It is waggishly said of Episcopalians by our more abstemious brothers in Christ that wherever any four are gathered, there you can usually find a fifth. By that standard at least, I am as religious as the next man. And truth be told, much of my understanding of morality is informed by my faith, a fact that probably ought not surprise the regulars here. We are a nation of laws, and what are laws but expressions of what we collectively find to be moral and immoral behavior, subject to regulation?
I would argue that even a secular understanding of morality (in a broad sense) is imprinted – in the West, at least – by a logos who was in turn inspired by the “Golden Rule.” Whether or not an abiding and general secular morality can be sustained outside the ordered instruments of faith is an experiment that Europe is now undertaking. We should know the results in about a hundred years, so long as no external influence corrupts the test. That, by the way, is by no means certain.
With all of that said, I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of God-talk I’m hearing this election cycle. I find it as unlikely that a Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas now leads the primary polls of the Republican Party as I do to find Barack Obama opening a speech in South Carolina by saying that he was “Giving all praise and honor to God,” and urging those present to “Look at the day that the Lord has made.”
A simple, “God bless America” stuck there on the end used to suffice.
Mike Huckabee may well be a charming candidate, with many compelling virtues. But he will never, I think, be president of the United States of America. And now Mitt Romney is reduced to explaining some of the less explicable doctrines of the Mormon church. How has it come to this?
Republican strategists cobbled together a privately uneasy coalition of pro-growth advocates, small government conservatives and evangelical Christians to form a powerful political base over the last quarter century. But the luxurious spending habits of “compassionate conservatives” seems to have strangled the small government baby in its ideological cradle while rendering the always popular tax cut plank fiscally problematical. The question is no longer whether government (and the national debt) should grow, but how fast. Once you’ve conceded that point a lot of folks that would otherwise consider themselves as potential conservative voters lose the plot.
In response to the Republican coalition, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean famously expressed the hope that red state voters would some day give up on “God, guns and gays” and vote their own self-interest. His way, in other words. After all, he no doubt reasons, if your expressed policy is to rob Peter to pay Paul, you expect to get Paul’s vote most of the time.
Speaking of Paul, these days it seems that every Republican politician who still believes in small government – really believes, I mean – is named Ron Paul. That worthy certainly has his legions of adoring fans. You see bumper stickers for him all over San Diego for example, and last night I saw thirty or forty enthusiastic supporters on a suburban street corner twirling signs in the cold. But I’ve got to believe that I have at least as good a chance of being elected president as he does. I mean no offense, but the guy’s kind of kooky. No way he makes it to the finals.
The dynamic seems to be that the Democrats have learned their lessons about overt hostility to religion – a bad thing – and seem eager to show their faith in a breezy, Reaganesque sort of way. Robbed by their actions of small government street cred and by the deficit from responsibly advocating much in the way of further tax cuts, Republican candidates are left to debate – on national TV – whether or not the bible is literally, word-for-word true. If this is what it takes in order to position themselves to the right of Democrats, I expect we’ll soon hear a candidate advocating the right to captive carry in church, just in case a gay person shows up.
Can’t be this is all we’ve got left.
I am still waiting for the rocketship from Mars, bringing a crewn of worthy candidates for our forthcoming elections. Somehow, from somewhere, we must have a better group from which to choose.
“A simple, “God bless America” stuck there on the end used to suffice.”
Amen to that.
Mike Huckabee is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. And as far as I can determine, he’s in the wrong primary.
Heaven help us.
Hypocrisy is certainly part of the human condition but I was still amused several years ago when HRC was recorded responding to a question with: “I have more than I can pray over.” I thought then and do now that those types will be whatever they need to be to get wherever they want to go.
I can’t ever recall another election season/campaign where ALL the candidates appeared to be non-starters in my eyes, and my history goes back to Goldwater/Johnson. Yeah, it’s usually a choice between the lesser of two evils, but this year? I’m having serious trouble determining who is less-evil.
They ALL…more or less…suck. Pardon the term.
Buck;
You’re right, they all suck and some suck more than others. There is not one in either party I’d walk around the corner to vote for, but there’s a bunch I’d walk a mile to vote against. Ain’t that the pits…
I voted for Goldwater believing Johnson was lieing through his teeth telling us what we wanted to hear. What-the-hell.
Please join Kris and I in supporting Fred Thompson.
The nearest thing to Reagan we have.
Plus, it’s about time we got a hottie for a First Lady
I’ve been asking myself lately how it is that these are what we get for candidates. For my money, the best of the lot is Fred Thompson (although my ECUSA Priest, who’s from Tennesee, thinks he’s a dumbass). But set that aside. How is it that a field of this size for this office is mostly people who so transparently bend with opinion polls and who step on their [intimate body parts] in public so often?
How did we end up with an electorate that responds to emotional sound bites instead of demanding rational discourse ? The man was right, you know – in a democracy, you get the kind of government you deserve.
The GOP had it’s shot, but what happened to the Illinois Reflublicans in extremis happened nationally as well. Once in power, they threw over all pretensions of actually following the principles they’d espoused to get elected. They took no steps to give us smaller government; instead, they simply shifted who was going to profit from big government from the Democrat’s friends to theirs. Besides, there’s plenty of wealthy interests who simply allocate enough money to bet both sides. If the GOP had kept it’s promises from the early 90’s they’d still be in power.
As far as invoking the Almighty when giving speeches about government policy and social actions, re-read the speeches the guys who started all of this back in the 1770’s and ran things for the first few decades used to give. Then check out Lincoln’s speeches. If President Bush gave the Lord the place in his speeches that Abraham Lincoln did the media would be aghast – not to mention what the Islamists would say.
Seems to me that there have been plenty of Baptist ministers that have told us how to run national policy according to the word of the Lord that have been pretty well received. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for starters; try reading his I Have A Dream speech or his Letter From A Birmingham Jail in their entireties, not just those excerpts that the MSM slice out every January 15th and replay. They were drenched in religious imagery and Scriptural justifications.
Of course, he meant it – he wasn’t just trying to influence polls to get elected. Maybe that’s the difference.
RonF, I hear you about the IL GOP, though the IL Dems aren’t doing much better of late, except one.
It’s become the norm for every candidate to bow down before their core constituencies. Dems usually to NAACP, Planned Parenthood, trade unions, etc.
I wonder if this whole religion thing has roots back when JFK had to pretty much announce that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Pope if elected.
Embrace your faith, whatever it is. I don’t care what a president/senator/sheriff/dog catcher’s religion is, as long as they uphold the laws they are sworn to uphold. I don’t want to hear anyone say, “God told me to cut taxes.” Yuck.
Buck’s comment regarding “current candidate suckification” bears consideration, but I think some are counting on a phenomenon similar to the one that occurs in bars as the evening wears on…(-*
All the candidates are just telling the people what the focus groups tell the candidates the people want to hear. Yes that is a very confusing sentence.
The public seems to want someone who will entertain them, protect them and give them stuff, lets just elect Santa Claus and be done with it.
But, Tom G, remember the next morning when you considered chewing off your own arm rather than wake it up?
As one gets older, well, there is this concept called a learning curve afterall.
Be patient, my children. Early days yet. However the primaries evolve, don’t lose sight of the fact that, if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she is the stalking horse for Billy Jeff’s Third Term. If those two people occupy the White House once again, do you seriously believe that Bill won’t be running the show? Can you hear Hillary saying, “I have a cabinet meeting this morning, Bill, and you can’t come?”
Down here in Texas, we once had serial Governors. We called them Ma and Pa Ferguson, and each one was about as depraved as the other. They sold pardons, and pretty much everything else that wasn’t nailed down in the State House. And their slogan was [wait for it!] “You get two for the price of one.” Sound familiar?
I don’t care who is the Republican candidate. When it all shakes out, that’s who I plan to vote for. But I don’t think it will be Ron Paul. Isn’t he Mary Ford’s husband?
Marianne Matthews
Shipmates,
Well, for all those christian candidates, folks might want to remind them of Jesus’ comment that “it is not what a man takes into his mouth that difiles him, but, rather, that which comes out of his mouth”.
Seems like sage advice to me…
Buck, Pixielkiller, It has been an interesting read on your take on this subject. I wonder what would happen, if one of the options was “None of the Above?” I figure a definite landslide victory! You have a real insight with the idea that people are more voting against someone, than for someone.
I was a kid at the time, but I remember an incident with President Dwight Eisenhower, it was in the newspapers. A reporter asked Eisenhower, “Mr. President, what do you think Richard Nixon will bring to the Presidency?” Eisenhower looked up and away, then looked back at the reporter. He brought the reporter back into his gaze and replied, “Look, give me a week and maybe I’ll think of something.” In reality, Eisenhower was neither Republican nor Democrat, as he spent most of his life, he was military. Now let’s take a look at both Eisenhower and Nixon. There were 2 completely different generations. If you look at life approach, you see Eisenhower as military even in his family relationships, they called him, “The General.” Nixon, on the other hand, was a Quaker faith-based approach, very secretive about perceived personal privacy. How do I know? I knew a man, who has since died, who was in the middle of all of this. I asked him one time, “Would ‘The General’ have been surprised by Watergate?” He chuckled and said, “He knew Nixon better than Nixon knew himself.” One day I asked him about style of Presidencies. He said, “Richard Nixon came to The Office of the President of the United States with a view of a faith-based imperial Presidency.” I asked him to break down just the last 4 words, they just didn’t mix well. He said, “For some, not all, the phrase ‘faith-based’ takes the human or instruments of the human out of the loop. Their faith may not ‘officially’ teach it, but if they believe it, for them it becomes ‘true’. Therfore, nothing in any law or document can tell them what to do. Grumpy, do you realize just how close to treason we are at this point in time? Eisenhower knew and accepted human authority over him in the ‘chain of command’.
In the spirit of full-disclosure, yes, I am a Christian, but my faith sees man’s law as “Aids to Navigation”. Only in extremely rare situations do I even consider breaking them.
Huckabee the preacher I’m reasonably comfortable with. Huckabee the candidate, not so much.
I’ve never been very trusting of such overt displays of religion as we see from many of the current candidates. Could be the Methodist upbringing. Could be the atheist phase I went through. Could be that I’m just generally suspicious. “Methinks he doth protest too much,” and all that.
I’m in the Thompson camp at the moment, and I’m willing to be convinced of McCain’s virtues. The rest…no. Just…no.
re “God”
and
“Can’t be this is all we’ve got left.”
That is because the MSM is defining this election- not any candidate.
Romney and Huckabee are good people and fine candidates but they are letting the MSM “call the shots” ( “a show of hands, please”) and we on the outside have to listen to this blather if we want to make informed decisions. Yes, even you Lex, are not immune.
Same exact thing goes for Rudy, Fred and John..How about Duncan, the best of the lot? Not heard from because of the same. I am sure each of them would rather have the focus on core issues for Repubs- taxes and the economy.
Any one of them above is for winning in Iraq, BTW..that’s whats important to me.
Ron Paul is a special Perot-like case…. He is simply a nut in my book because he is about “10 ft away” from being a 9-11 conspiracy nut. Plus, I could never trust a libertarian as President..they attract too many kooks who know the constitution by heart, or want to just smoke pot freely…O’course I can say this without consequence because I believe it to be true and because I ain’t writing for mil.com…Mr. Paul ain’t just somebodies crazy uncle in other words. I recommend none of us soft-pedal him…like Kucinich on the Left, Paul is the darling of the Ultra-right…Personally, I don’t like variation off the chart either way. I tend to throw out that data.
Ronnie ain’t coming back. We all have to get over that…He was special.
I won’t opine on the Dem side of this same issue, because I don’t care how they BBQ themselves for consumption just yet.
Not very bi-partisan of me, eh? To me it’s a question of “Center and right” vs. “Left and Lefter”….
That’s K.I.S.S. for ya.
b2
LOL!, Marianne – but can he play the guitar? I think I’m the only one of these folks old enough to catch your joke.
I’m backing Fred, too, but he doesn’t seem to be as enthusiastic as I’d like him to be. Of course, these scripted “debates” (they aren’t debates!) are such BS that they’re no help at all. I don’t have an alternative candidate in mind that I like, either.
Unkawill,
If you want a hottie for First Lady-maybe you should be voting for Kucinch!
Well Unkawill – we are out now, aren’t we?! Dedicated FredHeads. While I’ve been frustrated at his stalled campaign lately, I do wonder if it’s been his strategy all along.
We all got pretty tired of the ridiculously early campaigning. Perhaps he felt that it would be a good idea to throw his hat in with everyone else, then sit back and wait until the actual primaries got here.
He’s acting and sounding more and more like a President every time I hear him these days. One can only hope…
Huckabee is dangerous. He — as someone said above — seems to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter. He claims to be a conservative (although IIRC, Carter never made any such claims), but if you look at his record he’s anything but a conservative.
As far as Ron Paul? Talk about a walking freak show. How did he even get on the stage… much less considered one of the second tier candidates. I guess it just goes to show that anyone in this country has a chance to run for office… if you’ve got enough money…
Jim C
I’m not backing anyone right now. Every time I look at the slate, my stomach turns.
I’ve been voting for 25 years and I have never voted FOR anyone. I always vote AGAINST who I view is the biggest loser. And every Presidential election, I think, “Crap, what a bunch of junk. Could we get a choice any worse than this?” and every election, the choice seems worse and worse.
Never have I felt so despondent about the primaries. Never. I ALMOST don’t even want to vote in them. Let everyone else decide who the leastest loser is in the primaries and then I’ll go from there. I’ve never done that before… but I’m telling you, it is damn tempting this go round.
By the way, for my money I like Fred or Romney. Fred is definately my first choice though.
People say that Rudy is great on the GWOT. That’s true, but, name one Republican candidate that isn’t (besides Ron Paul… he doesn’t count). Rudy just has too many… ethical problems for my liking.
Jim C
I’m answering the Original Post, here, and have not (cross my heart) read the comments.
This is why I drink too much.
Ok, now I’ll go back and read the comments.
Well, if you get really depressed, I can offer you The Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition up here … and he’s not necessarily the wurst.
Cheers
I’ve known people who worked for Eisenhower, and Reagan. The common characteristic that they seemed to share – cold steel in their spines.
Let’s face it, the President’s primary job, especially in wartime, is to be Commander-in-Chief. That means very tough life and death decisions. You’ve got to be smart and TOUGH with a capital T.
So when I look at a candidate, I always ask myself is he tough enough? Does he have that stainless steel backbone?
Domestic social policy at a time of war is a secondary issue. Besides, Congress is the one that makes the laws. I heard John Edwards say he would “take on the corporations.” In what way? The President cannot make laws. He can propose them, but if you want conservative domestic legislation and control of spending get out there and elect those conservative Senators and Representatives.
I haven’t made up my mind yet but I like the toughness of Hunter and Giuliani. Unfortunately, Hunter probably has no chance to be nominated. Thompson seems too low energy and he only plays a tough guy on TV. Mitt Romney would make a good Secretary of Commerce, but I think he’s just too nice and decent to be President. Huckabee – nice fellow, but C-in-C……..sorry.
All that said, I would vote for any of them over Hillary or Obama.
Having watched several of the debates I am considering throwing my hat in the ring. I will have a three-point platform, based upon questions asked during the campaign. Based upon the question I will offer the following three policy points:
1) None of your business.
2) It’s not the responsibility of government to do that, no matter how good an idea it might be. Therefore, find somebody else to support it.
3) It is the responsbility of government to do that, hence I leave it to the House to enact the funding and the Senate to agree to it, then all in the executive branch will do their duty to make it happen.
So far the debates have shown my third point will never see the light of day.
The heck with it — I wouldn’t subject myself and my family to that dog-and-pony show for twice the Presidential salary.
– Max
Skippysan says:
Unkawill,
If you want a hottie for First Lady-maybe you should be voting for Kucinch!
I wouldn’t vote for that Gnome if you tortured me and I’m not talking about waterboarding either.
I’ll admit that she is somewhat pleasing to the eye, but she is even further to the left than he.
Something I didn’t think possible.
Who, of all these candidates, either Rep or Dem is best able to defeat the militant Islamist?It seems to me THAT is the question these candidates should be answering.I’m still waiting to hear something from one of them that would convince me to vote for him (I don’t believe a her could do the job…Miss Hillary anin’t no Golda Mier or Magaret Thacher).Mr. Obama won’t even wear the American Flag on his lapel.
Mr. Huckabee has 11 years of experience running a state government, so, I wouldn’t dismiss him as you did Captain.That he practices a more outspoken brand of Christianity (being a Baptist) isn’t the measure of a leader.Rudy has a track record of leadership as well.Mr. Romney is from Mass…can anything good come out of Mass (Kris has to be one of the 2 or 3 exceptions from there).Mr. McCain is the only war horse in the stable right now, but sadly has no $$ to sustain a campaign.Fred?Who he?What’s his track record of leadership?
OK, back to question number 1…who is best able to defeat our real, very active, sworn enemy?You tell me, I’m all ears.
Grumpy;
“None of The Above”. Inspiring! I thought I was the only one. I thought of that myself many years ago if I can be so bold as to say. Imagine NOTA winning? Change the rules so a NOTA box is on every ballot and you gotta get 50% plus 1 to win in any election. No winner? Keep having re-elections every fortnight till someone does. Oh, and you gotta skip an election before you can run again.
Crazy? Maybe a little, but God help me, I do love it so!
Seriously now, I too look at Thomson as the least bad of the whole passel. I do think, and maybe this is wishful on my part, that he’s deliberately speaking softly and keeping a low profile while all the others burn themselves out running around in circles trying to appeal everyone and keeping even their shadows out of trouble. What-the-hell. Maybe not.
Good luck to us all.
When one is looking for a hottie-politics are not the first consideration. Looking at her pictures, she looks pretty “fair and balanced” to me!
As far as McCain… I agree, he’s rock solid on the war… except for one thing. He’s against waterboarding. I honor the man’s service to our country, and I would never pretend to understand what he went through at the hands of the North Vietnamese. But, I also think that what he went through has adversely colored his opinion of that tactic.
As far as waterboarding; I don’t believe it’s torture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that we use it to train our own troops. In addition to that, the congress has had the power to declare it torture, and to make it illegal to use that technique… they haven’t. It has also come out in the last couple of weeks that both Democrats and Republicans were briefed on the tactics that we were using on some of our detainees back in ‘02, ‘03-’04. None of them objected. In fact, it was asked at the time IIRC if we were being tough enough.
I don’t think it should be used a lot, but I do believe that it should be part of our arsenal. If nothing else, if the terrorists think we can do it, we may be able to get results without actually having to do it.
Jim C
Waterboarding is a red herring, a sound bite to get folks to tune in to the story. There are all sorts of uncomfortable and downright painful things a person can do to you in order to make you talk. Eventually you’ll probably break, spill your guts, offer a few tidbits in order to make the pain go away, hope you offered inconsequential bits and tell yourself you’ll hold out a little more tomorrow. But the long and short of it is any man can be broken, given enough time.
We don’t wish our servicemen to undergo this, thus we don’t torture as a matter of principle. We assume our enemies will also not torture our servicemen as a matter of the same principle. Being honorable folks, we expect enemies to be likewise and to honor such agreements.
The Islamists don’t waterboard prisoners. They saw their heads off with knives, then parade the bodies around to whatever crowds and cameras they can muster. Nobody knows what happens prior to that fatal and sickening scene.
I fail to see how an order to stop waterboarding is going to make the Islamists suddenly turn to the International Red Cross and ask that they inspect prisoner facilities, or make them suddenly decide to, you know, actually hold prisoners in a POW camp.
Enemies with honor will respect this policy. I contend the Islamists we’re currently fighting have no such instinct, and thus the debate is useless.
– Max
My thought on this has always been that if one is not more willing to die horribly and painfully than submit, and the enemy is willing to use ALL means, from being excessively nice to one, to being horribly revoltingly godawful, _taking enough time_, anyone can be broken.
Maybe folks, like safes, should be rated for the time they’re able to resist certain kinds of attack?
P.s. I think I read somewhere, that when Arthur McArthur (Doug’s Dad) was commanding in New Orleans after The War, some of the unreconstructed arranged for some very cute and effectively-dressed young ladies to visit him in his office, sort of “lean” across his desk, so to speak, etc., further deponent sayeth not, except that… and so on.
He was supposed to have sent a letter back to Washington City along the lines of “They are getting close to my price. Request I be relieved as soon as may be.”
This is a good reason for young servicemen to get laid a lot, so as to have some resistance to this method. I tellya, it would work entirely too shamefully quickly on me, though maybe not so much now that I am old and grumpy and suspicious
This morning some woman called in to C-SPAN to say she heard from her niece’s husbands mother’s third cousin about some a rumor she heard about a rite performed in the Mormon temple and boy was it awful! The ignorance and obvious bigotry of the caller is only eclipsed by C-SPAN’s willingness to allow it on the air. The point is, discussion of religious belief has sunk so low that even the paragons of American thought and political neutrality have abandon good sense in order to accommodate religious sleaze.