actual words, they most definitely were an insult to anyone in uniform, no room for intepretation. But he only appologised for other people's innability to understand what he meant to say. The appology is a repeat of the original offense. He basicaly said, "I'm sorry that you're so stupid that you thought I was calling you stupid".
Clinton's fault again?

What did Clinton do that was so wrong that you cannot forgive him?

He is who he is, he did what he did. He has moved on with his life and continues to take an active and positive role in world leadership.

And I suggest you read the script of the speech before you ascertain with certainty that there is no room for interpretation in Kerry's meaning.

What the right-wing wants to hear Kerry say is;

"I'm sorry I called the troops stupid."

But that is not what he said. He was attempting to infer that Bush wasn't very bright, and didn't do his homework before the invasion and now has gotten us stuck in Iraq. A complex joke to try and tell and he botched it.

Now it is the biggest issue of the entire campaign for the Republicans. And he isn't even running for office!


I guess it is a sign of Republican desperation to be attacking a Senator who is not even running for re-election because he can't tell a joke.
LURCH
LURCH is offline
#22
Nov5-06, 11:01 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,507
And I suggest you read the script of the speech before you ascertain with certainty that there is no room for interpretation in Kerry's meaning....

But that is not what he said. He was attempting to infer that Bush wasn't very bright, and didn't do his homework before the invasion and now has gotten us stuck in Iraq. A complex joke to try and tell and he botched it.
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said. I never claimed there was no room for interpretation as to what he might have meant, but what he said is perfectly clear and a matter of public record.

...And he isn't even running for office!
And Haggard is?
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#23
Nov6-06, 12:24 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
The question is: How many evangelicals would otherwise be inspired by Haggard to vote via the gay marriage issue. This speaks generally to support for Republicans since this issue drives many fundametalists.

One must now wonder if Haggard's zeal against gay marriage is really just a manifestation of his inner struggle. I wonder how common this may be.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#24
Nov6-06, 12:28 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
And, for the record, what does biblical law have to do with civil law? Churches don't generally recognize civil marriages, and no one is going to force a church to perform gay marriages.

In any case, I sure am sick of this issue driving elections. As a true conservative, I see this as a State issue.
arildno
arildno is offline
#25
Nov6-06, 02:47 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
One must now wonder if Haggard's zeal against gay marriage is really just a manifestation of his inner struggle. I wonder how common this may be.
At the very least, it is reasonable to assume it is very common among those homosexuals who happen to be evangelical Christians.
Skyhunter
Skyhunter is offline
#26
Nov6-06, 09:19 AM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by LURCH
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said. I never claimed there was no room for interpretation as to what he might have meant, but what he said is perfectly clear and a matter of public record.
So what is wrong with him apologizing for mis-speaking?

It is not like Bush doesn't mis-speak almost every time he opens his mouth.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#27
Nov6-06, 09:40 AM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by LURCH
But that's just it; I am going by what he actually said. There really is no room for interpretation in what he actually said.
I don't agree with you on that point. As it was spoken, the joke could mean stuck physically in Iraq, or it could mean stuck politically in Iraq. Even so, I think Kerry should have apologized for the way the words came out. I don't think his instincts served him well in this matter. As for going by what people actually say and not by what you know they mean, that seems pedantic to me.
Astronuc
Astronuc is online now
#28
Nov6-06, 10:04 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
What surprises me is that Kerry didn't immediately realize what he said and correct himself. Then he let it go. On day 2, when he should have apologized as he subsequently did on day 3, he was attacking critics with regard to misinterpration of the mis-spoken words.

Kerry wasn't careful when he first uttered the words, and then he was stupid about not apologizing appropriately until the whole thing blew up.


I wonder if it's his joke or someone else's. I am tired of politicians using the words of others (speechwriters and spokespeople). Why can't they speak for themselves? Is it because they simply don't have any original ideas or thoughts?
loseyourname
loseyourname is offline
#29
Nov6-06, 11:41 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Quote Quote by Gokul43201
You've completely missed the point here, so I'll make it clear. The religious conservatives (and Haggard, being their role model) deplore homosexuality, extra/pre-marital sex and use of hallucinogens. So, when you find Rush Limbaugh is a doper, Bill Bennett has a gambling addiction, Bill O'Reilly settles a sexual harrassment suit and now, Reverend Haggard admits to buying dope from a gay prostitute, there's one word that comes to most minds: HYPOCRITES!
The thing is, if you're a social conservative, shouldn't you vote in the person that will back and get passed socially conservative legislation? Even if the guy is a gay vampire, at least he really will try to get an amendment passed banning gay marriage. I'm not personally a social conservative, but whichever way one may lean, on the grand scale of things, I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.
LURCH
LURCH is offline
#30
Nov6-06, 11:42 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,507
BTW; I would very much like to read the script for the speach. Does anyone have a link? I'm guessing that his publicist would have immediately posted that document on the 'net somewhere, as soon as he started to make the claim that it was a mis-spoken joke about the president. I've heard more than one version of what he meant to say, and I'd like to read it myself.

Astronuke, I totaly agree with you about the prepared speeches. One of the things I have found most admirable about Bush is that he's such a lousy actor, and terrible at reading a prepared speech. You can tell almost instantly when he's reading something that someone else wrote, and when he's speaking his own mind.

I wonder if there would be any way for us, the common citizens, to make it clear to politicians that we dislike the recitation of prepared speeches. It would take a drastic change, and so I don't think it would happen quickly. However, perhaps in a process resembling natural selection, in which the candidate who speaks most frequently from his own mind gets the most votes, perhaps a new campaigning methodology might "evolve".

But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#31
Nov6-06, 12:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
Quote Quote by loseyourname
I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.
Point taken. I'm not sure I'd always vote in the person who's most likely to pass my agenda if I think he's a complete slimeball...but if he were running against anyone but a relatively honest Abe, I think I'd often do the same.

The way character figures in my decision is through the variabity that sliminess brings with it. If the guy can't be trusted, I'd be nervous about what he'd do 2 months down the road. I believe it (character) plays a more direct and telling role in the decisions of the most others, though.
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#32
Nov6-06, 01:20 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by loseyourname
The thing is, if you're a social conservative, shouldn't you vote in the person that will back and get passed socially conservative legislation?
If you are really a conservative, this is not even an issue at the federal level. I think you mean pseudoconservatives.

Even if the guy is a gay vampire, at least he really will try to get an amendment passed banning gay marriage. I'm not personally a social conservative, but whichever way one may lean, on the grand scale of things, I'd rather have a hypocrite passing the legislation I want passed than honest Abe passing the opposite.
If the person is a hypocrite, then you really have no idea who you are electing, or what he or she will do.
phoenixy
phoenixy is offline
#33
Nov6-06, 08:42 PM
P: 22
Quote Quote by LURCH
BTW; I would very much like to read the script for the speach. Does anyone have a link? I'm guessing that his publicist would have immediately posted that document on the 'net somewhere, as soon as he started to make the claim that it was a mis-spoken joke about the president. I've heard more than one version of what he meant to say, and I'd like to read it myself.
I couldn't find the full transcript, but here is what Kerry said right before the infamous remark. Src: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1LFEueH2Jk

I (Kerry) has been in Texas the day before. President Bush used to live in that state, but now he lives in the state of denial. The trip has reminded me (Kerry) the value of education. If you make the most of it ...
Did you have the same grudge against Bush for his literal mistakes?

I wonder if there would be any way for us, the common citizens, to make it clear to politicians that we dislike the recitation of prepared speeches. It would take a drastic change, and so I don't think it would happen quickly. However, perhaps in a process resembling natural selection, in which the candidate who speaks most frequently from his own mind gets the most votes, perhaps a new campaigning methodology might "evolve".
You really don't like Bush, don't you?
LURCH
LURCH is offline
#34
Nov7-06, 09:10 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,507
I don't normally spend so much tiem ni the politics forum, but I think I will start a thread on prepared speeches.
You really don't like Bush, don't you?
*?*
phoenixy
phoenixy is offline
#35
Nov7-06, 09:18 AM
P: 22
Well, would you agree that if we take away prepared speech, Bush would be in big trouble? He is already having difficulty formulating complete sentence. It would be a national embarrassment everytime he communicate verbally.
Astronuc
Astronuc is online now
#36
Nov7-06, 09:49 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
Like

Bush videos - Actual excerpts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaY8wzwxWTc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efVin_K6W_s


Register to reply

Related Discussions
All of you go vote. Now. General Discussion 40
The Onion: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity - "Intelligent Falling" Theory General Discussion 14
YOU: go to vote NOW! Current Events 31
Vote for Something? Current Events 20
More vote against than for Current Events 0