To submit materials or ideas simply post them as a comment below (I’ll delete these as a matter of house keeping but will consider all submissions and may contact you about it).
I will turn suitable submissions into a prominent main post so that they’ll show up on RSS and aggregators like http://uupdates.net rather than linger in the comment section.
I welcome material that can highlight a candidate’s position, such as transcripts of campaign events, especially from the Q&A (stump speeches rarely offer new stuff).
If you have a particular question that you want to ask both candidates, please tell me so I can solicit an answer.
If you have already received specific answers (privately or during the course of an event) from the candidates please judge for yourself whether this information can be shared on this blog or was intended strictly for you personally.
I hope this blog will be a civilized place but will keep a censorial eye out to guard against malicious attacks or the spreading of unsubstantiated rumors.
I was very moved by thespeeches of both candidates. They are both great, and I would be honored to have either as president. Marietta
Looks like anybody can post here, as long as they provide an email address that won’t be visible except to the moderator. Right on!
At my church, we have a co-ministry. Listening to and meeting both candidates at GA this year, I found myself dreaming of a co-presidency. On the face of it, I see no reason why the two approaches couldn’t be complementary rather than competitive. I realize that in practice the UUA needs one President. At least the rules require it, and we UU’s seem more flexible on doctrine than on rules.
The two emphases, as I heard them, were: From Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman, essentially pastoral: Based on her experience, particularly in Dallas, the UU Church is a refuge for the free spirit in an intolerant world. At the Lincoln-Darwin forum on environmental justice, she spoke of the church as nurturing activists so they could go out and do their work during the week.
To Rev. Peter Morales, the outside world looks different, and so does the goal of the UUA. He points to change in the society — demographic, racial, ethnic — and sees an opportunity to broaden and transform the UUA, and to grow in the process. He sees a more activist role for the UUA and its President than Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman (at least in her presentations at 2008 GA) appears to do.
Elections, from class president to President of the US, tend to be about who we think is the better person. To ask that question of these two is presumptuous; to answer it, for me at least, impossible. So I think that before choosing a candidate we need to ask ourselves what we think the UUA’s goals should be in the next few years and which candidate has the better approach to achieve that.
For me, Peter Morales’s outgoing approach is very powerful. He challenges us to change the world and our own community. While it is clear that Rev. Dr. Hallman would be a wise and superb UUA President, I am compelled by the challenge and opportunity that a Morales UUA Presidency offers.
I visited both candidates’ websites today. I was able to post the following question to Laurel Hallman, but did not find a “submit your question” function on Peter Morales’s website. Here it is:
Last Wednesday, UUA President Sinkford joined other religious leaders for a meeting with Iranian Government officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Some U.S. leaders have asserted that to meet with President Ahmadinejad gives him status and credibility. Others have advocated such meetings. As UUA President, would you have met with President Ahmadinejad? Please explain your reasons for your decision.
I would be grateful if the moderator of this blog could provide this question and Peter Morales’s answer.
Michael Benefiel, Sept. 30, 2008
Hi Michael,
it’s possible that both candidates have too much on their hands. Peter Morales removed his blog because it was too much work. Laurel Hallman has the Ask a candidate feature but similarly has not invested much time or there would be more posted (none of the relevant questions I sent her were addressed, for whatever reason).
Martin
The following page on the UUA web site has links for video of the two candidates and written transcripts for a recent candidate forum in Worcester Mass:
http://www.uua.org/aboutus/governance/elections/president/index.shtml
Thanks.
For both candidates:
Do you feel it is appropriate for a UUA elected official to make a public endorsement of one candidate for the position of UUA President? What ethical standards might relate to such a practice?
I appreciate that you’ve posted transcripts of the candidates’ forums in chunks. The material is otherwise overwhelming.
We have a serious process problem in the denomination with the way we go about choosing our president. This person will be the public face, chief cheerleader, and inspiring force for 8 years (most presidents are re-elected to a second term after their first 4 years).
Eight years is a LONG time in these fast-changing times. And yet there is no way for those of us in the pews to get to know the candidates unless we’re real political/UU geeks and seek out the few venues where one or the other is speaking, or can wade thru their websites. Even if you or I did meet the candidates and decide that this particular candidate was the better choice, it matters not a whit if we don’t go to GA as a (voting) delegate.
This is not the democratic process.
What ends up happening is that a couple thousand delegates go to GA and they vote – probably based on what they hear there from the candidates, the length of their respective endorsement lists (or if they know/like any endorsers) and the mood of the moment. A lot of button-holing and glad-handing of delegates by campaign workers also goes on.
I’d like to hear some ideas about how we could make this a more democratic process, and specifically how we can all get to know the candidates.
Joy Overstreet
Michael Servetus UU Fellowship
soon to be UU Church of Vancouver (WA)