Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Huckabee’s moment
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has a plea for those interested in the straw poll results of the evangelical Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. this weekend: Crunch the numbers.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney took first place in the Family Research Council’s (FRC) poll of more than 5,000 voters, but just barely: Romney won by 30 votes. But Huckabee’s supporters insist that almost winning isn’t the real news: They say Huckabee actually won by a landslide.
In the moments after FRC president Tony Perkins announced the results of the straw poll to some 2,000 evangelicals and conservatives gathered at a three-day conference that featured speeches from all nine Republican presidential candidates, Perkins explained a crucial caveat to those results: Many people voted online. The FRC allowed people from around the country to begin voting in the straw poll online in August, while others voted at kiosks on site at the conference this weekend.
“Garamond” size=”3″>That wasn’t a secret, but it did put Romney’s win in perspective: While Romney won 27 percent of the total votes in the straw poll, he won only 10 percent of votes cast at the conference. Instead, it was Huckabee who dominated the summit: He won 51 percent of the votes cast on site this weekend, swamping every other candidate. Romney trailed in second place by 389 votes.
Jeremiah Lorrig finds that dynamic confusing. The 24-year-old Huckabee supporter said he thinks the FRC “mishandled” the straw poll by allowing people who didn’t attend the conference or listen to the candidates’ speeches to vote. “I think the opinions of the people who are actually here are more representative of evangelicals,” he said.
When reporters grilled Perkins about that dynamic at a press conference, Perkins defended the poll, saying that the FRC clearly published the straw poll procedures months ago, and that every campaign had an equal opportunity to mobilize online voters.
Despite the complexity, Huckabee drew major buzz at the conference with a Saturday morning speech that drew the most enthusiastic response of the weekend. As prominent Christian leaders continued to grapple with which candidate to support, Huckabee supporter Eric Lupardus wondered why they haven’t backed Huckabee: “What they’re looking for is right there in front of them.”
back to top113 Comments to “Huckabee’s moment”
I wouldnt underestimate the Huckmeister folks. And all you so-called “pragmatists” who say only Rudy can stop the Hildabeast, who also say you’re uncomfortable with Rudy’s views on guns, abortion, gays but you’ll pull the lever (dangle a chad?) for him ANYWAY.. to such folks who see Rudy as some sort of panacea, let Huckabee’s triumph put a pox on your house!
Report comment to moderator
Bob Jones III has come out for Mitt. Any word on who Donald Wildmon will endorse? Is there anyone in the so-called fundagelical theoCon community who really gives a rat’s spittle who any of these folks endorse.
I personally admire the work James Dobson has done but I dont view him as the Kingmaker many in the GOP apparently view him as.
I do however wish even one of the Democratic guys/gal had bothered to attend this Values Voter summit at the FRC
Report comment to moderator
Sorry to change topic.
Camp Victory was assaulted by rockets/mortar fire. Several Iraqi police vehicles were spotted at the area from whence the rockets were launched. What I read suggested that these cops had been infiltrated by the Mahdi militia?
Among the dead: Staff Sgt Lillian Clamens, 35, a mother of 3 from Lawton Ok (Ft Sill).
Also, a 28 yr old former college football player, Samuel F Pearson.
I know the secular media will play up the story of this mom’s sacrifice for the Iraqi people, but will it get much mention? Lotsa folks are still queezy with women serving and dying over here.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 3,
as I read your post, I find it very interesting. I am considering what your posts says with respect to the reaslisitic ability to turn over security to the Iraqi security forces.
My heart goes out ot the family of both Sgt. Clamens and Samuel Pearson.
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee is another word for hick. Example: that ignorant gullible person is a huckabee.
Since Brownback dropped out, Huckabee is one of the two hicks left in the race for president. He publicly made the claim everything is magic. He said “I believe god-did-it.”
Only an idiot could deny a proven scientific fact. We already have had an idiot president for the last 7 years. We don’t need another one.
Here is it, the idiocy of the huckabee hick:
Is Evolution a Winning Issue for Republicans, or a Headache?
At a debate in June, Mr. Huckabee said, “I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how he did do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don’t honestly know.” He didn’t impress scientists, however, when he added, “If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do that.” Actually, all humans are by definition primates.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty, if you get all agitated over Huckabee’s beliefs I can’t wait to hear your analysis of Romney’s!
Report comment to moderator
Thank God for the Qwerty’s of the world who help us to remember that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee is a well-spoken, true-blue Christian.
I really respect this about the guy.
But, once again,..And I’m someone who would know, Mike Huckabee is not a conservative.
He has a long history of doing whatever the democrat majorities in both Ark, state houses have told him to do. In some cases, he had proposals that were so radically liberal, the democrats wouldn’t even pass them.
He signed the Fair tax pledge…whoop-ty.
He wasn’t too worried about taxing people as a governor. As far as being socially conservative.
Yes, in a liberal fascist sort of way, I suppose.
Just becase the morality being dictated by the govt. (through targeted tax hikes, which has been Huckabees tool of choice)is one you agree with, doesn’t make it right. And it sure isn’t a “conservative” position.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty, when I add your calling Mr. Huckabee a “hick” to the comments you wrote which so obviously upset Kim that she felt she had to defend her state’s honor, I can only conclude that you have never been very far from home and certainly have not spent much time in the South. It’s good to get out and really meet people. Perhaps you also don’t read the news: as I recall, Louisiana is pretty close to Alabama and those fine people just elected as governor the son of immigrants from India. Perhaps it’s time, Qwerty, for you to reconsider your regional stereotypes.
If the best you can do is show the fact that Mr. Huckabee misspoke by not including humans within the definition of the word primate, you’ve got nothing. Any reasonable person would conclude that he meant descended from the apes. I guess, though, being perfect, Qwerty, you never misspeak. Mr. Huckabee is affable, decent and has a proven executive record. He’s been elected and re-elected in a “blue” state. He’s not vicious. What have you got? primate, ape. Wow.
Oh, and feel free to pick on Jersey any time you want. 49% of us don’t like it here and want to leave from what I’ve read.
Report comment to moderator
And lest I appear callous, I, too, extend my sympathies to the Clamer and Pearson families Sawgunner told us about. The ages of those young people are especially noteworthy — at least to someone my age. I remember being 28 and 35. This is a reminded to be grateful for the time we have and to use it wisely.
Report comment to moderator
Well come on people. The US is the scientific leader of the world and you want to elect a leader that doesn’t believe in science?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t Huckabee the genius who said that our nation being overrun with tens of millions of illegals was a good thing, because it’s actually “the Lord giving us a 2nd chance on racism”? Yes, he’s the same genius. Anyone who thnks this liberal fathead has a chance is deluding themselves.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner: “Qwerty, if you get all agitated over Huckabee’s beliefs I can’t wait to hear your analysis of Romney’s!”
I’m not agitated over Huckabee beliefs, I just laugh at his incredible stupidity. Anyone who thinks people were magically created out of nothing, is not qualified to be president of anything.
Romney is just another god nut and he has no value.
The only candidate of either party who has come out strongly in favor of science and strongly against the insanity of god-did-it is Hillary Clinton, and despite her faults she has my vote.
NJLawyer: “If the best you can do is show the fact that Mr. Huckabee misspoke by not including humans within the definition of the word primate, you’ve got nothing.”
Any grammar school student knows humans are primates. Huckabee doesn’t even know that. Huckabee also was one of the 3 know-nothing hicks who denied the proven fact of evolution. How can anyone expect to be elected president of a country, even a hopeless god-soaked country like America, and not even understand simple facts that have been accepted for more than a century?
Report comment to moderator
Rdean: “The US is the scientific leader of the world and you want to elect a leader that doesn’t believe in science?”
Actually they already have elected somebody who doesn’t even know what science is. That would be George W. of course.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN: I am not saying that I want to vote for Mr. Huckabee, not at all. Don’t think he could win, at least not now. But I wouldn’t have a problem with a decent person like that in the second slot, just in case he’s needed.
As for science: if the man were against ALL science, it would bother me. In the area of creation, he’s entitled to his opinion, and his opinion won’t change much of anything one way or the other. And you pro-evolution people aren’t really willing to question your own gospel anyway — which isn’t very scientific, now is it?
I doubt there has been a wholly science-oriented (for lack of a better phrase) president in many a year, if ever, not that it should be ignored, so as you say “come on.” Science is out there, and most people are happy to let it thrive and make life better for us somehow. Most people don’t understand it and think of scientists as “they” — as in why don’t “they” invent this or that. But most people don’t worship it, any more than they should worship law alone. Life is about more than one discipline. Science is a tool, not a way of life.
Do we really think about “science” when we consider the qualifications of a president? I don’t. If a candidate denied science and put his “faith” in the ouija board, I would worry, but none of them do that. And no president is ever in absolute power, truth be told. So, come on.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: “In the area of creation, he’s entitled to his opinion, and his opinion won’t change much of anything one way or the other.”
That’s right. This is a free country. If somebody wants to believe the earth is flat, or something else equally insane like an invisible magic man in the sky made people instantly out of nothing, they have the right to believe that.
However if a person believes in insane ideas, and also denies proven scientific facts like evolution that have been accepted for more than a century, then that person is totally unqualified to be a president, a senator, or even a mayor of a city. We don’t need ignorant insane people running our country.
Report comment to moderator
Do we really think about “science” when we consider the qualifications of a president? I don’t
We are competing against other countries every day. If the president of our country prefers magic instead of scientific facts, then there’s a problem. The Huckabee hick prefers magic. Imagine somebody like that leading the most powerful country in the world. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it, our current president prefers magic. His administration is well known for mixing politics with scientific research. We don’t need this slowing down of human progress to happen again. That’s why Clinton is getting my vote.
Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics
In the telephone interview after the speech, Mrs. Clinton also tacitly criticized opponents of evolution. Some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates have said flatly that they do not believe in evolution, while other Republican contenders have said they support teaching evolution, intelligent design and creationist ideas.
The Republicans have proven their stupidity to me. After several decades of voting Republican, I have had it with those know-nothing brainless politicians who have made our country a joke.
Report comment to moderator
Quit feeding the trolls!
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer,
Excellent post in #15.
#18 Qwerty most definitely fits all the qualifications to be a troll, but he’s our troll. He’s been around long enough (under a few different names), that we occasionally pay a bit of attention to him, although I will admit personally to simply skimming his rants and feeling rather sorry for him. Still, I think that is why NJ Lawyer felt willing to write to him.
Report comment to moderator
I miss James. Was he banned outright? Or like me back under a new name (by the way I am Brad O’Brien and I approve this message).
James is/was most likely in the Ron Paul camp. Who here thinks Dr Paul has any “electability”???
Report comment to moderator
The presidential race for conservatives will be won or lost in the primaries. If conservatives get lulled into believing that Guiliani has it wrapped up, they are overlooking an important part of the process.
Hillary and Guiliani don’t have all that much different in the issues that are important to Conservatives.
I agree that now that Brownback is out, his supporters will turn to Huckabee. Granted there weren’t that many Brownback supporters, but you can expect that Tancredo, and Paul dropping out is right around the corner.
That will leave Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee. Look who looks appealing now! Conservatives are afraid of Romney because he is Mormon and they are not sure whether his conservative positions came about through expedience. At least we all know where Guiliani stands. He stands slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton. Not much there for conservatives.
It’s the primaries folks! I believe Hillary has a better chance of beating Guiliani than Huckabee as many conservatives will drop out of the voting if it comes down to Hillary and Rudy.
3 Months before the primaries. I expect Huckabee to gain momentum. And for conservatives, he is the best candidate they have.
BTW, I didn’t mention McCain and Thompson. Too many negatives to overcome. Too much record to filter through for mud-slinging by opponents. Too much the Beltway insiders etc.
It’s Guiliani, Romney and Huckabee. For conservatives, the choice seems clear to me.
Report comment to moderator
#15: In the area of creation, he’s entitled to his opinion, and his opinion won’t change much of anything one way or the other.
This is where we have to disagree. Somehow, the Christians rely on science for everything yet say science is wrong about one tiny area. But let’s look at that over the last few years.
At first, it was only evolution, but it has spread to include astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology and other sciences. There are few tidy lines drawn in science. Everything is interconnected. You can’t just screen out the little bit that threatens your occult beliefs. Because of the interconnection, that little bit of suppression has spread and infected America’s view of the importance of science.
Bush was a perfect example. He may have damaged the military, the justice system, America’s credibility overseas, but I think his biggest damage to this country is to science. By trying to force scientists to change data to match his administrations policy, nearly all the top government scientists have quit. Many have been hired by other countries and don’t even live in this country anymore. Anyone who regularly reads science and engineering publications know this. Many Christians have been convinced these scientists have just been collecting big paycheck just sitting on their slide rules while doing nothing of note.
Think about it. As difficult as it is becoming a top scientist, the shear amount of work involved the number of years it takes, the incredible amount of motivation. Who would work that hard and then just loaf? A person like that is motivated to work their entire lives as long as they can. At some point, Christian have to stop misrepresenting other Americans. It hurts the country and it hurts their credibility, which I have to admit, after Bush and all the other religious scandals, is shot.
Report comment to moderator
Even trolls evolve. For example, I was called a troll a couple of times when I first visited wmb. However, I evolved into a pest. Next, I will be a ghost.
Report comment to moderator
Righteous evangelical Christians, having served their purpose for Karl Rove, will now evolve into being irrelevants.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, thank you for your encouragement in 19. I confess that I don’t think the posters here as “trolls.” I’m not posting as often as I would like, but when I do, I see Qwerty’s name quite a bit and so I thought of him as one of our more angry non-Christian posters. I like to at least start out with someone new by giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Metanoia, you make a very good point that we are at the primary stage. We ought not to accept what the mainstream media feeds us so early in this race. I personally believe the MSM would like to see the nominees be Giuliani and Clinton because they enjoy trying to control the outcome and they could do a lot with that combination. Whatever one thinks of GWB (and I am no hater of GWB), I don’t think the MSM has ever gotten over his winning the first time around. Though they want us to accept every opinion from the Supremes that supports the liberal agenda, they just never warmed to Bush v. Gore or the constitutional principles contained in it. That GWB won the next time around really bent them out of shape.
If I had to choose one of the candidates you named for the single issue of court nominations, while I believe Mr. Giuliani would give us competent lawyers for judges, I believe Mr. Huckabee would give us competent lawyers as well as morally sound ones for judges — so in that sense he would have my vote. Mr. Romney, if he won, would want to win a second term, so given the chance in the first term to appoint a Supreme, he would probably aim for a pro-life candidate. As you probably know, judge selection is important to me especially because of abortion.
And sometimes it is the gentle person with the good heart who wins the vote of the people. The primaries are the place for the people to register what they’re thinking, what they want. Neither the GOP nor the MSW can force Giuliani on the people if those voting in the primaries don’t vote for him.
Report comment to moderator
“Only an idiot could deny a proven scientific fact.”
Proverbs 12:23
Romans 1: 18
Repent.
Report comment to moderator
What is the Huckster’s view on health care for little children?
Report comment to moderator
As far as ideology, I think Duncan Hunter is the best guy in the field.
I’ve seen quite a few straw polls in western states where Duncan Hunter won.
He seems to be a popular choice in the conservative blogoshpere. I’d love to see this guy be the surprise.
After Hunter, going by who the MSM say have a chance, I’d probably have to go with Thompson.
He seems to have a detailed general strategy for continuing the WOT.
He understands the role of the federal govt. and better, he understands what the federal govt.’s roleisn’t.
He understands that we have to reduce regulations that won’t allow us to address some of the problems that we complain about.
Reducing regulations = reduced govt. = reduced spending
= enhanced; private investment, productivity, energy independence, national security, geo-political leverage.
And there is no way Thompson would nominate anyone but a strict constructionist for SCOTUS.
Any true constructionist would vote to overturn RvW, so there is no reason for social conservatives to fear.
Having said that he will no doubt be targeted by those claiming to be conservatives for past indiscretion.
(of course the charges will be meaningless, and probably financed by a Soros-type, who would rather a more liberal GOPer got the nom.)
I like Tancredo, but he has make public his position on more issues than just illegal immigration.
People think he’s a one-trick-pony.
Report comment to moderator
TRS and NJL, it is magnanimous on your part to occasionally throw a bone to the starving trolls. I confess I may need to grow in the area of patience and charity.
I got a little caught up in the Guiliani/Clinton matchup prematurely as so many have until I came to the realization that it’s not a done deal this early in the race.
I had never heard of Huckabee until only recently. It would be better to say his name didn’t ring a bell as there was little coverage of anybody beyong Guiliani, Clinton, Obama and Romney.
I’m now taking a closer look at the “second tier” Republicans looking for an alternative to Guiliani. On the Dem side, Hillary seems to be the heir apparent unless she dons a helmet and rides a tank around town. She can’t embellish her military record as she has none so it looks like she’ll be the banner carrier for the Dems. I couldn’t in good conscience vote for Hillary for at least a dozen good reasons.
If anything this debate has given me a greater sense of how important the primaries are. I’ve never missed an election, primary or otherwise, local, state or federal. If conservatives are going to make some kind of statement, they’ll have to come out en masse during the primaries to at the very least send a message to Guiliani that he can’t take conservatives for granted.
Report comment to moderator
#26 briang2ad: Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
briang2ad, are you joking, or are you providing evidence religious beliefs cause the brain to rot?
#18 metanoia: Quit feeding the trolls!
The definition of a troll according to metanoia: Anyone who disagrees with metanoia.
metonioa also talks about conservatives in #29. The Christians on this blog don’t even know what a real conservative is. A real conservative is someone like Barry Goldwater who lost the election for president in 1964.
However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism”.
– Senator Barry Goldwater
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner makes a good point. Huckabee fails as a conservative by almost any measure. He does, however, favor what has been called “social conservatism,” i.e., use of state power to enforce the moral (mainly, sexual) values of hard-core evangelicals. That alone does not make him a conservative.
The on-site straw poll only demonstrates the degree to which “social conservatives” are ready to sacrifice the farm to avoid paying a $100 tax bill. At least those who voted in the online poll showed a bit better judgment.
For most of us mainstream, non-Southern evangelicals, many other issues predominate over criminalizing abortion and stopping gay unions. Those issues must be addressed as part of a broader policy nexus that emerges from a Biblically informed political theology. Instead, the “social conservatives” look at a few issues in isolation and pay little concern for the general effects of what they propose.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty, dear: Christians are not necessarily conservatives. But Christians of whatever stripe have a vote, and we intend to use it. As a Christian, I don’t do anything in the name of “conservatism.” I do what I do in an attempt to live my life following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Moreover, Mr. Goldwater did err, if your quote is correct, and I am assuming that it is. He said, “There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah or whatever one calls this supreme being.”
There is no “or” between Jesus Christ and God. They are one and the same. Nor does this Christian accept the balance of the quote by agreeing that Allah is the God this Christian worships. We’ll leave “whatever” alone. Maybe this failure to understand just who Jesus Christ is caused Mr. Goldwater to lose the election. Maybe not. In any event, he’s dead, and his rant because he got too many phone calls or telegrams from constituents who didn’t agree with him carries no weight in 2007, certainly not with me.
Again, Christians in this country have a right to vote, and those votes are equal to anybody else’s.
Metanoia: “I couldn’t in good conscience vote for Hillary for at least a dozen good reasons.”
Why did you stop at a dozen?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 32,
indeed Christians do have a right to vote and as a Christian I intend to use my vote wisely.
At this point I am torn between Hillary and Obama.
My sense is that we need to let the primary process work itself out a bit first before focusing in on a final candidate yet.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi is correct. Evangelicals have painted themselves into a corner that there’s no getting out of with their 25 year old obsession with outlawing abortion, along with their more recent fixation, gay marriage. Many of my evangelical friends freely admit that these are there only two political concerns (although many would add terrorism), and that they would vote for Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer for prez if they came out against abortion and gay marriage while not changing anything else about their other positions. Not only is this pretty close to idolatry, it’s also a recipe for disaster.
The GOP learned a long time ago that they didn’t actually have to do anything about abortion to be assured of the evangelical vote; candidates simply had to talk about opposing abortion, and how they were going to do something about abortion once elected. And then they were free to do ignore the subject for a couple years, until the next election rolled around, and they had to haul their dusty pro-life rhetoric out of the closet for its semi-annual spin.
About 10 years ago, Dobsons and other began acting like they were on to the game, and every four years wold threaten to go 3rd party because the GOP was just using them for votes, while never actually making any attempt to stop abortion. But the GOP would tell them that this time they really mean it, and Dobson and the others would fall obediently back into line. Now that it looks like pro-choice Rudy will be the GOP candidate, Dobson is making the same noises, but he’s now the boy who cried wolf, and no one takes him seriously.
And besides, thanks to their very unwise identification of the Christian agenda with the GOP, the Dems have pretty much written off the evangelicals, and figured out how to win without them. Oh sure, Hillary and Obama make noises about “faith”, but they’re never going to become pro-life and anti-gay rights, and everyone knows it.
So the evangelicals are now up the creek without a paddle. With their fixation on nothing but abortion and gays, they wrote off the Dems. Now the Dems don’t need them and will never come around. They allowed the GOP to use them as their election base for decades without making a single serious dent in the number of abortions in America, or causing any significant slowdown in the progress of the gay rights agenda. They can start a 3rd party, which can never win, but only ensure that the GOP never wins again, making the Dems the dominant party.
So:
Christians tied themselves to the GOP for decades, and got nothing, except the knowledge that they’ve allowed themselves to be used, and because they did, they will never see their pro-life/traditional marriage agenda come to fruition.
The GOP needs the evangelicals to win, but won’t do anything to advance their agenda besides making hollow, insincere campaign promises. And now it looks as if they don’t even feel the need to go through that pretense.
The Dems don’t them to win, and have done quite well without them lately, and they’re never going to come out against abortion and gay marriage.
So the evvies can either stick with the GOP, and just accept their inaction on their agenda and face the fact that the GOP is never going to outlaw abortion, or they can rally around a third party, who won’t have enough support to win, but will have more than enough to make sure the GOP doesn’t win, thereby guaranteeing Dem victories from now on.
That’s their two choices. Well, there’s a third – bury their heads in the sand, deny reality, and pretend that the GOP is really on their side, and will one day soon enact their agenda. Some on WoW choose that route, but fewer and fewer Christians do every day. There’s also a 4th choice, which is to keep repeating that black and hispanics are, deep down, conservatives, and will soon realize they’re being used by the Dems, and will suddenly begin a massive switch to supporting the Christian 3rd party, and then we’ll see abortion outlawed. But for those who deal in reality, and not hallucinations, the first two are the only real choices.
Neither choice is very attractive, and in neither of them does abortion or gay marriage get outlawed.
The Christian moment in American politics has come and gone. It’s peaked, and for intents and purposes is over.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I stopped at a dozen to show you that I really am working on that charity thing.
Conservatives have many stripes. There are social, political, moral, fiscal and religious conservatives. Although there are distinctives, there is a lot of overlap. Just as there is among liberals.
Although abortion and gay marriage dominate the discussion among liberals on this blog, those who are conservative know that there is more to conservatism than these two issues, as important as they may be.
Among conservatives, there is more that unites them than divides them. The moderate voters have more in common with conservatives than they do with liberals.
The value of life and historical, traditional marriage are cornerstones of conservative belief. During the primaries conservative voters can flex their muscle and make their voices heard. After the primaries conservatives will unite around the issues that are important to conservatives that will set them apart from liberals and vote accordingly.
My take is that regardless of who leads the Republican pack at the end of the primaries, he will be more conservative than anyone coming out of the Democrats camp. At that time conservatives can determine if a piece of the pie is better than no pie.
That is why I believe that the MSM is pushing a Guiliani/Clinton match up. The MSM and liberals in general will win a bigger piece of the pie regardless of who wins that one. I have stated that Clinton will have a tougher time beating any of the other candidates to the right of Guiliani that Rudy himself.
I am not a prophet, the son of a prophet, nor do I play one on television, but I see it developing slowly but surely as Huckabee increases in popularity. His candidacy will be legitimate, and won’t escape notice, if he is able to rally Christian conservative around him. As mentioned above Guiliani, Romney, and even Thompson will have a difficult time doing that leading up to the primaries.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not going to be Huckabee, even if the evvies all agree on him and rally to his campaign. And evne if he could somehow pull it off, QWERTY is, for once, right: it’s going to be extremely difficult for a man named Huckabee, from Arknasaw, to win a presidential election. His only chance would be running against Barack Hussein Obama, and that’s very unlikely. It’s all about image these days, and unfortunately, Huckabee is a decidedly uncool and very un-mellifluous name. Clinton and Edwards are names that sound much more presidential and will resonate with voters. It’s just like the hair thing; it’s basically a subconscious, visceral reaction. No one says “I’m not going to vote for Fred Thompson/Phill Gramm/whoever because he’s bald.” But the fact remains that bald men, since the age of TV, do not get elected president, are rarely even nominated. And it’s the same thing with the name. It’s an irrational and subconscious thing, but a man named Huckabee is probably never going to be POTUS.
I knew a kid growing up whose last name was, believe it or not, Turnipseed. Does anyone really think he has a chance of being elected POTUS?
Report comment to moderator
#34: The Christian moment in American politics has come and gone. It’s peaked, and for intents and purposes is over.
We can only hope. Clinton had a major hand in this. After he got “knees” in the White House, the Republicans were able to run on a platform of morals because of embarrassment. We see what a disaster they have been for the country. The same way Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, the Republicans have been taken in by anyone who can appear the most sincere, and that was Bush. Rather than hold the Republican nominee at the time to a high intellectual standard, they fell for the old moral “bait and switch”. Now we have this awful president who still has 15 months. He stops health care to children because he wants to be “relevant”. What a creep.
Huckabee would be just as big a disaster as Bush. Just the fact that he doesn’t believe in science should make Americans reject the rube. How could we expect foreign governments to take him seriously when he believes in the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark?
Report comment to moderator
metanoia post 35,
you might want to reread your post.
The ironies of the apparent contradiction in your post is fascinating.
Report comment to moderator
The value of life and historical, traditional marriage are cornerstones of conservative belief.
No, the value of a limited government that minds its own business is the cornerstone of convervative belief. That’s what Barry Goldwater, who was the last real Republican, would have agreed with. The we-will-shove-our-fake-morality-into-everyone-else’s-faces Christians have infested and destroyed the Republican party. Thanks to the fundies, there will never be another Republican president for a very long time.
Report comment to moderator
conservative, not convervative
Report comment to moderator
There is no “or” between Jesus Christ and God. They are one and the same. Nor does this Christian accept the balance of the quote by agreeing that Allah is the God this Christian worships.
Who cares?
Call your invisible friend anything you want.
Whatever you want to call it, your man-made magician is just a childish delusion that should have been thrown in the garbage a long time ago.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I reread my comment and am not sure what you are referring to. Please advise.
Qwerty: against my better judgment I’ll respond to you. I think you failed to see that I mentioned that there are many stripes of conservatism. I didn’t qualify my statement as I thought the context made it clear that I was talking about “religious conservative.”
I hope that helps.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe this failure to understand just who Jesus Christ is caused Mr. Goldwater to lose the election.
The only thing anyone has to understand about the Jesus Preacher Man is that he was just as worthless and stupid as today’s preachers.
Report comment to moderator
metanoia post 42 referring to post 35:
“Although abortion and gay marriage dominate the discussion among liberals on this blog, those who are conservative know that there is more to conservatism than these two issues, as important as they may be.”
and
“The value of life and historical, traditional marriage are cornerstones of conservative belief.”
Report comment to moderator
Again, Christians in this country have a right to vote, and those votes are equal to anybody else’s.
Agreed. Even the everything-is-magic fundies are allowed to vote. And those brainless fundies can expect to be voting for the loser for a very long time.
Report comment to moderator
Musing;
Thanks. Look at my response to Qwerty on #42 shows that I was consistent in that I was differentiating between religious conservatives and other stripes of conservatives, although I could have been clearer.
Report comment to moderator
“religious conservative”
The word conservative does not need any adjectives, especially not the adjective “religious”. Religions have nothing to do with governments, especially not in America which has a secular government. Goldwater understood this. The fake conservatives who have infested the Republican party do not understand this.
Report comment to moderator
Musing is a “Christian” (in the way Christians on this evangelical site define “Christian”) in the same manner as our friend Qwerty is a “religious conservative.”
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 48,
now now no names here and no personal statements.
We have had this discussion many times and, as you have admitted, only God can judge who is truly a Christian.
Last I checked you did not qualify.
And have you unblocked my posts after all?
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty:
That’s why I don’t engage you in discussion. To deny that there are nuances in the term “conservative” is to not be dealing with the reality of the situation.
I doubt that anyone else on this blog would deny that there is such a thing as “religious conservatives.” We don’t live in a black and white world where words only have one meaning. Context determines meaning. Barry Goldwater was a conservative in his context, but whether you acknowledge it or not, so are James Dobson and Mike Huckabee.
The one thing that is accurate is that James Dobson is a religious (moral) conservative and Mike Huckabee is a political conservative who shares some or most of the same religious (moral) conservative views. I doubt that Dobson and Huckabee share all the same views of social, fiscal, and political conservatism.
Report comment to moderator
“religious conservatives”
It’s too bad. They have destroyed the Republican party. Now, thanks to the infestation of the Republican party of the everything-is-magic creationists, the USA is an international joke, and the let’s-raise-taxes Democrats will be in control probably for decades.
The Republican party will never recover until it rids itself of the fundies who are anti-science and who are incapable of minding their own business, always trying to force their fake moral values on everyone else.
Report comment to moderator
That’s why I don’t engage you in discussion
and then he proceeds to write 3 paragraphs addressed to me.
Report comment to moderator
#48
Truly, one’s Christianity or lack thereof can only ultimately be judged by God, but we do have some pretty good helps.
I doubt that Musing could ascribe to a single one of the traditional creeds even as much as 50%. So, I’m with Outkast on this one. We are supposed to be discerning, and there is a difference between a traditional Christian (even a liberal-leaning one), and someone like Musing.
Report comment to moderator
I just watched most of what must’ve been the 49th GOP debate this year. None of them is a powerful debater, so no one is running away with any of the debates in the same way Ronald Reagan did. Huckabee did a pretty good job. Ron Paul is not much of a speaker at all, and he did very poorly tonight. If he were a good speaker, he’d probably be tied with Rudy/Romney/Fred for the lead. Fred was no big deal, nor was McCain. I think Romney and Rudy did the best (which is in no way an endorsement of their views – I’m a Ron Paul man). I think it’s going to boil down to Rudy vs Romney in the near future.
Report comment to moderator
…there is a difference between a traditional Christian (even a liberal-leaning one), and someone like Musing.
Right TRS. The difference is Musing is not afraid of science. What you call a real Christian (and we agree about what a real Christian is) is terrified of science. Why else would these real Christians be constantly lying about the proven fact of evolution?
Report comment to moderator
The Christians may be tempted to go for Huckabee, but I think they’ll, in the end, rally around Romney. He claims to believe the same stuff about gays and abortions as Huckabee, he hasn’t made idiotic comments about tens of millions of illegals being God’s way of giving America a 2nd chance to show we’re not racist, and he’s much more telegenic than Huckabee.
Report comment to moderator
#55
I generally make every attempt to ignore you, Qwerty, because my youngest child (7) has more logic in her pinkie finger.
But, I don’t judge who is or isn’t a Christian by their belief in evolution or not. I know plenty of Christians who are also evolutionists. Belief in young earth creationism is not part of the traditional creeds.
And, someday you’ll realize that there are many more beliefs on origins amongst Christians than just YEC and Evolution. I’m sorry you’re so sorely uneducated.
Report comment to moderator
But it’s all pretty moot, since Hillary will beat whoever the nominee is.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m sorry you’re so sorely uneducated.”
Said one of the magic believers here who denies what every scientist knows, he is an animal of an ape species.
This is what the creationists, no matter how old they think the earth is, are terrified of. The proven fact they are apes scares them almost to death. This fact, supported my massive evidence they keep lying about, turns their insane beliefs upside down and they know it.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 53,
oh goodie!!! A Christian against Christian food fight!!!
Can we go get stacks of wood and stakes? It worked so well duiring the Protestant Reformation.
You are right, I am a non-traditional Christian, but I am a Christian.
Just like I conclude that even though you appear to be a conservative Christian, that you are still a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
“my youngest child”
I’m willing to bet what’s left of my life savings your youngest child, and the children of every creationist in the world, has never been told the truth about what humans really are, apes.
Report comment to moderator
One of huckabee’s greatest moments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w&mode=related&search=
Report comment to moderator
hrw: From that video it appears Gore followers are just as susceptible to fake journalists as Bush followers.
Got anything more substantive for us? I didn’t think so . . .
Report comment to moderator
hrw, that was funny, but it was a long way from being the dumbest thing Huckabee’s ever said. Which would have to be when he said that tens of millions of illegals who don’t speak English invading America is a good thing, because it’s “the Lord giving us a second chance to show we’re not racist.”
That’s pretty darn stupid.
Report comment to moderator
outkast
of course I don’t have anything substantive on this discussion — I’m not american. But lets’ face it, there’s nothing wrong with a little amusement
Report comment to moderator
I’m willing to bet what’s left of my life savings your youngest child, and the children of every creationist in the world, has never been told the truth about what humans really are, apes.
******It really depends on how we define this. She has been told how some scientists believe this, but that we know that we are different. While we are physically “mammals” and part of the ape group, we are different because — unlike animals — we were made in the image of God.
Report comment to moderator
…we are different because — unlike animals — we were made in the image of God.
That’s a lie, and science has proven that’s a lie.
It’s not fair to tell a 7 year old he or she was made in the image of God because there is absolutely no evidence for this. If a Christian tells their children about religious beliefs, they should at least have the decency to tell them these beliefs could never possibly have any evidence. Instead, the parents always claim these beliefs are facts, and they also tell their children it’s a virtue to believe things that have no evidence. They drill into their kids that faith is a virtue. This is child abuse. The quote below, which is also in the “Bible classes in the Bible belt” thread, explains why religious education of very young children is child abuse. The victims never have a chance. This child abuse permanently ruins their lives unless they are lucky enough to recover from it.
Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced state, with which I am directly concerned, but they have still got control of that of children. This means that the children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of about Evolution; about David who killed Goliath, instead of Koch who killed cholera; about Christ’s ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier’s and Wright’s. Worse than that, they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science.
– J.B.S. Haldane
I would bet Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is completely in favor of this child abuse called religious education and that’s another reason he’s not qualified to be president of anything.
Report comment to moderator
Am I the only one here who is getting tired of hearing the evolutionist fascists on this blog accusing those of us who don’t tow the evolution line of being “against science”?
It gets so tiresome, to say the least.
I don’t think any of us (as Creationists) are against “science,” but rather have serious doubts about the theory of humans “evolving” mysteriously from apes.
Report comment to moderator
…we are different because — unlike animals — we were made in the image of God.
TRS, I have to thank you because your statement above really narrows down what the creationist’s problem is.
Most creationists, virtually every creationist, gets this lie drilled into them for years, starting before they are old enough to walk. For as long as possible they are never allowed to hear about the massive scientific evidence that proves beyond any doubt humans are just animals of an ape species and share common ancestors with all life. For years it’s drilled into them that they are completely separate from the other animals. By the time they are adults, when they finally find out the entire scientific community has proven humans are animals just like any other animal, the brainwashed creationist can’t believe it. The whole idea is repulsive to them. They think it’s some kind of a joke. It’s too late for them to understand anything, and thanks to the big business in America called “Lying for Jesus” they can always point to some fake scientists who agree with them. They live their entire lives never knowing what they are, just apes.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, Outkast. It is tiresome. But, many people believe that if you repeat a lie often enough, then people will start to believe it. And, unfortunately, such tactics work often enough that people keep doing it.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty,
I have never quite figured out why your on this blog. Deep down, maybe the Holy Spirit is calling to you and you just can’t resist.
You are completely closed to any sort of logic, facts, or reasoned discourse. You repeat ad nauseum the same lies, twisting of facts, and nonsense. It does no good to try to reasonably discuss things with you, since you don’t respond with reason.
It’s sad, really. I’ll pray for you, the thing most likely to annoy you of all things.
Report comment to moderator
why “you’re” on this blog
I do know English. I’m just tired.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty — you said: “It’s not fair to tell a 7 year old he or she was made in the image of God because there is absolutely no evidence for this. If a Christian tells their children about religious beliefs, they should at least have the decency to tell them these beliefs could never possibly have any evidence.”
God’s word says its unfair to tell a child there is no reason for his/her existance. That their life is meaningless. Not only is it unfair, but God will deal with those “liars” rather severly. And the evidence that His word is true is the resurrection from the dead of the One who said it.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: “reason”
When you get done talking to yourself (praying), why don’t you use the reason you claim you have and explain what problem, if any, you have with the following statement from Haldane (see #67).
Worse than that, they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science.
Report comment to moderator
awstar: Not only is it unfair, but God will deal with those “liars” rather severly.
This is nothing less than a threat of eternal torture in hell.
I have never met an atheist who threatened somebody with torture like you and other Christians do every day. Christians even do this to their own children, threaten them with God’s torture. That is most definitely child abuse.
Report comment to moderator
God’s word says its unfair to tell a child there is no reason for his/her existance. That their life is meaningless.
Who said that? Everyone gives their own lives all the meaning they want to. Don’t you know how to do that? Or were you brainwashed to believe your invisible friend must do that for you?
Report comment to moderator
It’s so obvious Christians could never accept evolution, despite the massive evidence for it, because this proven fact would turn their world upside down. I think if they accepted the science of evolution instead of their belief in magic, their heads would explode.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner (20): Who here thinks Dr Paul has any “electability”???
Frank: Moi.
Have you seen Rep. Paul’s straw poll results?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
I have eaderly followed Dr. Paul’s campaign since Day One. Although I’ve been very enthusiastic about the man for close to twenty years, at the start of this, I simply viewed my suport for the 08 POTUS campaign as largely symbolic. Primaries first, right? When I supported 3rd party types in the past, critics said, you gotta work within the party. Now I’ve got a strongly principled (and the RIGHT principles, too!) guy running in the Republican Party, so I’m “working within the party.”
Anyhow, my point is simply that, as I’ve followed RP’s campaign since he announced, I’ve been very impressed about what he’s been able to do as a campaigner, and am much moore enthused about his chances for actually winning the nomination.
Whether or not the “GOP machine” will allow it remains to be seen. But suppose Paul wins the most primaries, and comes in second in many of them: Won’t the GOP HAVE to make him the nominee? I mean, wouldn’t they lose all credibility if they didn’t nominate the winner of the primaries?
Report comment to moderator
outkast (68): Am I the only one here who is getting tired of hearing the evolutionist fascists on this blog accusing those of us who don’t tow the evolution line of being “against science”?
Frank: Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. You and I agree that the materialist/evolutionist worldview is false and faulty, so I take no issue with that.
But I don’t think we can call those promoting evolution and decrying religious belief “fascists.”
Words mean things, and I’m certain that the word “fascists” does not mean “anybody with whom I disagree who is strident and belligerent about his views.” And it is definitely not an all-purpose synonym for “nasty.”
To use it loosely or gratuitously like that really doesn’t do your — our — position any good.
FWIW …
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty,
I’m simply uninterested in the people you choose to quote. I could quote myriad people of different opinions (and quotes you use really are simply opinions), but you would be no more interested in them. I have never understood your fascination for debating by simply quoting many other people as if their opinions mattered anymore than mine or the people I could quote.
There is a lot of evidence for God. I could suggest books for you to read. But, I’m not wasting my time with someone who really and truly doesn’t want to learn.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a lie, and science has proven that’s a lie.
1) Science can’t prove anything
2) Science can’t say anything about the supernatural – that is beyond its purview. Thus science is limited and incomplete as a means of knowing.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 68,
but outkast, when I asked you why you believe in a Young Eaerth, you said because of Genesis.
And in this statmenet, you have made it clear that you have no respect for the process of science.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Phoejnix post 79,
well said.
Report comment to moderator
At regular intervals we see an interesting phenomenon where certain posters on this blog assert that other posters should not be posting here.
So one more time.
This is a blog supported by a Conservative Christian roganization.
It is not a blog, however, only for Conservative Christinas: you are not asked for any oath of allegiance when you sign up, just an email address.
Now as I understand Lynn, Lynn basically asks us to follow two dictums:
1) focus om the ideas, not the person
2) be willing to participate is the rough and tumble of debate (her words are better than mine, but I suggest these will do)
So those of us who enjoy posting here will continue to post here so long as we do not violate Lynn’s guidance.
Those who want to particpate as Lynn has suggested, will particpate in an honest, but rough and tumble debate: debate is a contact sport.
And it will not be limited to any particular group unless Lynn or her successor chooses to change the structure of the blog.
Report comment to moderator
Qwerty #75 said “I have never met an atheist who threatened somebody with torture like you and other Christians do every day. Christians even do this to their own children, threaten them with God’s torture. That is most definitely child abuse.”
Christians aren’t making the threat of torture, they’re just pointing out that without God’s help, they cannot coexist with Him for long. Just like man needs the covering that God gives to him in the earth’s atmosphere, other wise he gets burned by the sun, fallen man (who God does not consider apes, since they have a free will) needs His covering of righteousness in order to have eternal life.
Just think of it as the spiritual equivalent of global warming. Except God has already done everything necessary to escape from it’s “torture” Those who hinder children from being saved, get to experience the warmth to a greater degree.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #68 – Getting tired of them? I’ve BEEN tired of them for a long time.
Report comment to moderator
There is a lot of evidence for God.
You don’t even know what evidence is. If there really was evidence for an invisible magician who lives in the sky, then why would people say they have “faith in God”? They say they have faith because what they don’t have is any real evidence for it.
There is no evidence that disproves gods, but there’s massive evidence humans were not specially created to be separate from other animals. It’s all the evidence for evolution which you probably deny exists. You don’t have to take my word for it, just google “genetic evidence for evolution” and “fossil evidence for evolution” and “biological evolution” and you will have enough to study for several lifetimes. Just skip the “Liars for Jesus” or you will never learn anything.
Also, TRS, instead of complaining about my quote from Haldane in #67 why don’t you explain why you have a problem with it.
Awstar: “Christians aren’t making the threat of torture,”
The heck they’re not. They are saying “agree with my nonsense or else my invisible friend will torture you for eternity.”
You can’t deny that’s a threat. Only Christians threaten people, even their own children, with God’s torture.
Report comment to moderator
VS post 86,
of course there is a converse to the earlier discussions on should a given person be posting here.
And the converse is no one is making any one either read or post here.
If these discussions are so tiring, then of course you need not particpate.
The fact that you are participating must, therefore, be assumed to be proof that not only are you not tired of the discussions, but further that you actually enjoy participating in them.
Report comment to moderator
Back to the Huckabee question:
Did anyone watch the debate last night? Any impressions?
Report comment to moderator
I was impressed by Huckabee from the gitgo even though a questionnaire I did said I am really more in line with Duncan Hunter.
Anent the Goldwater quote way way up there. Goldwater and his first wife Peggy were lifelong supporters of Planned Parenthood. He claimed to be proLife yet Peggy donated to PPFA for a good while, even served as its local chairwoman.
It’s important to recall that abortion didnt come to define ea party until fairly recently. As late as 1972 we had a Dem Veep nominee who was proLife (he is still alive and is Arnold Schwarznegger’s father-inlaw in fact)
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Phoenix,
Do you consider yourself a Goldwaterite?
Report comment to moderator
Musing writes:
And the converse is no one is making any one either read or post here.
If these discussions are so tiring, then of course you need not particpate.
Very true Musing. I do realize this.
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone watch the debate last night? Any impressions?
See post 54.
Report comment to moderator
I watched it last night and I thought it was very disappointing. I thought it was supposed to be about foreign policy and they only mentioned Afghanistan once. I can’t remember them mentioning Pakistan, who by the way, HAS nuclear weapons and who al Queada is trying to take over.
Iran won’t have them for years, but al Queada could have them tomorrow. They barely mentioned Iraq. Mostly they mentioned Pelosi.
By the way, I wrote a nasty note to Pelosi at:
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
for putting up a resolution about WWI genocide. Considering the problems we have now, she is giving the Republicans ammunition because what Pelosi is doing looks stupid. She is extremely disappointing. She is making Bush look less than stupid which almost requires effort.
They also spent a lot of time on Hillary. How that affects foreign policy, not sure.
Report comment to moderator
Nuclear bombs, Al Qaeda and Pelosi easily fit in the same sentence.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN
Not only that, there is a good chance that this was intentionally done to attempt to secure the democrat’s investment in our defeat in Iraq. That is what is so repugnant. And if this was the goal, it borders on treason. Shes has had a long time to bring this issue up without having to wait until her “issue” would stir up brewing tensions. I think that she is an enemy to this nation. I think that she way well end up being personally…and intentionally responsible for escalating violence and aiding in creating a new conflict.
Report comment to moderator
96: “the democrat’s investment in our defeat in Iraq.”
We beat the Japanese and the Germans in World War II in less time than we have been in Iraq. Both of those countries had large armies, navies, and a powerful air force. Iraq, which has nothing but roadside bombs and suicide bombers who want to go to heaven, will never be defeated. How can we defeat anyone in what has become their civil war, when we don’t even know which side we are on? How will victory be defined if it ever comes? Would only 10 innocent people killed a day be a victory? What are we trying to prove in this holy roller country that has no value and is no threat to us? We are only there because Bush doesn’t want to admit the whole thing was a mistake.
Report comment to moderator
The Germans and Japanese had troops, armies, and governments behind them. We can’t go in and kill a leader or two, and this thing be over.
We don’t have to defeat everybody.
There are other strategies. Pelosi’s instigating unecessary violence in an area where we are already engaged is by any definition, stupid.
And by my defintion malicious and maybe treasonous.
There are common-sense approaches to this that I’m sure we’re engaged in, but I doubt is reported, nor should it.
The easy way to deal with this is to let Iran hang itself. There is far more at stake for those people in the region than our concerns in Iraq.
We’re talking about who gets to control the strait, through which a huge portion of ME oil is transported.
If you know anything about Islam, You know that The only people that Shiites and Sunnis hate worse than Jews are each other.
The Saudis, Oman, UAE, and all of those other filthy-rich little sunni nations on the west side of the gulf are not, under any circumstances, going to let an Iranian backed Shiite govt. have control over the strait of Hormuz.
Even if things get bad for us, we will have so many willing partners to fill in the gap on Iran, they won’t be that big of a concern for us, other than a temporary spike in oil prices.
The Iraqi problem will work itself out if we eliminate, or neutralize the outside players who are wearing the black hats in this episode.
We can’t pretend that any of them are our true friends, but we can exploit any openings we have in letting the sunnis assist with our efforts.
(of course, this does nothing to solve the Islamo-fascist problem, but gets us to a point where we can re-tool and assist other nations in the WOT.
This is why de-regulation, and energy independence is so important.
Report comment to moderator
are
stupid singular present indicative!
Report comment to moderator
what we do with the Kurds is a toss-up, thanks to Ms. Pelosi.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think any muslim, shiite or sunni, is worth dying for?
I suggest Iraq has no value. Let them all die. I would cheer if all muslims died a violent death. Certainly not one of them is worth an American life.
Iraq has now become another Vietnam. Once again we have an American president who would rather sacrifice American lives than admit he made a mistake.
All we got to do is say “Sadaam is dead. Mission accomplished.” and get out. We owe the holy rollers of Iraq nothing. Half their population wants us out anyway. Let them kill each other. Every time a Muslim dies the world becomes a better place to live in. To hell with Muslims. They have no value. They don’t deserve to be called human.
Report comment to moderator
#98: There are common-sense approaches to this that I’m sure we’re engaged in, but I doubt is reported, nor should it.
Common sense?
Ok, let’s review some of the issues you just brought up. The Muslims hate each other more than they hate the Jews.
What you fail to understand is that while the Muslims have failed to unite against the Jews, we are another matter. You see, the Jews are confined to one small area. While they are hated, if left alone, they are not really an imminent danger.
But the US has invaded an entire country and in their view, “enslaved” the population. They don’t want democracy. Not understanding this is just one of the terrible failures of the Bush administration. Bin Laden and Sadam were enemies. A secular dictator and a religious dictator are not going to “share” power. Let me repeat that because it is pure “common sense”. A secular dictator and a religious dictator are not going to “share” power, not ever. The Muslim world understands this and they knew the Bush administration understood this. Iran was even willing to help us get Bin Laden. Not anymore.
The US attacking Iran would be the worst possible thing we could do. The young Sunni’s in Arabia are against the Government in that country and are barely held in check by the Royal Family. They would gladly join the Jihad in a heartbeat. The same could be said of the young throughout the Muslim world.
We would have tens of millions of suicide bombers. Not just the ignorant disenfranchised, but all of them.
Bush and his ilk got us into this situation. Now, out of the blue, he understands the situation when so far he has misjudged everything he has touched for the seven years? How can that be? It can’t.
Just wanting others to understand our good intentions doesn’t mean they are even interested. Remember what the road to hell is paved with.
We can only hope that Bush doesn’t create anymore disasters until he leaves office. Whoever the next president is, they will have a mess to clean up that will take years if ever. I could go on and on but I will stop for a second.
Report comment to moderator
Bush invades Iran; declares martial law before the election. You heard it here first. Did you do anything about it?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want to see people die.
Any religion that claims to worship a god who is the ultimate judge of good and evil, (and whatever implications that has for one’s afterlife.) can not use proper logic, and take a life. Whether they believe them to be infidels or not, the taking of an innocent life is,in effect, usurping the god they worship’s role in directing, or influencing that murdered entity’s fate.
Report comment to moderator
That was to Ed
Report comment to moderator
“But the US has invaded an entire country and in their view, “enslaved” the population.”
I think that is your view of their view.
“They don’t want democracy”
You have to define democracy.
Do they want the unified centralized govt. that we seem to be hoping for?..No, It looks like that probably isn’t going to work.
Would a three state solution work?..Maybe, It might be worth a shot.
That would still result in a democracy. even moreso, because you have three separate provinces that will keep each other in check, and cut down on abuse of power.
Sounds like a decent plan.
“Let me repeat that because it is pure “common sense”. A secular dictator and a religious dictator are not going to “share” power, not ever.”
Of course they aren’t going to share “power”. But they can sure share technology, and weaponry that will be used against a common enemy.
“The US attacking Iran would be the worst possible thing we could do. The young Sunni’s in Arabia are against the Government in that country and are barely held in check by the Royal Family. They would gladly join the Jihad in a heartbeat. The same could be said of the young throughout the Muslim world.”
I didn’t suggest that we attack Iran. In fact I said that we shouldn’t have to, because the problem will take care of itself. If you think the Sunni nations that line the coast are going to let Persian shiites have control over southern Iraq, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong. You should read up on the differences in the beliefs of the Sunni and Shia. This Ahmadinajihad has these Sunni leaders thinking they may have to take this guy out themselves.
” We can only hope that Bush doesn’t create anymore disasters until he leaves office.”
I agree there. Bush needs to let this new, working strategy keep going, and concentrating his efforts on communicating to the public how well the surge is going, and how Al Queda is reeling and almost defeated in Iraq. The MSM sure have dropped coverage on Iraq in the past month.
If Pelosi’s effort are successful, they can go back to blood and guts in a week or two.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner
The issue with the Kurds was just waiting to happen as the Turks were more and more annoyed and threatening pre-Armenia resolution. We are lucky that this hadn’t yet happened.
On the topic: I have to agree with Ed, especially if Huckabee is a young earther — it simply defies common sense to believe that. Unless one wants to argue that God created things to fool us, but the last time I looked, scripture said Lucifer, not God was the deceiver.
The republicans truly are unimpressive on foreign policy with each wedding himself to the Bush policies, which I think reasonable people can see are not working.
DR
I would agree that science is limited. But some things seem pretty well proven –enough to debunk young earth believers pretty thoroughly. And I agree that science can’t prove what caused life to begin. There are theories. Just as people of faith have belief. I don’t think the two have to conflict and certainly some atheists and theists do better at melding and understanding the two than others.
Report comment to moderator
TO #106: Too much of what you are saying give the appearance of sound bites from this administration.
Last week during a press conference, Bush said, “They don’t want democracy. It’s not part of their culture. A country can’t just invade another country and tell them how to live. One country can’t impose a form of government on a country that doesn’t want it.” Bush was talking about the Palestinians but the irony couldn’t be ignored. The entire time he holding his hands to either side, palms up, shoulders raised around his ears, head thrust forward, sarcastic smile with eyebrows raised (you could almost hear the, “What is it you meatheads don’t get?”)
#106: You have to define democracy.
I don’t have to define democracy. They have already put Islam in their constitution as the “National Religion”. Does that sound like democracy? Ask the hundreds of thousands of Christians that have been driven out.
#106: three separate provinces that will keep each other in check
Keep each other in check? Like with guns? Bombs? Good plan? To me, it sounds idiotic. What will probably happen is that they will become three separate states constantly at war?
#106: But they can sure share technology, and weaponry that will be used against a common enemy.
Yea us, now. Not before. We unite those people. They are all Muslims. Not us. I just don’t understand why that is so hard to understand. If China brought troops, however benign, to Mexico; do you think we would stand for it? Mexico is right in our back yard. Like Iraq to Iran.
The Bush strategy is to arm a bunch of thugs. It’s estimated that there is only 3 to 5 thousand al Queda in Iraq. But isn’t there over a hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers? Who are we fighting?
Now Turkey and the Kurds are getting ready to go to war. We can’t stop them. Turkey is a sovereign country and an ally. We can’t tell them what to do. The Kurds have been our one “kind of a success story”.
No wonder this generation of Republicans is such a disaster. They somehow think they can tell the world what to do and then are shocked at ungrateful people who don’t like being told what to do. We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing the conservatives on this site have said has come true. It’s been the exact opposite over and over again. And it’s always the democrat’s fault. Even when the Republicans had both houses AND the presidency, it’s still the fault of the democrats. Stop already. You can’t win with prayer.
In the meantime, we are getting home movies from Bin Laden. For just that one reason, Bush lets Bin Laden go, I believe Bush committed treason. Considering how much the conservatives insist they are the ones protecting this country, that one fact should have turned them against Bush. Instead, they rationalize it with incredibly bizarre justification. Don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
In #107 coyote blue said about science and religion: I don’t think the two have to conflict…
Perhaps they don’t have to conflict, but they do conflict constantly. Especially evolution is denied by millions, and it’s no coincidence every single one of those millions of evolution-deniers is religious, usually either Muslim terrorists or Christian fundies. There are even Christians who deny simple facts like the age of the earth. There are some Christians right here on this blog who claim the entire universe did not exist until 2,000 years after humans started breeding cows.
It’s pointless to deny it. Science and religion will never get along. The God of the gaps is constantly being chased out of its gaps by new scientific discoveries. The God believers watch this and they don’t like the idea of their God becoming more and more worthless every year. So they attack science constantly. In America, “Lying for Jesus” has become a major industry. Some businesses like the Discovery Institute exist only to spread lies about science. Even presidential candidates participate in the Chrisitian war on science. Huckabee is just one of three who has publicly attacked the proven scientific fact of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
“One country can’t impose a form of government on a country that doesn’t want it”
I think all of those people with purple thumbs in Iraq would tell you they were happy to have a say in their future, and it wasn’t considered an imposition in the least.
They had a higher voter turn out than probably any election we’ve ever had here.
“They have already put Islam in their constitution as the “National Religion”. Does that sound like democracy?”
Yes…unfortunately. We don’t like it, but as it stands today, that is what the Iraqis want. This can be worked out politically. In the meantime, Christian organizations should do what they can to help Chaldee Christians who want to leave find a way out. (Most do not want to leave, but want to see this effort work, and their country become an example of Islamic tolerance in the ME)
And a three state solution might help in this effort
“Keep each other in check? Like with guns? Bombs? Good plan? To me, it sounds idiotic. What will probably happen is that they will become three separate states constantly at war?”
That is why we would have preferred a centralized govt.
But there might have to be a three state solution here, with multi-national oversight.
Preferably not the UN. And yes, there will still be the occasional bomb, and gunfire. Just like there still is occasionally in the Baltic
But
If it was good enough for Bosnia…?
But I still say the best way is to let Iran goad the Sunnis in to helping assist.
(and they already are..they are even helping Israel keep up with Iran’s meedling in Syria/Lebanon)
And we don’t want to tell the world what to do..
We’re just tired of saying “Please stop trying to kill us.”
If these govts. can’t at least try to keep their citizens from preparing for war with the planet, then they should be dealt with harshly, if they don’t respond to the chances given them.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner post 106,
ah I suggest the situation, paradoxically (and quite out of my usual character) is simpler than seems to be presented.
The U.S. has committed itself to stamping out terror.
The U.S. has involved itself in Iraq in an attempt to stamp out terror.
The U.S. appears to have de facto abandoned its professed policy of a strong centralized Iraq and has adopted a local ground up policy based on the Al Anbar model.
This does effectively result in mutiple semi-autonomous states, among whom is Kurdistan.
Now Kurdistan has long had a history of asserting the right to a “greater Kurdistan” encompassing areas in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. The PKK party is one of the main groups pushing for “Greater Kurdistan”.
To pursue their goals, the PKK is arguably executing terrorist activities against Turkey, who is a strong ally of the U.S. in the war against terror.
And since the U.S. has committed itself to stamping out terror, it would seem that U.S. forces should be sent in to suppresss the PKK (we will pursue terrorists whereever they are; Turkey is an important ally etc.).
Which would of course put us at odds with the semi-autonomous government of Kurdistan.
Which would weaken what WMB has noted is the most successfully secured areas in Iraq.
Weakening our overall Iraq effort and putting our bottoms up security model at risk.
Putting our effort in Iraq at risk.
Which puts our efforts in one of the main areas argued to be a key front in the war against terror at risk.
Well done!! I can’t think of how we could tangle ourselves any deeper in a mesh leading to the U.S. defeating itself.
Doesn’t anyone in a policy position think through the implicatons of our statements and actions?
Report comment to moderator
#111: Doesn’t anyone in a policy position think through the implicatons of our statements and actions?
No, they don’t. Review Post #110. Instead of understanding what these people are going to do next based on what they have done in the past, the Republicans are trying to predict behavior because “that’s what they, personally, would do”. They are being overly optimistic. Me, I have always been an optimistic person so I can relate to that. The problem is that you get a greater share of disappointment.
Considering the majority of Iraqis want us gone, many think we are the cause of the violence and say it’s ok to kill Americans; the only finger they are giving us isn’t purple.
NOTE: A country with a national religion whose laws are aligned with their religious text is called a “theocracy”. It rhymes with democracy but that’s as close as it gets.
Report comment to moderator
rdean post 112,
you mean my quote was a rhetorical questions??
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!