Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Will Obama win re-election in November?

By Howard B. Owens
Randy Smart

Back in 2004 nobody believed that George W. Bush would win re-election. I remember all the talk about the Democrats being assured of getting the White House back, because there was no way Bush could get re-elected and lo and behold what happened... Now it's the Republicans talking about getting the White House back, but they can't even come up with a single strong candidate that the Republican party can all get behind. It seems like there's too much pride (arrogance?) on the part of the candidates, where they want to hold on to any possiblity, however remote, of being the Republican nomination. Sometimes the greater good is served by gracefully bowing out and supporting one candidate in a show of solidarity. So people shouldn't be surprised if come November Obama is giving another four years in office.

Mar 9, 2012, 8:49am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Trailing candidates bowing out won't necessarily help the front runner win in November. A dog is still a dog, even if it's leader the pack.

Mar 9, 2012, 8:54am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Mitt Romney does not offer a clear alternative to Obama. The Massachusetts healthcare legislation he signed into law is substantially Obama's enacted federal plan. Romney has wavered, ponderously between Pro-Family and Pro-Life stands. Romney cannot differentiate between NASCAR and the Mille Miglia. The Massachusetts state budget increased by over $5 billion during his stewardship including increases in new taxes and mandatory fees; he fails as a conservative budge-cutter. Americans have a tendency to re-elect presidents during wartime. 30% of Americans polled in 2008 would not vote for a Mormon. Add to this that Democratic presidents are substantially more "recession-proof" than Republican presidents and the damage inflicted by bitter primary attacks... Stay the course mentality will prevail.

Mar 9, 2012, 9:06am Permalink
Bea McManis

.....but guess which way Genesee Co. will go?
Frankly, I would like to see a real candidate running under the GOP tent, it would make for a good election.
Unless they have someone hiding in the closet and a brokered convention, they are stuck with Romney.
Here, it won't matter. The GOP will faithfully make sure Genesee Co. stays red.
I guess that means these good people respect a candidate who refused to address the idiocy of Rush Limbaugh; who has wavered on so many important issues, who likes trees because they are the right height, who is learning to like grits.

Mar 9, 2012, 9:15am Permalink
John Roach

Right now, he might win. Once the Republican primaries are over, we'll see.
But it is still to far away. Gas could go up to $5/gal, and Obama is gone. He could release oil from the Strategic Storage and drop the price, be hailed a hero, and win.
The economy could get hit by a country like Greece going under, and he's gone.
We'll know better around August/September.

Mar 9, 2012, 10:12am Permalink
Mark Brudz

It doesn't matter at this point, events have a way of cause and effect

1) Although economic and employment numbers are showing an uptick rinight now, good for Obama, However, employment growth is only in the service sector which may be an anomooly, the fact is there is zero growth in construction and manufacturing employment which is a bad sign for housing in particular, we will have to see where we are in 3-4 months.

2) Leon Panetta's quable with Senator Sessions the other day and the possiblity of misshandling Iran another factor. There are various scenarios that could either be a boom or bust for Obama, it has to play out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&list=UUd5Nv9gL89TCR03kD2SfaI…

3) In 1979 we had exactly the same situation with a four way dog fight in the GOP, The polls in Jan showed Jimmy Carter with 62% to 32% lead over all Republicans, we know how that turned out. There Gas prices and a botched incident in Iran totally affected the outcome

Howard, I do take exception with the poll though, should have been yes no or depends rather than yes yes no

And the fact remains, all the GOP candidates are polling well against Obama in key swing states

Anyone placing a bet now either way should be very cautious

Mar 9, 2012, 12:47pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Bea, Myself I can not support a candidate that will not rebuke Bill Maher for calling not one women but three from the GOP the "C" word not once but several times and then accept $1million to his PAC

Mar 9, 2012, 12:08pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I hope they don't. I will not support a Romney or Santorum, so if my guy bows out, then so does any interest I have in the GOP. I want the best person, not just anyone other than Obama. Mitt and Rick are not either.

Mar 9, 2012, 1:18pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bill Maher is a offensive comedian, that’s his shtick. Who cares what he says and why should a president feel the need to comment? It wouldn’t be long before all our governments resources would be put into apologizing for people who wanted to get their name in the paper. The argument is a real petty one if it requires vetting each donor or even friend of a politician.

That drug addict on the radio made his own mess, now he will have to lay in it. If HBO doesn’t think Bill Maher is worth the trouble, he might also find himself out of work. Have you seen Bill Maher’s religious movie? You think calling a couple women the “C” word is his biggest problem? Really…

He's one of the biggest A-Holes in show business. I've actually been to his HBO show. I was offered a free ticket walking around Hollywood BLVD, I should have refused it. He treats everyone around him like crap. He even curses at the cameramen.

Mar 9, 2012, 1:31pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Charlie just remember, Limbaugh is actually only an entertainer too, He is a radio talk show host who's views are is far to the right as Maher's are to the left.

The DNC loves to dub Rush as trhe "Defacto Leader Of The Conservatiove Movement" but the fact is he has never run for office, rarely endorses candidates (Although always supports the GOP candidate in the Big race)

And that was my point to Bea, SHE brought Limbaugh into the conversation, the poll I believe had nothing to do with him at all.

The bottom line is, he nor maher will have anything to do with final out come

What will?

Simple equation, Gas Price + Employment Percentage + International Events = outcome

Mar 9, 2012, 1:38pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

CJ, the 18-29 Demographic never votes GOP or for that matter conservative

Remember the old quote

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
Attributed to Winston Churchill but actually was said by Sir Paul Attenbourough

The question isn't whether or not the 18-29 year olds will rally behind either party anyway, It is in that demographic whether they will turn out to vote at all, Historically they don't

Mar 9, 2012, 1:54pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, I’m not disagreeing with you, Rush is just an entertainer as well. If I were running for president, I wouldn’t respond to a single word he says either. The simple answer for a politician is, he’s an entertainer and that’s not something I’m going to talk about.

Your formula is also about right. The people in the middle decide races and they don’t care what entertainers on the fringe say. They only care about how they are doing personally.

Mar 9, 2012, 1:48pm Permalink
Cj Gorski

Well I can't speak for my whole age group, but I know all my friends will vote. They are all leaning towards Paul, but I'm sure when he doesn't win the nomination they will vote for Obama over not showing up at all. I myself would vote for a GOP but none of the current candidates. I would of voted for Huntsman and I would vote for Paul, but it looks like my vote in November will being going to Former GOP Gary Johnson.

Mar 9, 2012, 2:07pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Glad that your group of friends are so involved, It is always a good thing when young people vote and take part.

Curious though, Why Ron Paul or Gary Johson? I mean on what do you base your belief that they would be best

Mar 9, 2012, 2:12pm Permalink
John Roach

People tend to vote their pocket book. If they are not doing well, who ever is in charge will usually get the blame, deserved or not.
If doing well, they will usually not rock the boat.
If they are getting something for "free", they will vote for whoever tells them they can keep getting it and maybe more.
If not getting something for "free", they will vote for whoever tells them he/she will give it to them.

Mar 9, 2012, 2:14pm Permalink
Cj Gorski

Well it's not for their drug policies, which is probably the #1 thing I get asked / told when I say I'd choose them over any other even though I do agree with legalization. The only person in this race with a good economic plan is Paul, and people can argue all they want about how far out some of his other plans are but when it comes down to it, with out fixing our debt we are a doomed nation. As for Johnson, I think we need to tear back government in a lot of ways, not only to help the debt but for the overall good of the people and I know he is the only other person that will peal back the government instead of making it bigger. You can say that I'm anti-state I guess.

Mar 9, 2012, 2:29pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Spot On John

A little Analisys Of todays Economic report

Annouced Unemployent rate by Governement
8.3%

Actual when those who gave up are considered
14.9%

Black workers
14.1%

Hispanic Workers
10.7%

Bachelor's Degree or higher
4.2%

Less than High School
12.9%

Youth 16-19
23.8%

Black Youth 16-19
34.7%

Mar 9, 2012, 2:29pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"Why Ron Paul or Gary Johson? I mean on what do you base your belief that they would be best"

One word: liberty.

I still remember really clearly one day in 1995 sitting in front of my MacPlus participating in some Internet discussion and all the talk about about protecting the net culture of individual rights -- and I realized then, America's future, if not the world, is a libertarian future. Kids who grow up online are going to -- as a rule -- have a great appreciation of individual liberty and a greater desire to protect it.

I've seen that play out dozens of times with younger programmers and other net geeks over the past five or six years. I've yet to meet anybody under 30 who is also really into a digital lifestyle that isn't strongly pro Ron Paul.

It's the one thing that gives me hope for our country.

Mar 9, 2012, 2:31pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Ron Paul might be Romney's best hope. Should Paul run as a third-party candidate, he could be the spoiler. It would boil down to anti-war voting, taking more votes from Obama than Romney. Come to think of it... Maybe that's why the GOP ignores Paul? The fix is in!

Mar 9, 2012, 3:39pm Permalink
Nathan Oaksford

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx

9.1% unemployment for Feb. up from 8.6% in Jan. Nice.

I just want someone in office who actually cares about the United States instead of their party or their personal finances.

I won't get started on my bash the president speech. But this whole country (both sides of the coin) need a major overhaul for us to move forward. So far no one running is very good, stand out choice.

Mar 9, 2012, 4:09pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Ron Paul CAN NOT WIN

Don't get me wrong, much of what Ron Paul is for so am I but not everything.

1) ANY serious third party candidate from center or right means Obama wins short of Nuclear war

2) Ron Paul isn't in this to win, he is in to start a movement in the republican party toward his ideal. He WILL NOT SUPPORT GARY JOHNSON or RUN AS 3RD PARTY because that would burn his son's bridge in the GOP permamently thus never a Rand Paul Presidency

It is still the same equation anyway you cut it

Next president will be result of

Unemployment % (July-Aug) + Gas Price + International Situation
It always is

I love Ron Paul's Take on Liberty, not sold on his world view, That said

If you want the pendulum to swing toward liberty this election, Go GOP whoever it is, Otherwise wait and see how equation plays out and ride with majority of the "Vote with thier wallet Crowd"

Mar 9, 2012, 4:15pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

All these comments and not one contains reasons why Obama should win re-election, only why the Republican candidate shouldn't. This is exactly how Obama can squeak back in, by keeping the focus off his record and on the "what if's" of the Republicans or convenient distractions like Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh, Catholics and contraception, blaming Bush (still), Newt's ex-wives, Romneycare, Santorum's sweater vests, NCAA college basketball bracket, green energy dice rolls, global warming, etc., etc., etc.. ANYTHING but the issues.

Mar 9, 2012, 4:18pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Jeff

I will repeat a previous post I made

In January of 1979 Jimmy Carter Led in the polls 62%-32%
over all GOP Candidates. The press said, the front runner could never win, The Front Runner Was Ronald Reagan

Events mold elections, I am actually confident that we will have a GOP president come 21 January 2013, and a GOP Senate as well.

BUT, events make elections, and there is a long time before the final 60 days of the 2012 Election

Voter Passion in the Spring, very rarely Mirrors Voter Passion in the Fall - if it did we would be talking about Hillary now

Mar 9, 2012, 4:34pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I understand that, my point was RON PAUL will not be a spoiler, he will not run 3rd party nor will he support Gary Johsnon

He willl however light a fire under the Liberty centered Republicans, and that will translate into house seats and senate seats, just watch.

Ron Paul will not consciencely play spoiler because of his son, he is a smart guy and knows that his best hope to move the party the way he wants is to build the movement and set his son up for future elections

Only the press and DNC suggest Paul will go 3rd party route, anyone ever hear him say it?

Mar 9, 2012, 4:31pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Paul won't run third party. He knows without the nomination he has no prayer.

18-29 year olds won't vote. They are the ones racking up bigger and bigger school debts to pay for their degrees because it seems smarter to stay in school when there aren't any jobs available. They might be brainwashed into thinking its Bush's fault but at some point they will realize the last 4 years can't be blamed on Bush anymore. They won't vote for anyone but Paul when they realize this. So you can count this section of the population out.

The elderly, like always, will vote for whoever will pay their bills. All the Republican candidates are calling for cuts and the Dems want more entitlements. Where is that vote going?

That leaves 30-65 year old working age Americans, most with families. This is where the swing always is. They have the biggest need for gas. They have a big reason to demand the world be a stable safe place. Iran is trying to screw that up. They need jobs to afford their families. 8.9% is still very high and no sitting President has been reelected with numbers like that since FDR. People are much more fickle and have shorter attention spans than they did in 1936. Not to mention Hitler started his takeovers in 1936 with the Rhineland and Roosevelt was preparing for a war with Japan that wouldn't come for another 5 years.

Mar 9, 2012, 4:33pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Mark's right, Ron Paul will not run third party nor will he support Johnson. The big accomplishment so far for Paul over the past two years is build an organization that Rand can inherit in 2016. A Barack Mitt O'Romney presidency will only amplify the voices of the pro-freedom, anti-imperialist voters.

Mar 9, 2012, 4:34pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Exactly!!!!

Except many seniors are worried about thier Grandchildren, and can not be relied upon to stay the course.

Remember, much of the TEA PARTY were seniors and they are not gone. 18-29 year old won't show big this time.

As far as Roosevelt goes, the fact is that the unemployment rate in 1932 and the unemployemnet rate in 1939 was exactly the same, as well as average income, Keysian Economics used by Roosevelt failed, the war changed the dynamic

Roosevelt got reelected by solid use of the existing media at the time and a facade of hope he created. Very unlikely to work in this age of instant communication

Mar 9, 2012, 4:47pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Jimmy Carter was weakened by the OPEC Embargo/Big Oil price gouging, the protracted Iran Hostage Crisis, corporate indignation over a proposed wage price stabilization plan and the notion that all Democrats were snorting cocaine at Studio 54. He was beaten by his solemn pronouncement of an energy crisis, far less inspiring than the wild west show presented by a certain pitchman for 20-Mule Team Borax.

Mar 9, 2012, 4:52pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Mark, we cannot rely on the 1976 Ronald Reagan story any longer. There has never in history been a collective media so in the tank for a President/candidate. They have been culpable in aiding this administration to look our citizens in the eye and flat out lie to us. Never underestimate the power of ___________people in large numbers. You can fill in the blank with any of the the following: misled, naive, uninformed, misinformed, blinded, bought, brainwashed, distracted, misdirected......

Mar 9, 2012, 4:58pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I agree, I'm slightly out of the 18-29 field (I'm 31), but there isn't many people that I know who isn't in Paul's court. I wouldn't want Paul to run 3rd party anyway, but I agree with what you and Mark are saying.

The biggest thing that makes me happy is that so many younger people are buying into what Dr. Paul is saying, and that they're so passionate.

Mar 9, 2012, 5:01pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Phil, Genesee County is a Microcosm in that we are a one of the last bastians in New York State of the more conservative minded.

It is expected Paul would be thought of strongly here

Ron Paul is trying build a movement, not win the white house, and if you want Ron Paul to succeed, the GOP whoever it is is the way to go

A Rand Paul run in 2016 or 2020 would be the victory, to think one election can change anything is Obama thginking, and it has never worked except in times of all out war.

Mar 9, 2012, 5:07pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Mark, this administration has seized the narrative on those issues and have effectively convinced followers and an uninformed public that high gas prices are not attributable to the President in ANY way (the opposite of what they said in 2008), they have effectively convinced followers and an uninformed public that unemployment is lower than it actually is by altering the way it is calculated, they have effectively convinced followers and an uninformed public that we are somehow stronger internationally by in essence leading from behind or simply ignoring potential issues. I wish I had your confidence, but unless we retake the narrative on these issues and start debating facts, we could be looking at Obama 2.0, one unfettered by re-election restraints.

Mar 9, 2012, 5:15pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

CM,

Do you ever read the actual news?

Gas Expected tpo reach $5/gal

Anyday nowIsreal is going to loose patients with Iran

Obama/ Biden Backed Fisker luxury environmental car cost to tax payers ($500Million) purchased by consumer reports fails and breaksdown after only 180 miles, Fisker promised 2500 new jobs, actual number 100 or so, 75 of them laid off yesterday and most of the new jobs were in Europe

Go down the list bro.

All this will add up,

it still boils down to the formula just like it did in 1980

If gas prices keep rising so will inflation Bad for Obama

If Unemployment stays around 8% Bad for Obama, (Jimmy Carter had 7.8% Unemployemnet)

Construction employment no gain in housing sector, same as Carter. same as now

And once Isreal looses patients with Iran and Obama double talk

$10 gas

It all depends on how things unfold, could go eitherway right now,

Mar 9, 2012, 5:16pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Yeah I get that Mark, but I just can't bring myself to support either two of the "front runners". Santorum is more interested in being a Christian President then being an inclusive one, and Romney...well who the hell knows what he is! He changes his views every news cycle.

Mar 9, 2012, 5:17pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Phil,
Santorum is a traditional Catholic and simply tows the Catholic line, not the new politically correct, majority rules, make it up as we go along Catholicism. Understanding the powers and restraints of the the office of the Presidency, what policy has Santorum specifically voiced he can/will implement that you oppose?

Mar 9, 2012, 5:31pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Mark, yes, I ONLY read the news. (as opposed to watching the news) Did my historical note about Carter's election defeat somehow indicate otherwise? I was in my mid-twenties during that election; I remember it. I have no idea what patients you are talking about. The question presented in this discussion was limited to whether Obama would win. I offered my opinion on that and made a fanciful suggestion that a third-party run by Ron Paul was Romney's best chance at winning. I clarified the difference between spoiler and winner, and noted that I was not advocating for any of the candidates I had mentioned, specifically, Obama, Paul and Romney. I haven't challenged anyone's assessment of the election outcome. As far as I'm concerned anyone's guess is as good as mine. I've never suggested that I'm omniscient. Wherein lies your point?

Mar 9, 2012, 5:39pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Again Jeff,

What political passions abound in the spring, rarely live through to the Fall

I understand your concern, but there is a long way to go,

JFK had one of the most passionate followers ever, yet when the election came around he won by one of the closest elections of all time and to this day there are those that believe that there was voter fraud in Chicago that pushed him over the top.

Nixon was an odds on favorite because he was VP and experienced in that race but a horrible TV debate and we had to wait to push him around for 8 more years (A little Nixon Humor)

Obama has not BTW seized the issue on Gas prices and Isreal/Iran he has only stalled them, they haven't played out yet

All I can say is, state how you feel, vote your conscience and pray for the best no matter the result

Mar 9, 2012, 5:41pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Patients was a miss spelling due to multi tasking

Where I disagree with you is that a 3rd party candidate helps anyone but Obama That was my initial point

My second point is that historically, events, not campaigns decide elections.

One even could be strong 3rd party candidate= Win Obama
Why? Because the Johnson/Paul type candidate are mode inclined to oppose Obama's Top down Government style

Another, Gas prices and pie in the sky green energy, I would love to have a car that runs on Peanut Butter, but the market is unwilling to accept that, only way they would is if gas was $10/gal, Oh no! Back to those pesky gas prices again.

Unemployment, well this month we had good jobs numbers today, but look in side them, mostly service, little actual manufacturing, and no construction. and wait still official 8,3% - Hope it is a trend but I am sceptical

But 3rd Party Canditae Help Romney, sorry no way I could ever believe that

Mar 9, 2012, 5:54pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I read that article as well, I don't know how you see it, I see it as Liberal wishfull thinking.

Ron Paul will not damage his son's chances in anyway, Liberals who support Ron Paul I assure you are strictly the hard core anti-war crowd I would be more than willing to bet.

I appreciate the premise, but when you couple the fact that where ever able democrats voted in Republican primaries, don't you think that you have to suspect some manipulation?

Mar 9, 2012, 6:24pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Jeff, it's not even so much just a policy, as how he is. I don't want God in my politics, just like I don't want politics in my God. The federal government should have zero say on who marries who, or what a woman decides with their doctor, etc. I don't want to hear about God, or someone's religion when it comes to policy making.

Not everyone in this country is a Catholic, or a Christian for that matter. I'm not. The government was meant to be inclusive! The founding fathers envisioned it that way. To keep them separate. Santorum wants them together.

I respect everyone's faith. I respect how important faith is to an individual. Faith is a wonderful personal journey, and it should stay that way! Personal. Government is for all. Which is why I don't think the Federal government should be making any social policies.

Mar 9, 2012, 9:04pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

That is why I asked the question Phil, nothing that you mention translates into action he can take as President, it is simply a matter of his having expressed his faith. It simply means that he has a set of ethics based in his faith that guide his life. Unless you can show how his faith will interfere with his ability to lead, then saying "it's not even so much just a policy, as how he is" sounds judgemental. If Mitt Romney's Mormonism is off the table because it will not translate into policy matters, then Santorum's Catholicism should be as well and stating "Santorum is more interested in being a Christian President then being an inclusive one" is just regurgitating baseless meme's driven by the media. You would be hard pressed to find any President in our history who did not openly acknowledge their faith in speeches and writings.

Mar 9, 2012, 9:57pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

It would not Hurt Rand Paul One Bit if someone voted for Gary Johnson Howard, that I agree, but it would decimate Rand Paul's future in the GOP if Ron Paul ran as a 3rd Party Candidate or openly endorsed Johnson.

Rand Paul is a sitting US Senator with an R after his name in a heavily Republican state.

Ron Paul continuing to build a movement within and without the GOP it will stregthen Rand's Future in the Party.

While I am certain Rand's views are very close to his father's, he does present himself in a much more polished way.

Any vote other than for the GOP this fall, is a vote for Obama, just the way it is
If Obama wins a second term, it will make a move back toward a more individual liberty moded Government nearly impossible to reach

Mar 9, 2012, 11:17pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I don't follow what the media says Jeff. Let me break it down like this. I am against DOMA, think that Roe V, Wade should be left alone and don't think that going to college makes you a snob. I don't like his economic policy, don't like his foreign policy and on and on.

And when I say it's how he is... I mean lines like this "gay marriage is no different from man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be"

That is obscene, and not someone I want making policy.

I don't regurgitate meme's thanks. I don't care for him.

Mar 9, 2012, 11:48pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Oh and let me say this again. I don't want the government creating social policy at all.

Oh and I don't support Romney either. That said, I haven't heard Romney speaking on his faith unless he is directly asked.

Mar 9, 2012, 11:53pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I think it's interesting that on a website that mirrors the conservative leanings of the community that over 60 percent of people think that Obama will win. I think that this shows what effect the Republican primaries are having on the morale of their rank and file voters.

Mar 10, 2012, 12:22am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

This Republican primary has been an overreach to attract the 20% base of the party. That has uncovered some real extreme positions. Those positions are just unacceptable for a lot of the young people in this country. (and not so young)

Don't think for one second those extreme remarks Phil quoted won't be pounded home relentlessly by Obama. There will be nothing else being talked about during the general election.

Mar 10, 2012, 9:00am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Now those are good reasons for you not to support Santorum. You articulated specific issues with which you disagree and that I can respect. Just saying that Santorum is more interested in being a "Christian President" like it's a bad thing is in fact forwarding over simplified narratives driven by the media and not his record. Your second post represents the essence of the open debate of issues. We don't agree much but I respect your ability and willingness to present informed arguments, it is to your credit. That's why I couldn't let the "Christian President" one go.

Mar 10, 2012, 9:46am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I want clarification on the term "Christian" as there is a very loose definition of that term being used by churches today. The Episcopalian is trending towards this...

"Former Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie illustrates this sad trend. In an interview with a newspaper the editor picked up in London on Easter 1982, Runcie was asked about the meaning of the cross. He replied, “As to that, I am an agnostic.” Runcie was not certain of the meaning of the cross! In the same interview he said he felt Buddhism is a proper way to God and that Christians should not say that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation." He even goes on to question every major teaching of the Bible. Of Christ’s resurrection, Runcie states “ The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around.” Of Chris’s virgin birth, He says, “As for the virgin birth, they’re the sort of stories that get told after you already believe somebody is very important. You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.....”

Does that really sound like a Christian Church? Christianity is defined by the dictionary as...

the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies or...
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

So with the Episcopal Church claiming to be Christian, but with the beliefs being espouced above it really isnt Christian anymore.

Mar 10, 2012, 1:11pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kyle, I'm no religious scholar but, if someone believes Christ is the son of God, they are a Christian. The details are for the denomination to decide.

Mar 10, 2012, 2:52pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Really Charlie, so if someone believes that the govt is always right that makes them a patriot? Every daemon and devil in the pits of hell believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they even believe in God and fear him. Does that make them Christian?

Mar 10, 2012, 3:25pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Does anyone know which candidate made this statement?
"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government.
And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to.
They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes.
So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please go to church. "

Mar 10, 2012, 4:04pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

That would be; "I want be President on tv's The West Wing" by Alan Alda, as written by avowed Socialist Lawrence O'Donnell. Do I win a prize?

Mar 10, 2012, 4:31pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kyle, not sure where the devil and the pits of hell is coming from but, if a person says they are a Christian, they are. There was a time when Catholics and Protestants killed each other over purity. Anyone teaching you to judge someone else's religion needs their head examined. You believe what you want but, the minute you chose to impose your idea of purity on another, you crossed the line.

Mar 10, 2012, 4:38pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Kevin, yes you do win a prize. A big kiss from me when we meet (a chocolate kiss, of course).
I would like to believe that should be the answer from any presidential candidate, regardless of affiliation.

Mar 10, 2012, 4:41pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

It's not imposing purity at all Charlie, I'm not trying to do anything except point out that you can't claim to be a Christian if you dont follow the teachings of Christ. When a person says things like....

"Runcie was not certain of the meaning of the cross! In the same interview he said he felt Buddhism is a proper way to God and that Christians should not say that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation." He even goes on to question every major teaching of the Bible. Of Christ’s resurrection, Runcie states “ The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around."

I'm not proposing to kill them but just recognizing that they may believe in God but they cant be called Christian when they alter the content of the Bible and dismiss the teachings of Christ according to the New Testament.

Jews are not Christian, Buddists arent Christian, if you want to follow your definition, because they believe Jesus to be a prophet then Muslims would be Christian as well as Mormons.

Mar 10, 2012, 8:04pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Actually, Kyle, according to very basic Christian theology Satan and the rest of the fallen angels are wandering the earth. Jesus condemned the self righteousness of the 'teachers of the law' (all of his interactions with the Pharisees), who often inserted their own agendas into faith and calling for the separation of church and state, telling his disciples to ""Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthew 22:21. If there was one thing that Jesus hated was people who were mortal men claiming a closer connection to God than other people, and that they were the most righteous. The point of sin was that Jesus absorbed all of our sin through the crucifixion and Resurrection, and that belief in him is all that was needed to receive the benefits of that sacrifice and could live our own lives according to what he espoused in the gospels, but with the full understanding that we will fail and that God loves us anyway.

I would reccomend that you watch this video, people often get tripped up in the semantics but ignore what the author is saying, which isn't attacking the traditions of people of across Christian denominations and schisms, but rather about the attitudes that Christianity should take. It's about love, not hate.

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY]

Mar 10, 2012, 8:18pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Bea its not about separation of Church and State.....nor about candidates having to pass a test of religion. But it is about integrity.... Claiming to be something when you believe otherwise to lure votes, thats wrong.

Mar 10, 2012, 8:11pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Kyle,
It is about a candidate answering questions about government and not his/her religious affiliation.
I believe that quote bundles "claiming to be something when you believe otherwise to lure votes..." is exactly what it is about.

Mar 10, 2012, 8:17pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kyle, the last thing I'm going to do is debate your religious beliefs but, your church doesn't own the word Christian. Just because someone's "Christianity" isn't up to your standards, doesn't mean it's your right to keep score. Who cares what someone calls themselves?

Mar 10, 2012, 10:17pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Thats the kind of attitude that has led this country to where it is today Charlie. No one owns a word, but I do have a right to defend my religion and faith from people who corrupt it. There are plenty of examples of this, Landover Baptists who claim to be Christians yet speak on hate of gays and desecrate soldiers funerals with their protests, that is not the Christian way. Catholics, Protestants, Lutherens Baptists all differ a little but the basic tenets of Christianity are there and really not unclear.

The hardest lesson to learn in Christianity is the forgiveness of God. What if when you die and go to Heaven and find Osama Bin Laden there. He believed that Christ was a prophet from God. There is nothing in the Bible that states when you have to sincerely have to ask for forgiveness. I dont believe that when we die God takes away our gift of free will. So whos to say that when a man who has been evil here, but thought he was doing right, that when confronted with God, doesnt genuinely feel he doesnt belong in Heaven and then after saying he is truly sorry and braces for his casting out. Finds himself among his friends and family in Heaven. There is chapter and verse about the capacity of God's grace and forgiveness, that all we have to do is try our best and when we fail ask forgiveness... Thats the image that I am left with about God and Christ's teachings. I dont claim that this is the way God will deal with us hearafter, but its the concept that I feel is implied. Two beings only know the intent and source of our reasons and actions God and ourselves. We cant escape ourselves any more than we can God. The Bible tells us even Jesus had our human foiables at times. The anger that showed when he cast out the moneychangers from the temple shows he could be angered. His prayer to God, asking 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done' showing that he did harbor fear of the crucifixtion. Then on the cross as well saying "Father why has thou forsaken me".

Through Jesus God has knowledge of us and our weaknesses.

But this that God asks of us as Christians, to love him above all else and to love each other as we would ourselves, this is a simple request, yet has proven throughout history to be the most difficult.

There is only one Christianity not mine or yours or theirs... But to say that Buddhism is a proper way to God and that Christians should not say that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation betrays the very core of Christianity. Without Christ in it.... its simply ianity, in other words nonsense.

Mar 10, 2012, 10:29pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kyle, did you ever hear sticks and stones will break your bones but, words will never hurt you? It's really unhealthy thought to even think about putting someone else's beliefs on a scale to judge. I'm not interested in someone else's soul, just my own. I'm not about to roam the countryside hanging people from trees. History has taught us that not even that would make them stop calling themselves Christian.

Look up Reformation and the Thirty Years War.

Mar 11, 2012, 8:51am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Bea, rest assured once the Republican nominee is on place and the debate is between that person and Obama, the tough questions concerning faith will become a non-issue. Obama has not been held accountable for any matters of faith. He is given a pass by the media and allowed to get away with "my position is evolving" or "I attended for 20 years, but wasn't there the Sundays he preached his radical messages". He was allowed to throw his Pastor under the bus after giving him such high regard in his books telling how he was his spiritual mentor, married he and Michelle, baptised his girls, etc.. For Obama, when matters of faith become politically inconvenient, he is allowed to simply walk away from the question. The only instance where I see faith playing much of a role at all in this election is if Santorum becomes the nominee. Until now, Obama's faith is off the table, Mormonism is off the table, but Catholicism is fair game for slaughter.

Mar 11, 2012, 9:59am Permalink
Bea McManis

I will stick to my original thought, and let you know that it hasn't changed in years.
Religion, or lack of, should not be the criteria for selecting a president.
I don't care who it is.
I would hope that whomever runs, remembers that we are a diverse nation with people of many different creeds. Tolerance should be the word of the day.
It isn't any of MY business which candidate attends which place of worship. Is it your's?
That quote from the West Wing hit home because it is exactly how I feel. I want the candidates to talk issues. If the media continues to question them about their religious beliefs, I would hope they would have the nerve to give an answer very much like that.
Jeff, no president, or candidate should have to be held accountable for their religious beliefs, or lack of.

Mar 11, 2012, 10:46am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Sorry for getting off topic but, it does amaze me how the government can pick and choose how to separate "Church and State!" We all heard the issue about "GOD" being removed from the Pledge of Alliance because, it is a religious statement and the Supreme Court is favoring that decision yet, have Moses and the Ten Commandments displayed throughout its chambers. How is it that the Church cannot influence the political doctrine but, the government can influence religious doctrine. Example, the Morganville Church released Pastor Tom Burns because, he did not support gay marriages. I have read in the Holy Bible and the Quran that a marriage is between a man and a woman! Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman! Otherwise GOD would of made man with both reproductive organs. Federal Law allows gays to marry but, why is a church forced to accept something that is against their beliefs? I would like to asked the people who voted Pastor Burns out, would they be as supportive for rapist, murderers and molesters into their church? If not why? They are people too! They are sick as well as the homosexuals. I know gays do harm people physically like the previous mention but, they harm the morals of society since, it still a sin. We all sin and there is not one of us that is not a sinner. People claimed to be reborn yet, choose to sin still. Once again some argued that, "Church and State are separate!" However, where is the line since, the State over steps its boundary?

Now we are consumed about Romney's religious beliefs but, can care less about Obama's radical religious beliefs. Is there truly any worthy political candidate for President? No! They all have some hidden agenda whether we believe it or not! Our government has become self-serving and continues to do so. For example, if the majority of the American people agree that the House of Representative and Congress should have term limits like the President and that neither can collect a retirement check unless, they complete 20 years of public service in their office which would allow them only 40% of their base pay. Would our government officials vote for or against it? My guess would be most would be against it.

Mar 11, 2012, 11:25am Permalink
C. M. Barons

"Example, the Morganville Church released Pastor Tom Burns because, he did not support gay marriages."

I don't see how this relates to church-state. Did the Genesee County legislature pass a measure to unseat Rev. Burns?

The biggest problem associated with the anti-establishment clause is that many haven't a clue what it means. The second biggest problem is organized efforts to mislead everyone else.

Mar 11, 2012, 3:41pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

John.... I see this as 2 different issues. The state can only truly make rulings on civil union contracts. No law about gay marriage can force any church to comply. A church marriage is a marriage under the laws of the church and in the eyes of God. It's as binding as the civil union but not the same. How many couples have a church wedding after a civil union because they want a union blessed by God?

As for the Pastor in Morganville, you specifically mention that he was released because he did not support gay marriage. Well that has nothing to do with the Govt, and goes back to churches not acting in a Christian manner.

The more I read about the Episcopalian Church and their choosing to drift away from Christ and place more importance on being politically correct than Biblically correct.

As others seem to think earlier in this thread about my comments, they are painting me a religious bigot and that religion is between a person and God. All I can say is anyone who has read a Bible can interpret it anyway they want however some things it is very clear and repetative on. Just believeing in him is just the start of the path in Christianity, spreading the Word and trying to live as Jesus did is also part. As some have also pointed out here in other threads charity is also part of this, but sadly the churches have dropped the ball on that and the Govt has picked it up leading to part of the mess they system is today.

I agree with you John in part however. While Bea constantly reminds us about separation ofhurch and state, the candidates themselves are the ones who, if the media did not bring up faith, they would be. For them its about getting elected and there are times that they turn it into a contest into who is the most God fearing candidate. But when in office then the spearation of church and state comes in and we see the word God being removed and Christian references being weeded out so not to offend those who arent Christian. it is sickening and very hard to justify but then again isnt that thwe way Govt has been since the beginning. We look at the past and say how wrong it was, what we did to the native american, joke about blankets and smallpox, but yet the same mindset is still there in our Govt today. Get in office by hook or by crook. Then gather your share of the ever flowing treasure and do business as usual.

Mar 11, 2012, 4:42pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Kyle, did you ever hear sticks and stones will break your bones but, words will never hurt you?

(This saying is as invalid as can be Charlie. As todays experts can tell you words can kill as often as they heal. Ask any student that has killed himself or his schoolmates because of bullying, its a saying they have heard many times, used in dismissing the validity of their own feelings and as an excuse not to deal with that victims persecutors.)

It's really unhealthy thought to even think about putting someone else's beliefs on a scale to judge.

( Yet if we take this out of the realm of religion and put it in the politcal spectrum, its common place and even expected to put peoples political beliefs on a scale and not only judge them but tear them apart for not being what our own are... If its wrong to do for religion its wrong to do for politics as well. To believe otherwise is truly ignorance of the highest degree.)

I'm not interested in someone else's soul, just my own. I'm not about to roam the countryside hanging people from trees. History has taught us that not even that would make them stop calling themselves Christian.

(Your statement about your own soul tell us that if you consider yourself Christian then you either havent read the Bible or you are just not getting it. No matter what version of Christianity, or even Islam or Judaeism you follow even the radical versions, they always mention conversion with killing, theres a reason for that as all of them believe that conversion is an option at some point. Allah, Yahwe or God have all said that conversion should be tried. Never in my comments have I said that anyone should roam the countryside and raise any hand towards those who have sinned or refuse to believe. My statements have advocated forgiveness and explaining the Word like Jesus did in his lifetime. Some will listen and some wont but that doesnt mean you cease to try or judge one unworthy of the effort of bringing the Word to them. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Every Christian church has hidden in its clergy, sinners, not just gays but pedophiles and thieves and murderers and liars. Yet they all get along just fine, some even while these dinners in the clergy become known, they are protected and counseled. People have criticized the Catholic church for its protection of clergy that are guilty of pedophilia, but they are just practicing the very words Jesus told us, to forgive and lead into the path or righteousness those who stray.) I still feel that they need to face man and the public's justice system as well and I'm sure God knows this and I am not shamed by it)

Look up Reformation and the Thirty Years War.
(I did Charlie and as I thought the reformation was what the 30 yrs war was fought over, but again as I have stated we are human as are the leaders of the church, there are many shameful events even worse than this in Christianity's past. The Inquistion, The persecution of supposed practicers of witchcraft, even the missions of the church to places like South America, Africa and North America where it was convert or perish. We realize now that this was in error, and as Christ said we have asked our forgiveness and God has already dealt with those that did these things in accordance with their intent. As is written when you sincerely take your sins to God, even though he knows all things he will set those sins from you as far as west is from east.)

Mar 11, 2012, 5:33pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

What a wonderful discussion!

I am not a Christian, but I respect it as well as all faiths. That video that Dan posted was wonderful, if you haven't yet, please watch it. I believe that faith is a personal journey, one that can be shared, but never mandated.

God, in whatever version or name you find him, is not meant to be used as a weapon. Man creates doctrine that segregates, excludes and judges, not God. We all have the need to place labels and judgments, and unfortunately, we use our faith, as its justification.

When we get to the point where we can accept things and people for what they are, we will be a better people. The wind is neither good nor evil, yet it can both create and destroy. Humans are no different.

Government should not have a God, for it is meant to represent all peoples, not just some or most. No person's faith should be a factor for being in office, and no singular religion should set the standard for the social policies of its people.

Mar 11, 2012, 8:16pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Phil, that was an excellent post. Most of what you said is actually in the Bible. If I didn't have to get going to work, I would tag verses to each of your thoughts. Well said.

Mar 12, 2012, 5:38am Permalink
Nathan Oaksford

With recent attacks in Afghanistan from one of our soldiers on innocent civilians, and now the Taliban retaliations. I think however this situation plays out in the near future, and oil prices are going to have a big impact on how people vote.

Most people don't remember the whole game they just remember the last few minutes and what happens before the clock runs out determines who wins. This is going to be an interesting election.

Mar 12, 2012, 7:51pm Permalink

Authentically Local