1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John Edwards lost the election today on Meet the Press

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Yawn, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. In at least two of the three cases, that would be Bill Keller and Len Downie.
  2. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    John Edwards, home from the Great War on American Values, greets the kommisar of the kanardariat.

  3. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Were I to run for President, I wouldn't even tell anyone what religion I am. I'd simply say it has nothing to do running a secular government and that whichever faith I choose to practice, and how I practice it, is between me and my god.

    And then I'd sit back and wait for the GOP to leak stories about me sacrificing a goat at the altar of Gary Coleman.
  4. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    What do you guys think would be the honest reaction from both the hard-core conservatives and the voting public?
  5. Bill Bradley tried this in 2000. Just flat refused to discuss whether or not he prayed, let alone anything else. People moved on.
  6. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    See, that's what I figured would happen. I don't understand why others don't do the same - obviously, they try to use it for their benefit, but then you get into a pissing match over who's more devout than the other and it cheapens the entire concept of faith.

    I would think you would gain as much as you would lose because a lot of people would respect that stance a great deal.
  7. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    But. That's. Not. What. Edwards. Said.

    He was against it and was called on it by Russert, at which point he fumbled and stumbled with his explanation..."been a Southern Baptist....was baptized a Southern Baptist....blah, blah, blah. So he cites the SBC in defending his personal opinion, but then defies the very reason the SBC takes the position in the first place by saying homosexuality isn't a sin. The SBC is very clear on their position. The fact is this: Edwards was caught in a corner and couldn't take a stand, either way. So he simply surrendered votes on both sides.

    It wasn't a question of who is more devout. Just say what you mean, Edwards, and mean what you say.

    And one last thought: Russert is a Clinton fan. Next up on his seek and destroy mission: Obama.
  8. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    So is religion a reflection of one's thoughts and values - and can you really, honestly, separate the two without becoming dishonest with yourself?
  9. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    You mean, like the 85 percent of Catholics who use birth control?

    Yeah, people can separate their morality and public policy. Just like they can separate church doctrine with pragmatic life decisions.
  10. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Gay marriage is a 2004 election (non) issue. It won't be a factor next time around, nor will stem cell research or "intelligent design" or any of the other hot-button issues that have been rolled out by Rove for the right-wing base, because the right-wing base no longer matters. The next national election will be won or lost in the middle rather than at either end of the political spectrum.
  11. How does anything you just typed refute anything that the rest of us are saying. He has found his way to his Savior through the SBC. He does not -- as a matter of civil law -- agree with the implementation of his church's position in the general society. He's quite clear about how he feels about gay people. He's quite clear about his devotion to his faith, which is not encompassed by the institution of his church. Neither is mine. And none of this has anything to do with being president.
  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member


    Do you think it's a rare occurrence that a politician would be put on the spot over a controversial matter and would try to appease as many people as he could?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page