Huckabee: I wish I could have gotten an easy ride to national prominence like Sarah Palin

posted at 5:27 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit

He’s not saying it critically, mind you. Since when has Huck ever been critical of a rival, overtly or otherwise?

Huckabee had some interesting observations about Sarah Palin, a potential 2012 opponent, suggesting that she didn’t earn her spurs and was more appealing to the base of the party because she hadn’t been scrutinized in the primary.

“What John McCain did for her was to give her the capacity to sort of leapfrog over the process and get right to the center stage,” he said of the GOP’s vice presidential nominee.

Unlike those, he added, who had competed in the Republican primary.

“She didn’t have to get bloodied like us. Few people on that stage didn’t get bloodied.”

He did allow, though, that she did get bloodied — “but not by the people Republicans care about, you guys.”

Fearing that this lament might sound a tad resentful, he went on to stress that he was merely envious, nothing more. Oh, and he also reminded McCain that he blew the race by not opposing the bailout and probably would have lost the nomination to Huck himself if so many state primaries hadn’t been winner take all.

Exit admission: The only thing keeping me blogging through this long, long winter of conservative discontent is the dream of a Huck/Palin death match in 2011 to determine who the one true “Christian leader” is. Followed, of course, by 15 Kathleen Parker columns proclaiming the end of conservatism, and then 15 more describing the resulting hate mail. (Just kidding. She’ll have renounced the right long before then.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 6 7 8

Washington absolutely was a Christian by ANY definition.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Um, no, he wasn’t.

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, “Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world.

On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, “often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:08 PM

School isn’t for teaching kids how to think freely, or giving them all the information. It’s for giving them limited information so that they do what you want. Ah, indoctrination. Funny, but I thought that was the game liberals played. Hmmm.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Do you even read my posts??
I specifically stated that the schools SHOULD NOT indoctrinate either way!!! Govt is to KEEP OUT such influences on either side and leave it to the parents and the churches of said children!
Now you are just blathering.

Wait….are you a liberal jsut here to stir up a stink?

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:13 PM

When did I order any such edict?

Right here:

Just quit calling yourselves conservatives and admit you are capitalists and libertarian. We agree on much—but not for the same reaosns or in the same ways.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Nice try.

EXACTLY!! Finally you see it– modern-day conservatism. –not the same as classical conservatism—there’s hope for you yet!!

Oho, so now you’re suddenly referring to pre-Goldwater conservatism? As ideologies have changed drastically in the last century, you’re going to have a lot of clarification to do. So far, you’ve been referring to conservatism as it exists today. You’ve dismissed noted conservatives and challenged the labels of others. News flash, pal: Conservatism today is modern conservatism. If you want to dabble with anachronisms, knock off the ignorant decrying of others holding relevant, timely ones.

Oh, and Reagan? Modern conservatism, and a big admirer of Buckley. You’re crumbling, my friend. Nice job of quoting someone when you just admitted you’re a completely different “conservative” than he was.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

oh pleeeeeeze…….

Washington’s own contemporaries did not question his Christianity but were thoroughly convinced of his devout faith–a fact made evident in the first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s.

That compilation of Washington’s writings was prepared and published by Jared Sparks (1789-1866), a noted writer and historian. Sparks’ Herculean historical productions included not only the writing of George Washington (12 volumes) but also Benjamin Franklin (10 volumes) and Constitution signer Gouverneur Morris (3 volumes). Additionally, Sparks compiled the Library of American Biography (25 volumes), The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (12 volumes), and the Correspondence of the American Revolution (4 volumes). In all, Sparks was responsible for some 100 historical volumes. Additionally, Sparks was America’s first professor of history–other than ecclesiastical history–to teach at the college level in the United States, and he was later chosen president of Harvard.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Jared Sparks delved into the religious character of George Washington, and included numerous letters written by the friends, associates, and family of Washington which testified of his religious character. Based on that extensive evidence, Sparks concluded:

To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Wait….are you a liberal jsut here to stir up a stink?

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Yeah, you found me out. My blog, my opinions I’ve spoken on here for the last two years, my virulent support of Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin, my strong views on an array of issues and my arguments in favor of the conservative side.

All an act. As are the years of my childhood where I was brought up in a conservative home, my years on the debate team and newspaper in high school as the most vocal conservative and critic of Clinton, as well as my conservative views in the school newspaper of the University of Wisconsin, my money to Bush and Thompson, all of it…an act.

You know so much, don’t you?

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Oh, and Reagan? Modern conservatism, and a big admirer of Buckley. You’re crumbling, my friend. Nice job of quoting someone when you just admitted you’re a completely different “conservative” than he was.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Nice try–Reagan was certainly influenced by WFB and Goldwater–but went beyond thm—further back.
I said such things many posts ago—your short term memory is failing.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Yeah, you found me out. My blog, my opinions I’ve spoken on here for the last two years, my virulent support of Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin, my strong views on an array of issues and my arguments in favor of the conservative side.

All an act. As are the years of my childhood where I was brought up in a conservative home, my years on the debate team and newspaper in high school as the most vocal conservative and critic of Clinton, as well as my conservative views in the school newspaper of the University of Wisconsin, my money to Bush and Thompson, all of it…an act.

You know so much, don’t you?

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM

And he finally admits it!

You’re a riot. Go take a pill .

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

John, would you consider John Locke a Christian?

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM

John Locke off the TV show LOST?

LOL

Don’t know enough about the other one to say.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM

madisonconservative

It does interest me how you can be so conservative—-yes by even my definition I admit—and so despise other conservatives.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Nice try–Reagan was certainly influenced by WFB and Goldwater–but went beyond thm—further back.

He also loved Whittaker Chambers and he voted four times for FDR. WFB was a personal friend of Reagan’s. I don’t know how you can diss WFB but love Reagan.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM

and have such a filthy mouth

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM

John Locke off the TV show LOST?

LOL

Don’t know enough about the other one to say.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM

John Locke, as in the man who coined the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” John Locke, the great Enlightenment thinker who so influenced our Founding Fathers. You should read Locke.

If Washington was in any way Christian it would have been in the same sense that Locke was. And Locke’s brand of Christianity was not fundamentalism at all.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM

He also loved Whittaker Chambers and he voted four times for FDR. WFB was a personal friend of Reagan’s. I don’t know how you can diss WFB but love Reagan.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM

I don’t diss WFB I mentioned already that I actually like him overall……I just dont belong to his fan club.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:34 PM

And he finally admits it!

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Good lord, you must be easy to sell a car to. Can’t detect a single iota of sarcasm.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:36 PM

And he finally admits it!

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Good lord, you must be easy to sell a car to. Can’t detect a single iota of sarcasm.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Wow–do you realize what you just did????
I was being SARCATSIC

pot calling the kettle black on aisle 3!!!

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

I’m gonna be laughing about that all day tomorrow heh heh

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM

oops…I was laughing so hard I misspelled SARCASTIC

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM

It does interest me how you can be so conservative—-yes by even my definition I admit—and so despise other conservatives.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Which ones are those? So far you’ve been the one ripping on Buckley, at the same time not only calling other conservatives liars and liberals, but also denigrating a whole bevy of non-Christian conservatives based on your belief that there are “only a few”, and you seem to imply that the only ones are personal acquaintances of yours.

So the question is, why do you not only despise conservatives that aren’t Christian fundamentalists, but why do you turn away those who will stand with you and agree with you solely on the basis of their religious beliefs?

Since you were entirely unable to take the hint about my second to last post, I’ll clue you in: The question is answered by the fact that you’re a fundamentalist. Religious fundamentalists are nutbags, be they Christian, Islamic, Atheist(yes, Atheism is a religion), or any other.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Ironically, I’m about to go watch a documentary about the Jonestown tragedy. I’ll leave the rest of you here with Jim Jones the Fundamentalist to enlighten you all about how you’re not conservatives unless you agree with him about social engineering and how government should run your life except when they shouldn’t.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:43 PM

When one studies the life of George Washington, whether digging in deep or just scratching the surface, the idea that George Washington believed in the God of the Bible cannot be missed. George Washington was a Christian.

His own diary shows of his dedication. For one perspective, you could read the book “George Washington, The Christian” by William J. Johnson.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:43 PM

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:43 PM

As I noted above, if Washington and Jefferson were in any way considered Christian, it would be in the same sense that John Locke was a Christian. Locke wrote “On the Reasonableness of Christianity” which was basically a Deist view of Christianity. His brand of Christianity, which would have been the brand the Founders adhered to, was not at all like contemporary Christian fundamentalism. If you want to understand our founding principles, you really should read more about the Englightenment. John Locke is considered the philosopher of our revolution.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM

So the question is, why do you not only despise conservatives that aren’t Christian fundamentalists, but why do you turn away those who will stand with you and agree with you solely on the basis of their religious beliefs?

I don’t despise ANY conservatives.
The whole reason I am on this thread is to defend Huck against all the fellow conservative attacks. What he said was so, (in reference to Palin) that’s all.

Since you were entirely unable to take the hint about my second to last post,

LOL again–that’s so funny that you didnt get my sarcasm to yours and accused me of doing it—CLASSIC .. Man thats fun-ny!

I’ll clue you in: The question is answered by the fact that you’re a fundamentalist. Religious fundamentalists are nutbags, be they Christian, Islamic, Atheist(yes, Atheism is a religion), or any other.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM

And there you go.
THIS attitude toward Christians (who qualify as Fundamentalists if they beleive John 14:6 ) is what I am pointing out.
Is Athiesm your religion? Regardless, you are my best illustration here. Anybody reading these posts through will see what I mean–you are far more intolerant than I –and meanspirited, and insulting—all the while trying to bring me down to your level.

….and they get to laugh at your missing my sarcasm and then accsuing me of it too!!!

The voice of one crying in the wilderness

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:53 PM

When watching Jonestown you’ll see what communism does with Christianity when allowed….I hope you pay attention.

Liberals are still drinking the kool aid and it looks like more and more conservatives are sipping some…….

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:55 PM

C’mon. Move it. Move it. Move it. Keep radio contact soldiers as we advance toward rebel lines. Man, this is unbelievable… the deeper we go into Faux-Con land the worse it gets… it really is… it’s WORSE than Liberalism!!!!!

apacalyps on November 20, 2008 at 8:58 PM

“hold fire”

apacalyps on November 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM

C’mon. Move it. Move it. Move it. Keep radio contact soldiers as we advance toward rebel lines. Man, this is unbelievable… the deeper we go into Faux-Con land the worse it gets… it really is… it’s WORSE than Liberalism!!!!!

apacalyps on November 20, 2008 at 8:58 PM

I am beginning to agree with you friend.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:00 PM

“Far left, advance to the bunkers! Engage the enemy!”

apacalyps on November 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM

JtB and MC, get a life and fight the “enemy”, the far left kooks!

Mark Garnett on November 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM
It’s kind of hard to when conservatives are being undermined by religious fundamentalists trying to hijack a label so as to seize political power.

Considering that this thread focuses around Huckabee, a proven proponent of larger government in the pursuit of controlling the behavior of the masses and one of the aforementioned fundamentalists’ icons, that’s not irrelevant.

MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Mark Garnett and MadisonConservative, you are BOTH warriors fighting the good fight. Mark has rightfully pointed out here, and in previous posts, that the liberal kooks are Public Enemy #1, but MC does a good job of explaining why Mark’s point cannot possibly come to fruition under these circumstances. We cannot seriously threaten those kooks until the Republicans unite and become a viable party for the 21st Century.

However, the Republican Party now has a diagnosis of a small, but nonetheless malignant, cancer. That cancer: RELIGIOUS BIGOTS who want to jettison any Republican candidate with a belief system that does not precisely match their own. I am so sick of these holier-than-thou types I just want to hurl. Some of them even have the unmitigated audacity to appropriate for themselves names of religious figures. (Well, isn’t that special?) If this cancer is not removed from the corpus of the Republican Party and soon, the Party will cease to exist as a viable political force.

To prevent political death in 2012, the Party must undergo surgery and some serious therapy. This cancer is not going to go away by itself, as much as the saner folks here would like it to. With the cancer having attached itself, the Party will not grow and thrive. We therefore need to cut out and discard the Huckster and all his zombies. (Let them form their own bigoted political party if they want to.) To that cancerous growth I say: go consign yourselves to the Fiery Depths. We don’t need you. We can reach out, progress, and get a bigger base without you. Indeed, we must if we are to survive. Only then can the Party unite and with its combined strength smite the liberal kooks into submission. May our Party leadership make it so, and God willing!

OneVision on November 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM

the deeper we go into Faux-Con land the worse it gets… it really is… it’s WORSE than Liberalism!!!!!

apacalyps on November 20, 2008 at 8:58 PM

You really think that Madison is worse than a liberal? I’ve read everything he’s posted, and I’ve read everything John has posted. They are both conservatives.

John, I just don’t think you are interested in living with anyone else in this country. I live in the middle of deep blue Los Angeles. I know first hand that you have to live with people who do not agree with you.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM

To prevent political death in 2012, the Party must undergo surgery and some serious therapy. This cancer is not going to go away by itself, as much as the saner folks here would like it to. With the cancer having attached itself, the Party will not grow and thrive. We therefore need to cut out and discard the Huckster and all his zombies. (Let them form their own bigoted political party if they want to.) To that cancerous growth I say: go consign yourselves to the Fiery Depths. We don’t need you. We can reach out, progress, and get a bigger base without you. Indeed, we must if we are to survive. Only then can the Party unite and with its combined strength smite the liberal kooks into submission. May our Party leadership make it so, and God willing!

OneVision on November 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Now, now. It’s a big tent. We don’t need to cast them into the outer darkness. Reagan was the first to round up these stray evangelicals and invite them in. They still have a place in the tent. They just need to learn to get along with the rest of us.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:22 PM

OneVision on November 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM
However, the Republican Party now has a diagnosis of a small, but nonetheless malignant, cancer. That cancer: RELIGIOUS BIGOTS who want to jettison any Republican candidate with a belief system that does not precisely match their own. I am so sick of these holier-than-thou types I just want to hurl.

And away we go……

Have I insulted or called anyone names? No. Cancer? Religious bigots? Holier than thou?

Some of them even have the unmitigated audacity to appropriate for themselves names of religious figures. (Well, isn’t that special?)

I’ll have you know that my God given birth name is JOHN and that I am an active member of a BAPTIST Church—the moniker fits and has the added extra implication.

I await your apology, but don’t expect it.

To prevent political death in 2012, the Party must undergo surgery and some serious therapy.

RINO -plasty is necessary—for more than cosmetic reasons.

We don’t need you.

I’m not a Huckophile but the right in the party—the religious right—has proven our necessity to your existence. 2004 anyone? Palin anyone?

We can reach out, progress, and get a bigger base without you.

You sound like McCain. In 2004. How’d that work out for ‘em?

Ladies and gentlemen of the journey—exhibit A

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:23 PM

John, I just don’t think you are interested in living with anyone else in this country. I live in the middle of deep blue Los Angeles. I know first hand that you have to live with people who do not agree with you.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Sorry you think that—I have spent so much time and type responding to Madisons attacks it may appear so, and if so, I regret it.
I live in Blue country to—dark blue—and get along with folks fine. But we don’t win by being like them.
I welcome all conservatives and think Reagan is a GREAT example of what I am talking about—he liked WFB and Falwell both.

Can’t we all just get along”?

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:25 PM

If this cancer is not removed from the corpus of the Republican Party and soon, the Party will cease to exist as a viable political force.

It’s already happened. The republican party is dead.

It died because you neo-con atheists destroyed the party by promoting anti-Christian rhetoric(like your post) and anti-Christian policies(like Bush 1&2,goldwater) within the party.

Christian voters are the super MAJORITY of the republican party.

When a tiny fraction of the party is anti-Christian bigots who promote anti-Christian values and policies upon the party…the consequence is many members of the Super Majority feel disenchanted and leave the party.

It’s as simple as that.

The republican party is dead.

You killed it.

Neo-conservatism is not a viable party and will not be a viable party moving forward.

It’s over.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM

“Can’t we all just get along”?

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:25 PM

I must admit that I really enjoy a good heated debate. So does everyone in my family. We consider the holidays a failure if we don’t argue about religion and politics.

I have a number of evangelical friends, but have not met anyone quite like you. Do you really believe that Creationism should be taught in school? Do you think that sex ed should not be taught? Are you against allowing gay couples the right shared health care benefits? Do you think Muslims can be good Americans? Do you think atheists and agnostics can be good Americans? If someone wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of his own home, would you want to arrest him?

I’m curious about your take on these issues.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM

it would appear the evidence is on your side

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM

It died because you neo-con atheists destroyed the party by promoting anti-Christian rhetoric(like your post) and anti-Christian policies(like Bush 1&2,goldwater) within the party….Neo-conservatism is not a viable party and will not be a viable party moving forward.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 9:31 PM

How do you define neo-con? What do you consider neo-con positions?

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM

How do you define neo-con? What do you consider neo-con positions?

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Neo-Con : “New-Conservative”

Neo-Conservatism is a Liberal infection on the republican party.

Atheist, Anti-Christian, Evolutionist liberals who decided to take over the republican party.

They support abortion, gay marriage, the destruction of Christian influence on America, non stop wars of conquest and an extreme form of capitalism to name a few positions.

They destroyed the party by chasing away the Christian base and the Christian Reagan democrats.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Neo-Con : “New-Conservative”

Neo-Conservatism is a Liberal infection on the republican party.

Atheist, Anti-Christian, Evolutionist liberals who decided to take over the republican party.

They support abortion, gay marriage, the destruction of Christian influence on America, non stop wars of conquest and an extreme form of capitalism to name a few positions.

They destroyed the party by chasing away the Christian base and the Christian Reagan democrats.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Bill Bennet is regarded as a neo-con. He’s as socially conservative as they come. Father Richard Neuhaus of First Things Magazine is as socially conservative as they come, and he’s a major neo-con. Bill Kristol is a social conservative, and he’s one of the princes of the neo-cons.

I can understand you objecting to the neo-cons for espousing an empire-building American “greatness” big government philosophy that doesn’t jive with paleoconservative principles, but it hardly seems fair to single them out for not adhering to social conservative principles. Some of them don’t, and I’d don’t much care for that bunch either, but not all of them. There are just as many Rockefeller Republicans who don’t hold to the social values and don’t agree with the neo-cons either.

It’s as if you’ve used neo-con as a catch phrase for Republicans who disagree with you on social values. That’s not necessarily the philosophical makeup of a neo-con.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM

…is as socially conservative as they come, and he’s a major neo-con.

If you support abortion and gay marriage….you are not a social conservative period.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 10:14 PM

…is as socially conservative as they come, and he’s a major neo-con.

If you support abortion and gay marriage….you are not a social conservative period.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Are you actually making the outrageously false accusation that Father Richard Neuhaus supports abortion and gay marriage? WHAT?! He absolutely does not support either.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 10:25 PM

No I don’t even know who that is..but you said he was a major neo-con i.e. abortion/gay marriage supporter.

SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM

A neo-con is not necessarily liberal on any issues—George W is aneo-con—-it is not deifned by social issues but by differing on big goverment.

My beef is with the neo cons who follow in the Rockafeller mode and distance themselves from social conservatism.

Again, those who are really capitalists first and conservative second, Christian 3rd if at all.

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Here’s a bit of fun: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/134739

She’s pardoning turkeys; so, I’m sure she’d forgive Huck any real or perceived offense. ;)

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Lets talk turkey.

Palin and even Huck terrify the Left. Fred does too when he is awake.

Why?

Because they are principled social conservatives—

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 11:22 PM

America was founded on freedom of religion. I really believe in that. I don’t want anyone telling me what or what not to believe. That’s between me and God.

I don’t believe that government should be totally secular and atheist as the Supreme Court has ridiculously mandated. One the other hand, I don’t want the government to favor one religion over another. Government is Caesar, and I think it should go about its business and leave the business of God to God.

That is why it disturbs me when it appears that some people are applying a religious litmus test to Republican candidates. The relevant question in choosing a president is not doctrinal belief but instead moral values coupled with the ability to effectively translate those values into policy. So I don’t care if Romney is Mormon or Huckabee is fundamentalist or Palin is evangelical.

What I care about is whether a candidate regards abortion as constitutional right or instead as a murderous abomination. I care about whether a candidate believes that sexual deviance is entitled to more governmental protection and funding than religious belief. And I care about a candidate’s ability to get elected and whether he has the degree of character necessary to make wise decisions on these issues and stand by his decisions despite the deluge of criticism he will inevitably endure for doing so.

As between Huckabee and Palin, I think that one has shown the courage and character that I’m looking for, and that the other has not. And, for the life of me, I don’t know why the particulars of a candidates doctrinal beliefs should matter in any form of government save in a theocracy.

Venusian Visitor on November 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM

sounds good to me

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 11:47 PM

The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious
informed public capable of critical thinking which is why a
continually fraudulent zeitgeist is output via religion,
the mass media and the educational system. They seek to
keep you in a distracted naive bubble and they are doing
a [______] good job of it.
- “Zeitgeist”

John The Baptist on November 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

- “Zeitgeist”

John The Baptist on November 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 documentary film, produced by Peter Joseph about the Jesus myth, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as a number of conspiracy theories related to those three main topics.

LOL ALEX JONES 9/11 TRUTHER NEW WORLD ORDER LOL

You and SaintOlaf must be bosom buddies.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM

G. K. Chesterton is, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

Too many today are willing to remove what matters msot in our platform

John The Baptist on November 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM

Are you actually making the outrageously false accusation that Father Richard Neuhaus supports abortion and gay marriage? WHAT?! He absolutely does not support either.

ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 10:25 PM

He has, and always has made the assertion that anyone who isn’t as pious a fundamentalist conspiracy theorist as he is, is obviously not a conservative.

Sounds a lot like someone else. They should be roomies.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 12:25 AM

You can’t do anything about the length of your life,
but you can do something about its width and depth.

Exposing yourself to other ideas and outlooks is a benefit if done wisely—even if just to reimburse what you already know.

John The Baptist on November 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM

John The Baptist on November 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Sage advice. I’ve done so, having seen classics such as America: Destroyed By Design, America: Wake Up or Waco, and Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement.

And you know what? I took at least one bit of enlightening information away from each. As a whole, however, they are exploitation flicks used to whip people into tinfoil frenzies about FEMA camps and black helicopters and all the same crap that I’ve been hearing about since I was a child. These same people claimed Clinton was going to declare a national emergency and stay in office for a third term to start the New World Order. When that didn’t happen, eight years later, a bunch of ignorant retards who didn’t learn the first time said Bush would do the same. I intend to hunt them down January 21st and spit my drink in their face.

Take them as entertainment with a chance to learn a bit of verifiable history. The extrapolation and messages involved, however, should be taken no more seriously than a movie with “Cheech and Chong” in the title. If you do take them seriously, you’re an idiot. South Park summed it up perfectly:

Kyle: “Anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard.”
Cartman: “Oh, really? Well, did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?”
Kyle: “Yes, I’m saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.”
Stan: “Yeah, at least one-fourth.”
Kyle: “Let’s take a test sample. There’s four of us and [points at Cartman] you’re a retard. See? One out of four.”

Now I’ll wait for the response that South Park is sinful Hollywood propaganda despite the fact that it’s possibly the most conservative show on television.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Now I’ll wait for the response that South Park is sinful Hollywood propaganda despite the fact that it’s possibly the most conservative show on television.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 12:45 AM

I don’t know if it’s the most conservative show on tv, but I do know that that South Park Scientology episode was among the funniest 30 minutes of television I’ve ever seen. You know the one I’m talking about, right? It was freakin’ brilliant!

I’m more of Simpsons fan myself.

ramrocks on November 21, 2008 at 2:43 AM

Ladies and gentlemen of the journey—exhibit A

John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Journey, huh? Well, goooooooooooooooooood morning, JOURNEY FANS!!!

Feast your eyes on Exhibit B.

That’s right, I’m talking about the new Journey CD entitled Revelation! Now I know that Journey hasn’t been quite the same since Steve Perry left the group, but trust me, these guys can still rock.

Released just in time for the Christmas holiday season – get yours while supplies last!!! And, in the spirit of Revelation, for those who register as intolerant religious bigots, you can qualify to win a one-way ticket to the island of Patmos – and stay there.

OneVision on November 21, 2008 at 7:19 AM

[F]or those who register as intolerant religious bigots, you can qualify to win a one-way ticket to the island of Patmos – and stay there.

OneVision on November 21, 2008

Wow. I would love to go to Patmos and talk to the monks, but I never liked Journey much. Maybe Quicksilver Messenger Service will come up with a similar offer? Those guys rawked!

Venusian Visitor on November 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM

looks like I picked a great week to give up on Huck threads.

sulla on November 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM

OneVision on November 21, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Ohhh man. That was hilarious. My side hurts. Seriously!

thecountofincognito on November 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM

From the article, Was George Washingon a Christian, comes this documentation from Nellie Custis-Lewis, his adopted daughter

Nelly lived with the Washingtons for twenty years, from the time of her birth in 1779 until 1799, the year of her marriage and of George Washington’s untimely death. She called George and Martha her “beloved parents whom I loved with so much devotion, to whose unceasing tenderness I was indebted for every good I possessed.”

Nelly was ten years old when Washington was called to the Presidency, and she grew to maturity during his two terms. During that time, she traveled with Washington and walked amidst the great foreign and domestic names of the day. On Washington’s retirement, she returned with the family to Mount Vernon

Jared Sparks wrote to Nelly asking for information on Washington’s faith

She wrote in part:

Truro [Episcopal] Parish is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother. It was a beautiful church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy congregation, who were regular attendants.
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o’clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

Washington was a Mason which does not mean anti Christian. Unless you take him for a fraud and a hypocrite, there are witnesses to his taking communion at his church, which and honorable anti Christian would never do.

entagor on November 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

I’m a very conservative Christian who’d leave the GOP rather than vote for Huckabee. THe Huckster’s a NASTY piece of work. Nasty. He sticks the knife in and turns it all the while he’s smiling. Then he tells you he’s joking. Besides, policy-wise, Huckabee tries to trot out theology masquerading as policy. Eh, no. I don’t trust him and don’t like him. Won’t vote for him ever.

SilentWatcher on November 21, 2008 at 2:15 PM

there are witnesses to his taking communion at his church, which and honorable anti Christian would never do.

entagor on November 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

We’ve seen Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Rudy Guiliani, etc. all take communion. They are all by their own admission Christians. So is Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, and every president we’ve ever had. So what?

Again, I am wondering if you are at all familiar with the writings of John Locke, the philosopher who most influenced our Founding Fathers? If you had ever read Locke’s “On the Reasonableness of Christianity,” you would know that he espoused a Deist view of Christianity — which was the view shared by most of our Founders. Their Englightenment principles would have been at great odds with contemporary Christian fundamentalism. I am not suggesting that this Deist view of Christianity is correct, I am merely stating the fact that this is what they believed. What’s truly important here is that they did not think their religious beliefs were within the scope of government. They were repelled by the idea of a monarch being the head of the Church of England. They wanted to separate the throne from the altar. And as descendents of Englishmen, they were also rather bigoted in their distaste for what they called “papism” (i.e., Catholicism). However, there were Catholics and Jews among the early colonials; and so despite their personal prejudices, our Founders realized that this new country would be free for men of all faiths. The idea of establishing religious litmus tests for leadership would have been disgusting to these men of the Englightenment. And it should be equally disgusting today.

ramrocks on November 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Is this thread still open? I thought I commanded it to be closed and both JtB and MC flogged! I swear I get no repect, where is ManlyRash when I need him?

/lol

/sarc

:)

Mark Garnett on November 21, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8