http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

Quote :

" "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders," Romney said."

I'd almost vote for Hilary over him

12/6/2007 1:04:23 PM

What's his proof that freedom "requires" religion? Being forced to get up early every Sunday morning, listen to some boring-ass lecture about how I'm evil just for existing, and "donate" some of my hard-earned money to a cause I don't believe in; how do these things equate to freedom?

12/6/2007 1:10:44 PM

^^
I wouldn't; not even almost

religious types and social conservatives have never been able to get their bigoted way(s), and they never will

socialism is a lot easier to take hold in our nation of lazy idiots, and a lot harder to get rid of once implemented

hiltery seriously doesn't care about individual rights. at all. period. they just get in her way. she must be stopped.

(it really sucks that it will likely take a pro-war republican to beat her, though )

12/6/2007 1:15:28 PM

I think what he really wants to say is, religion is a result of our expression of freedom. And vice versa, freedom can be visualized/experienced through religion.

Here is the full quote from his speech:

Quote :

""Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. ""

If freedom exists, so will religions. If religions(plural) exist, so will freedom. Doesn't matter how you twist it.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Jesus saves.]

12/6/2007 1:29:19 PM

Freedom doesn't require religion.
Religion requires freedom of religion (obviously)

12/6/2007 1:46:34 PM

^^ I think we can take it for what it is - management consultant gibberish. A clever aphorism designed to sound intelligent and universal that just means garbage. "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom?"

Nice try at attempting to sound profound there, Mitt, but that's about all it is - trying.

12/6/2007 1:53:12 PM

I think it's his way of saying, "Please vote for me despite the fact that I believe in a religion that thinks the original Israel was in America and that America is the holiest nation in the world... because that's just fucking insane and I know it."

12/6/2007 2:08:42 PM

The Hillary scourge needs be eliminated in the primaries. If she gets the nomination though the republicans better pick a good candidate. I identify with a lot of GOP stances on economics but i REFUSE to vote for a bible thumping social conservative set on allowing the evangelical Christians influence domestic policy. thus huckabee, romney, and thompson are on my black list.

Really ironic is the fact that the Christian right shows the least tolerance, are the most ignorant, and most outspoken critics of the fundamentalist islamic gov't in the middle East; yet if they had their way our gov't would share a lot more in common with places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

12/6/2007 2:18:50 PM

Quote :

"If religions(plural) exist, so will freedom."

unless of course you're a woman or homosexual in, say for example, Iran

12/6/2007 2:23:04 PM

Quote :

"If religions(plural) exist, so will freedom"

haha yeah no shit.

If anything religion often favors a decrease in freedom because religious leaders often are intolerant to behaviors that they see as "sinful" and the other religions that could be a threat. This has to be the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. I respect people's right to exercise religion but claiming that religion promotes freedom shows a complete ignorance of history and current world events. I am sure citizens living in the current islamic monarchy in Saudi Arabia are VERY free

12/6/2007 2:29:06 PM

I know a few mormons and they all seem like good people, but as far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is just above scientology on the religious totem pole and I have a hard time taking one seriously as a presidential candidate. Buying into the whole story really makes me question anyone's decision making.

12/6/2007 2:29:39 PM

Quote :

"I know a few mormons and they all seem like good people, but as far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is just above scientology on the religious totem pole and I have a hard time taking one seriously as a presidential candidate. Buying into the whole story really makes me question anyone's decision making."

did i just say that? did you read my mind? is that you, John Wayne? Is that me?

12/6/2007 2:31:45 PM

I agree HUR...for example, if a religion says drinking alcohol is forbidden...that religion effectively takes away your freedom to drink alcohol

12/6/2007 2:32:32 PM

^^ let me see your warface

12/6/2007 2:34:54 PM

In all honesty, I've been fairly certain that I'm a joe_schmoe alias on several separate occasions.

12/6/2007 2:37:49 PM

Quote :

"socialism is a lot easier to take hold in our nation of lazy idiots, and a lot harder to get rid of once implemented"

signed

12/6/2007 2:42:04 PM

Wow...

Quote :

"If anything religion often favors a decrease in freedom because religious leaders often are intolerant to behaviors that they see as "sinful" and the other religions that could be a threat. This has to be the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. I respect people's right to exercise religion but claiming that religion promotes freedom shows a complete ignorance of history and current world events. I am sure citizens living in the current islamic monarchy in Saudi Arabia are VERY free "

Decrease in freedom because of religion??? When you chose to follow that particular religion, you've already expressed your freedom to believe in that religion. What don't you get?

In the case of islamic monarchy in Saudi, there is no such thing as religions (plural). There only exists religion (singular). Hence, no freedom. In America, there exists religions (plural). Hence why, freedom is our motto in America.

To remove religion from the equation, is to change the definition of freedom. Freedom CAN exist without religion, but it will not be the same freedom we are defining here. It'll be some distorted view of freedom. Like the kind in Saudi Arabia.

Example:
When you choose to go to church, you choose to believe in the Bible. Therefore, since the Bible says, you shouldn't get drunk, you decide not to. In this WHOLE religious process, where was freedom absent?

Now, if you want to go to church and say, "I believe in the Bible, but I still want to get drunk", then you have the freedom to go start your own church/religion. So, in the end, by exercising religion, you are exercising freedom.

A lot of critics label religious people as weak minded. But, au contraire! Those who are weak minded are the ones that believe that religion is the controlling factor. If you have any sense at all, you know that you are in full control of your beliefs.

12/6/2007 2:54:09 PM

No one is saying that freedom is freer without religion. What we are saying is that religion is not necessary to have freedom, which is what Romney's quote seems to be implying.

12/6/2007 3:09:33 PM

Quote :

"Decrease in freedom because of religion??? When you chose to follow that particular religion, you've already expressed your freedom to believe in that religion. What don't you get?"

he's not talking explicitly about the freedom of religion. Yes, we understand that you have the freedom to choose or practice any religion you want.

The point is - if religion or overly religious people take power, they can force their religious beliefs on other people who don't share their views, thereby decreasing the overall freedom of other people.

12/6/2007 3:58:11 PM

Quote :

"The point is - if religion or overly religious people take power, they can force their religious beliefs on other people who don't share their views, thereby decreasing the overall freedom of other people."

That deserves one of those "Well, duh!" answers. It's the whole reason why Romney made his speech to begin with; He's advocating religious diversity (whether Catholic, or Baptist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or atheism, or the like) so what you mentioned does not happen.

So, I don't know why we are even arguing this. I guess we're just throwing down in typical SB trolleration.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 4:19 PM. Reason : moving on...]

12/6/2007 4:19:23 PM

Quote :

"In the case of islamic monarchy in Saudi, there is no such thing as religions (plural). There only exists religion (singular). Hence, no freedom. In America, there exists religions (plural). Hence why, freedom is our motto in America. To remove religion from the equation, is to change the definition of freedom. Freedom CAN exist without religion, but it will not be the same freedom we are defining here. It'll be some distorted view of freedom. Like the kind in Saudi Arabia. Example: When you choose to go to church, you choose to believe in the Bible. Therefore, since the Bible says, you shouldn't get drunk, you decide not to. In this WHOLE religious process, where was freedom absent? Now, if you want to go to church and say, "I believe in the Bible, but I still want to get drunk", then you have the freedom to go start your own church/religion. So, in the end, by exercising religion, you are exercising freedom. "

wow this has to be one of the least intelligent dumbest posts i HAVE EVER READ ON THE SOAP BOX.
yes freedom of religion is part of the whole package of being free. In Saudi Arabia and in the Islamic Republic of Iran people ARE allowed to practice other religions. The state run religions though put limits though on the freedoms of the minority religions though when it comes to certain activities.

Quote :

"Most Iranians are Muslims; 90% belong to the Shi'a branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 8% belong to the Sunni branch, mainly Kurds and Iran's Balochi Sunni. The remaining 2% are non-Muslim religious minorities, including Bahá'ís, Mandeans, Hindus, Sikhs,Yezidis, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians.[1] The latter three minority religions are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Majles (Parliament)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Hate to debunk your argument but you are completely wrong. Secular Gov't do not always mean high degrees of social and political freedom i.e China. Much like how not all Religious based ruling parties are not always the most oppressive. Historically though governments with a closer religious affiliation while often having tolerance for other religions have tended to outlaw or punish personal freedoms that did not adhere to their choice of dogma.

Quote :

"Therefore, since the Bible says, you shouldn't get drunk, you decide not to. In this WHOLE religious process, where was freedom absent?"

but when the right wing christian groups lobby for prohibition of alcohol like in the 1930's they restrict my freedom to drink.

I have no problem with religion. I actually respect and think the morals and values a lot of times they teach is beneficial for society. Too often though religious dogma is used to qualify the restriction of certain behaviors and freedoms often on an irrational basis.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM. Reason : a]

12/6/2007 5:44:06 PM

Quote :

" "I believe in the Bible, but I still want to get drunk", then you have the freedom to go start your own church/religion."

why reinvent the wheel?

go to a Catholic or Episcopalian church.

12/6/2007 8:54:42 PM

Cutting to the right to take on Huckabee -- good timing. The religion speech is his trump card since it's one of his differentiators as a candidate (for good or bad, it gets him attention).

But I have to be cynical for a moment --

The term "Religious Right" is misnamed in our political discourse; it is rather the Sectarian Right. These "values voters" are not "religious" in the common sense of the word, they are sectarian -- if you don't believe what they believe, and openly, then you're out of their circle.

Clearly no mature adult thinks that one's religion can be measured in public discourse. It's a personal matter, an internal belief system, and the quality and truthfulness of faith is measured in decades and not in campaign cycles.

What can be measured is slavish, rigid adherence to narrow principles and the window dressing of a particular sect.

I admire Romney's courage and determination in running but I think his road through the primary is a treacherous path. The Sunnis of Iraq will not support a Shi'ite government; the Sectarian Right wing that decides Republican primaries won't soon support a Mormon.

Should there be a religious litmus test for the American presidency? Absolutely not. Religion, as professed faith, is only part of one's personal value system. And I am doubtful that distinction will be made in Iowa, or anywhere else.

12/6/2007 9:32:18 PM

Yeah, so the freedom requires religion is simply him saying that freedom requires people to allow others to believe as they want (obviously without taking away others freedoms at the same time)

I think the speech was as good as he could have hoped for. I would prefer someone like romney over huckabee since huckabee has been, and probably will be, very overlapping in his ministry duties and political duties. Romney sticks up for the law, even when the "christian" thing to do is forgive people and give them lots of chances/turn the other cheek, whereas huckabee would keep turning the countries cheek on too many things. I think Romney can prove that Mormonism did not dictate his office by allowing people to look at his record and governing in MASS.

However, thats not really why people wouldnt have voted for him. People come up with lots of excuses to be bigots without looking like bigots, and that "fear" of a mormon presidency gives justification for this unfortunate voting practice of many people.

12/6/2007 10:05:55 PM

Quote :

"The point is - if religion or overly religious people take power, they can force their religious beliefs on other people who don't share their views, thereby decreasing the overall freedom of other people."

how is someone forcing religious beliefs on people any different from someone forcing secular beliefs on you?

12/6/2007 11:01:27 PM

it's not. who said it was.
This discussion is about religious values though. It is possible that religious people in power have a predefined set of values that they could force on people. No such pre-defined dogma is available for a secularist, though, so he is more able to shape his views of power and law based on society's overall will or whatever.

12/6/2007 11:27:22 PM

^^I don't think you know what "secular" means. Secular government doesn't tell people anything about personal religious beliefs other than to keep that shit out of the government. Religious government tells you what religious beliefs and practices to uphold.

Unless your religious belief is authorization anyway, secular government and personal religious beliefs are all compatible. Religious government is completely incompatible with any belief not of the chosen religion. Needless to say, we can ignore religious authoritarians if we can't eliminate them altogether.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2007 11:50:23 PM

(presupposed viewpoint is that religion is wrong)

OMG WHAT A STUPID COMMENT

(presupposed viewpoint is that religion is fine)

HMM. I SEE WHAT HE DID THERE.


(presupposed viewpoint is that religion should be everywhere)

OMG HE'S SO RIGHT.


so, basically, romney wins 2 outta 3 here. sorry, anti-religious types. it was a pretty smooth speech.

12/7/2007 12:31:11 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4Should there be a religious litmus test for the American presidency? Absolutely not. Religion, as professed faith, is only part of one's personal value system. And I am doubtful that distinction will be made in Iowa, or anywhere else."

I don't see how individuals evaluating various candidates on the basis of their professed religion is a bad thing. Which religion the candidate professes and how they articulate their faith certainly colors much of how they view the world. Frankly I'd be a bit apprehensive to not have a good picture of this aspect of the candidate. It is not just "one part" of the personal value system unless you think your faith is a joke. Faith will generally for most of the faithful dictate many of the positions a candidate takes, or at least it will explain how strongly they hold to those positions. For example, Huckabee far as I can tell believes abortion to be wrong because he believes it is murder. On the other hand, Rudi is for abortion laws returning to the states... he has no moral imperative to fight against the continued plight of the unborn, to him it is just a political problem, a unfortunate over extension of federal powers. Well, what isn't? Why should I believe Rudi will fight towards real change? I would bet he'll use my vote to get into office then abandon me. Apparently GWB really feels strongly about the morals he claims to abide by, if not he could have avoided political fights about judges, stem cells etc...

I'll vote for somebody like Huckabee not because I want to make everybody go to church on Sunday and stricter liquor laws for all... no it's simple, I think he is honest and I think he'll stand by what he says from the beginning. Like Ron Paul he stands on principle not politics from what I've seen and heard so far. If someone who wasn't a Christian put forth strong arguments for believing in the same political positions as I hold dear I would consider voting for him just the same.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 1:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2007 1:31:26 AM

^

Well, I simply don't think anybody on this forum, or in this country, is capable of looking into the hearts of men and determining their true and abiding faith. Hence my use of the term "professed religion." There is a difference between the religion one professes, and the religion that people really follow in their day-to-day lives.

The only proper measure of a candidate's value system is their record as public servants. Actions speak louder than words. No matter how much you might think Mike Huckabee is a good Christian, frankly I don't think you've been going to church with him or living with his family, or listening to his thoughts.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 4:23 AM. Reason : foo]

12/7/2007 4:23:24 AM

Quote :

"I agree HUR...for example, if a religion says drinking alcohol is forbidden...that religion effectively takes away your freedom to drink alcohol"

I've got a different point of view. If a religion says drinking alcohol is forbidden you have the freedom not to join said religion if you want to drink. You even have the freedom to start drinking alcohol after joining said religion. How is the religion going to force you to comply?

On the other hand, if you become addicted to alcohol you have put your freedom not to drink alcohol in serious jeopardy. In other words... as someone that has abstained from alcohol I'm free to choose to drink it any time I please. If I were at the point of addiction choosing to abstain from alcohol would be a much harder process.

Opposite ends of the spectrum for sure, I'm just saying.

12/7/2007 7:44:56 AM

Quote :

"The term "Religious Right" is misnamed in our political discourse; it is rather the Sectarian Right."

ooooo I like this term. I'm stealing it.

12/7/2007 9:59:33 AM

Quote :

"On the other hand, if you become addicted to alcohol you have put your freedom not to drink alcohol in serious jeopardy. "

wtf are you talking about. Mr. Budweiser is not coming to your house and threatening to take you to Gitmo for not having another beer. If you want to get that picky you HAVE the FREEDOM to go to AA or rehab. It was also your freedom to drink so much that you became an alcoholic.

Regardless of the fact that i grew up in a Christian environment and think religion can deep valuable morales; I strongly feel that gov't and religion should not mix. The president and congress should not legislate morality or Christian ideals as in the case of the US. This discriminates against people's freedoms to choose their own lifestyle and quality of life. This is the job of your parents not the government.

12/7/2007 12:35:54 PM

Quote :

"However, thats not really why people wouldnt have voted for him. People come up with lots of excuses to be bigots without looking like bigots, and that "fear" of a mormon presidency gives justification for this unfortunate voting practice of many people."

You can't just write off someone's dislike of a particular religion as bigotry. If you have a group, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, who until 1978 held black people as a secondary caste of people who have been cursed by God, and a member of that group is running for president, you have to ask yourself the following: for the first 31 years of his life, he was a member of a religion that basically had white supremacy as a part of their scripture. I can see why some people find that troubling.

12/7/2007 2:06:35 PM

^^It's a simple case really.

1) I can choose to drink right now if I'd like to.
2) An alcoholic may choose not to drink, but good luck with that... the addiction is enslaving.

Now, who has the greater freedom? Or more to the point - who has an easier time of abiding by their decision.

12/7/2007 4:09:45 PM

HUR is just being a troll. He's still arguing a point that everyone (including Romney) obviously agrees with.

Yes, we know government shouldn't touch religion and vice versa. You don't have to say it 10 times in one thread. But, it's inevitable that religious values will make it into politics. The real goal is to limit it as much as possible.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : more crap]

12/7/2007 4:23:57 PM

^^ your lack of self-control is a little bit different then the government putting restrictions on stuff you can and cannot buy/do.

12/7/2007 4:31:49 PM

That wasn't the talking point. The topic was "religion limits your freedoms"

12/7/2007 4:35:28 PM

Quote :

"When you choose to go to church, you choose to believe in the Bible. Therefore, since the Bible says, you shouldn't get drunk, you decide not to. In this WHOLE religious process, where was freedom absent? Now, if you want to go to church and say, "I believe in the Bible, but I still want to get drunk", then you have the freedom to go start your own church/religion. So, in the end, by exercising religion, you are exercising freedom. A lot of critics label religious people as weak minded. But, au contraire! Those who are weak minded are the ones that believe that religion is the controlling factor. If you have any sense at all, you know that you are in full control of your beliefs. "

I think you mean, "When you're forced to go to church as a very young child, and you're indoctrinated as a very young child to believe in something that isn't true, what choice do you have in the matter?"

12/7/2007 4:58:54 PM

my freedom of thought makes me able to disagree with the founding fathers.

12/8/2007 9:58:12 AM

^^None. That's why there are no reported cases of kids that were forced to go to a church by their parents of ever abandoning the religion as an adult.

12/8/2007 5:15:10 PM

i heard in the 1950's the mormon view on blacks were they became slaves in heaven

what would mitt romney say to that?

12/8/2007 5:32:39 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4 Well, I simply don't think anybody on this forum, or in this country, is capable of looking into the hearts of men and determining their true and abiding faith. Hence my use of the term "professed religion." There is a difference between the religion one professes, and the religion that people really follow in their day-to-day lives. The only proper measure of a candidate's value system is their record as public servants. Actions speak louder than words. No matter how much you might think Mike Huckabee is a good Christian, frankly I don't think you've been going to church with him or living with his family, or listening to his thoughts. "

Well of course I cannot discern the true motives of a man, much less a woman. But, there is a big difference between someone who actually is forthright enough to speak on issues of God as opposed to someone like HRC who likes to talk in flowery vague statements about faith. I mean sure she and Bill go to church, but Huckabee has actually spoken directly and reasonably in response to tough questions about God and government. If it's an act, it's a good one. A far more reasonable explanation is that he speaks quickly and to the point because it is not what his spin-masters told him to do, but rather because it is his belief. Of course I cannot be 100% certain of his motivations, but I can be reasonably certain he is more sincere than many of his competitors who only become socially conservative during election season.

Also, wasn't Huckabee a Baptist minister before? I mean that's a pretty roundabout way of getting into the presidency, if his support of conservative social policy is not genuine then he is really really sneaky.

Oh, and politicians should be judged at least in part by what they say. It is a big part of their job to explain the government to people, or at least to argue the point they wish to legislate. This is one area that GWB has failed miserably in my view. Sure Reagan and him socially have done about the same job for judges, and neither really did much but cut taxes to encourage growth, neither were able to reel in congress from abusive growth in the federal government... but Reagan made conservatism real to the people, his speeches were epic, GWB's were comedy.

[Edited on December 9, 2007 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2007 4:27:01 PM

Quote :

"as opposed to someone like HRC who likes to talk in flowery vague statements about faith."

Or Giuliani, for that matter.

Well, not so much the flowery part, but, you know.

12/9/2007 4:43:43 PM

Quote :

"Reagan made conservatism real to the people, his speeches were epic"

I'd rate Reagan an avg president in my opinion, but his charisma and public speaking skills definitely played a major role in his approval then just his actions in office.

12/9/2007 5:04:05 PM

Romney's an idiot

with the criticism or lack of support due to his "differing" religion - you would think the guy would be more open to acceptance and tolerance of others - unfortunately he is not - and i hope he does not win shit based on this sole factor - just so he will realize the hypocrisy of his situation and policies

during the last debate, this idiot stated he would not discuss whether water boarding is torture because he doesn't want the enemy to know our interrogation techniques - mother fucker - you tube even knows what water boarding is, it its not a secrete anymore. same shit bush pulled

But Romney's policies are in line with his supporters demographic... i swear, if he wins a majority in any primary its a huge step back for this country

fear is a powerful emotion

12/9/2007 7:55:40 PM

If we have a Hillary and (Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson) ticket, then I'm just not voting.

Fuck the lesser of two evils, I don't want either and I'm not turning in a card to the govt. that says I do.

12/9/2007 8:13:41 PM

Quote :

"But, there is a big difference between someone who actually is forthright enough to speak on issues of God as opposed to someone like HRC who likes to talk in flowery vague statements about faith."

Well, I totally disagree.

First of all, if Huckabee is such a faithful guy, why is he in public politics at all? He said himself during the debate that Jesus would be too smart to run for public office. Aren't we supposed to live our lives by his example? Especially a Baptist minister?

Once somebody enters the world -- and I emphasize the word "world" -- of public politics, all bets are most certainly off. This is a world that functions on the daily dealings of men, who have different beliefs and motivations, and ultimately to the end of compromise. Why does a Baptist minister enter this world? Or a faithful Mormon?

People by their nature have to compromise to make progress in politics. Even if Huckabee speaks in uncompromising terms, or if he has a socially conservative record, he will enter the world of representing the general American public -- much of which is quite liberal -- on the world stage.

And so I would argue that HRC just knows what he doesn't. She entered in the early 90s and was quite articulate and vocal in her faith -- in public health care. And she was burned. She knows from experience to speak carefully on matters of faith.

Huckabee comes from a conservative state where a lot of his "conservative values" are no-brainers for the electorate. It's easy for him to talk directly because he hasn't been burned. But does that make him more faithful, in whatever the religion, than HRC?

I don't think you or I can answer that question at this juncture. Huckabee speaks well and he has a resume. I don't know anything about his character, and I don't presume to know.

Also, I disagree about GWB. He was always forthright, just not eloquent. But eloquence by itself isn't some virtue, it's just a minor talent. You underestimate the man. He is tremendously good at campaigning and going out and connecting with real people, and talking to them; he's renowned for remembering the names and details of practically everyone he meets. He's had an immeasurable impact on the nature of grassroots politics in this country.

12/10/2007 3:28:02 AM

^

Quote :

"Well, I totally disagree. First of all, if Huckabee is such a faithful guy, why is he in public politics at all? He said himself during the debate that Jesus would be too smart to run for public office. Aren't we supposed to live our lives by his example? Especially a Baptist minister?"

Well, Jesus doesn't need votes, He controls space and time,it was a perfectly reasonable answer. I think it was also a joke.

Quote :

"Once somebody enters the world -- and I emphasize the word "world" -- of public politics, all bets are most certainly off. This is a world that functions on the daily dealings of men, who have different beliefs and motivations, and ultimately to the end of compromise. Why does a Baptist minister enter this world? Or a faithful Mormon?"

to make a difference. To stand w/o compromise on the really important issues. I mean that is why I would do it if I were to try. Anyone who has been paying any amount of attention to politics is well aware that we need more principled statesmen who stand for ideals instead of personal gain.

Quote :

"People by their nature have to compromise to make progress in politics. Even if Huckabee speaks in uncompromising terms, or if he has a socially conservative record, he will enter the world of representing the general American public -- much of which is quite liberal -- on the world stage. And so I would argue that HRC just knows what he doesn't. She entered in the early 90s and was quite articulate and vocal in her faith -- in public health care. And she was burned. She knows from experience to speak carefully on matters of faith."

Really, I mean she was burned for that? I thought it was because socialist healthcare is a horrible idea. I do agree with your observation that she speaks carefully on matters of faith, and everything else for that matter, her handlers have done a good job of shielding her from most real questions. I could be wrong but I see a real difference in the way Huckabee or Ron Paul conduct themselves. It seems to me they can answer questions w/o checking polling data.

Quote :

"Huckabee comes from a conservative state where a lot of his "conservative values" are no-brainers for the electorate. It's easy for him to talk directly because he hasn't been burned. But does that make him more faithful, in whatever the religion, than HRC?"

Yeah I agree, but its not a state election anymore. So we'll see if it gets him burned or not.

Quote :

"I don't think you or I can answer that question at this juncture. Huckabee speaks well and he has a resume. I don't know anything about his character, and I don't presume to know."

I don't either, I am merely making the statement that I can be much more sure that there is at least a chance he is standing on principle because of fluidity with which he answers questions that touch on faith. But, as you say we must wait for the verdict to come in. We'll see if he makes it into office.

Quote :

"Also, I disagree about GWB. He was always forthright, just not eloquent. But eloquence by itself isn't some virtue, it's just a minor talent. You underestimate the man. He is tremendously good at campaigning and going out and connecting with real people, and talking to them; he's renowned for remembering the names and details of practically everyone he meets. He's had an immeasurable impact on the nature of grassroots politics in this country."

Well I disagree,

It is a major issue. He almost never confronts the media's mischaracterizations of his policies. So it has left at least the impression that his policies are wrong or inept. Not universely so, but the most important category, the fence sitters, have been given little in the way of argument.

I do like much of what he stands for, I just wish he were more vocal, use the bully-pulpit. There is no way to meet everyone, however you are certainly correct that this is his strength. I don't take the man to be an idiot. But, the poll numbers speak for themselves and I don't know anyone who is conservative as a result GWB's campaigning.

12/10/2007 7:53:27 AM

Here is a legitimate question, what does each of you expect of a President? Personally, I want a good decision maker who can assemble the best talent he can find, listen to their advice, and execute in the best interest of the American people. I do not want someone who thinks he knows it all or surrounds himself with sycophants. This has been my biggest beef with GWB.

Additionally, I want him to be able to rally people to his side when required; again GWB fails this test . . . miserably. He's actually the perfect TWW debater, "I'm right, if you don't understand me then you're just stupid and with the terrorists. I'm going to say this over and over till you agree and change the parameters of the debate as I go so I never have to concede being wrong."

12/10/2007 8:06:03 AM