comments | Election 2006: US Representative | typewriting

Comment by Jim Edwards

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:03:01 -0800

Gee, I think women should marry dogs so I'll vote for Boswell. Seems your reasoning is ludicrous. Without government deciding who marries who we will do what seems to be the norm in American morality ... if it feels good - do it.

What a shame.

Comment by Scott Reynen

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:37:07 -0800

Jim, if you want to lecture others on self-indulgence, let's do a little comparison.

I don't eat meat. I don't drink alcohol. I don't drink soda. I don't drink coffee. I don't take illegal drugs. I don't smoke. I don't take any pain killers, not even aspirin. I don't subscribe to cable TV, nor any entertainment magazines. With the exception of my college tuition, I have no debt because I spend much less than I earn.

Now can you say the same? Those all seem like immoral excesses to me in a world full of poverty. But I'm not about to ask my government to coerce you into what I view as moral behavior, because that's not what government is good at. In case you haven't noticed, our government is not exactly a bastion of morality. And it's your morality police who are leading the depravity.

Comment by Sean

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:36:33 -0800

"Conservative leader" does not necessary mean morality police. It can also mean that the candidate strives to vote in a fiscally responsible manner. Your reasoning on this issue seems to reflect a bias that you were trying so hard to avoid in your voting strategy.

Your opinion on this, however, is probably the Republican Party's own fault, since they did so much pandering to "values voters" in the 2004 election.

Comment by Scott Reynen

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:36:57 -0800

Sean, I'm not trying to avoid bias; I'm trying avoid party politics. Everyone has bias, and pretending I don't would be silly. One of my biases is maximizing individual liberty. If any Republicans or even Libertarians want to run on issues supporting that bias, that's a good way to win my vote.

But Lamberti didn't run on such issues. If you follow the "conservative leader" link, you'll see that he instead promoted his affiliation with the Christian Coalition, an organization openly pushing for morality police.

Comment by Jim Edwards

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:23:09 -0800

Scott,

To say that government should not play the morality cop position is absurd. Are murder, theft, and child pornography not moral issues too (seems a bit more significant than not eating meat)? I thank God that at least those issues are addressed and restrained in our laws (at least for now). It has yet to protect the murder of the unborn as well as protect the eyes of our children (who accidentaly stumble upon pornographic images on the internet - marring their minds for life). What "individual liberty" do they have? Seems to be diminishing.

On a different route: I think the conservatives got what they deserved. Even though I am a republican and a conservative I am very disgusted by the hypocrisy and scandals of many of them. I am also disappointed in our president who put us in a war that is unwinnable there-by causing his own party to pay the price as we saw last night.

And even more on a different route: I have taken the Bush tax cut that I am receiving (lower tax brackets & higher child credit - I am NOT wealthy) and giving more money to help the cause of the unfortunate, i.e., those in poverty. With yesterday's win I may end up with less disposable income to help the poor and innocent; our government will have less determination to protect them.

Jim Edwards

Comment by Scott Reynen

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:28:18 -0800

Murder, theft, and child pornography are indeed moral issues. But they're not only moral issues. They're also issues that materially affect people's lives. Marriage, on the other hand, is only a moral issue. When no one is physically or financially harmed by someone else's marriage, the government has no business being involved. That's the basic position for small government that once defined conservatism, absurd as you may find it.

But I don't really know what "conservative" means today. Who exactly got what they deserved in this election? Did Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican who voted against the war in Iraq, get what he deserved? It seems to me he got what someone else deserved, and that's exactly the problem with party politics.