Hot Air poll: Who would you rather have on the ticket, Huckabee — or Lieberman? Update: Poll fixed
posted at 12:59 pm on May 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Inspired by this morning’s New York Sun editorial, arguing that the surest way to put Maverick over the top in battleground states is to add a Democratic apostate to the ticket. Yes, he’s excellent on the war and always delivers a tender cut of red meat when opining on his own party, but do we really want a guy who voted no on Alito one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency? If we’re willing to tolerate a pro-choice VP, toss Ridge on there and pick up Pennsylvania.
Even so, I’m intrigued by this as a test of right-wing blog readers — not their admiration of Liebs, necessarily, but of their abiding antipathy to Huck. How’s about it, HA commenters? Imagine Maverick’s shortlist is down to two; either one’s going to piss off a lot of people. Let’s see, in our own highly unscientific way, who’ll piss off more.
Update: Whoops, last poll was broken. Sorry for the hassle. Please re-vote!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »
Your collie is a verbose son of a bitch.
Haha. Get it?
misterpeasea on May 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM
What point of yours did my saying “God Damn” prove?
Quote the part of my comments that suggests otherwise. If you can’t, why is this even relevant to the discussion?
No, it’s not. It’s religious thinking, and it’s just as valid — and just as permissible — as secular thinking.
Look, I defend political points using secular arguments all
the bloody time, because it works better in a society where religious people face mindless bigotry — a society like the United States, where religious people constantly face the kind of unsupportable, anti-libertarian, bigoted CRAP you’re spewing. It’s relatively easy, because a lot religious teaching happens to be true.
My point, however, is that those who choose to do their political thinking in religious terms 1) have every right to do so, and 2) are not doing anything any less rational than you are with your secular reasoning. Take a page from your own multiculturalist book: just ’cause it’s different from you, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
The authors of our Constitution did a pretty reasonable job of creating a system where different points of view can be arbitrated peacefully and fairly. Prejudice against religious points of view threatens to undo what they did, and enforce a national secularism that is in fact just an instance of the very sort of thing they were trying to avoid. If you don’t have patience with religious reasoning, don’t hang around with people who do it — but don’t you DARE try to tell religious people that they don’t have the right to advocate and vote according to their religion here in America. They have as much right as you — and historically, they produce pretty decent results by doing so.
You haven’t said a single thing so far that suggests you’re even capable of understanding the point, let alone rebutting it, so I don’t think you’ve earned the right to accuse others of lazy thinking. I’m not the one who’s being lazy here.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Gotta go with Liebs if the only other choice is the Huckster.
I’d prefer a Fred Thompson/Michael Steele ticket myself, but that boat has sailed.
Ya know, McCain/Leiberman might actually amount to what a 3rd pary ticket would look like. And it today’s political climate, it would probably win. I think they’d definitely grab the mythical and elusive Center. Obambi’s going to flame out and leave a lot of dissillusioned dems looking for a candidate that isn’t the hildebeast.
techno_barbarian on May 19, 2008 at 9:33 PM
HAH! I KNEW it! When you waded in with all those comments on God’s Love, it just shouted Arminian.
Now don’t go getting technical on me. The pentecostals are Wesleyan too — just like the Nazarenes. They just put all that extra emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. My personal beliefs are very similar to those of the Nazarenes. My wife grew up in the Assembly of God church. Ironically, we now attend a church that claims to be non-denominational, but for all practical purposes, their doctrines are Baptist. It’s okay though, they are are my brothers and sisters in Christ too.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM
unseen wrote:
That would have worked back in 1795, in front of Justice Joseph Story. It doesn’t work as well in 2008 in front of Justice Scalia, with modern precedent; ours is a different culture.
My point is that Justice Story was no less rigorous a thinker than Justice Scalia; they’re both among the greats. Just because a point of view is expressed in religious terms doesn’t make it 1) wrong; 2) unacceptable under American Constitutional construction; 3) lazy. It’s just a different way of approaching the world — one that happens to evoke strong reactions from some pretty ignorant people these days.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Allah….calling…Allah!….Are you out there?
Since you’re in a poll-mood Allah, I have a suggestion for another poll.
How ’bout this one?
If the choice this fall would be Obama versus Huckabee, who would Hot Air readers vote for? (I know, strictly fiction–but maybe enlightening!)
Just wondering, because being a long-time Hot Air reader, I’ve noticed that Huckabee is hated with more venom than any other candidate, including the Democrat candidates.
My suspicion is that it’s because he speaks using the Christian worldview.
–(Cue the Hot Air readers….and……GO!)
Skidd on May 19, 2008 at 9:40 PM
If Huckabee is picked as VP,there needs to be a
do-dad gizmo hooked up to Huckabee,because like his
comments at the NRA,Huckabee needs to be zapped when
he’s about to say something stupid!
That way,with Huck on the ticket,that zapping gizmo
will keep Huckabee from saying any more stupid comments
during the election,
and that way they can spend more time campaigning,then
doing damage control and deny the MSM from spinning it!
(Ha,ha,Snark)
canopfor on May 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM
If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee [updated] and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. And some are even trying to turn the blog named Hotair into an intolerant religious blog.[updated] If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
Ever good Christian should line up and kick
Jerry FalwellMike Huckabee and SainttOlaf[updated] in the a$$.- Barry Goldwater (aka, Mr. Conservative)
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM
techno_barbarian or others
I have seen Michael Steele on TV lately and have been reading some of what he says and I get the impression that he is part of the NEW Republican party. He comes across as one of the “thoughtful”, “independent” republicans that aren’t afraid to work with the other side to find real solutions. In other words he sounds just as liberal as McCain.
Granted I haven’t seen much on him so I am curious how he views things like Global Warming, Immigration Reform and some of the other key issues that I am apparently not “thoughtful” on.
I know this may be asking for a lot but I am curious if anyone on this site has an opinion about him. Ha ha! I made a funny.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM
He smokes cigars and plays poker, too.
My collie says:
But you haven’t been able to prove it, have you?
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Hey, skid marks. That would be because you are a whiny little victim. Most of the commenters here that really despise Schmuckabee are Christians who cherish religious freedom. Since he is both a liar and a bigot, Christians will logically be his fiercest critics.
Allah, an atheist, seems to like The Huckster more than any of the Christians, including as AP noted hours ago, his former associate here, Bryan Preston, an evangelical type.
So quit your whining and actually read the comments.
Jaibones on May 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I think he misunderstood your comment to me, as I did. He probably thought you were defending the guy I called a bigot, instead of getting that you were making fun of him. Not to worry man.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 9:49 PM
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Always handy with the devastating quote. Awesome.
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM
My collie says:
Looks like collie woke up.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Out of over 300 million our country has come to this…
Entelechy on May 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Btw, Cyber, love your collie :)
Entelechy on May 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM
With all due respect to the honored dead, Barry Goldwater was 1) an anti-religious bigot, and 2) wrong.
Everybody who thinks like Goldwater, or like MB4 here, or like unseen, needs to go read chapter 17 of de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” and get a sense of just how deeply religious the people were who voted for the first fifteen presidents or so. If those people didn’t tear the republic apart, religious people today won’t. A religious populace was one of the givens when the Constitution was written.
Religious conservatives are FAR from being the most intractable folks in American politics. That dubious honor goes to the hard left. You might argue — I do — that the hard left is actually a religion unto itself, but they’re way worse than religious conservatives.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM
separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Goldwater hated christians, and anyone who dared disagree with him. he was upholding his version of the constitution…one where christians would not be allowed a voice in the public square.
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
“And some our even trying to turn the blog named
Hot Air into an intolerant religious blog”
MB4 on May 19,2008 at 9:45PM.
MB4:Are you sure theres not a twin of Hot Air,say
blogging out of Iran,with this intolerant religious
blog! Hehe:)
canopfor on May 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
One thing I’m not is a victim. Sounds as if you’re shooting off because of anger. I doubt you’ve read anything I’ve ever posted.
I asked a question and you responded. Thanks. Hope others jump on and give their views, too. :)
Skidd on May 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Could you suggest on or two places to start?
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 9:55 PM
hey cyber, the collie is cute, but get a pit bull for more attitude :)
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 9:55 PM
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
You are still avoiding my question. Scripture isn’t there for us to take what we like and ignore the rest.
I’ll answer the question for you. It is obvious that Paul was speaking in the present tense as himself being a sinner.
The other verse I provided doesn’t give us an excuse to go forward in sin. We avoid it at all costs. But our fleshly nature will continue to sin until we die.
I look forward to Heaven for many reasons. But the biggest being that I will no longer be sinning there. It is only by God’s grace that he will save me a sinner. If I didn’t have His grace there would be no hope for me.
You also demonstrated a bit of doublespeak when you asked for forgiveness for calling someone a mormon. Did you commit a sin? Sorry to be so pointed with my questioning but it must be noted. Of course you did. You will continue to do so. Just as I will. Just as anyone will. It is our sinful fleshly nature.
shick on May 19, 2008 at 9:55 PM
You still don’t get it…I always said Mitt would be a good cabinet or even VP.
What you don’t get, or that you are confused about is this…was I attacking Mitt, or you and others blind foolish faith in something you know little about?
You showed your faith by agreeing to give up your daughter to a “living prophet”, much like we see being played out in that crazy religious sect, with multiple wives and abused children.
That, by the way, is reflective of 150 years ago when a “prophet” talked people into giving up their children to be bedded by the “prophet”, and the “prophet that followed. Runs a chill up the spine doesn’t it (and if it doesn’t who are you cheering for in Texas?)?
So my problem may not be so much with individuals, as with other individuals and their lack of faith…or maybe their insistence of their faith in spite of truth. SaintOlaf, and you, cut from the same thread, blinded by faith they have created.
right2bright on May 19, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Sorry to disagree with you right2bright, but you will. It’s a belief usually associated with “hyper-Calvinism” (usually the supralapsarianism “school,” I didn’t make up the name). It surprises me that SaintOlaf would believe this, however, because he doesn’t strike me as a Calvinist of any kind.
As for getting an answer from SaintOlaf as to whether or not they are an Entire Sanctificationist or a Christian Perfectionist, good luck. I’ve asked and have yet to receive a straight answer. And, ironically, this particular doctrine is usually held by those on the opposite end of the theological spectrum from Calvinism.
Don’t think this means that I don’t love you SaintOlaf, because I do. I just think you hold some rather extreme beliefs. John Wesley has been accused of being a Perfectionist too.
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
You couldn’t carry Barry Goldwater’s lunch bucket.
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:03 PM
you’ve used these before. They say what they say, but they’re not the totality of these men’s thoughts on the subject. Just like the MSM last week made a big deal out of Einstein’s comments on religion. He said many things.
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”?
–1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I’m confident I know the answer to your dilemna. It’s called tradition. Don’t simply believe what you have been told but search the scriptures and use the gift of reason that God has given you.
Some would say that it’s a mystery and we don’t understand it. It is true that there are some things about God and His creation that we will not understand. But don’t go making mysteries beyond what He has revealed through either general revelation (his creation) or special creation (scripture).
shick on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I have heard “rumors” that some of the Iranian bloggers have infiltrated America’s Hotair as commenters.
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Naturally - the mere mention of Huckabee is traffic gold.
I don’t think that means Allah would vote for Huck. But talking about him? It’s like minting that crazy blog money, baby.
sulla on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
MB4, you are SO Jeffersonian (for an atheist, that is). It is natural for people to fear what they do not understand. There IS a danger. But it is NOT necessarily from the adherents of the Christian faith. No ordinary churchgoer wants to impose his religious beliefs on you, or attack the constitution that you worship. The threat comes from BIG money and the handful of individuals that control it. You mentioned Falwell and Robertson. Fine. I can understand that. Just don’t label ALL of Christianity a cesspool just because the worst turds floated to the top.
Jefferson/Madison didn’t want a repeat of the religious wars and enslavement of the people that was practiced by the church of the middle ages (in Europe). I can understand that too. But you really should read more of John Adams. Jefferson DIDN’T have all the answers. In fact, today’s America more strongly reflects the ideas of Hamilton than it does Jefferson. You may not like that, but there it is.
In fact, you seem to be SO paranoid of Christians that you come across like a conspiracy theorist. Most Christians are just people that want to be something better than what they are. It’s as simple as that. They don’t want to “rule over” anyone — and they are just as vulnerable as you atheists. If anything, based on the track records of you atheists, they have FAR MORE to fear from you, than you have to fear from them.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Sweet quotes. I find it amusing how many thumpers are convinced that the founding fathers were toungue speaking snake handlers like themselves.
ronsfi on May 19, 2008 at 10:13 PM
I have heard Huckabee referred to as Ahmaneedajob, so you could be right.
sulla on May 19, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Is your collie a twit as well?
ronsfi on May 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Jefferson’s own response (in a letter) regarding people who put words in his mouth:
“I recognize the same motives of goodness in the solicitude you express on the rumor supposed to proceed from a letter of mine to Charles Thomson, on the subject of the Christian religion. It is true, that in writing to the translator of the Bible and Testament, that subject was mentioned; but equally so that no adherence to any particular mode of Christianity was there expressed; nor any change of opinions suggested, a change from what? The priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious, sentiments of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the Act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations, but I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences for which we were accountable to him, and nor to the priests. I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed. I have ever judged the religion of others by their lives; and by this test, my dear madam, I have been satisfied yours must be an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness, for it is in our lives and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test, the world must judge me.” [Emphasis mine]
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 10:15 PM
right2bright or Mitt supporters
I don’t know why anyone would support Mitt for dog catcher let alone anything else. He is disingenuous at best and a pathological liar at worst. Please let me provide a specific example that was very revealing for me.
As members of the LDS faith we believe in a modern day prophet who directs the Church as he is inspired and directed by God. We have the same regard for “modern” prophets as we do for prophets of the Old Testament. In fact, the words of a modern prophet are given precedence over prior prophets since they relate directly to what is going on now. Mitt either lied to the members of his congregation when he sustained President Gordon B. Hinckley as the prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS church or he lied in his on camera interview when he rejected the idea that God speaks to people today.
I must stress that this is not a matter of him not being religious enough. It is more fundamental than that because it speaks to his integrity. He lied to one group for his own reasons. That is fine. Maybe he doesn’t believe anything. But the fact is that if he will lie about something that is a key element of what it means to be LDS then it should say something about his character. He claims membership in the church so it is a key issue.
I don’t want someone in a leadership position that denies the tenets of his faith because he is embarrassed by them. I also don’t want someone pretending to believe in something they don’t. I would have more respect if he simply rejected the ideas. I have said this before because I believe that he is dangerous because he is a man without a core set of values.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:15 PM
What point of yours did my saying “God Damn” prove?
Not one thing. You missed the point.
Quote the part of my comments that suggests otherwise. If you can’t, why is this even relevant to the discussion?
OK
Murder is illegal PRECISELY because it’s against Christian teaching
There were societies before Christ and in those societies murder was punished. So if murder is illegal because it is against Christian teaching now why was it illegal before Christ?
No, it’s not. It’s religious thinking, and it’s just as valid — and just as permissible — as secular thinking.
no it isn’t. religious thinking is narrow minded. It relies on one and only one source of information. Because you believe your religion you are not open to new or different ideas.
but don’t you DARE try to tell religious people that they don’t have the right to advocate and vote according to their religion here in America
hmm didn’t you just say the same thing about secular people? so let me get this straight it is ok to advocate on relgious grounds but not ok to advocate on secular grounds. It’s ok to vote for freedom from sin but not ok to vote for freedom from religion?
And since the point of my orginal post entirely escaped you. I’ll try to dumb it down. do unto others. From your post I take it you would not like to live in a Muslim society or a godless society. fine Many athiests don’t want to life in a Chatholic society and many baptists wouldn’t want to live in a mormon society. Their views/ wants/desires are no better or worse than yours in their eyes. Who are you to tell them how to live, what to do, who to have sex with? I thought that was god’s job. And He will handle them in HIS way. Relgion needs to be kept local and seperate from government for this very reason. the majority in local areas should decide what is best for their local community. If they want to be druids and practice the druid faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with secular national laws (like human sacrifice or something) feel free have fun but don’t try to tell me I have to become a druid. If I don’t like it I have the option to move to a different town. If the druid relgion becomes the national relgion I’m screwed.
Live your life the way you want to live it. Explain to people your faith, try to get them to convert but DO NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORSHIP YOUR GOD AND LIVE UNDER YOUR GOD’s RULES. The majority decides what rules and laws we have, the minority has special rights so those laws and rules do not take away their freedoms.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 10:15 PM
speaking of snakes, look who showed up….
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 10:19 PM
yeah the atheists/evolutionists have a long history of barbarism…even Dawkins admitted that a darwinian society would be a fascist state…
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Has your calvinist collie ever suggest reading Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion to you? If he has, I suggest you take his advice. I think Arminians would agree with 90% of it and find it very edifying. I’m going through it now very s-l-o-w-l-y and have only read one fifth of it.
shick on May 19, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Jefferson was a deist.
Adams was a Calvinist.
Many, including Washington, were freeMasons.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:38 PM
If the only reason you have to outlaw something is because it is against YOUR religion then yes: 1)it is wrong 2) unacceptable under the consitution and 3) lazy thinking. that is what Muslim countrie do. See how well that worked for them?
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Thank “God” that back then creme rose to the top.
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Why did Mitt overwhelmingly win the Mormon vote?
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
If only we could go back to the idyllic utopia of the freaking 1800s.
As profoundly religious as our founders were, don’t you ever wonder why God is not mentioned once in the U.S. constitution? Or why the only mention of religion is to restrict its practice by the government?
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Not that I necessarily disagree with you. But what, in your opinion, is an acceptable reason to outlaw something?
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
My collie isn’t anything like me. I am a 240 pound alpha male standing well over 6 feet tall - and I am the smallest one in my family. I come from a long line of Celtic barbarians with red hair and green eyes. We eat pain like candy.
Now why don’t come a little closer?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM
No, a Darwinian society would be an anarchist state, right? Survival of the fittest doesn’t seem to require a large government.
funky chicken on May 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Oh, that [Lincoln's Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
- Abraham Lincoln (to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: “I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published.” Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138)
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Working off the assumption, it’s very simple.
The Constitution is civil law; it has nothing to do with natural law because the founders didn’t believe government should tread on natural law. Compare it to the Declaration where the founders appealed injustice on both natural and civil law. They claimed that Parliament had no right to infringe on natural law. It would be extremely hypocritical for them to turn around and then interject that into their own self-created document.
Simple put, the founders are already excluding the domain of things of natural law and only addressing themselves to issues over which government should have power. It is why many, including Madison, felt the Bill of Rights were unnecessary - as they state natural law (freedom of religion in the case here) shall not be abridged. That’s a no-brainer at the time.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”
right4life on May 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
there is nothing wrong with teaching the Christian religion in schools IRT why our society is what is is and why our laws are what they are, the basic tenants of the relgion, the different types of churches etc. the problem comes when teaching becomes preaching and when preaching becomes mass forced conversion. As a christian I want my friends and neighbors to come to christianisty because it is the best religion, it shows the truths or the world or for whatever reason they deem important. I do not want to force them into my religion to get an A in school, or because to fit in, or because it is the law.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious, unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Isn’t the whole basis for the Constitution predicated on the notion that man has the freedom to govern himself because he is endowed by a creator with unalienable rights?
JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Jesus died to save men. A small thing for an immortal to do, & didn’t save many, anyway; but if he had been damned for the race that would have been act of a size proper to a god and would have saved the whole race. However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan?
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Outside of a dog a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I’m just glad they finally decided to put it in. It also was not in because the document gets its rights from the people not from God. It is not cast in stone, the document can and has been changed to fit the times. washington D.C does not rule by the divine wishes of God but by the patience and will of the people. To include God in the Document would weaken the power of the people to change the government when it becomes needed.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 10:40 PM
The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive … but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Good thing Madison’s view didn’t prevail.
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board.
-Mark Twain
(Favorite thus far)
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be — a Christian.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 10:44 PM
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.
-Mark Twain
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:44 PM
It is not best that we should all think alike; it is a difference of opinion that makes horse races.
-Mark Twain
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:45 PM
It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it.
-Mark Twain
(hmmmmmm?)
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain
(heh)
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM
JiangxiDad
Short answer. I really don’t know. I have guess though based on my observations but obviously my insight is just an opinion. When I saw so many of my friends and people that I respected throwing their support behind Mitt I asked them why. As I discussed this with many people I found that most of the Mormons I spoke with were no different than regular Americans when it comes to researching political candidates so they knew very little other than he was a Mormon. However, I noticed something very unsettling as well. I found a strange reluctance to break from his camp even when I pointed out his strangely inconsistent decision, views and statements with respect to life in the church.
Some Mormons want to be accepted so much by main stream society that they will do anything to get that acceptance. They are tired of feeling on the outside. Having a Mormon president would go a long way toward getting that acceptance in their view. I like living on the outside. It’s much less congested.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Here are three reasons that I perceived. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but folks I’ve spoken with.
1. “one of ours” in a way that, say, Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are not. Mitt’s aura is more Steve Young / Donny Osmond than either of those crankypants. Mormon Doc obviously disagrees, but generally I thought his comments on religion were within tolerable range. It was clear he didn’t want religion to be the focus of his campaign, and I was fine with that; I’ve never liked candidates, including Mormons, who tried to make their religion itself a reason to vote for them. Great, you’re a [] - but are you a GOOD one?
2. the Olympics - they were a looming disaster before he came along.
3. Turned off by anti-Mormon comments, specifically from supporters of Huck (see Red Pill, apacalyps, St. Olaf, Harald Hardrada, etc) and McCain (his mom and at least one senior S.C. staffer). Nothing gets Mormons circling the wagons quicker than attacks from outside, real or perceived.
sulla on May 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I’m glad they put it in too. Showed some foresight, I think. I agree with most of what you said, it is a genius document, but I disagree with you in part. I don’t get my rights - some of them are inalienable & can’t be separated from me - from other people; I do get my powers within the government from other people. But my rights are mine by right.
Ironically, Madison was the one to push them through. He didn’t want to do it, but his constituency was going to vote for someone else. So he made a campaign promise, got elected, then busted tail to get them done. Very cool.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM
RightOFLeft
A belief in God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence so clearly and irrefutably that I have always felt that the founders did need to write any more about it in the original documents. There is a certain elegance in the way that it was placed in that defining document that including more about God in the Constitution would not have been out of place but could have appeared gratuitous. IMHO
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM
This is the third and last time I will clear this up…I did not say men were supposed to sin.
I was quoting professor blather mouth the false prophet.
I clearly did answer your question with galatians 2:20.
True faith produces righteousness as it is not us that are righteous but Christ that lives in us.
As born again Christians we are new creatures and have overcome sin through Christ Jesus.
I will tell you..I used to think I was a Christian and had false faith that did not produce righteousness.
For eight years I thought I was a Christian but continued to live in sin…that is what happens when you accept some those false teachings that man will always sin.
When I was truly born again and received a new heart that (unlike my old wicked heart) wanted to be obedient to God,I realized the difference…it is True faith that produces righteousness and righteousness that sustains the filling of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit cannot live in an unholy vessel.
Sometime after being born again I was sitting in my car and I kept receiving lustful images in my mind and it disturbed me…I thought “why am I thinking about this”? ..”I’m a new creature..where is this coming from?”…but they wouldn’t go away.
so I bound those thoughts in the name of Christ Jesus and cast them out….instantly they were gone and I realized something profound…these thoughts weren’t coming from myself and out of my heart but they were external images coming to me to tempt me!
I was being tempted,externally,by demonic forces and they were less powerful than Christ and were obedient when cast out in the name of Jesus Christ!
Can we overcome sin?
Yes we can…in the name of Jesus Christ we can overcome sin.
What you are referring to (mistakes without knowledge) is another story also.
We are becoming perfected in Christ Jesus.
There may be some things that you did last year that now with more knowledge you will not do this year…does that mean you were sinning by doing them last year?(we’re talking about minor things here)…not necessarily.
There is a difference between things pertaining to holiness done without knowledge, which now (as we’re becoming more holy) we may not do.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that those were sins.
God’s Law is written in man’s hearts and if we disobey that Law it is sin and you are willfully sinning.
It means that your faith is not True faith and that you need to repent and seek True faith through Jesus Christ.
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Personally I don’t care who McLame’s VP is, Bob Barr is starting to look really good to me!
Vntnrse on May 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM
unseen
Actually you have that 180 degrees backwards. Rights flow from the Creator not from other men. Were it not so they could be rescinded. This is the essential point behind inalienable rights.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Enjoy our surrender in the war on terror.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I’d go with Lieberman before Huckabee.
I mean come on, you’re giving me a choice between the last rational Democrat and an insane shyster televangelist bigot.
Quite frankly I don’t want the Democratic Party to die, I just don’t want the George McGovernites (More like Vlad Lenin’s these days) to rule over the Scoop Jacksons/Harry Trumans.
BKennedy on May 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Because God can take care of himself.
As it is, the reason way America is so religious compared to nations with established churches is that government tends to kill everything it touches. When humans try to speak for God - especially with the force of law - it usually ends badly.
God is God. I’m not. The US Congress sure as hell isn’t.
vonspringer on May 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM
He ain’t HildaBeast. Check.
He ain’t Barakobi Obamawan. Check.
He ain’t Juan McStrawberries. Check.
He looks good to me too!
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Cool, you can enjoy our surrender to terror as well.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Not that I necessarily disagree with you. But what, in your opinion, is an acceptable reason to outlaw something?
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM
good question. there aren’t many. To many laws on the books already IMO. But anything that would cause the society as a whole to selfdestruct should be outlawed. Anything that causes/has a big probability of causing bodily harm to another by your deliberate actions that is not done in self defensive. anything that robs a person of wealth that he or she has built thru their own labor/time/etc. you know no murder, no rape, no stealing, no speeding 70 in a school zone, shooting high power rifles into the air for shit and giggles, etc But it really doesn’t matter what I think should be laws and not laws, if the majority agrees that something needs to be outlawed and it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the minority or the freedom of the individual (bill of rights) to an excessive degree then it should be the law of the land or the local community or the state etc. each place has a need for different laws and different ideas. The discussion was about child pornagraphy. That is a worthy thing to ban form society because it hurts and exploits children who are not mature enough to handle the subject and since the children do not have a voice then the country should protect them. Adult pornagraphy is a different issue. I can see the case for some local communities to outlaw it and I can see the case for others not too. Who am I to decide which is better for each little town and big city in the country? If las Vegas wants pornagrapy and prositution and they feel it will not destroy their city or cause undue harm to their people then why should North Carolina say they shouldn’t have it. In the same vain who is Las Vegas to tell north carolina that they should have it.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Gotcha. Sorry.
So. Entire sanctification then? It’s a “yes” or “no” answer. I’m guessing “yes.”
And if “yes” then the next question (always) is; do you feel that you have (by the grace of God) achieved moral perfection?
You leave a loophole for trangression by involving demonic forces, I find that fascinating. The Perfectionists that I have known (those who believed that they had achieved moral perfection) had no explination when caught in sin.
Are you Pentacostal or Methodist by any chance?
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Dude, This is the “Internet” not a bar. Besides, what kind of “Barbarian” Porkchop owns a collie? Jusayin’ Get any closer and I’ll shoot!
ronsfi on May 19, 2008 at 11:09 PM
And you can enjoy beating your wife.
MB4 on May 19, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Furthermore, I come from a short line of none too choosy mudbloods who just for shitzngigglez packed their all the crap they could carry into a wheelbarrow and dragged it 1500 miles over the rockies in the snow and when the big dummies dropped dead…we ate them!
ronsfi on May 19, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Hey. Calm down now. None of us enjoys beating our wives.
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Pentecostal. What about you?
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Well…I read your comment that I quoted and responded to; isn’t that enough?
If I seemed annoyed, consider the environment: you toss out a comment in a 600+ comment thread, suggesting that the “real reason” that so many HotAir commenters despise Huckabee is an anti-Christian bias.
This after untold tens of thousands of comments over the past 9 months on untold hundreds of Huckabee-related posts, and after 600 more comments on this thread, dozens of which are pointing out what you seem oblivious to.
So, no, I was not going to be real receptive to your whiny “woe is me, I am an oppressed Christian and my shephard, the great mail-order pastor Mike Huckabee is being crucified here by the godless heathens”.
Before you accuse others of religious bias, you might want to get the lay of the land. We’ve had this discussion a few times.
Jaibones on May 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I’ve always thought “creator” was a very meaningful choice of words. There’s a subtle and irreconcilable difference between “endowed by their Creator” and “endowed by God.” The founder’s idea of a constitutional democratic republic drew inspiration from many philosophical influences, and surely they had vigorous disagreements over how religion would fit in.
I think you could make an argument that there are more Hellenistic influences than Christian influences. I wouldn’t handcuff the founders to a particular ideology, but I’m pretty sure that many of the founders supported democratic rule on purely rationalist (even materialist) grounds. Even those that claimed a theistic justification only did so in the very limited sense of providence. The functional sense of the constitution is clearly and scrupulously secular, and that’s reflected in the final language of the founding documents.
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Shocker.
Jaibones on May 19, 2008 at 11:20 PM
And you need to have your primary health care provider adjust your medications.
Sigy on May 19, 2008 at 11:20 PM
A Great Aunt of mine. Rebecca Winters brave soul may she rest in peace.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8019/nerw.html
ronsfi on May 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM
This thread has been hijacked. I’m done. Once the “Bob Barr looks good to me” kind of troll comes out…..you knows it’s time to leave.
malan89 on May 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM
29Victor
Good point well made. I also like that you used the plural - wives. It made me feel right at home.
/Polygamist
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Heh. Nice.
Was just thinking, it’s kind of funny how political discussion inevitably work their way backwards through history. Just to bring things back to the present… um… what were we talking about?
RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 11:28 PM
You could also make a good argument that Christian and Hellenistic influences aren’t two entirely different things. Christianity began among the Greek-speaking people of a Roman province, and spread through a Roman Empire at the peak of its power. Though very imperfectly, medieval monks and the Catholic church were largely responsible for preserving what survived of that heritage after Rome fell.
Of course, to the extent the church became the government things went badly and helped darken the dark ages. But for the parts of Christianity that were not part of government (monks especially) helped pave the way for the enlightenment.
The enlightenment is sometimes thought of as a triumph of secularism. Partially it is. But the French revolution ended in horror, the American revolution ended with the greatest nation in history. I submit the difference is how the people of those nations related to God.
vonspringer on May 19, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Heh. I don’t know, but I gotta punch out anyway. Have a good evening.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM
you got the wrong document. the document is a contract made between men. The people and states have given the government the right to govern us. It gives the government narrow rights and certain obligations in return for that privilage, the people get security and “peace”. whenever the government shows that it can not handle those obligations and tramples the GOD given rights then we as the people have the duty and obligation to recind those rights granted to the government by us.
” We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ”
Also see amendment #9 and #10
9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 11:32 PM
put it this way the people gets their rights from the creator we choose to give some of them to the government for exchange of things we need like security, domestic peace etc.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I follow your point, and I’m not excited to argue over the semantics of it (and agree with to govern - is consensual contract). So I’ll merely add that the document is the rights and powers of the government. So think of it as subtraction. All rights (enumerated + un) minus ones given to government. It’s not designed to elaborate on rights of the people, it’s just designed elaborate on the framework and the restrictions of the framework of government. It operates on the pre-existing acknowledgment of rights.
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Yeah, I agree with that. We give up part of our liberty to create an operating governmental contract. That’s really it for me:)
Spirit of 1776 on May 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM
You homuculus troglodyte. I like you better already.
My collie says:
Only in California. The land of fruits and nuts.
CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »