The 2012 US Election

[Primula Baggins]

Can you explain what you mean by that, Prim? (I know I could probably figure it out by looking at the links, but I would like to do what YOU mean.

Sure, Voronwë. I just mean that of the two largest Lutheran church bodies in the United States, one, the ELCA, is politically relatively liberal (ordains women, welcomes gays, permits gay people who are married or in committed relationships to serve as clergy, works for social justice and other "liberal" concerns, etc.), and the other, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, is quite conservative (women can't be ordained or hold any authority over men, homosexuality is vigorously condemned, strongly oppose abortion rights, teach creationism, etc.).

So saying someone is a Lutheran doesn't actually say anything about their politics. I guess it wouldn't even if you knew which "brand" of Lutheran they were, but it would be an indication; I could not be a member of the LC-MS, for example (they'd kick me out if I tried; they still do toss people out for heresy).

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Although I'm not Prim, I have some answers.

There are three different Lutheran groups in the US, and each affiliates with one of the three different world-wide organizations of Lutherans. In order of size they are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (associates with Lutheran World Federation), the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (associates with International Lutheran Council), and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (associates with Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference).

Not only are they listed in size order, they are listed in order of increasing fundamentalism. If you click on the ELCA link provided by Prim there is a comparison between the ELCA and the LCMS. To find the differences between the ELCA and the WELS you need to click this link to the Wisconsin Synod. It will also explain the differences between WELS and LCMS.

The implication is that depending on which of the synods of Lutherans that Johnson belongs to will impact his desirability as a candidate. But since I listed them by size, I'm not very worried.

Even then, the WELS are still Lutherans, much more sensible in my opinion than some denominations out there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, both of you.

[Inanna]

Although I'm not Prim....

Are you proper?

Sorry! couldn't resist.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I should note I listed by decreasing size as well as increasing fundamentalism. ELCA is the largest of the three groups and the majority of Lutherans. I should have made that clear when I said "in order of size".

[Primula Baggins]

I grew up (as a pastor's daughter) in the Lutheran Church in America, the most liberal of the three organizations that joined to become the ELCA. The others were the American Lutheran Church (middle-of-the-road) and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, which had splintered from the Missouri Synod over academic freedom in the seminaries. (There were some heresy trials involved.) Those were tumultuous times for a while; hard to imagine now.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I came across this item and wondered what our American legal people think of the story. Is it something conjured out of nothing or is there substance behind it? This seemed like the best thread to raise the question but by all means shift the post somewhere else.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/23 ... ain-sight/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, there is no substance to it.

[River]

I came across this item and wondered what our American legal people think of the story. Is it something conjured out of nothing or is there substance behind it? This seemed like the best thread to raise the question but by all means shift the post somewhere else.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/23 ... ain-sight/

I did some sniffing of my own because something didn't smell right. The author's central claim is that Bachmann's law alma mater was never accredited, but the author is wrong on that count. So, no. It's vaporous.

Though I did learn that Bachmann's husband got his doctorate as a mail-order degree. I find that amusing.

[Primula Baggins]

Damn! Why didn't Mr. (Dr.) Prim think of that?

[River]

I know. Seriously. I feel like I wasted years.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So is it too early for the battle for Florida to begin? Apparently not. The Republican majority legislature and Republican Gov. Rick Scott have passed a controversial new election law that they claim addresses election fraud. Democrats claim that the purpose of the law is to suppress Democratic voters. The bill reduces that amount of time allowed for early voting, require registration groups (such as the League of Women Voters) to register with the state, and most significantly, require voters who make any changes to the way they are registered (e.g., their exact name or their address) when they vote use a provisional ballot. In the past in Florida, provisional ballots have often not been counted, and since "mobile populations" tend to vote Democratic, it is likely to suppress Democratic votes. Some Democrats, including Sen. Ben Nelson, have asked the Justice Department to look into the legality of the law. I doubt much will come out of that, though.


Gov. Rick Scott signs election bill that cuts early-voting days

Nelson presses Justice to examine changes to Florida election laws

[Primula Baggins]

I read that the League of Women Voters will not be doing voter registration in Florida now. It's because of the punitive fines for not turning in every registration within 48 hours.

If they won't risk it, it's not going to happen. Mission accomplished, Gov. Scott.

(It still may not be enough to put the state in the Republican column in 2012, not with the Medicare/Social Security issue and the large elderly population.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I watched the Republican debate. It was interesting.

First Herman Cain. Most people say he won the debate. He was pretty polished, but all his answers amounted to "I will consult with the experts" or "I will leave that to the experts." I really would like to know where a candidate stands before I think him worth supporting. When asked about the other candidates, he supported Romney when he thought Romney could win.

Then there was Rick Santorum (I hope I don't violate TOS by typing his name). He is a pre-2008 Republican, pro war, pro war on terror, pro torture, pro Bush. He acknowledged that Obama had some successes, and said they were all a result of continuing Bush policies. When asked about the other candidates, he talked nice about Gingrich.

Tim Pawlenty was a mix of contradictions. He supported Romneycare and opposed Obamacare, he's a pro-Union Republican, he balanced a budget by having the bills come due after he left office and blamed the Democrats. When asked about the other candidates, he talked nice about Huckabee.

Ron Paul was pretty dominant. He managed to get an audience of South Carolina Republicans to cheer drug legalization, he came out in favor of gay marriage, and of course, came out against the wars. When asked about the other candidates, and about him being the Tea Party godfather but not part of the congressional Tea Party caucus, he said "Where's your Bachmann now?"

Gary Johnson was clearly off his stride, and got some silly questions as well. What reality TV show would he have? Really? Couldn't the debate organizers think of a more serious question for him? But he did play a good counterpoint to Ron Paul where Paul argued theory and Johnson argued practicality to argue for the same thing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I didn't see the debate, so I can't comment from personal knowledge, but most reports that I have seen had a very different take than that, particularly regarding the reception that Ron Paul's comments about drug legalization received.

Meanwhile, both Cain has launched his campaign, and Pawlenty is about to.

As for Newt Gingrich, this says it all:

John Lithgow Performs Gingrich Press Release

[River]

I am sorely tempted to just spend the next 18 months or so with a blanket over my head.

[Holbytla]

The National Republican Party and any other viable national non-democratic parties, remind me lately of the republican party in Massachusetts that non-existed for ages and ages.

Why is it that the non-democratic parties can't seem to come to some type of consensus and put forth a viable candidate? Why is there such a schism? Should there be a split in the republican party or should there be a merging with the Libertarian Party to put forth a viable alternative to conservatives and liberals?

For all of their faults, and they are many, the liberals always seem to be a cohesive unit and the alternate parties appear to be in disarray.

[yovargas]

I am sorely tempted to just spend the next 18 months or so with a blanket over my head.

I hope it's big enough for both of us.

[Holbytla]

In some ways I wish Sarah and "The Donald" would be viable candidates just for the skits on SNL.

Mitt, Newt, Ron, Donald and Sarah is the best you can come up with? Really?

It makes me sad, because I still find Obama lacking, but for want of better candidates it seems a shoo in already.

[River]

I am sorely tempted to just spend the next 18 months or so with a blanket over my head.

I hope it's big enough for both of us.

It isn't. But I can let you use one of my spares.