Random Thoughts on the 7th Congressional Candidate Forum Held @ Ripley's Aquarium, Part 2

Random Thoughts, # 2

2.  Regarding the Format & Performance of the Candidates

a.  I like that the candidates were sequestered and didn't know the questions and had no idea what the other candidate's responses were.

b.  Each Candidate had 2 minutes to introduce themselves.

c.  Each of 4 Congressmen asked the same question of each of the 6 candidates.

d. The candidates answered each question and then exited the stage.

My Take :

There wasn't much really to go on.  If anything it was a way to see these folks live and to get a feel for their "presence" and to get a feel for their ability to answer questions on the fly.  

1.  Tom Rice:

Seems like a very nice man.  Has lots of  resume credentials, but sounds just like the type of people already filling seats in D.C.

A "nah" for me at this time.

2.  Dick Withingon:

Holy crap, what a train wreck.  
He was all over the place and I could not make sense of his words.  I'm not sure if he was speaking Elvish or the language of Mordor or what.
I'm being honest.  He didn't answer the questions.  Not really.
It seemed as if his intention was to use the questions as a springboard to say what he wanted.
He launched into four or five indiscernible tangents.
And really; I feel bad saying these things because it's sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, but it's true. And I hope no one votes for him.
No one should be allowed to vote for him. 
It should maybe be against the law or something.

I was sitting next to this older couple with whom I'd been chatting and getting acquainted before the event began and while Dick was blathering...the wife leaned over to me and whispered in my ear:  

"I don't think anyone is going to vote for him".

She said it in the most precious, sweet way, but she was right.

He's a double-nah for me.

3.  Jay Jordan:

Jay comes across as very mild mannered and nice.  Likeable.

Again though...I don't know what it is for me.  I guess I want someone with a bit of an edge to them.  Someone who I feel won't get pushed around.

Someone who doesn't come across as just another political hack who looks and sounds just like everyone else...
...blah, blah, blah. 

Will have to hear more from Jay before I lock in my final thumbs up or thumbs down.

These men and women can say all manner of things to get elected, but when the last vote's been counted and the winner packs up to go to Washington...will they be aggressive and assertive enough to make it?  Will they make a stand for the people in their district while holding forth their core ideals?

Or will they just become...[and please, excuse my language...but it's meant to be a visual]...the bitch of some entrenched lifetime politician who will tell them to bend over and they, trembling, can only respond "how far"?

Moving right along:

4.  Randal Wallace:

Here's where I became close minded.  As soon as it was announced that Randal was on the Myrtle Beach City Council...I rolled my eyes and became almost instantaneously disinterested.  

I definitely won't be voting for him.   
I know that sounds awful to make such a determination based on his being on the City Council, but I feel that strongly about it.  
That's the way the ball bounces.

I think Randal has a good stage presence...but big whoop.  Who cares about that?  Maybe he would be aggressive, but again...he gives off a vibe (and I'm sure it's my bias against the City Council) of someone who sounds like everyone else.  It's like a cookie cutter mold for State and Local representatives.  I'm so over it.  
It reminds me of the Little Rascals when they just get tired of eating the mush.   
I'm tired of the political mush.

5.  Jim Mader:

Um....Boring.

Definite Nah.

Seems nice enough, but he doesn't really come across as a happy person.

6. Mande Wilkes:


Mande was smart and gave us at least a catch phrase to remember her by and to associate with her in the future:


A No Compromise Conservative!

It has nothing to do with the fact that Mande is a woman because honestly; I'm a woman and I'm usually paying more attention to the men.  I've heard a lot of women politicians and they tend to be shrill.

Sorry ladies, but you can't give speeches with the same voice that you use to yell at your husband and children when you "remind" them to put their underwear in the hamper.
It doesn't work.
It's a turn off
(in more ways than one)

What I like about Mande is that she doesn't come across as polished.(in the fake sense)

She is down-to-earth and gets up in arms over the same things you and I do.

I thought she took the stage with confidence and answered the questions concisely, honestly and happily.

She's not stale.

She's vibrant and I think she has the background which enables her to relate to her future contingency on a much more intimate level than some of the dudes which we heard from.

But, there really wasn't much to go on in this Forum...so for the candidates one and all...and for those in the race who weren't at this event...time will tell!

.

Random Thoughts on the 7th Congressional Candidate Forum Held @ Ripley's Aquarium, Part I

 Frank Luntz gave a little greeting last night @ the Forum. 

My Vantage Point of the Proceedings.

Bless their little back ends!

Random Thoughts, # 1:

1. Republican Alan Clemmons and his long-winded prayer/invocation.

Just because something like praying an invocation has become a part of government-sponsored events...does not mean it should continue or that it's right.

Government representatives or agents should not be involved in anything which indicates a religious preference.

I say that as a former pastor's wife (over 17 years) 

I never thought it was right and I still hold to the notion that it's not right.

It flies in the face of the intentions of our Founding Fathers when they crafted the Constitution of the United States.

How do I know their intentions? 

I read what they wrote.

Not only that, but I look at their actions in the following days and months and years.

They kept the wall of separation in place.

Inscribing our money and our Pledge of Allegiance with mottos and additions such as  "under God" and "In God We Trust" and requiring invocations to be a part of the order of business during government proceedings was not their doing.

For all of the separation of church and state rhetoric that is thrown around willy-nilly...specifically during election cycles...we live in a Country where those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible cannot hold public office in more than a handful of States.

There should be no religious test for public office.

Our Constitution states so in the First Amendment, Article 6, 3rd Clause:

"... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

But South Carolina's Constitution states thus as of 2010:

Article VI


Officers


Section 1.  Eligibility for office; terms.

Section 2. Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office.

No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (1972(57)3181; 1973(58)83).

I think Christians have this false notion that if they stand up for the Constitution in matters such as these...[of separation]...that they are in some way bringing shame to their God or denying him or doing him an injustice.

How can that be?

If you believe He founded this great country of ours and that he inspired the men who compiled our fantastically resilient Constitution, then it seems you should also believe that He obviously did not inspire them to begin adding "In God We Trust" and "Under God" to everything in sight.

If He had...they would have!

They did not.
Were they not listening?
They were secure in who they were and in what they believed so much so that they didn't have to plaster it everywhere as some sort of validation.


You can plaster stuff...just not on Public properties or in Government offices and the like.
Post it on private property.
Use private funds.
No one is stopping your voice from being heard in spreading what you believe is your Great Commission from God.
You just can't infringe on the rights of others or venture into the realm of "State".

It's not blasphemy to remove Nativity Scenes from Public properties or to remove the 10 Commandments from Courthouses...though Christian leaders have made you believe that this is heresy and a slap in the face to God...but it's no such thing...it's just Constitutional.

Plain and Simple.


And let me state this and you might not like it, but I have held the belief for a very long time that those who take stock in nativities and  laws of the Old Testament engraved into gold plates attached to wooden plaques and those who believe in public praying as the Pharisees did...well, I think Jesus would think the same of those people as He did of those self-righteous religious folks back in his day.
Belief in God is not about any of those things and it cheapens the whole experience when you raise a ruckus over pieces of parchment and forced prayers and mottos.
You favor the "letter" of your man-made religious doctrine and not the "spirit" which sets you free from all that outward stuff.

And it would then seem to follow logical reasoning...

 that if you fight against keeping God where He ultimately belongs...sacred and personal in your life as an individual... and leave Him out of Government where He never was to begin with, then are you not just fighting against God's desires and wishes?


And, while you're so busy standing up for what you think is "right", you treat many of your fellow human beings in a most un-Christlike way in the process.  
Which is more godly? 
Save stuff or treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated?


I looked around the room last night as Mr. Clemmons was asking God's blessing over everything in sight.  He seemed to put on the brakes just shy of anointing  the chairs and the microphone and the toilet seats in the bathroom(hyperbole alert!)
I saw so many who did not have their heads bowed.
It was a reminder...that elections are not just about you dear Christian. We're in the room too ya know.  It's about all of us and
it's not wise to alienate those whose votes you're going to need come June and November. 
It borders on foolishness. 

Christians don't seem to mind breaching the wall of separation when it suits them because they feel they have God to back them up.

But when the roles are reversed...they don't like it.

You can't have it both ways and that's why the Founding Fathers kept these matters separate.
They had an uncanny ability to understand the psyche of man and fashioned our Foundational documents accordingly.

Religion and Spirituality and Faith are matters of the Heart and Soul and are extremely personal and that's where they should remain. 

When Alan Clemmons went on and on praying...

...that's when I realized that I wasn't going to keep my opinions to myself any longer on this subject.

As Americans, we tend to be very annoyed with those who do not think exactly as we do.

Politics and Religion have become subjects of taboo in our overly sensitive society.

I don't like that.

I love hearing other points of view because it opens my mind to alternative ways of thinking and it challenges me in my system of beliefs.

Sometimes it solidifies and buttresses my  ideals and other times it causes me to rethink and refashion.

I'm not a static person.

I'm dynamic in my thinking...and I have high hopes that you all are as well.

If you'd like to take issue with anything I say; I welcome you.

I write posts here based on the best and most up-to-date information I have. 

 I do not claim infallibility. 

I'm not the Pope speaking ex cathedra from the Chair of Peter.

I'm just a woman living in Myrtle Beach with a point of view.