U.S. Presidential Election 2008

The best leaders are the non extremists. People who can look at an argument and judge it carefully with due consideration, not those who immediately have a knee jerk reaction controlled by their particular religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). Does everybody have to be one or the other?

Completely agreed that moderation in everything is key ... including politics.

But whilst there are plenty of examples of deeply religious (but non-extremist) leaders who are do exactly as you describe, have there ever been any examples of atheistic leaders who have not had squashing religion as job one on their agenda?

Maybe it's that we simply haven't seen any non-extremist athiests come onto the scene yet. Come out, come out wherever you are !

That's just it. Most moderates who happen to be atheists would not want to raise that topic precisely because of the hoo ha that would then arise. Can't think why but I'm sure it would. So the only ones we hear about are our friendly Communist leaders and similarly minded dictators.

I know religion plays an important part in USA politics, but this thread may be in need of a schism.

Plenty. In the Uk there have been a whole host of atheist MPs, several atheist cabinet ministers and a couple of atheist prime ministers. With one or two exceptions most have been disinterested in matters relating to religion. The rest concerned themselves with fighting to separate church and state, which even for me (a non-atheist) is a reasonable and tolerant move to enhance democracy.

There are many other examples from round the world such as Gorbachev, Georges Clemenceau, James Conolly for example who explicitly advocated GREATER freedom of religion.

Good points. Since this is a US politics thread, I have to continually remember to keep my horizons as wide as possible.

And?
I've a string of German friends who believe "Polen muss bis Frankreich reichen, Deutschland von die Karte streichen".

It's just a state, not something God given.
It was made by man and therefore open to crititique, which may be criticism, or of course, praise.

@Expaticus

the remarkable thing about US recent history is that there are almost no atheists (perhaps even none?) in positions of power so even if you kept your perspective on the USA, your thesis would not hold either.

Republicans really are amazing. Say what you want, but you just don't see this level of mental contortion coming from Democrats.

Sarah Palin's Media Surrogates

Clearly the sheer population numbers involved and diversity of the US tend to slowly force all politicians into the proverbial "a camel is a racehorse designed by a committee" mold. This means that some level of proclaimed religious belief unfortunately becomes a necessary admission ticket. However, there are a few.

When I think athiest in the private realm, I first think of George Carlin. In the political realm, I reflexively think of Hoxha. Admittedly, a lot of this is hammered into your heads in the US shool system.

The good news is that the US doesn't have problems with gay politicians anymore, so things are generally moving in a more inclusive direction all around. Remember that ultimately all politics is local ... case in point Sarah Palin who, for better or for worse, demonstrates that machine politics can be subverted.

Since this is an english speaking forum, can you translate please. thanks

Yeah Exp. the sheer sze has something to do with it as well I guess.
When you look at the polticians that are at the head of the EU they also tend to be time served middle of the roaders as opposed to really principled.

You can bet most of the intelligent people, business leaders and even many of those in the government are actually atheists. I can't imagine Dick Cheney really being religious for example.

People in government however have to say their religious before they will get anywhere. The religious nutcases in America hold so much sway when it comes to elections, it's political suicide not to pray to an imaginary being in the sky.

Um... what would you say about the history of Iran, then? The religious fanaticism of some muslim countries is something I don't wanna see happen with christianity.

What would you say about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? This is all nutty, just a different religion than popular in america.

Poland should reach as far as France, strike Germany off the map.

Not nescessarily my opinion.
Just wanted to point out that anti your "own" country isn't something that only " Obama's " pastor has expressed.

Roughly "Poland has to run to the french border, and Germany must be stricken from the map."

Foreigners took this idea out for a walk in the '40s, but now is heard primarily amongst self-hating Germans secretly pining for the elusive "pastoral state".

I'd say it was Germans who are strongly anti nationalist as opposed to self-hating Exp. but that's a topic for itself.

Both are complete crap, of course, flouting all standards of human decency ... and any attempts we as moderate western democracies can make to actively support reduced extremism and eventual secularization of the middle east would clearly be steps in the right direction. Uhhh, unless people think that might involve an "illegal invasion" or something like that, in which case we'll simply have the UN send them nasty letters until they stop.

As I touched upon in an earlier post ... no one actively criticizes them to the same degree they do american christian religious wackos because american christian religious wackos don't kill cartoonists or hijack airplanes. This makes razzing religious american christians religious wackos a bit like misdemeanor cow-tipping.

Some American Christian wackos do get off on the murder of hoosexuals the same way as some Middle East Islam wackos do to or course and you don't have to scratch too deep beneath the surface of the American Christian right to find the desire for armageddon.

"The West" has a funny relationship with radical Islam.
It's been aupported against the USSR as was for exampe yet at the same time rises as a reacton against the West.

Western society demands that migrants reject it but make it hard for them to really arrive in one comon society.

I dunno, what the solution is, but I think some kind of honesty and consistency from the west hasgot to come first.

Well said, MT. Bombing abortion clinics clearly isn't my idea of moderation either.

'Funny Relationships R Us" might as well be the motto of most nations' foreign policies of the past 300 years; as democratic president F.D. Roosevelt once said about Somoza, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard". I still think the west is still generally way ahead of whatever's in second place when it comes to trying to be honest and consistent, but I share your frustration.

Not to take this too far afield (although I believe still relevant to the presidential discussion), but I think all humans have a subconcious desire for some sort of armageddon in which, conveniently, they happen to be among the righteous few who make it. Hence my unpopular view that over-the-top environmentalism/global warming have replaced the book of revelations as the doomsday cult du jour for the rest of the post-religious world. This is unfortunate, because we run the risk of being led down blind faith-based (a.k.a. junk science) paths that preclude sensible, practical solutions to very real environmental challenges. If people give up and start saying things like "things are simply too far gone", our great-granchildren are going to inevitably stand around saying "what a bunch of arrogant tossers they were!".

You might want to keep your eye on this site for a surprise visitor.

As for politico street cred, I got something else up my sleeve, but I doubt many of you qualify to join in.

You have our undevided attention eurovol, do tell!!

Your wanking arm?

Just call me Sgt. Schultz cause I am not going to jinx it.

eurovol, you are a tease!!!

That John Stuart piece TFL posted was hillarious.

I apologize if I'm doubling up on this because I can't find the oritinal TFL post, but I'm personally in tears watching the latest Daily Show clips:

1. Wait for the annoying ad to run, and then forward this to 08:00 for the most delicious piece of political satire I've seen in a while. If you want, wheel back to the Sam Bee bit which underscores why I still have an unbelievable crush on her

2. Well, you should probably just watch the whole thing

John Oliver alone is the reason that these Daily Show links are clearly TT-ready to demonstrate why this show singlehandedly squelches any doubts that american humor has approached (if not reached) british levels P.S. Rob Riggle is a US marine reserve major who still has the nuts to be a working comedian as well. Now that's America.

NFL season starts tonight! Oh yeah go Obama , and yo mama, not so much a primadonna...

I wish this was true, but unfortumately this news channel is only on cable( or dish ) networks. When he is allowed to be on basic channel then we will be finally able to change the country ha ha.

I'm watching it in a hessian farmhouse ... how hard can it be for everyone to get it?

And how are you watching it? By Comedy Central ( a cable channel)producing it for cable channels and the internet. It was not produced by one of the primary ie free services. Now back to the threads title...

Uhhh ... I have an Inter-Net! You appear to have one too, because you were to post an E-Mail to this site using your Inter-Net! Therefore, you too can access it via http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/...pisodeId=184082

Completely free ex- an annoying film trailer.

Have you tried this newfangled Inter-Net thing yet?

Expaticus, I think perdido is trying to say that the influence of Jon Stewart and his (totally awesome, IMHO) Daily Show are limited because they are on cable and, for the relatively technologically savvy, on the Internet. The Daily Show's not on one of the big (free) network channels that reach so many more (non-arugula-eating) people.

Okay. Maybe I've just been over here too long, but all of my friends/acquaintances back in the US regularly watch it. I thought I was left out ... I thought Jon Stewart was the Walter Cronkite of the 2000s.

I was keying off of this. How techonlogically saavy does one have to be to turn on the power button on a PC and pull up a website URL? The toilet seat I brought back from Japan has more controls than my Inter-Net!

Maybe I need to make new friends/acquaintances.

Most of my friends and family watch it, too, but back in my small Midwest hometown, dial-up internet is still pretty common and there's no cable.

The Daily Show is available to everybody who has Comedy Central, which is usually included in every cable package except the most basic. You can also get it via satellite. People in the lower economic classes often have as many or more cable and premium channels than everyone else (as well as bigger TVs.) If you watch TDS online, there's a delay of 24 hours after broadcast before you can watch the episodes, is all. Some people don't understand the humor, to be sure . . .

pssst, Expaticus: it's Samantha Bee.

I never in a million years thought I'd hear anyone in Europe call people "arugula-eaters." If you eat Rucola, you are supposedly an insufferable snob in America.

My point exactly, cinzia. Obama has been tagged an "arugula-eater" as evidence of his apparent liberal elitism. Maybe if more non-arugula-eating folks watched Jon ...

P.S. I like arugula. What does that say about me?

EDIT: Do you have a source to back up that comment that folks in the "lower economic classes" have more channels and better entertainment systems?

JibJab's also worth a watch.

I think the equivalent here is being a "non-disgusting-low-class-tempo-brand-disposable-snot-rag-user". I break out a clean white cloth handkerchief in public, and I suddenly feel like I'm in The Gods Must Be Crazy.

I do. My parents. Complete shabby genteel reverse snobbery. "The more channels you have, the dumber you are." They may have a point.

Some US states determine their vote based on the proportion wherease some have winner takes all.
Wouldn't it be a step of democratic progress that all states voted proportionately?
Would give more power to the voters while still remaining within the (understandable) goals of the Founding Fathers.

Tempos rock. So does arugula. And lattes.

And it was great watching Jon Stewart, stickin' it to Newt.

You're talking about the primaries, I assume, MT. Not the general election. The institution of Democracy doesn't demand a system of primaries at all. For all the Founding Fathers cared, party nominees could be picked in back rooms by party insiders. If we did that now, it would be a lot cheaper, and make for a less tedious and drawn-out election season. Candidates would arguably not be any lower quality, either, though we might get more Palins and fewer Obamas through such a party-centric system.

No C, not the primaries, but the election itself.
The winner takes all system isn't appropriate for how we live today IMVHO.

It's interesting how the US primaries work and their contribution to democracy - but that's a whole different discussion we can have after fünf Maß at the Wies'n.

The values of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches have been compromised.

I read that open letter from that bird and all I could get from it was that she is some bitter and twisted attention whore who desperately wants her five minutes of fame no matter what.

Must be a Toytown subscriber

vomit McCain and Palin are going to Cedarburg, WI tomorrow (where I grew up and my parents live). they have all of downtown shut down.
A humorous comment- one of the secret service said he couldn't believe the police go down the main street checking each businesse's door to make sure it's shut and that people still leave their doors (to their homes) unlocked.
yups- that's Cedarburg!

Barack Obama: They Don't Have An Agenda To Run On

Michael Thomasky on just how mid-numbingly shit John McCain's acceptance speech was

Surprising that he was so bad when Palin's speech was so superb and Giuliani's was mindblowing.

I would have thought that rhetoric was a key presidential attribute? Well I 'd give him null points for that pile of dogpoo. It stands very poor comparison to Obama's acceptance speech.

What do the Amis think? Will this count against McCain?

There is probably a large part of the republican base that equates eloquence and oratory with being devious and underhand. The spin will be McCain is an ordinary guy just like you not one of Washington's snake oil salesman.

hmm, and after all the Republican claims that Obama was thin on policy, it would appear McCain is even thinner. I used to be impressed with McCain. Now I just don't know why I ever thought he was a formidable candidate.