I have never been a big one for television. We have Dish Network at home with 4,356,297 channels (well maybe not that much) and sometimes my wife and I will flip through all of them and conclude..Yuck..there is absolutely nothing on. More often than not I will then let her watch something on Hallmark channel while I am upstairs playing the piano, on the computer, or sleeping in my big reclining chair with the dog.
The shows that I sort of like are "The Amazing Race", "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader", and lately I've sort of been fascinated with "American Idol". Sometimes there is a movie on that sounds interesting. Oh..the news and sports of course. Oh forgot..this year we got NESN so the Red Sox will be on my agenda.
Of course when you are in the hospital (as I was two years ago with prostate cancer surgery), watching TV is all there is when you don't have visitors. In the two days following my surgery I was sort of in and out on pain killers and all that, and really didn't have the attention span to watch any television show that would command me paying attention. I just wanted something nice and peaceful that seemed to minister to me. That is when I found EWTN.
Now I can't remember that much about what I watched. I do remember a couple of funny looking priests and nuns who seemed nice and even funny at times. I watched quite a few masses. Now I will admit that Catholics seem to do church differently than I am used to, but it was fascinating to watch something different. Their church (or mass) seems to center around the communion service.
Now I know some Protestants are critical of Catholics because they believe that somehow their communion elements are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, but I honestly fail to see what is so terrible in this belief. I guess it all revolves around how literally you take the "is" in "This is my body..this is my blood". At any rate I can not open my Bible and convince myself that they are definitely wrong in this. Besides, I knew an elderly couple at my first Pentecostal church in Rumford Maine that believed the same thing (or near it) anyway. I look at it this way, at least the communion service is meaningful to Catholics.
Oh and there was this elderly couple that had shows on Catholic saints. Now I know that Protestants are critical of Catholics because of their saints, but I don't see what is so terrible about showing honor to those great in the faith who have gone on before. At least a good Catholic has some sense of being tied to their past and knowing who those who are great in the faith are.
But anyway, that TV show seemed to make an impression on me for some reason, maybe I learned something.
I remember once of flipping it when the discussion turned to indulgences. That seemed a little wierd to me. But other than that, I can't remember hearing anything that seemed all that terrible on it. On and there were some talk shows that I seemed to enjoy. In a couple of days the Red Sox were signing Matsuzaka, and my interest flipped to following that story. But I have watched EWTN a little since (if I am up and flipping through the tube). Of the 3-4 Christian networks on my tube, I like EWTN the best..the others seem contrived and cheesy mostly. Plus I have never heard EWTN begging me for money; and I highly doubt whether they will use the contributions that are sent to the network for heated doghouses for the priest's pets.
So I guess I am also a Protestant heretic in that I actually like watching EWTN (sometime anyway). In fact you can listen to it over the internet, and I think I will do that now (haven't done it in a while).
Anyway, I have an idea on how this series will go. I think I will talk first about what we (or me anyway) should agree with the Catholics on..what (in my little mind) are the fundamental differences (I think it all reduces to one difference)..plus one difference that I personally have great difficulty with (that you might find surprising). Then I will talk about the differences that in my mind are overrated to some extent. Oh..also in my little study..I came across some groups in Christian history that I did not know much about and ended up really liking. I might diverge into those a couple of times.
Oh and this will not be "All Catholic all the time". I do have other interests.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
0.1 Again
Some things in life are clear cut and nonnegoatiable. I believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead and buried, and rose on the third day. That is just the way it is. Oh..and that the Red Sox are the greatest baseball team ever and that the NY Yankees are scum and evil. That is also just the way that it is.
Some other things in life are ambiguous. A third consecutive 0.1 on my PSA test is one of them.
When I had my last radiologist second opinion (given my stage of cancer) I finally pulled the question "What would you do". He said wait until my next psa test and see what it yields.
Some of the possible results had clear cut answers
* A rise above 0.1: Definitely go for radiation therapy.
* Decline back to 0: Wait
He hemmed and hawed though when I asked him about a third consecutive 0.1; but he finally answered that he would go for the radiation therapy..given the high stakes.
That was good for me.
Of course my most recent PSA was a 0.1. But I have not changed my mind..my thinking is clearcut..do what the radiologist would do.
My next radiologist appointment is March 12.
Some other things in life are ambiguous. A third consecutive 0.1 on my PSA test is one of them.
When I had my last radiologist second opinion (given my stage of cancer) I finally pulled the question "What would you do". He said wait until my next psa test and see what it yields.
Some of the possible results had clear cut answers
* A rise above 0.1: Definitely go for radiation therapy.
* Decline back to 0: Wait
He hemmed and hawed though when I asked him about a third consecutive 0.1; but he finally answered that he would go for the radiation therapy..given the high stakes.
That was good for me.
Of course my most recent PSA was a 0.1. But I have not changed my mind..my thinking is clearcut..do what the radiologist would do.
My next radiologist appointment is March 12.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Woohoo: YouTube works on my new computer
Every three years or so, I get a new laptop from work.
My current laptop couldn't have come soon enough. There were severe memory problems. When I had too much stuff running on it, programs would just abnormally terminate on memory. Now this is probably mostly my fault because I am lazy and leave stuff open instead of closing it. But still.
Also some stuff just did not work on my old computer. Amongst them was the ability to play videos on YouTube.
You see I am cheap. I just don't see whereas I should pay good money to buy classical music when I can find it for free. One secret that I have found is that I can find good classical music on YouTube.
One thing that I have found was videos from last years Van Cliburn amateur competition (I competed in it on 2004). They can be found here. Check out the entries by the winner Drew Mays. They are wonderful.
Also check out the videos from the Boston Amateur piano competetion here (where I competed last year). The ones by Christopher Sith (the winner) and Rupert Egerton-Smith (the runner up) are excellent.
I would like to put videos of my playing on YouTube some time. Maybe use the piano at the Methodist church or the St. Albans school.
My current laptop couldn't have come soon enough. There were severe memory problems. When I had too much stuff running on it, programs would just abnormally terminate on memory. Now this is probably mostly my fault because I am lazy and leave stuff open instead of closing it. But still.
Also some stuff just did not work on my old computer. Amongst them was the ability to play videos on YouTube.
You see I am cheap. I just don't see whereas I should pay good money to buy classical music when I can find it for free. One secret that I have found is that I can find good classical music on YouTube.
One thing that I have found was videos from last years Van Cliburn amateur competition (I competed in it on 2004). They can be found here. Check out the entries by the winner Drew Mays. They are wonderful.
Also check out the videos from the Boston Amateur piano competetion here (where I competed last year). The ones by Christopher Sith (the winner) and Rupert Egerton-Smith (the runner up) are excellent.
I would like to put videos of my playing on YouTube some time. Maybe use the piano at the Methodist church or the St. Albans school.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I am a heretic. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church.
Around two years ago my wife and I got it in our minds that we might be moving soon. My daughter was soon to graduate from high school, and we felt that after graduation there might be a window of opportunity to move if it seemed to make sense.
Now as it turned out my daughter attended University of Vermont and moving would make absolutely no sense as I would be forfeiting in state tuition. Anyway, since my prostate cancer surgery, I am a little less inclined to move. Now my prognosis is good now, but it could change at any time. If in fact I only have 5-15 or so more years left (who knows I might have that anyway) I don't want two of those years tied up in moving. I would like to simplify my life, not make it any more complex.
Anyway, one day a silly thought came into my mind. I had the thought that since my conversion to Jesus Christ in college, that all of my church experience had been in the Charismatic / Pentecostal tradition of Christianity (primarily Assemblies of God). This was because the first church that I associated with after Christ was the Church of Good News in Rumford Maine. Had it been the Baptist church across the river in Mexico (or down the river in Peru..love these names) my Christian life would have a different orientation. Or had I remained in the Methodist church of my parents, the orientation would be different still.
Anyway, I thought that if we were to move locations, I might be open to changing my tradition. (Even though I am Charismatic / Pentecostal..I am sort of the cautious type in this..and some parts of their theology I have some reservations about). But to what? I knew quite a bit about the Pentecostal / Charismatic tradition (from experience), quite a bit about the Methodist tradition (from my upbringing), and some about the Baptist tradition (from my piano teacher and grandparents). Beyond that point however, I was ignorant.
But I decided if I were to change traditions, I would do it right. I would first educate myself on the various traditions out there in ChristianityLand and then make an informed decision. I would not base it on transient stuff Christians often make such a decision on like the pastor or the program or the friendliness of the church.
Now many Christians I know would never have included the Catholic denomination in this list of traditions worthy of studying. However, these Christians never knew the LaPlante family in Rumford, Maine. However, having known them, they are the primary reason I just never could became a rabid anti-Catholic (well maybe a mild one when I lived in NY state). I guess I just could never reconcile the Catholics being the antichrist and the pope the whore of Babylon (or is it vice versa) with the obvious Christian testimony of the LaPlante family. Given a choice between some folk's opinions and people I know and respect, I will side with people I know and respect any day of the week thank you.
Besides I knew enough about Catholicism to know that they claimed to have started it all (what with St. Peter being the first pope supposedly). So I figured that any group that claimed to be my spiritual ancestor and the origin of Christianity was worthy of investigation.
One day I decided to google "evangelical catholic" and came across this web site and this one. Eventually I found this one. I found them all fascinating. This was the first time I had really read about Catholics from Catholic sources. I began to entertain the following questions:
* My understandanding of the Catholic Church was entirely through Protestant sources. Was my understanding correct? If I was misinformed, was it intentional? Disclaimer: in my current church I have never heard one thing negative about the Catholic Church. Now we don't preoccupy ourselves with the other churches in Franklin county, but to the extent that other churches are mentioned, it is almost always positively (I remember a wonderful sermon our pastor preached on St. Patrick a while back).
* I knew of people who were raised Catholic but came to Christ through our church and others like it. But here were folks who made seemingly informed decisions to leave their Evangelical church for the Catholic church. And to my surprise they did not spiritually die. In fact they seemed to thrive spiritually. What's up with that?
* They seemed to have at least some valid points when they were critical of Protestants. Yes 30,000 denominations seems to be a tad exaggerated. But the bigger issue is whether denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. This amongst other points seemed to be valid concerns.
* Maybe the differences between our traditions is not as great as we make them out to be. I mean these guys did appear to be evangelical and Catholic.
And finally the unthinkable one:
What was God speaking though this? Is this all because He is leading me to (sometime anyway) go through the mother of all tradition changes? Assemblies of God to Catholic seemed very wild..but strangely not impossible. But..any move of this magnitidue must be very well thought out and very reasoned. Who knows, maybe this denomination is the whore of Babylon and this whole line of thinking is simply satanic deception.
Anyway..this seems like a good juncture to hang it up for the evening and continue at another time. I think I will stay on this topic a while. Hillary, Obama, and McCain are getting boring.
Now as it turned out my daughter attended University of Vermont and moving would make absolutely no sense as I would be forfeiting in state tuition. Anyway, since my prostate cancer surgery, I am a little less inclined to move. Now my prognosis is good now, but it could change at any time. If in fact I only have 5-15 or so more years left (who knows I might have that anyway) I don't want two of those years tied up in moving. I would like to simplify my life, not make it any more complex.
Anyway, one day a silly thought came into my mind. I had the thought that since my conversion to Jesus Christ in college, that all of my church experience had been in the Charismatic / Pentecostal tradition of Christianity (primarily Assemblies of God). This was because the first church that I associated with after Christ was the Church of Good News in Rumford Maine. Had it been the Baptist church across the river in Mexico (or down the river in Peru..love these names) my Christian life would have a different orientation. Or had I remained in the Methodist church of my parents, the orientation would be different still.
Anyway, I thought that if we were to move locations, I might be open to changing my tradition. (Even though I am Charismatic / Pentecostal..I am sort of the cautious type in this..and some parts of their theology I have some reservations about). But to what? I knew quite a bit about the Pentecostal / Charismatic tradition (from experience), quite a bit about the Methodist tradition (from my upbringing), and some about the Baptist tradition (from my piano teacher and grandparents). Beyond that point however, I was ignorant.
But I decided if I were to change traditions, I would do it right. I would first educate myself on the various traditions out there in ChristianityLand and then make an informed decision. I would not base it on transient stuff Christians often make such a decision on like the pastor or the program or the friendliness of the church.
Now many Christians I know would never have included the Catholic denomination in this list of traditions worthy of studying. However, these Christians never knew the LaPlante family in Rumford, Maine. However, having known them, they are the primary reason I just never could became a rabid anti-Catholic (well maybe a mild one when I lived in NY state). I guess I just could never reconcile the Catholics being the antichrist and the pope the whore of Babylon (or is it vice versa) with the obvious Christian testimony of the LaPlante family. Given a choice between some folk's opinions and people I know and respect, I will side with people I know and respect any day of the week thank you.
Besides I knew enough about Catholicism to know that they claimed to have started it all (what with St. Peter being the first pope supposedly). So I figured that any group that claimed to be my spiritual ancestor and the origin of Christianity was worthy of investigation.
One day I decided to google "evangelical catholic" and came across this web site and this one. Eventually I found this one. I found them all fascinating. This was the first time I had really read about Catholics from Catholic sources. I began to entertain the following questions:
* My understandanding of the Catholic Church was entirely through Protestant sources. Was my understanding correct? If I was misinformed, was it intentional? Disclaimer: in my current church I have never heard one thing negative about the Catholic Church. Now we don't preoccupy ourselves with the other churches in Franklin county, but to the extent that other churches are mentioned, it is almost always positively (I remember a wonderful sermon our pastor preached on St. Patrick a while back).
* I knew of people who were raised Catholic but came to Christ through our church and others like it. But here were folks who made seemingly informed decisions to leave their Evangelical church for the Catholic church. And to my surprise they did not spiritually die. In fact they seemed to thrive spiritually. What's up with that?
* They seemed to have at least some valid points when they were critical of Protestants. Yes 30,000 denominations seems to be a tad exaggerated. But the bigger issue is whether denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. This amongst other points seemed to be valid concerns.
* Maybe the differences between our traditions is not as great as we make them out to be. I mean these guys did appear to be evangelical and Catholic.
And finally the unthinkable one:
What was God speaking though this? Is this all because He is leading me to (sometime anyway) go through the mother of all tradition changes? Assemblies of God to Catholic seemed very wild..but strangely not impossible. But..any move of this magnitidue must be very well thought out and very reasoned. Who knows, maybe this denomination is the whore of Babylon and this whole line of thinking is simply satanic deception.
Anyway..this seems like a good juncture to hang it up for the evening and continue at another time. I think I will stay on this topic a while. Hillary, Obama, and McCain are getting boring.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Swiftboating Obama
I came across this link on the internet. My first reaction is whether Hilary is now trying to swiftboat Obama. I wouldn't put it past her.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
McCain 2.0
OK..I was reading this evening where my hero Ann Coulter said that she will be campaigning for Hillary since McCain is the nominee.
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain
In a way I miss Jim Jeffords.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)