Roy Moore 2004

[Gustaf]

Please, no! I'd vote fpr Kerry, heck, even Clark over this maniac! The only ones I want farther from the big red button are Dean and Dee-dee.

Lol...you watch Dexter and Dee-Dee? I am shocked!

[Gustaf]

Plus, he could have a cool slogan. "Moore in 04", you don't get that rhyming factor too often.

Oh no! With that slogan he might even win!

[Gustaf]

Not sure I could give any insight into the RR.  It is very nebulous and not interconnected at all.  I couldn’t even give you insights into a specific denomination since I go to an inter-denominational church.  There are many different opinions in my church and even different interpretation of our own pastor’s sermons.  People’s ears tend to filter a sermon toward their own beliefs.  But we accept the fact we are individuals with differing opinions.

Also, I don’t believe the Ten Commandments are in force for the NT, so I really don’t understand Moore’s point in the first place.

Sorry for being uneducated on the RR and Judge Moore, but what is his point?

[Gustaf]

I don’t know what verse in Mark you’re referring to, but:

2nd) Jesus said in Mat 22:36-39 that the Two Greatest Commandments are (...) “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:

As long as they don't take an interest in you or deserves to get their teeth kicked in, right?

[Gustaf]

As long as they don't take an interest in you or deserves to get their teeth kicked in, right?

Kicking in someone's teeth that is threatening or trying to take control of my family is not against the teachings of the bible.  Indeed, I am told to turn the other cheek if *I* am slapped, but those instructions didn't restrict me from taking action if someone is abusing my family.

But in the first example you cited, I don't know what you mean by "taking an interest in you"?  If busybodies are whom you're referring to...telling someone to butt out doesn't mean I don't love them.

OK, then...they might not love you back when you call them busy-bodies and throw them out, though...

[Gustaf]

OK, then...they might not love you back when you call them busy-bodies and throw them out, though...

And I'm sure the money-changers weren't too thrilled with Jesus when he used a whip and drove them from the Temple....calling someone a busybody is pretty mild in comparison.

I don't know if that's a correct parallell, but I suppose your point is that Jesus loved everyone, even the money-changers, right?

[Gustaf]

I don't know if that's a correct parallell, but I suppose your point is that Jesus loved everyone, even the money-changers, right?

Simply trying to point out that even the use of force is not contradictory with love.

Jesus' love for the money-changers...OK, I will accept it in principle.

[Gustaf]

Jesus' love for the money-changers...OK, I will accept it in principle.

I suppose I could mention biblical examples of people God hated, but that would be a little off topic.

What, bringing the gays up again?

[Gustaf]

What, bringing the gays up again?

No, not gays.  But there are some people the bible states that God does hate.

I am interested then, who?

[Gustaf]

My understanding was always that you should “hate the sin and love the sinner” that’s always been the teaching of the churches I’ve regularly attended…

When Jesus drove the money lenders from the Temple he was attacking the poisoning of the sacred ground and the corruption of the Jewish hierarchy of the time not the people personally…

It has always been my impression that God hates the wickedness or the evil committed by people but not the people as he always offers the prospect of salvation… I do not think god could be considered to hate anything as is not hate and all destructive emotions identified with the devil who is the antithesis of God… but its been a while since I studied theology and I’m a bit rusty… still regularly read into philosophy though…

Disclaimer: I’m a Catholic by the way so that might colure my views here…however in terms of church teaching I’m liberal on some issues (married clergy, the notion of original sin, etc…) and conservative on other issues (some social issues, would prefer to see the Latin mass restored, very much an absolute believer in transubstantiation)… well there you go…

Hehe...another theological discussion involving JMF could be fun...I'd encourage you to read up on your theology if you're gonna discuss religion with him...

[Gustaf]

I am interested then, who?

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13, Mal 1:3)

The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. (Psa 5:5)

You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. (Lev 20:23)

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. (Psa 6:16-19)

"Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. (Hosea 9:15)

So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him.(Ecc 9:1)

OK, so God has a lot more hate than I thought then...

[Gustaf]

MOORE IN 04!!!

Sorry…getting a bit carried away…its just so dame catchy I could vote for the guy…wow I could be a moore democrat!

Now seriously… if Moore ran what kind of resources would he have? I would guess that he might well get the same if not more media coverage than Nader in 2000 and would that help? What sort of percentage of the vote could he get? Nationwide? I assume he would perform best in the “Bible belt” so Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas… perhaps 10-15% of the vote in these states (would that really make a difference)… in terms of marginal states I would have thought that he could siphon off a noticeable percentage of Bush’s votes (say 3-6%) in West Virginia, Florida, Arkansas (perhaps more there)… I really will have to research this and get back to the thread to see if he could do well… but from what I know a present I would say the guy could do very well for a 3rd Party in the South and mean over the entire region an average of say 8-10% (?) nationwide…hum perhaps 3-6% (?) could get the constitution party some much needed federal funding…could be interesting…      

PS; How do you paste pictures on the message board?  
                     

This thing about pasting images keep coming up and creating problems...a bit like the D.C. Political Report...

[Gustaf]

At the moment from what I hear it looks like Nader might run... so in the interests of fairness and as a proud "Democrat for Moore" I say that we need the moral forthrightness and clarity of vision that only Roy Moore can give us in these troubeled times…

Sorry I’ll have to take this more seriously….

Could the constitution Party and the Reform Party agree to some kind of alliance for this contest? I mean both have some polices in common and an alliance would seem like a good idea with a combination of social and fiscal conservatism well I bet they could gain 3-6% nationwide… I bet Moore would get the same if not more air time than Nader in 2000 partly because in 2000 Buchanan had been around for the best part of a decade while despite the fact Nader ran in 1996 he was seen as new news.. added to this Moore is a bit of a character… If he has a huge ego or alternatively is deeply committed to his beliefs (and may I say that almost without exception I don’t agree with him on every thing) he’ll go for it… however my hunch is that he’s scaring the national republican party and keeping his name recognition high so that he can make a run for the Governorship in Alabama…  

 PS; Still having trouble with this pasting of images…              

Ypu begin with an ...

[Gustaf]

i think he will take away bush thats why im supporting him, its better for kerry, he could possibly win alabama

LA, AR, TN, and KY would go into the lean Kerry column automatically,

Wishful thinking.  KY in particular.

Kentucky was as strongly Republican in the last election as the Deep South states:


Bush victory margin in Southern states:

OK: 21.88%

TX: 21.32%

MS: 16.91%

SC: 15.93%

KY: 15.13%

AL: 14.88%

NC: 12.83%

GA: 11.69%

VA: 8.04%

LA: 7.68%

AR: 5.44%

TN: 3.86%

FL: 0.01%

When you look at this there seems to be a few different categories: the strong Bush states, like OK, TX, MS, SC, KY, AL, whereas LA and VA are both more of leaners. TN and AR might both be affected by home state effect, of course.

[Gustaf]

From Politics1:

"MOORE ACTING MORE LIKE A CANDIDATE. Ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R) -- the "Ten Commandments Judge" -- is starting to act more and more like a third party Presidential candidate. For a guy who isn't running for President "right now" (to quote his spokesperson), he's sure starting to act like a candidate. Moore is speaking at Constitution Party events in Oregon and Montana this month, according to the party's website. With President Bush currently trailing both Kerry and Edwards for re-elction by double-digits -- according to the latest CNN poll -- that last thing he wants in November is a "Ralph Nader of the Right" draining Christian conservative votes from his essential base."

----

RUN ROY RUN!!!! RUN ROY RUN!!!!!

The 1992 feeling constantly increasing...

[Gustaf]

I liked Moore during his whole Ten Commandments battle.  I still like him for that.

But if he runs for president as a third party, I won't support him.

I think he could potentially be as strong a third party candidate as Nader--clearly unable to win the election, but able to pull just enough votes to tilt the election to one side or the other.  He could hurt Bush.

But here's a fun question:  What if BOTH Moore AND Nader run?  Nader will pull votes from the Dems, while Roy will pull votes from the Reps.  They could equal each other out.

Hard to tell. It would depend on battleground states. If you look at 2000, it appears that Nader got relatively little support in close states (FL being the obvious exception). If they get an equal national vote share, Moore will hurt more since his vote will be more concentrated.

Nader's best states in 2000:

1. Alaska

2. Vermont

3. Massachusetts

4. Rhode Island

5. Montana

6. Hawaii

7. Maine

See what I mean?

In 1948, Strom Thurmond got 2.41% of the vote and won 4 states for 7.34% of the EVs, whereas Henry Wallace got 2.37% of the vote and won no EVs. Wallace's best state was New York where he got 8.25%, Thurmond'd best state was Mississippi where he got 87.17% of the vote...

[Gustaf]

Moore would only need to poll around 15% in the Southern states to make all of them tossups.

[Gustaf]

Moore would only need to poll around 15% in the Southern states to make all of them tossups.

He would do that in the deep south, maybe poll 5-10% amond the other southern states.

Still enough, considering that Bush had more than 20% in TX and OK only.

[Gustaf]

Perot was very weak in the South, and his campaigns were a hell of a lot more centrist than any Moore campaign could possibly be. In 1996, the vast majority of Perot voters would have preferred Dole to Clinton, but in 1992 they would have broken roughly equal in a Preferential Voting system. So it's not a valid comparison. Much wiser to look at the 2000 percentages of Buchanan, the Constitution party, the Libertarians, and add a premium in Alabama and Mississippi. In other words, Moore too won't do much damage.
But even a little damage can be decisive. It's possible he'll technically cost Bush Florida, or West Virginia, or Missouri, and thus the election, even though he's got less than 2% in that state.

Nader cost Gore Florida with 1.63% of the vote...we'll have to wait and see, but I don't think Perot is comparable to Moore in any way. Moore should rather be compared to Wallace or Thurmond than Perot. Perot looks more like a progressive, electorally that is.

[Gustaf]

Moore might be able to poll well in Alabama and Mississippi (though I doubt that he'd win either state) and O.K in a few other Southern States... but I don't see him polling a higher % than Perot in '96

Perot might not have been conservative enough for the Southerners...also he wasn't on home turf there. And people view the South as safely Republican, so they would be more prepared to vote 3rd party there. I definitely think Moore could do better than Perot in the South, though of course much, much worse everywhere else.

[Gustaf]

In recent history SOutherners have been rather reluctant to vote third party. Perot scored worst there, so did Nader, so did Anderson.
Seems they lost interest in voting third parties after 1968...Or maybe it's because voting patterns are now so strongly determined by race.
Doesn't bode well for a third party candidate who's logical base in SOuthern. Let me once more remind you of what happened to Buchanan.

That's just b/c there have been no, or at least very few, Southern 3rd party runs since back then, there wasn't much need for it, basically. None of the 3rd party candidates since 1968 have been conservative southerners. Buchanan messed up, I'm not sure whether he should be viewed seriously. He didn't run strongly anywhere.

[Gustaf]

I THINK that there are free domain names... .nu is supposed to be inexpensive, but I guess you don't use these much in the States?

[Gustaf]

I can't find any.

Get Migrendel to pay for it, he should be able to afford it...or PD...

[Gustaf]

In recent history SOutherners have been rather reluctant to vote third party. Perot scored worst there, so did Nader, so did Anderson.
Seems they lost interest in voting third parties after 1968...Or maybe it's because voting patterns are now so strongly determined by race.
Doesn't bode well for a third party candidate who's logical base in SOuthern. Let me once more remind you of what happened to Buchanan.

Southerners don't vote third party in great numbers because they see themselves, culturally and polticially, as an embattled minority.  They quite rightly view the Republican Party, and its reliance on the South, as their vehicle for influencing a nation largely at odds with their desires.  I don't think many will throw this precarious power away on someone as pointless as Moore.
He'd make a great senator though - easily doable down the road.  Not unlike Ashcroft from my home state.  But if he steps outside the Republican Party in the South he ends his career in public life - becomes just another crackpot like Buchanan or Nader.

Politics isn't based on a whole lot of logical thinking.

[Gustaf]

How's that?

That's pretty good. Though you should try and get a better pic of him, he looks too much like Nixon on that one. But it would definitely be an improvement on the current situation.