Romney certainly has the background as far as the economy....

• Okay Republicans, you is YOUR pick for McCain VP? - oya
  • I'm hoping for Romney - NM
    • Romney certainly has the background as far as the economy.... - sam
  • I like Tancreda or Hunter - ermt
  • As I wrote to him, Tom Tancreda or Duncan Hunter. - Me
    • curious, who do you consider to be a fake - Republican
    • Both of those men are good men.... - sam
  • that should be "who" is your pick... duh (nm) - oya
    • VP - Peggy

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Does Romney’s America Include Non-Believers?

James Joyner | Friday, December 7, 2007

New York Times" href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1354683600&en=8a31b02ef8ccfd20&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>David Brooks has a sober and thought-provoking take on Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech,” simultaneously praising its intricate weaving of philosophy and worrying that his method of arguing for inclusion of Mormons in the political sphere was at the cost of excluding non-believers.

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.

In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?

Indeed. The problem with the secularization of religion is that it winds up being insufficiently secular and insufficiently religious.

Brooks is also right that non-believers are more excluded from our process than even aggrieved religious groups like Mormons and Muslims. As noted here months ago, an atheist would have a much harder time getting elected president than a homosexual, black, or Hispanic — let alone a Mormon.

Memeorandum rounds up the blogger reactions to Brooks’ column. Most, like Ron Beasley, seem to agree with Brooks.

An exception is Red Stater Hunter Baker (who doesn’t appear to have read Brooks’ column) takes the opposite view, though: “The United States has traditionally been a nation that recognizes freedom must be paired with religion and morality if it is to persevere in political society. Mitt said it. Libertarians need to hear it. So do secularists.”

While there’s not much question that the Protestant Reformation played a role in the rise of democratic governance in the West, it’s far from clear that religion is necessary for freedom. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a free theocracy.

The Washington Post weighing in on the question this morning with an editorial entitled, “No Freedom Without Religion? There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.”

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

The estimable John O’Sullivan, though, thinks Brooks and others are reading something into Romney’s message that was not there.

The religious liberty celebrated by Romney plainly entails the liberty to be non-religious. What Romney is opposing in those sections of the speech that seem to concern the culture wars is an obligation to be non-religious in the public square.

David’s arguments seems to be that if religious people were to unite against secularists to fight the their joint battles more effectively in the culture war, that would be an aggressive, divisive, and regrettable act. But that argument itself rests on the unstated assumption that the culture wars would stop if religious people stopped fighting them. In fact the culture wars began because the Left employed the courts to change America on everything from abortion to school prayer to gay marriage. This has not stopped. The obligation to be non-religious in the public square, though a very recent invention of liberal philosophers, is treated seriously in legal arguments and court decisions today.

So why shouldn’t religious people, while affirming the right to be non-religious, organize to defend their joint beliefs and interests in the way deplored by David?

No reason at all, of course. Indeed, while I would prefer that public policy decisions be decided on purely secular grounds, religious convictions are ultimately no less legitimate motivation for policy preferences that economic interest, party loyalty, or “we’ve always done it this way.”

It seems inevitable, though, that the overwhelming majority who are religious will mount their fight to protect their cultural values (even those shared by many secularists) on Us vs. Them grounds.

Further, as Eric Klee reports, Romney is thus far refusing to distance himself from the Brooksean interpretation.

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday.

It’s a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney’s speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. “It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

Romney’s strategy, if indeed it was intentional, is a politically sound one. The numbers favor pandering to the religious to the exclusion of non-believers; that’s especially so in the Republican primaries. It’s not the way to national unity but that’s generally well behind winning votes in a politician’s calculus.

No matter what their assigned security levels are, they ALL have to undergo a background check whether it be given by CIA/FBI, etc.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 26, 2009

Family members of Judge Sotomayor in attendance at today’s East Room announcement:

Celina Sotomayor (mother)
Omar Lopez (stepfather)
Juan Sotomayor (brother)
Tracey Sotomayor (sister-in-law)
Kylie Sotomayor (niece)
Conner and Corey Sotomayor (nephews)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.

Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.

Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”

In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.

An American Story

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.

Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.

At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an Editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]

A Champion of the Law

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented -- on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]

A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor

Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.

A Corporate Litigator

She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]

A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge

Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”

A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist

President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.

Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.

Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying” I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.

A Commitment to Community

Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.

She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

for the FBI....how can we trust him to be our president?

The FBI will initiate an intensive background investigation that you must pass before you can join the FBI. The investigation includes a polygraph examination; a test for illegal drugs; credit and records checks; and extensive interviews with former and current colleagues, neighbors, friends, professors, etc.

Well....I don't know if him buying his property for way less than it was valued through the help of Rezko would disqualify him or his associations with a racist person like Rev. Wright.  Those two right there would disqualify him from employment with the FBI and those aren't the only two scary associations of Obama.  Or maybe how the Woods Fund donated money to Rasheed whatever the heck his name is.  The fact that he worked next to Ayers on an education committee.  Even if he lied about all of this stuff....which he does because his stories frequently change....the polygraph would surely take him down and prove him lying.

And you're right.  Some people do. 

1.  I pray for this country and the president every day.

2.  I'm not constantly complaining about everything.

3.  I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.

4.  I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.

5.  I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.

I did not vote for President Obama.  I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part.  No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.

Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are.  So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American.  I would also advise getting some debt management help.

So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive.  I have found that this helps me a lot.

Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other.  Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.

1.  I pray for this country and the president every day.

2.  I'm not constantly complaining about everything.

3.  I am not watching the DOW like it's American Idol.

4.  I’ve taken fiscal responsibility for me and my home.

5.  I give what I can to the food banks and my church etc. to help those who need help.

I did not vote for President Obama.  I do not think he is the messiah and I certainly will not blame him for the mess we are in right now simply because we all played a part.  No one forced anyone to take house loans that they could not pay, no one forces us to use our credit card and run up debts and live beyond our means, no one predicted that you would take a loan and then lose your job and be in foreclosure and no one regulated the banks like they should of.

Now that being said, in a crisis it is so easy to look for someone to blame, become angry, and forget who we are.  So my advice the next time you are at your kitchen table wondering how you are going to make ends meet, that you remember who you are, an American.  I would also advise getting some debt management help.

So please, instead of running around with your hands up in the air thinking the worst and claiming the sky is falling, try listening to the Star Spangled Banner or something that is positive.  I have found that this helps me a lot.

Now let us all take a good long look in the mirror, have a little faith in ourselves as a country and stop beating up on each other.  Have a good day everyone and God Bless America.

The Economy - Not the President - is Tanking the Market

by:  Hale Stewart

Democrats own congress....... they are the ones responsible for the complete mess of this economy.   But because there is a republican president, the republicans get the blame. 

Republican president really can't get anything done with an all democrat congress. 

Mr. President.  This is the biggest problem I have with Barrack Obama.  He is all about implementing his personal agenda and making us all dependent on government while it grows bigger and bigger that he doesn't stop to think about the consequences that these actions will have on our already horrible economy.  All he talks about are the jobs he has created or saved and I'm sorry.....but I don't see that from where I'm sitting.  I see people all around me losing jobs or about to lose jobs and cap and trade will most definitely cause more job loss. 

Let our economy fix itself, Mr. President, and then we can talk about your personal agenda.  Any person who wants to raise taxes during a recession is a complete and utter moron.  Obama is doing nothing but hurting the middle class....which is the class he professed to want to help so badly. 

I have no doubt that Obama is smart or he wouldn't be where he is at.  However, I think he lacks the experience to be our president.  I personally feel that any person wanting to be president of the US should be required to have run or owned a business in the past.

I tell ya what....come 2012....I'm seriously going to be looking outside the box for our next president.  Not only will I thoroughly check out the pub and dem candidate but I'm going to check out the indepedents a lot more than I ever have in the past.  I think it is about time we show the two parties that they both suck and we have decided to go against both of them.  Maybe that will wake them up because this going back and forth between pub and crat hasn't done us much good here lately.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
   
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
   
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
   
4. The DOW JONES hit a record high — 14,000+;
   
5. American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, and vacations overseas, living large!

But Americans wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep — we got CHANGE all right.

In the PAST YEAR:

1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
   
2. Gasoline hovers near $4 a gallon;
   
3. Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
   
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices are still dropping;
   
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
   
6. As I write, the DOW is playing around 11,500. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. And we sure got it. Now Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, claims he’s really going to give us change.

How much more CHANGE do you think we can stand?