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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.)
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: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »
No. …I don’t pay attention
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Obvious
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 2:52 PM
And like clockwork…another personal insult. This is grand.
What is for me? Not for others? I didn’t insult you—you insulted me. Even when I referred to you as a Liberal I meant it in the political sense, and then retracted it because I was afraid it would appear as an insult…all this after you ahd already insulted me.
I haven’t resorted to ANY personal attackes, filthy language or baseless insults—you have.
Too bad—I thought we could have a meaningful discussion–next time I will try to find an adult.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
National Review endorsed Obama BTW –what does that say about the heritage??
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM
His own son supported Obama
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
No, they didn’t. Christopher Buckley did and then he resigned. National Review did not, unless you bought the hoax.
It’s so much fun to watch you try and smear Buckley and his legacy.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM
He did his own smearing.
I tried to correct the impression–it was jr. who did–though I do remeber hearing on talk radio that the Review did.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
WFB opposed the Iraq war
Buckley said: “The consent of the governed in societies ruled by the people is the ultimate source of authority.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was once asked how just a few Communists could take over his country when it had a thousand years of being Christian? He replied: “We forgot God.” The leaders of the so called “conservative movement,” politically-speaking, forgot God.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM
You and MadisonConservative are getting way to personal, and the attacks are not very adult.
Let’s move this up a notch…up to Hucks standards of excellence, though he may have slipped with his incessant whining about Palin…
Huck, to put it in the most adult terms for him…is a poo poo head.
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Wonder how you will ignore this?
Cigars played a prominent role in Buckley’s emphysema and untimely death, a role Buckley bitterly bemoaned in a widely-circulated column he wrote:
“Half a year ago my wife died, technically from an infection, but manifestly, at least in part, from a body weakened by 60 years of nonstop smoking. I stayed off the cigarettes but went to the idiocy of cigars inhaled, and suffer now from emphysema, which seems determined to outpace heart disease as a human killer.
“Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You’d get a solemn and contrite, YES.”–Buckley, William F. Jr., “My Smoking Confession” NY Sun, Dec. 3, 2007.
Well now.
Isn’t THAT interesting.
Guess deep down he WAS a conservative!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM
You and MadisonConservative are getting way to personal, and the attacks are not very adult.
Don’t pretend.
it’s unbecoming.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
NO U
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Huck didn’t get bloodied.
They let him float like a bobber to keep his evangelical votes dry until the convention where he was pressed like a grape
Then he was put on a tray surrounded like lettuce to be brought out as needed during the election
Huck is clueless about the battle he never fought. Palin would clean his clock if it was still ticking
entagor on November 20, 2008 at 3:12 PM
John, you’re not being fair here. I said that I found the issue troubling. The reason why I find it troubling is precisely some of the things you mentioned, specifically sex trafficking and the abuse of young runaways. However, as I noted, legalizing prostitution could also serve as a way to strictly regulate it. In other words, one way to get rid of sex trafficking and the abuse of runaways is to legalize prostitution and strictly monitor it.
That’s what St. Augustine was talking about too. And you have grossly maligned him. He had mistresses before his conversion. He was a sinner. He didn’t hide the fact; he wrote about it in the most beautiful religious memoir ever written. And anyone styling himself a Christian should show a greater respect for St. Augustine. He’s admired by Protestants as well as Catholics.
I do not find the term libertarian insulting. I admire the way libertarians strictly adhere to their principles. I don’t agree with them on many points. One of the best refutations of Ayn Rand I’ve ever read was by Whittaker Chambers. He thought there was a great deal of moral darkness in their libertarianism and worship of capitalism. I am no worshipper of capitalism. I agree with Margaret Thatcher, there is no alternative. It’s the best system we’ve got.
The reason why I agreed with Rothbard is that he make a good point about the expansion of government during the Cold War. He believed, rightly it would seem, that once government expands it can never go back to being small. WFB believed that government needed to grow to fight a global war against communism. We can argue the merits of both positions without questioning each others conservative bona fides.
And for the record, I’m no neo-con.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM
sorry, typo:
Huck didn’t get bloodied.
They let him float like a bobber to keep his evangelical votes dry until the convention where he was pressed like a grape
Then he was put on a tray surrounded
kineby lettuce to be brought out as needed during the electionHuck is clueless about the battle he never fought. Palin would clean his clock if it was still ticking
entagor on November 20, 2008 at 3:12 PM
entagor on November 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Can someone PLEASE give JtB and MC a private room where these two Ladies can have a “pillow fight” and play silly oneupmanship?
Who cares what two dead guys RR and WFB said or thought…
We are HERE AND NOW, 2008… America NEEDS real men with REAL Conservative values and damb the torpedos, full speed ahead… 59% think we are NOT hard core Conservative enough.
Real Tax Cuts ( Capital Gains to grow jobs )
Prop Rights ( Protection of YOUR home )
Education ( Stopping the dumbing down, brainwashing )
American Pride ( Screw what other Countries think of us )
Closing the Border ( Illegal Imigration, *look at OK. )
Marriage Protection ( Stopping Gay Activisiam )
Free Markets & Trade ( Stopping Union Thugs )
Energy ( Drill, baby Drill… MORE Coal / Nuclear )
Education ( Competition / Vouchers / Stop the NEA )
Gun Rights ( Stop Restrictive Laws / Allow Freedoms )
SMALLER GOV, STATES RIGHTS, SPENDING CUTS & VALUES!!!
Do this and win, fail to follow these and lose…
JtB and MC, get a life and fight the “enemy”, the far left kooks!
Mark Garnett on November 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM
What great religious leader, was also a great politician…that is what so many “Christians” overlook.
You can’t be a Christian leader and a political leader…the two have different philosophy’s.
You can be a leader that is Christian, but never a Christian leader.
You have to negotiate on too many levels as a politician.
That is why Christ never ran for office, but He did say follow your office holders.
You can’t serve two masters, Someone once wrote, you can’t serve God and serve the people who elected you…one has to be neglected.
So biblically, if you are looking for a Christian leader, you will be disappointed, the best you can hope for is a leader who is a Christian.
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 3:16 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
Sorry if I came across to harsh—but your opinion is , frankly, becoming an epidemic among the right, and it is a dangerous mentality to say the least.
…it is libertarianinsm, not conservatism.
Prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of prostitution are vastly different.
You can get drunk by yourself and nobody gets hurt but you—never so with prostitution. Also, prostitution is not just a physical act—it is a moral and spiritual one that by definition breaks Gods law and demeans marriage and morality in other areas.
I have read Augustines Confessions and appreciate him insofar as some things are concerned, but he was full of mistakes whenever it came to sex.
Wasn’t chambers an ex communist? I have never read any of his material. He was right though on what you said ….there is indeed a a great deal of moral darkness in libertarianism and worship of capitalism, and I agree it is the best one available.
I don’t think govt had to , or needs to, grow other than what is militarily necessary for the protection of people. Bush made some mistakes on that one, other things are necessary during wartime.
Gald to hear you aren’ neo-con, but some things you say sound such.
And I appreciate your being civil and sensible–unlike so many others here.
Bravo.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I couldn’t agree more—but the wolves in sheeps clothing are whats killing the party–those battles must be fought as well, as unsavoury as they may be.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Where does she say that in your link?
She doesn’t.
She actually said the opposite of what you claimed.
YOU ARE LYING!
So. tell me again how “batsh|t stupid” Sarah Palin is in your opinion.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM
We forget God when we begin to believe that the state can solve problems. A belief in God can teach us that we’re not perfect and we can’t “fix” all the world’s ills. Social engineering is the purview of people who think they’re God. And sadly, we have people on the right and the left who try to dabble in social engineering. Many conservatives criticized the Iraq War because they believed the premise of exporting democracy to the world was not based in reality. When we think that we can make the world perfect, we forget that we’re not God.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Some here are honest—thye just dont like the guy. Fine-your perogative. But dont pretend its politcal —it’s personal—you hate fundamentlists
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 11:36 AM
True, I don’t like the guy, he’s a phony prick! Personally I could care less what happen to this moron. No, I dont hate fundamentalists. Huck can go walk on water anywhere he pleases.
For me its political, Taxes? Huck raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12. The early release of violent criminals who went on to murder again. His desire to give scholarships to illegal. The fact that he call the people of Arkansas who opposed illegal immigration “racists”.
That’s nice calling the people of your state racist. Perhaps clinging to there Bibles and Guns would have been more appropriate.
That just what we need in the white/house, someone calling us racist.
try again later on November 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Read the Old testament and you will see many , many, many such—Kings like David and prophets like Elijah were both great religious leaders, and great politicians in the sense of being involved in public policy etc.
Also, the reason I chose the moniker John The Baptist is because he was a classic example of one unafraid to preach against Herod and his policies. (and I know where that got him, but Jesus commended him for it)
Huckabee has stated, (And I quote him only because this is a thread a bout him—not because I am a huchophile- “Politics are totally directed by worldview. That’s why when people say, ‘We ought to separate politics from religion,’ I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible”
We’re tired of these arguemtns that religion stays at church. Hogwash.
If you serve God you will serve other—including your electorate if you are a politician.
Your last sentence was a interesting play on words I am tempted to agree with…but your premise earlier belies your intention.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness…..
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
She said that evolution should be taught “as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools.”
If she believes it should be taught as an “accepted principle” I think we can safely assume that she believes in it, otherwise she would be advocating the teaching of something that she thinks is false. She obviously doesn’t think believing in evolution interferes with her belief in the Creator. I don’t either. I am a devout Catholic. I see nothing wrong with the theory of evolution and my belief in God. Many, if not most, Christians would agree.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Social engineering is what all policy is!!!!!
The Iraq War is a GREAT example!!!!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Well that solves that…
The funny part? Both are telling the truth…both of the posts are factual.
SaintOlaf, you crack me up…the slightest crack, and you call someone a liar…please, talk to your pastor, priest, rabbi, whomever, and get your Christian mind straighten out.
Isn’t there something about that book you read about false accusations…and haven’t I called you out several times in the past for such a thing?
You are not the model of Christianity, please tell me you don’t teach Sunday school…
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You’d have to rip the tinfoil from his scalp first.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Many people interchange the word “evolution” with “adaptation”. I suspect she does that also.
Their is no pure scientific proof of “evolution”, but certainly of adaptation.
right2bright on November 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
See? And again with the insults and derogatory language—this isn’t Jerry Springer folks!
You haven’t studied the tax issue in Arkansas and the Tucker connection—you don’t want to b/ you think Huck is the word you use. You admit half of it—go ahead and fess up to the other—you’ll feel better.
Did you call McCain names because of his bad policies? Rudy? Fred? Mitt?
That’s what I thought.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Then I’m against “policy”. We don’t need to be engineered one way or another. Government is about maintaining the social contract among people who choose to live together in a society to form a nation. We didn’t agree to be “engineered” we agreed to live together and tolerate each other and not harm each other.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Evolution and Christianity do not mix.
One suffers at the hands of the other. Evolution is a theory and can be taught as such–no prob–but not as a fact…and paid for by our tax dollars. Teach it alongside Creationsim and creationism wins every time as more logical and scientific , whether it be six day or Hugh Ross/James Dobsons old earth.
Palin was being politcal–as was Huck during the debates—but both are pretty obvious int heir belief that it was God who put us here, and that evolution ain’t how they think it happened.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM
And that takes social engineering. Liberals just go too far with it and libertarians claim it shouldnt exist.
All laws are the legislating of morality to a lesser or greater extent.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Perhaps. I think most people don’t really care. When we think of evolution we’re not really thinking about the absurdity of believing that from primitive protoplasm we can get Mozart. We’re thinking of evolutionary change from within species over time. Anyone who finds dinosaurs a threat to their faith is not thinking rationally.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Well, I’m sure you know better than the Pope.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Show me where I called someone a “liar”.
I said “he is lying” and I proved it.
Pointing out un-truth and speaking the truth is not me “tending his garden”.
I tend my own garden, it is more profitable.
How do your personal attacks add ANYTHING to the debate?
You seem like such an angry guy Madison. I feel pity for you.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM
That’s remarkable coming from someone who believes Obama is working with homosexuals to create a new fascist American dictatorship where all straight people are rounded up and dumped in FEMA death camps.
And how does your calling people liars when they provide information to back up their assertions, effectively slandering them, add anything?
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
ROTFLMAO!!! Thank you!
This whole evolution thing has gotten out of hand. I think the poster Y-not tried to argue with this notion that you can’t believe in science and be a Christian too. That idea is very dangerous. It’s utterly false. Pope Benedict has made some excellent arguments about the need for reason in faith.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
You need to stop saying that Madison, it’s a total lie!
I NEVER said that but yet you post that over and over again on every thread. It’s pathetic.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Laws do legislate morality to a certain extend, yes. Murder is immoral, stealing is immoral, etc. However, we must draw the line when it comes to legislating behavior. Muslims believe it’s immoral to drink alcohol or eat pork. Would you be alright with banning alcohol and pork? It is immoral to cheat on your spouse, but it is not the role of the government to punish you for doing so. There are gray areas in situations like suicide. I believe it is immoral for the government to sanction physician assisted suicide, but if someone wants to commit suicide there is little the government can do to stop them.
You’re broad embrace of social engineering is troubling to me. As the famous Supreme Court Justice once put it, one of the key freedoms we cherish is the freedom to be left alone.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM
No, you didn’t prove it. In fact, by pasting in the exact section of the transcript, you highlighted my point.
And for the record, I’m a “she”.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM
You need to stop calling everyone who says something you don’t like a “liar”.
I bet this is really AllahPundit’s second account, having some fun with us.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM
So you think they lied for political reasons? You think Sarah Palin doesn’t believe her science teacher father when he proudly displays his 8,000 year old fossil? And why do you think that evolution wasn’t how God put us here? Can’t God use whatever means He chooses to create the world? I admit, as I noted above, that the idea of Mozart evolving from primitive protoplasm is pretty absurd. There are arguments to be made against some of the assumptions of Darwinists, but there is still no alternative scientific theory. Intelligent Design is an interesting philosophic argument, but it isn’t a scientific theory. Physicists seem determined to get to solve the mystery of how life began. If or when they do, it will not be a refutation of God, but a celebration of God’s majesty.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Don’t most people?
I mean really.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:26 PM
What does that prove?
Nobody is claiming 6,000 years.
The claim is 8,000 to 10,000 years.
madison you have truly sunken to a new low.
You absolutely cut and paste butchered that quote to make it appear that I said that when in reality you left out the most important quote..that says the OPPOSITE of what you claim I said.
That is deceitful and pathetic.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Really what? Most people do defer to a man who is clearly a great theologian and spiritual authority. Your belief that Christianity and evolution can’t be reconciled is not held by most Christians in the world today or even in the past.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Glad to see we agree on the obvious.
Again, does it harm others? Uninvolved innocents by either the act itself, or bringing increased likelihood that it will eventually (The slippery slope argument)
It is if you are Bill Clinton
BTW it was againt the law in all 50 states at one time—and that was an undserstood role of govt. in the past….what changed?
Less stds, broken homes, battered wives—hmmm…..now that you mention it—early America was right. Why not bring back that law? Would it help–or hurt?
What does that have to do with anything? That is a personal act. It is indeed immoral for govt to be involved in self murder—wherby they actually do the murdering—but it is also right to outlaw a person killing themselves in such a way that it takes others with them—i.e. bomb etc.
I agree with the sentiment—my embrace is only slightly broader than yours—and there’s the rub. Neither you or I want the liberals idea of to what extent is goes—but we both agree to it to an extent, because eit is a necessity and how it works. My view is only slightly broader than yours and still based on conservatism.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I thought people who believe in Creationism hold that the earth is only 6,000 years old. An 8,000-10,000 year old fossil would disprove that. Hence, if her father has an 8,000-10,000 year old fossil, obviously she does not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That’s what I meant.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
The point of this discussion is not to define the pope or his version of theology
In America,which is where we are talking about, most people are protestant or baptistic and do NOT believe in either the Pope or evolution—that’s just the facts. Check the numbers. That’s all.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Um, no. No, I didn’t. It’s in its entirety. Want a link for proof?
In other words, quit lying.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM
And even so, is 8,000 years much more believable than 6,000?
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Most Creationsits I know have no problem with the idea that the Earth is between 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old.
Have you never researched Creationism???
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
As for evolution..it is not even relevant to discuss considering that its has been proven to be COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE by virtue of population statistics alone.
If evolution had occured the number of humans on the earth would be a STAGGERING NUMBER…nowhere even remotely close to the 6 billion people today.
The fact is; you have been deceived.
This is not about a literal interpretation of Genesis..
If your focus on Genesis is only a “literal interpretation”…you are missing the point.
Genesis is one of the most profound theoolgical works in the Holy Scriptures.
It is describing the Holy Trinity…God the Father, God the Son(The Word) and God the Holy Spirit(the Breath)…
The highest importance of the book of Genesis is; it is describing Reality.
The pre-Fall state…the Fall of Man and the Restoration of Man through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ(God the Word).
As for whether the Pope says it’s ok to believe in evolution or not. It doesn’t matter one bit.
The Roman Catholic Church jumped the tracks almost a thousand years ago, when they changed their doctrine and left the One True Church that Christ established…The Orthodox Church.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
SaintOLaugh sez
No dude, it’s 6,000 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA
guitarguy on November 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
No—they were just careful to be broad in their statements—“big tent” if you will.
Baloney. Evolution is a fairy tale “Millions of years ago” = “Once upon a time”
Big bang or Big God—where did it start? The science behind a worldwide flood and its effects on the earth, dinosaurs etc. actually adds up—without any punctuated equilibrium or sudden monster theories.
Amen to that!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
That just proves you can believe anything when you disregard proven science.
Yes.
It’s a crock.
guitarguy on November 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Wolf Blitzer said that—some Creationist think so, but even they use it as a starting point–hey thats funny.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM
PROVEN???? its called a missing link for a reaosn.
Site one single proof.
…still waiting…..
My point isnt even that Creationism is right–but hat evolution can’t be. It’s not science.
Yes.
It’s a crock.
Hard to believe since you are so very ignorant on the subject—-more likely, your minds made up—like concrete–all mized up and permanently set.
And Crocks are dinoasaurs! ;-)
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM
And y’all keep saying he’s a fundamentalist!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM
No, Bill Clinton got in trouble for lying under oath, not for cheating on his wife. Let’s be clear.
And the idea that there were less STDs or battered wives in early American history is absurd. Human beings have not changed much since the days when “Fannie Hill” and “Tom Jones” were written (and, btw, both books were on the shelves of many of our Founding Fathers).
I begin to wonder if it actually is based on conservatism. It sounds more like puritanism to me. Conservatism is respect for tradition, which includes traditional moral principles. You obviously have respect for traditional moral principles, and because of that I have much more in common with you than I would a leftist. But you also seem to have a “crusader” “true believer” streak in you. You seem to be willing to embrace social engineering to make the world pure. Conservatism doesn’t believe in changing human nature. It believes in immutable truths, and chief among those truths is that man is fallen. This world is not perfect. And attempts at building utopias often, if not always, end up building nightmares. The Bolsheviks didn’t march carrying banners reading “Join us for bread lines and gulags!” They marched with banners reading “Peace and Brotherhood for All”. The fascists didn’t tell everyone “we’ll give you concentration camps and wars of aggression”; they promised that the trains would run on time and there would be a chicken in every pot.
Conservatism believes in the words Jesus spoke when He reminded us that there would always be the poor among us. Jesus was not saying that having poor people is a good thing. He was simply reminding us that in a fallen world we would not have perfection. As a little kid once told me — “this isn’t heaven you know.”
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM
You’re preaching to the choir, Madison. I think the earth is billions of years old. I don’t have a problem with evolution. I think fossils are neat. I even own a few. I just used the fossil thing to show that obviously Palin doesn’t think the earth is 6,000 years old.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 4:58 PM
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 3:42 PM
What the problem John/B?……Where not just talking tax issue here, how about the Rest-Of-The-Story?
The early release of violent criminals who went on to murder again. His desire to give scholarships to illegal. The fact that he call the people of Arkansas who opposed illegal immigration “racists”.
That’s nice calling the people of your state racist. Perhaps clinging to there Bibles and Guns would have been more appropriate.
That just what we need in the white/house, someone calling us racist.
Also, what I call McCain policies, is pretty much what I’m calling you!
There are no ocean to be parted here. Calm down, drink a little wine, have a little cheese.
If your in love with this clown, that your problem. Not mine.
try again later on November 20, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Oh dear, let’s not start fighting about the Council of Chalcedon. Suffice it to say, you disagree with the Bishop of Rome. We’ll leave it at that.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Do you mean the Plymouth Rock kind or the caricature kind?
Our founding fathers thought a lot of them—Magna Carter, Benjamin Keach etc.
.
Indeed.
*
Based on what?
*
.
Not at all—my views of govt are based on protection—not purity. I am not a postmillinialist—human nature is basically bad—original sin-and must be guarded against.
*
I agree.
*
And THAT is liberalism. As I said—my views are only old school conservatism—which predate WFB and gang—and go back to early America. And they were not liberals.
*
A resounding AMEN—I have in no implied I believe Govt should be a provider—only a protector.
That’s for sure!
I would say you and I would agree perfectly 80% of the time and are on the same page—just different paragraphs.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Not in love–just wish people would give him and Palin and others like them a fair shake and not resort to calling them clowns.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Point will taken John/B
Got to go, time for Springer.
try again later on November 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I truly despise this twit.
argos on November 20, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Perhaps it was an unfair assessment. I just get the feeling that your good intentions would lead you to press for laws or regulations that would do more harm than good. Take that prostitution argument, for example. You and I agree that human trafficking is an appalling crime. I would like to see everything done to stop it. I find it horrifying that we have woman being held in slavery right here in this country. However, I’m willing to consider the idea that legalizing prostitution might in fact help stop or at least curb human trafficking. Legalizing it doesn’t mean that we are saying it is moral. It’s not as if prostitution is a new phenomenon or that it will go away if we keep it illegal. Sure more people might engage in this behavior if we legalize it, but that’s the nature of the beast. The sort of men who would go to a prostitute is probably the same sort that goes to strip clubs. Strip clubs are immoral in my opinion, but we haven’t outlawed them. We regulate them. Pornography is disgusting to me, but we can’t outlaw it. We regulate it. I think the answer to troubling social issues is not in government, but in families. When conservatives cry about the entertainment sewer coming out of Hollywood, my response is — get out here and help make better movies! I think Christians should be engaged with the world, but I don’t think they should seek to regulate it. They should answer it with art and literature and music of their own.
If that’s so then I welcome it. If that’s not so, then I still welcome having the opportunity to discuss these issues with you. It’s been instructive and enjoyable. And we didn’t call each other names!
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
See?
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Here here to that friend!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Good lord, you’re exasperating.
Oh, and don’t lump Palin and Huckabee together. They’re not even in the same hemisphere. One is a small-government conservative, the other is a tax-happy moderate, at best.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Like I said—just a return to what worked before , all the way up until the 1960’s.
But it doesn’t—even in the Netherlands. It’s a pandoras box–as they also illustrate.
History is adamant–it is always a bad idea.
Oh at such a horrible cost—this collateral damage is unnecessary and inexcusable.
The difference in degree is substantial. Far more hurt is involved, and will make the same soort of man much worse.
Besides,America would be better off without those things to a degree greater than I think you are willing to admit.
Also, to follow this line of logic liberal welfare policies make perfect sense…it’s the nature of the beast for their to be lazy people so lets just give them a free rise as long as it’s regulated!
Agreed.
And familie smake up the “we the people”
Govt shouldn’t be allowed to make things harder onthem, it should protect them and make it possible—nowadays it is virtually impossible to keep children from being infected by these things you mention at younger and younger ages.
Agreed—but that doesn’t mean we let the sewer just overrun and infect every thing—which it has—otherwise there’s no clean market left—which there really almost isn’t anymore.
True—but that doesn’t negate govt role to protect and our responsibility as salt and light to influence.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM
He actually seemed pretty reasonable as Huckatoons go…
thecountofincognito on November 20, 2008 at 6:56 PM
We’ll say this a million times and nothing will get through.
The government has no place attempting to protect citizens from themselves or from things that may offend them. At all.
What the hell happened to independence?
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM
“It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.”
—John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Thats libertarianism for ya
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:01 PM
but we are talking about Conservatism
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM
When wealth is lost, nothing is lost.
When health is lost, something is lost.
When character is lost, all is lost.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I see him saying “We”, as in the citizenry. Not the government. What’s your point?
So the Declaration of Independence was libertarian?
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:06 PM
We were never without vice. It wasn’t as bad as it is now, but there you have it. What can we do? We are not the same as a people as we were in 1960. The best cure for this is for Christians to have lots of kids! I’m being only half joking in that statement. Seriously, leftists don’t multiply. Christians should have more kids and raise them right.
Good point. And well worth considering.
I agree! But sadly not all of our fellow countrymen do agree. What do we do when the electorate in, say, Nevada or San Francisco, vote for legalized prostitution? That’s the test of our tolerance as Christians. If we want them to tolerate us, then we must tolerate them. That’s the social contract. They are not allowed to interfere with our churches, but we cannot then turn around and interfere with their lap dances or sordid dealings with ladies of the night.
In a pluralistic secular society like ours, we draw the line broadly in the sand about these social issues, and we respect each others differences. We have every right to demand that they not air certain things during prime time television. But we can’t regulate HBO.
I’ll surprise you by admitting that the old censorship laws that were in place in Hollywood during the old golden days were actually quite effective in making movies better. When filmmakers can’t appeal to the lowest in us (i.e., lust) they are forced to be more creative. The result of these laws was the brilliant films of the 1930s and 1940s. However, such censorship laws would never work today. The genii is out of the bottle and ain’t going back in. The best answer to free speech that offends you is more free speech. Christians should answer Hollywood with better movies. This is actually what is happening slowly but surely out here. We have a slow growing movement of conservative Christian filmmakers. We need more.
We absolutely have the responsibility to influence. But I don’t think it is government’s role to protect us from ourselves. Our social contract can stipulate that adult bookstores or strip clubs can’t appear in certain neighborhoods, but we can’t demand that government shut them down because they’re immoral. Government can’t keep your kid from watching “Desperate Housewives”. I don’t like certain books or certain movies, but I don’t have the right to censor them. I have the right and the responsibility to respond to them.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Actually, it rather was, wasn’t it? The Founders were rather libertarian in their thinking. They didn’t like government all that much, and they weren’t willing to cede power to a distant king and parliament.
It’s funny that both you and I used the same wording about government not being able to protect us from ourselves. That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it? That quote from John Adams actually supports our argument. He councils us to raise moral children because they will be our future. In other words, we must govern ourselves.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
BTW, they have a really funny post about this Huckabee dust up over at the Weekly Standard Blog:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/politician_preacher_forgets_he_1.asp
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Sharp point. Fact is, fundamentalists rarely show tolerance. The majority of Christians do. What we need is politicians who are the latter rather than the former. It appears that Huckabee is the former. We have plenty of the latter, including Mitt, regardless of the anti-Mormon bigots who troll this site.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:28 PM
No but we had a better handle on it–mostly from the poulance policing itself though I admit, of course that was due to the Christian influence.
I have 5 children–I am doing my part!
I think you are mor eright than you may realize BTW
We do what we should do with gay marriage–ban it federally. Heres where we part somewhat- our chidlren need protecting from these things and allowing it in SF or anywhere else just allows it to creep into all 50 states—just like strip clubs. There wouldnt be any down south at all if it wasnt for the fact that the door was left open–if people could vote on it there would be entire states without it—remember, I am a states rights advocate, but if federalism is what it is, then it should be used evenly—even if I wish it wasnt the way it is.
Respect up to a degree- but only to a degree. What about beastility? Should they who do such be allowed to in public? Or get married? I use an extreme example to get to the point quickly.
We have every right to demand that they not air certain things during prime time television. But we can’t regulate HBO.
Disagree. If not, then why not X? Or XXX? We wouldnt allow it yrs ago, and dont allow certian things today-i.e. pedophilia. yet recent movies (Nicole Kidman etc) are inching closer and closer to it so when it starts happening on HBO we should keep quiet? I see your point and am inclined to agree —if someone wants to smoke , go ahead kill themselves, but it’s when govt gets involved wiht it (as it has) that I have a problem—they profit from it , therefore they allow it.
Libertarian ideals work wonderful in a already moral society-but do nothing to make it or keep it so.
This arguement always amazes me—it could have been made about communisms attempts to infiltrate in the 50’s or on any number of things. Our founding fathers could have said “no use in trying to create a republican democracy now–the monarchy genie is out of the bottle”
The best answer to free speech that offends you is more free speech. Christians should answer Hollywood with better movies. This is actually what is happening slowly but surely out here. We have a slow growing movement of conservative Christian filmmakers. We need more.
Sure…my sister in law is in that industtry in Virginia—I applaud it, but it wont cause Hollywood to slow down its slide.
Govt has to step in and prtect soemwhere—it already does on each issue you mention…its just that we keep giving up ground to the basest influences and then act like we can’t take it back.
We absolutely have the responsibility to influence. But I don’t think it is government’s role to protect us from ourselves. Our social contract can stipulate that adult bookstores or strip clubs can’t appear in certain neighborhoods, but we can’t demand that government shut them down because they’re immoral. Government can’t keep your kid from watching “Desperate Housewives”. I don’t like certain books or certain movies, but I don’t have the right to censor them. I have the right and the responsibility to respond to them.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Strangely enough, it wasn’t really libertarian. The proper phrase would be “classical liberal”, which Adam Smith was one of the fathers of. Obviously, the term liberal is far different now, but there is a lot of dispute over whether libertarianism or conservatism is the descendant. Some say both. It largely comes down to how conservatism is settled.
I am also curious to hear what JtF thinks of non-Christian conservatives, of which there are many, from atheist to agnostic to Jewish to Muslim to many other religions. That always seems to stick in their craw.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Our founding fathers were a mix–of Fundamentalists and diests–and yes, very libertarian in their ideals (thank God!)
but they were not agnostics and athiests and agreed that religion was th enecessary foundation for a republic to exist.
Democracy alone is mob rule
Libertarianism alone ends in anarchy (as some of its proponents admit)
Conservertism, true conservatism is “big tent” to a degree, but only to a degree.
We seem to agree on the ideas of small govt and most of what Mitt and Mike believe—we just differ on implementations and implications.
No need to name call. Some here just hate fundamentalists so they hate Huck—others hate mormons so they hate Mitt—both then try to say the other side is wrong.
Both men are good for the party and I am glad they are in it.
I wouldnt vote for Rudy if you held a gun to my head, but I am glad he is in it becasue on certain issues he is great and able to cross some aisles—same for McCain.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were enemies to the end–yet thye worked together and were always on the same team.
C’mon guys—is that so hard???
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I welcome all non-Christian TRUE conservatives, of which there are FEW, from atheist to agnostic to Jewish to Muslim —but isnt it obvious that most of them are liberals and Democrats? It would be very inconsistent of them to be a true conservative—one them in “in name only” or both are fake.
As I said before , I know of a few who sorta fit in the catergory, and I am glad they are there—but they are there because they like capitalism really–conservatism is just the only logical brother to it.
So yeah, if you know one—glad to hear it!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM
So, in other words, you want the government to do what you don’t have the right to do.
The eternal argument about this is, when it comes to offensive media like books, television, movies, music…why is it that fundamentalists always say the government should step in and do the parenting…yet at the same time scream bloody murder when schools have sexual education programs?
The double standard is excruciating. If you don’t believe the government has a place explaining the birds and the bees to your kid, then they don’t have a place dictating what they should or should not watch or be exposed to! THAT’S YOUR JOB! Every time you encourage the government to come in and run some part of your life, you drag this nation one step further to a government that controls every aspect of your life.
You’ve used slippery slope a number of times in your argument, so this is valid.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Wrong, and confirms your fundamentalist view.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I said TRUE conservatives, you don’t count–this confirms that of you.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Classical liberalism, yes. G. K. Chesterton considered himself a “classical liberal” you know. He liked to quote Robert Browning’s poem “Why I Am A Liberal”. That sort of liberalism, of course, bears little to no resemblance to our current use of the word.
Yes, some people tend to forget that not all conservatives are Christian. In fact, I don’t believe men like Jefferson and Washington and Franklin are more aptly described as Deists, rather than Christians. We speak of the Puritans as if they were the only colonials. What about those Virginians? They came here for the loot! We have always been a diverse culture. Our founding documents are meant to be simple and straight forward. Our social contract is live and let live.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Fundamentalism is not a religion. It’s a mania that can me applied to any religion.
Mormonism is a religion. You’re comparing apples and oranges. When Mitt proposes that Joseph Smith made his polls rise, you can come back and tell me he’s a fundamentalist. Until then, no, he’s not.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Again, you’ve ordered others to stop calling themselves conservatives, including those who see William F. Buckley, one of the fathers of modern-day conservatism. Hence, you know nothing of conservatism, and are in no place to judge whether I am a conservative, which I am.
Christian fundamentalism ≠ Conservatism
And trying to exclude the vast amount of non-Christian conservatives because they don’t subscribe to your religion is the same kind of bullshit that lost us this election. Thanks so much.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I’m confused. They were deists, rather than Christians. Did you misspeak?
It seems, though, that those Puritans never died out. They just go dormant from time to time after banning the latest craze, and pop up again later to ban the next big thing. I can only hope that people learn from history.
MadisonConservative on November 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Really? It’s WHAT is being taught that’s the problem—and this helps my argument. Do we allow pedophila to be taught in schools? No? “WHAAATT?? Why not?!?”
Oh yeah…TO PROTECT OUR CHIDLREN
…and thanks to views like yours—even that is coming down the pike!
You got that right…yours.
Are you nuts? They don’t have the right to teach them “Heather can have two mommies” but they can teach biology birds and bees, human reproduction all they want—-just stop there. Your sentence made no sense—it sound like you are agreeing with me.
It IS my job to make sure the govt doesn’t teach harmful things…and it takes govt influence to do so—we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!!!
Absolutely! ….I am 100% against them controlling anything—but they are to KEEP OUT what is harmful!!!!!!!!!
They shouldn’t be allowed , as liberals want, to dictate what the schools teach outside the basics, but thye should protect our kids from Ayers -like education ideas!!
Reagan understood this…true conservatives do.
Barney Frank and gang are trying to use govt to get in….we think govt should ONLY be used to keep out!!!!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Actually, I know a number of conservatives who are not Christian. Jews, Muslims, agnostics, even an atheist. We have many wonderful Jewish conservative writers. And even some great Muslim and atheist writers. Isn’t the guy who runs this website an agnostic?
You really run the risk of alienating many people when you limit conservatism to Christianity — and only your specific brand of Christianity.
I’m curious about what you mean by “real conservatives”. Do you mean adherence to conservative social values? Well, I know many Muslims who absolutely would agree with conservative social values. And I also know agnostics who are pro-life.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Ooops! Excuse me, yes I did misspeak. I meant to write that they were Deists, rather than Christians. They were, after all, men of the Enlightenment.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Yes, some people tend to forget that not all conservatives are Christian. In fact, I don’t believe men like Jefferson and Washington and Franklin are more aptly described as Deists, rather than Christians. We speak of the Puritans as if they were the only colonials. What about those Virginians? They came here for the loot! We have always been a diverse culture. Our founding documents are meant to be simple and straight forward. Our social contract is live and let live.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Washington absolutely was a Christian by ANY definition. We went over the others yesterday here—go back and read.
As for the Virginians—that’s when the problems really started!
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Yep. And they pop up on the right and on the left. It’s a “do gooder” or “true believer” gene that makes people want to change the world. They often have good intentions at first, but they are never realistic about their aims, and in the end they are not tolerant. They become the sort of thing they originally loathed. Puritans fled religious oppression, and so they turned around and oppressed the Quakers for not agreeing with them on doctrine! Gays are running rampant throughout LA and SF blacklisting people who donated to pro Prop 8 groups. They’re screaming about tolerance while they ruin the lives of people who simply exercised their right to vote.
ramrocks on November 20, 2008 at 8:05 PM
…which requires government control. Which you just said you are 100% against.
So, therefore, you either lack logic, or are simply stuck in circular logic. I’m guessing the latter since your arguments lie in this fashion:
Do better. “NO U” is supposed to be a joke, not a component of debate.
No, because it is a crime. Name me a class where criminal activity is taught.
You’re attempting to conflate sexual education with criminal education. You’ve gone from comparing apples to oranges, and are now comparing apples and baseballs. I realize you’re into the raving point, but focus. Focus.
Ah. So when the students ask questions about homosexuality, you want the teacher to slap them for thinking such sinful thoughts, and whisk them away to church before they infect the rest of the class with such curiosity. Of course.
In other words, you can teach some stuff about sexuality, but other stuff you can’t. Even though there’s a good possibility there’s a student in that class who will deal with homosexuality. Ignorance is better, right? 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
When did I order any such edict?
EXACTLY!! Finally you see it– modern-day conservatism. –not the same as classical conservatism—there’s hope for you yet!!
!
To quote a true conservative “There you go again”
Just when I was getting hopeful.
Christian fundamentalism = Conservatism
…if one is the first one, they will be the other–not so vice versa.
You sure have a filthy mouth……you can’t go two posts without cursing.
Profanity is the resort of the ignorant mind. The reason there is more profanity is because America grows stupider by the day.
And as I said Palin is a fundamentalist and with her, McCain woulda been walooped big time. Without us there are no you.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »