The White Church Vote


A recent Gallup poll has come up with some pretty unsurprising news: McCain leads Obama with regular white church goers where as Obama takes the lead with whites who attend church infrequently or not at all.

Now, I am probably going to vote for McCain in November. And his choice of Palin does not sway me one way or the other.  I like Obama, but I think his vision might come with too expensive a price tag. But honestly, if he won, it wouldn’t be the end of the world for me.

The funny thing is, that 5 years ago, when I was NEVER attending church, I wouldn’t have voted for Obama if he was the last man (or woman) in the country. Not because he is black but because he is a ‘liberal’. Attending church has definitely made me less ‘conservative’. I seem to have fallen out of step with the majority of white church-going voters. Huh.

Advertisements

, , , ,

  1. #1 by Christian Beyer on September 6, 2008 - 7:12 pm

    Who called him Mr.Morality. Was our alliance with those thugs any worse than our current alliance with Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Even Israel is suspect. Or the deals that Eisenhower made with Batista and Kennedy with Castro and Diem? National expedience makes strange bed fellows.

    Reagan had the cojones (unlike Mr. Carter) to call the Soviet bluff militarily. By the time Gorbachev came to power they were spending 60% of every ruble on their military. That with the fact that the only thing driving their economy was the black market (Russian Mafia) and the hand writing was on the wall.

    You actually think that the East Germans decided to reunify with the West? Like they had the freedom to make that choice? Only when Gorby said out loud that the empire has no clothes did anything of the sort begin to happen. East Germany was lucky the West took them back – it was hardly inevitable. And it almost bankrupted them.

    Haig? Kissinger? What? Walesa, Havel, John Paul and Solzhenitsyn had more to do with this than either of those chaps. What have you been reading, the New Republic?

  2. #2 by logiopsychoambrosiapath on September 6, 2008 - 8:14 pm

    I don’t need no stinkin’ New Republic. I can think up my own whacko schemes on my own.

  3. #3 by BillG on September 30, 2008 - 2:23 pm

    It is interesting to see how different people decide who to vote for. Most of the time I tend to vote–and I always vote–for what is called ‘the lesser of two evils’. This time I do not feel that way. Early in the election cycle I was looking for change. I was tired of seeing the public misled–though I often wondered why they couldn’t see that they were being misled. From the first days when they came to office and told the Clinton security people that they wouldn’t have to watch al-Quaida, they were going to concentrate on stopping the drug traffic, until they gave phony reasons for wanting to pursue the neocons plan to take over Iraq, they misled everyone. That is one reason why people don’t want to support the financial rescue package today. They have been lied to so much that they don’t believe it when they are told that this is needed.

    As I said, I wanted change. But what kind of change? When the administration came in they initiated an ABC policy–anything but Clinton. I mean, I was kind of glad to see Clinton leave office, but he was doing SOME things right. He was dealing with North Korea’s nuclear plans. He was trying to deal globally with global warming. The U.S. was participating in the world community. Then the new administration wanted to go it alone. After 9/11, the nations of the world wanted to help the U.S. but the administration had an attitude that we should do it as the world’s only super power. What they didn’t seem to understand was that ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH A NON-STATE TERRORIST MOVEMENT is is important to have the full co-operation of as many nations as possible.

    As I said, I wanted change. When we prepared for the election of 2000, Karl Rove saw that there were three conservative movements and if he could get all three bound together they might win. Three strands: 1) the Libertarian strain–who wanted a small government with no regulations and a balanced budget; 2) the Moral Majority strain who wanted to outlaw same sex marriages and abortions and eliminate the separation of church and state & 3) the Big Business strain who wanted to have laws and regulations written in such a way that they favored big business.
    One of the reasons that there is such dis-satisfaction with government is that groups 1) & 2) have largely been ignored–except for lip service. Some people have realized that Rove & Co. wanted their votes but not their program.

    Now when I evaluate which candidate is most likely to provide the best leadership in office I do not ignore the promises that they make, but I am much more impressed by their past record and what it indicates about their attitude and character. THus, when the Texas governor was elected president, I was apprehensive and I have not been surprised by what he has done.

    Early on I selected the candidate that I wanted to see elected. He didn’t have much chance, but he looked good to me. I do not expect him to do everything that he says he will do–that would be impossible. ALL the candidates tell us what they would LIKE to do, but they cannot do all that they would like–economic and political reality together with unexpected events make sure of that.

    I have a great deal of respect for former fighter pilot McCain. He has served his country well in the navy and as a POW. He has been an important voice in the Senate, often making sure a divergent point of view is heard. But he still thinks like a fighter pilot. He makes a quick decision–often out of step with everyone else–and sticks with it. This is a good quality in a fighter pilot. Evey when the decision is wrong, it is sometimes better than hesitating. That quality is O.k. as 1 of 100 senators. I don’t believe it is the right attitude for the oval office.

    The candidate that has attracted me is Barack Obama. I believe he will be able to build consensus both at home and internationally. I believe he is the change we need.

  4. #4 by Christian Beyer on September 30, 2008 - 3:49 pm

    Your argument is nicely presented, Bill. At least it’s got me thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: