Cynthia, it turns out I missed something in your last post. You said "Speaking of Mitt . . ." I was actually speaking of Huckabee when I said I had a little trouble being objective about "him." If you thought that I was saying I had trouble being objective about Mitt, that was not my claim. Sometimes I use so many words in one sentence it is hard to figure out what the heck I'm talking about! As to being objective about Mitt, well him sharing my faith IS a selling point, but I have also watched him for many years. He very nearly defeated Ted Kennedy for the Massachusetts Senate seat several years ago. Then he took over the Salt Lake Olympics and didn't do half bad. Finally, he somehow managed to get elected Governor in one of the most Blue states in America. The interesting thing is that Mitt's Mormonism was a subject that Massachusetts voters and media rejected as an issue from the start. I was surprised, and rather happy, to see that.
I was very impressed when Romney ordered all of the state employees to issue marriage licenses to gays when the SJC ruled in favor of gay marriage. Obviously, I disapproved of the ruling (as Mitt would have, being LDS) but Mitt was obligated to enforce that law until and unless it could be overturned legally. That reminded me of our Virginia governor, Tim Kaine (Dem), who signed death warrants as governor even though he was (as a matter of his faith) morally opposed to the death penalty. I appreciate when candidates can see the importance of keeping their PERSONAL religious beliefs separate from their OFFICIAL duties. So while my vote may be influenced by Mitt's faith, it is certainly not the deciding factor. Harry Reid is LDS and I wouldn't vote for him if her offered me Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream (and there isn't much I wouldn't do for THAT!)
Pooch,
I think you ask the question that, when it comes down to it, most parents and some teachers want answers for the youth in any generation.
I sometimes wonder, Cynthia. I think a lot of parents, teachers and other leaders would rather vote for - and have their children ultimately vote for - the party candidate or the "cool" candidate, irrespective of qualifications. My goal is to teach my kids to THINK, rather than vote blindly for a party or candidate. I realize that risks them voting against what I believe, but I would rather them vote against me honestly after becoming informed than vote with me just because I think it's right.
Being adept at swimming with sharks is the only qualifying element I would require of today's politician.
I wish that were not true, but it is.
I would think that we need to start asking the question...how can we all help the system succeed after a leader has been selected.
OMG! You mean support our leaders? How last generation! You are, of course, correct. When I was in Key Club WAY back in HS, we had an understanding. We would fight against each other until the issue or candidate was voted on but then once the decision was made GET WITH THE PROGRAM. We had the same rule in the Army. Tell the Commander why you object to his plan and offer alternative solutions but once the Old Man made a decision EVERYBODY gets behind it to make it work. The problem with our country today is that campaigns are perpetual, politics trumps patriotism and power is best served by polarization. We aren't like the Palestinians and Israelis, but we could stumble along that path without too much of a push. I used to have supreme confidence in the ability of the Constitution to protect us from a meltdown, but I sometimes worry about that.
