In a previous blog entry, I stated that I will not be voting for Mitt Romney (https://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/why-i-wont-vote-for-mitt-romney/). My excuse: “America needs a stateman, not a politician.” I then implied that Mitt is not acting like a stateman. When I wrote the piece, I was thinking of the traditional definition of the two words: “a stateman does what is best for the country and a politician does what’s best for him or her.” Additionally, a politician is one who panders excessively.
Commenting in the SLTrib (13 Aug 2011), Gary Leavitt gave alternative definitions: “A stateman is one who supports your point of view and a politician is one who does not.” Even though Gary wasn’t commenting on my particular blog, his point is well taken.
On another blog entry (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hansen20110726), I asserted that traditional religious institutions may soon be obsolete. I then took several shots at conservative Christian organizations. One comment by “Abraham” on my opinion piece was:
It’s just that their usually conservative leanings lead them in . . . the opposite direction as the author of this post. And that’s what the real plaint this author has.
I plead partially guilty.