Autumn has barely begun, yet I'm already pining for Spring. Not because I long for longer days or warmer weather or the return of flowers and foliage. No, the reason I'm ready for March/April/May is because I'm tired of thinking about eight GOP Presidential candidates. Eight is seven too many. I barely have room in my head for one.
But the primary season is a long, long, long time away. And while I've already made my choice (for real this time) I still have a head full of thoughts about the other candidates.
So here are a handful of observations to rile and irk my fellow partisans.
Mike Huckabee
I plan to write more about Huckabee later in the week but I did want to say one thing about him now. Like most social conservatives, I'm also a fiscal conservative. I want a candidate who is solid on both social and fiscal conservatism--which is why I support Mike Huckabee. Many people who criticize Mike Huckabee for his economic positions also call themselves fiscal conservatives. Apparently, one of us is unclear on what the concept means.
Take, for example, this recent criticism in Reason magazine:
Huckabee went on to win the Arkansas governorship and was re-elected for second four-year term. Throughout his ten and a half years in office, Huckabee stressed the idea of holding down the size and cost of government, nonetheless, the state budget increased from $5.7 billion to $10.8 billion during his time in office.
Huckabee did institute property and inventory tax cuts, but during his tenure the sales tax was increased to six percent and withholding was introduced to the state income tax system. Under Huckabee's administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent.
Does that sound like a fiscal conservative to you? Before you answer let me confess that the preceding paragraphs are from Reason magazine. But they are about Ronald Reagan and the article was written in July 1975.
Mike Huckabee's record as governor was far more fiscally conservative than the tenure of Ronald Reagan. But what truly matters is the policies he plans to implement as President. Huckabee is the one of only two GOP candidates (Romney was the other) to sign a pledge saying that he would not increase taxes.* He wants to eliminate all personal, federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes. He wants to eliminate the IRS.
Yet because he raised the state sales tax from 4.4% to 6% in order to balance the state's budget he's considered a flaming big government liberal.**
I think it's clear which one of us is unclear on what it means to be "fiscally conservative." I spell it c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e. They spell it l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n. If these libertarian purists had their way in 1980 we'd never have had Ronald Reagan. If they get their way in 2008, we'll be stuck with Hillary Clinton.
*Correction: Originally, I had written that Huckabee was the only one to sign the pledge.
**I had written "to pay for roads" when the sales tax was used to fulfill the state's balanced budget mandate.
John McCain
While I have a deep respect for John McCain, I've always had a personal distaste for the man. I've been harsh on him in the past, though I was starting to warm to him. And then I saw the "How do we beat the b****?" video.
When McCain began by saying, "That's an excellent question…" he lost me. No, Senator, it's not an excellent question. It's a rude and demeaning question and you should have chastised the despicable woman who showed disrespect to both you and Sen. Clinton.
No matter how we might feel about Sen. Clinton, she is a United States Senator and a colleague of Sen. McCain. For McCain to laugh at such a tasteless comment reveals a lack of character. McCain may have been an officer, but he's still not a gentleman.
Rudy Giuliani
Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani. That's about right.
I've said enough about Rudy over the past few months so I'll only add this: If Rudy gets the nomination I will no longer call myself a Republican. The man has his redeeming qualities but he is completely unfit to be President. I'd be ashamed to be associated with a party that could nominate him for the highest office in the land.
Fred Thompson
When asked about his position on Roe v. Wade Fred Thompson said:
I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response, particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free, state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with, that's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, system of federalism we have, where power is divided between the state and federal government has served us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days.
MSNBC's Tucker Carlson believes that this proves that Thompson is pro-choice.
Fred Thompson's pro choice. That's what he just said. He said, 'I think people ought to be free to make decisions even Fred Thompson disagrees with, that's what freedom is all about. We should overturn Roe but we shouldn't have a ban on abortion.' That's a pro choice position. I wasn't aware that Fred Thompson was pro choice and he lobbied for abortion group, but other than that, this is news! Is nobody noticing this?
In response, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru says,
It isn't clear whether Thompson believes that the law should protect unborn human beings at every stage of their development, so maybe he is, in fact, pro-choice. But Carlson is wrong to suggest that Thompson's words to Russert provide proof, or even any evidence, that he is. His point was that states should be free to set their own abortion policies, not that women should be free to obtain abortions.
Ramesh is by far the smartest conservative I know, so I'm hesitant to disagree. But I'm with Tucker on this one. While Thompson is not necessarily saying that a woman has a right to kill the child in the womb, he is saying that the states have the choice to make that decision. That to me is pro-choice. Jared Bridges, commenting on Thompson's refusal to support the Human Life Amendment, wrote:
In what sounds frighteningly similar to a pro-choice philosophy writ large, Thompson argues that if Roe is overturned, states should be allowed to choose whether or not to prohibit abortion. In other words, he gives more moral significance to his brand of federalism* than he does his personal views on human life.
Ironically, Sen. Thompson argues along the same lines as did Stephen A. Douglas when he championed the expansion of slavery — that is, states should be allowed to choose whether or not to protect a certain people from being deprived of their God-given rights. This raises the salient question: would/does Fred Thompson oppose the constitutional amendment banning slavery?
As I've said before, Thompson puts his peculiar brand of federalism ahead of his conservative principles. He seems to be of the opinion that if the states allow it then he has no problem with it. I'm just not comfortable with a man who would cede so much power to the government.
Related: Rather than provide my view on the National Right to Life Committee endorsement, I'll refer you to the excellent analysis of Lucas Roebuck. Like Lucas, I believe this "may prove to be a crippling folly for the organization." Then again, NRLC has been ticking off pro-lifers for years so this is par for the course.
But does it help Thompson? That depends on how you view the effect of political endorsements. Erick Erickson provides a perfect example of how I believe they work:
On the way out of church today, three different men in the church cornered me to ask me if I liked Huckabee. I told them I was afraid of his economic policies, but very much personally liked the guy.
That was good enough for them. They'd heard Dobson was coming out for him.
Person/Group X endorses a candidate. Likely Voter looks around to see how other people/groups she respects react to the endorsement. If its positive--polite golf clap to standing ovation--they know the candidate is a safe bet. If the reaction is a "What the heck is X thinking?" then the impact of the endorsement is lessened if not negated.
NRLC's endorsement of Thompson is of the "What the heck…?" variety.
Mitt Romney
Let me say that if Romney were to win the GOP nomination, I would vote for him in the general election. Still, I have had my reservations but wasn't sure how to explain it succinctly. Fortunately, WORLD magazine publisher Joel Belz put his finger on what has bothers me about Romney's Mormonism:
It's not a trivial matter that Mormonism, as a cultic movement, has a bad reputation when it comes to getting its own story straight. Check out the public record, if you will, including fairly recent interviews with Mormon officials in venues like Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, and Newsweek. Do these officials hold to the fantastical 1827 golden tablets of Mormon founder Joseph Smith—or not? Well, they seem to say: We believe it when we want to, and we don't when it's less convenient. Where Mormonism isn't shrouded in deliberate secrecy, it is covered with confusion.
So when folks tell me they're satisfied that Mitt Romney won't try to drag his Mormonism into his politics, and that he would never ever impose his theology on the American people, I have to worry whether that's exactly what he's already done. When, in a relatively short space of time, he seems to be on both sides of the same issue—and when such a deviously confusing approach seems to be consistent with his faith rather than counter to it—that sets off alarm bells for me.
Only a few weeks ago, I sat a dozen feet from Romney as he compellingly spelled out his convictions and credentials. He was winsome and persuasive. On the surface, he said almost everything I want to hear my candidate say. On the issues that matter (except for choice in education), he was as convincing as any politician I've heard in recent years.
But still.
More than anything, I want a president who tells the truth. And I worry deeply when people are overly ready to believe a man whose religious upbringing, of all things, suggests that the truth is a negotiable commodity.
Ron Paul
I don't see the appeal of Ron Paul. He's simply unacceptable to social conservatives. An anonymous emailer sent me a PDF full of reasons why Paul is the wrong guy. This one sums it up for me:
Ron Paul is a libertarian first, anything else comes after. He may be a Christian man, but don’t expect that to heavily influence his public life if it’s at odds with his libertarian ideology. He may be pro-life and pro-marriage, but don’t expect him to do anything if a state like New York or California wants to keep on killing babies -- or if a state like Massachusetts or Oregon wants to perform gay marriages or hand out civil unions.
UPDATE: I forgot to add that another reason that I am leery of Paul is that he has an idolatrous view of the Constitution. In his Statement of Faith he even says the document is "divinely inspired", which puts it on par with the Bible. That's just weird. (See comment #78 for a clarification.)
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo
Are you guys still in the race?
Why?
No, seriously. Why?
Boo.
Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST first.
That's what you're "soc-con"'ism is rubbing up against. It's not that Ron Paul isn't a social conservative, because he is a social conservative. It's that he doesn't believe in unconstitutional solutions.
It's an argument over how to achieve agreed upon ends, Joe. You want a Big Government, unconstitutional way to solve the problem. Ron Paul knows that's not the way to do it.
Chuck Baldwin is speaking to you, Joe.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071106.html
Huckabee the only one to sign an anti-tax pledge is a LIE. Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase in his LIFE.
Huckabee begged for taxes..
http://arkjournal.com/2007/10/exclusive-video-huckabee-whatever-tax.html
RON PAUL... the only one.
Joe, you're wrong about me.
First, ask yourself how socially conservative do you think the U.S. Constitution is. I'm even more socially conservative than the Constitution.
I've said this about liberarianism and abortion:
"Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty...
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. ...If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
...A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs."
So, in a very real way, I'm Pro-Life first. I mean that.
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee is an adroit public speaker. He communicates his message in life-like, cogent terms, with compelling examples like the story he told (at the Ames Straw Poll) of what his then-11-yo daughter entered into the "Comments" section of a Visitors Book after visiting the Yad Vashem holocaust museum: “Why didn't somebody do something?” Very effective.
Huckabee is all about calling his listeners to "do something," to awaken them to their own empowerment, and summon them to action in order that "Main Street," and not "Wall Street," will prevail in guarding the values and beliefs upon which the Republic was founded.
Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). He’s not as “mechanically-scripted” as Romney, nor angry or demanding, like a Ron Paul, and his large brown eyes, peering through a humble demeanor, draw a striking contrast to a unconvincing, tired-looking Thompson. One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with Mike over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe.
Most importantly, perhaps, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement. While many - like Romney, and others, who are invested in the current income tax system - seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan, its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow. Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible.
Romney's recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos” drew a sharper contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what's wrong with the income tax can't be fixed with "a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver." That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign's raison d'etre.
Of the FairTax, Huckabee asserts that it's...
• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, FLAT, and FAMILY FRIENDLY, loophole-free, and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE is achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards - rather than penalizes - work and productivity
A detailed benefits analysis of the plan (from The FairTax Book) explains Huckabee's ardent advocacy:
For individuals:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance tax payback" for monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates
For businesses:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets
For the country:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow
Passionately supporting FairTax, Huckabee understands that, if elected President, Congress will have to present the bill for his signature. His call to action goes beyond his candidacy: Main Street will have to demand that their legislators deliver the bill.
(Permission is granted to reproduce, in whole or part. - Ian)
Excellent analysis on the candidates, Joe.
Dr. Paul, yes, you've said what you said in that comment. But none of that changes that you've also said this:
In a June 28, 2007 interview regarding your abortion views, you said, "Naturally, I’m aware of the extraordinarily sensitive nature of this subject, and that people hold different views on abortion. I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue."
And in response to the question, “So if the city council of San Francisco, if the town assembly of Burlington, if the state of New Hampshire decided to legalize civil unions between gay couples, you would be okay with that?”
You said, "Yes, if those decisions were made by legislatures, and not by courts."
And when you were asked, “How does this apply on an issue say, like, stem-cell research?” You said, “Again, like my views on most social issues, I think the stem-cell issue should be determined by the market."
I agree on Huckabee, and on Thompson - but I think Thompson is right on the states being the place to decide on abortion.
First, the possibility in the near term of getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress - and 3/4 of the states - to agree on a constitutional amendment on abortion is remote. Only a Constitutional amendment can - from a conservative view constitutionally - give control of abortion properly to the Feds. It is my position the courts took control improperly with Roe.
So, if Roe goes away the practical situation is that the states will be in control until a constitutional amendment is passed giving control back to the Feds.
Just a heads up -- I believe Romney also signed the "no tax" pledge. Great post, overall!
Ramesh is by far the smartest conservative I know, so I'm hesitant to disagree. But I'm with Tucker on this one. While Thompson is not necessarily saying that a woman has a right to kill the child in the womb, he is saying that the states have the choice to make that decision. That to me is pro-choice.
And yet Thompson was just stating the standard legal pro-life view of Roe...that the matter belongs to the states and not the Fed gov't. As matter of fact, even regular murder statutes belong to the states. If you're in jail for murder it is almost certain that you were convicted by a state unless you happened to committ murder in a situtation where you were under Federal jurisdiction.
He may be pro-life and pro-marriage, but don’t expect him to do anything if a state like New York or California wants to keep on killing babies -- or if a state like Massachusetts or Oregon wants to perform gay marriages or hand out civil unions.
Of course because you guys are authoritarians first and conservatives a long distant second. Follow this to its logical conclusion and you have to ask yourself why even have states at all? I'm sure Mass or NY may also want to have easier divorce too. Why let them do anything you may find wrong?
Mike Huckabee's record as governor was far more fiscally conservative than the tenure of Ronald Reagan. But what truly matters is the policies he plans to implement as President. Huckabee is the only GOP candidate to sign a pledge saying that he would not increase taxes. He wants to eliminate all personal, federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes. He wants to eliminate the IRS.
Yawn again with eliminate the IRS, especially after you saw through Ron Paul's silliness with that nonsense. I'm not sure what to even make of your assertion that he wants to eliminate all taxes. Either you phrased that wrong or the world of The Onion is finally fusing with the real world of the GOP jokers.
That's not a fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative is someone who strives to balance the budget first not cut taxes today first.
Another commenter mentions what I said concerning "local opinions". Yes. I say that this should, according to American (and frankly, biblical) self-government, determine specific regulations. You should not have a far-away bureaucrat deciding for you what the standards of your community are. Local officials are more directly accountable to those in the local region. This is our Founding Father's idea of Federalism (localism).
My response about civil unions concerned not my approval (not "OK with me" in that sense!) of such things, but that (once again!) the proper Constitutional way to decide these things (even when it's the wrong decision) is by local legislatures. "By the market," of course, I mean the open free exchange of viewpoints by individual citizens in the public square (you can't "buy or sell" political decisions-- or, ought not!)
Baus was right. It's an argument about how to achieve agreed upon ends. You can't show that I'm not pro-(biblical)marriage, or not pro-life, because I've done more to support those two foundational values than ANY OTHER federal legislator. Other social conservatives should have more integrity and admit that what we have here is an honest difference concerning the best way to support what's good and right.
I am convinced the best way is the Constitutional way, the way of localism, limited and separated power, self-government, real accountability, and liberty. You can take a different view, but that doesn't make me anything other or less than the die hard social conservative that I am. It just puts nonconstitutionalists, I would argue, at odds with the supreme law and foundational principles of this nation.
Hey are you really Ron Paul? If so that's pretty cool.
Baus Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST first.
The Constitution was once used to defend slavery and segregation. Paul would have no problem with that just as he has no problem with states having the power to decide whether innocent children should be killed.
I have the utmost respect for the Constitution, but unlike Paul, I don't make an idol out of it.
When talking about Ron Paul I think it was Foghorn Leghorn who said, "There's something kind of 'eeewwwwww' about a guy who can't admit the recent success in Iraq."
And one more thing about Paul: If he can be held at all responsible for the obnoxious behavior of his supporters (Paulbearers), then it would be a good test of his effectiveness as President if he could get them to change. Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression they've all seriously considered the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
Sorry about my acolytes. I don't really know what to do about them. They just appear everywhere. Even I am becoming scared of them. HELP!
Ramesh is by far the smartest conservative I know
Hilariously enough, I think you're right.
It's beyond the pale to attack Romney based on his Mormonism.
Didn't know you were a bigot, Joe. Might as well attack man-made doctrines like sola scriptura or sola fide, as if that were relevant to the question of voting for Huckabee.
The Constitution was once used to defend slavery and segregation. Paul would have no problem with that just as he has no problem with states having the power to decide whether innocent children should be killed.
Joe,
It would be easier to take you seriously if you hadn't endorsed Fred Thompson first who basically has the exact same position....states should be allowed to make their own abortion law which includes a state being pro-choice. As I recall your reason for changing your mind on Fred had nothing to do with his abortion position but had to do with your feeling that he was not campaigning aggressively enough.
John
It's beyond the pale to attack Romney based on his Mormonism.
Not it's not. At its core Joe confirms that the evangelical right is about theocracy. If that's the case then a candidate's religion really does matter. When they select a new Pope they do, after all, take into consideration whether or not a candidate is Catholic. Likewise I suspect the job of Rabbi at your local Synagogue carries a Jewish requirement with it.
Thankfully the alternative is to join the reality based community which does not view government as a logical extension of the Church.
Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act" a real solution that would have taken effect immediately, not wait around nominating hopefully "conservative" judges to someday hopefully overturn Roe v. Wade.
IIRC, the bill would take Abortion out of the hands of Federal system, which is not a blanket ban, but it is a step with immediate progress.
Boonton-
You're right about Joe and Thompson.
On "theocracy"-I don't agree, your point is inaccurate...for Christian conservatives in general. That's why the NRLC can endorse Thompson, a none too fervent Christian, and Hugh Hewitt (an evangelical) can endorse Romney.
But you've got Joe here. He is in fact promoting the use of a religious test, one that may well be used against evangelicals in the future.
Huckabee: "Whatever Tax You Pass, You Will Have Nothing But My Profound Thanks"
Fool me once shame on me...
I voted for Bush. I am so very sorry.
Joe Carter:
I have the utmost respect for the Constitution, but unlike Paul, I don't make an idol out of it.
One point, and that's it for me. If the Constitution is really contrary to Christian understandings of human nature and reality, so much the worse for the Constitution. That said, I don't think one needs to cede the Constitutional high ground to Ron Paul. The Constitution is NOT localist with regard to matters that affect the nation as a whole, which is what anyone not ignorant concerning the nature of marriage and abortion and their implications on the U.S. as a society should understand.
Ron Paul assumes his libertarian ideology-infused understanding of the Constitution is the true conservative/originalist perspective, but it only assumes things regarding human nature and reality the writers of the Constitution did not assume, for example, that marriage is properly individual and thus outside the jurisdiction of government (state or federal).
Ron Paul is correct that the Constitution is usually localist, but in absolutizing society and issues in terms of individual freedoms, he fails to make critical distinctions regarding properly Constitutional government support for non-individualistic institutions that affect the whole of society and thus are properly treated by the federal government according to the Constitution.
The Constitution is NOT localist with regard to matters that affect the nation as a whole, which is what anyone not ignorant concerning the nature of marriage and abortion and their implications on the U.S. as a society should understand.
Wow, isn't it amazing the states have been running marriage for nearly a quarter millenium and no one noticed the Constitution gave it to the Federal gov't! Ditto for abortion, I suppose the pro-life movement has just been lying to us for the last 30 years.
he fails to make critical distinctions regarding properly Constitutional government support for non-individualistic institutions that affect the whole of society and thus are properly treated by the federal government according to the Constitution.
Incoherent here. I'm going to guess a "non-individualistic institution" is Orwellian doublespeak for "individual". This sentence means, and whether it has any meaning is a good question, that there are individuals and the Fed. gov't and nothing inbetween. If you want to argue such a position go ahead but please don't pretend your anywhere on the same planet as the US Constitution.
Joe Carter: “I have the utmost respect for the Constitution, but unlike Paul, I don’t make an idol out of it.”
So seeking to adhere to the Supreme Law of the Land, including the Amendment process it provides, equals idolatry?
jd: “Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression they’ve all seriously considered the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.”
Your “impression” sounds more like a longing – a longing to equate all Ron Paul supporters with those few supporters who are sadly devoted to 9/11 conspiracism. I fully support Ron Paul, and have also taken the time to correct those who have been taken in by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please drop the passive aggressive arguments jd and make a real case against Dr. Paul and a real case for other candidates – candidates who also have supporters with weird and erroneous ideas.
John Salmon: “It’s beyond the pale to attack Romney based on his Mormonism.”
Well, Mr. Carter did no such thing sir. Mormonism is a non-Christian cult and it’s not “bigotry” to critically examine a person’s belief system when voting for them. By all means question Governor Huckabee’s adherence to the biblical doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide Mr. Salmon, just as I would question a Roman Catholic’s adherence to the doctrines of papal infallibility and sola ecclesia.
Booton: “At its core Joe confirms that the evangelical right is about theocracy.”
As an evangelical Christian, I have to agree to some extent. The Ron Paul campaign is exposing many evangelical Christians I respect (e.g., Joseph Farah, Janet Folger, Justin Taylor) for what they are when it comes to a Christian’s relation to the State: Purityrants who, in the context of the United States, want to use the power of the federal government – the Constitution be damned – to make every citizen in every state act the same exact way.
AJ So seeking to adhere to the Supreme Law of the Land, including the Amendment process it provides, equals idolatry?
No, but thinking the Constitution is "divinely inspired", as Ron Paul claims, is idolatry. And creepy too.
Joe Carter,
"Divinely inspired Constitution"? I'm a Paul supporter and I didn't believe you at first, but it's right there. It is... weird.
I guess I'm OK with it, in a Romans 13 kind of way.
Jay D I guess I'm OK with it, in a Romans 13 kind of way.
What about the ramifications? If the text truly is divinely inspired then it should never be amended. We don't go amending the Bible to add on things we want (unless, of course, you're Mormon). Why would we change a document that God had divinely inspired?
I do agree with you on that Mr. Carter. That particular phrase is unfortunate and unbiblical. I’m NOT OK with it, and Romans 13 doesn’t support it. I’m going to encourage Ron Paul to remove that phrase from his statement, and I hope other Ron Paul supporters do the same.
Tsk tsk Joe, Mitt Romney thinks the US Constitution was divinely 'inspired' (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/11/a_divinely_insp.html). Ex-Judge Roy Moore also thinks the US Constitution (or at least the Convention that wrote it) was divinely inspired (http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/09/roy-moore-on-constitution.html). Idaho's Christian Coalition (I know Joe is probably not much of a fan of them since Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy) circulated a 31 question survey to Supreme Court candidates that asked point blank "Do you believe that God inspired the writing of the United States Constitution?" and I doubt you got a plus for saying "no" (http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6430&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1465).
While I doubt the evangelical right would, if pressed, equite the Constitution with the Bible but it seems pretty clear to date the only people who got offended by claiming devine inspiration for the Founders or Constitution were seperation of Church and State types, not the evangelical right. Why is this a problem all in the sudden?
What's creepy here is that it's very clear that none of this is the real reason you have such hatred of Ron Paul. I think he's wrong and mistaken on a lot of issues but running through the thread here is not simply disagreement or a strategic decision that person A is more electable than person B but a sense that Paul has challenged some unspoken value you hold but don't want to articulate. I would suggest its that you don't really value conservative ideas except as a means to an end.
In that sense Paul offends you and other Republicans because he is honest whereas many of you have long ago decided (subconsciously) to embrace dishonesty which pretty much sums up the entire slate of Republicans running today. That explains quite a bit, IMO, such as how someone like Robertson can endorse Rudy.
Boonton, for the most part you hit the nail on the head!
Ron Paul is consistent where the vast-majority of modern American conservatives are inconsistent. He’s principled where they’re pragmatic. And that’s why they fear him. And that’s why many despise him.
AJ,
I think it's also obvious that the GOP loves running on fear, specifically an endless 'war on terror' which is mainly a war on accountability, honesty and transparency. Paul's true sin is that he departs from this political orthodoxy. Even abortion can be tolerated when put up against this meme (see Rudy)
What about the ramifications? If the text truly is divinely inspired then it should never be amended.
It was divinely inspired to be amendable in the text itself.
Can Joe or someone on here explain to me the right to life amendment because I don't get it? If we give the gov't the power to declare something human, don't we also give it the power to declare something not human? If the gov't can declare fetuses human, can't they declare Jews or blacks non human? Isn't it G-d who declares us human, who binds us as one in marriage? Do we really need a state offical at every birth declaring "by the pwoer invested in me by the state of I now declare you human!"
Jay D: “It was divinely inspired to be amendable in the text itself.”
You cannot be serious. Are the amendment’s divinely inspired? Was the 18th Amendment divinely inspired? How about the 21st?
The One If we give the gov't the power to declare something human, don't we also give it the power to declare something not human?
The HLA doesn't give the government the power to "declare something human." There are various versios but the one I support is The Hogan Amendment. Here is the text of the proposed amendment:
Ron Paul, if that's really you commenting here, best wishes to you, I proudly display one of your bumper stickers on my wife's car.
Glad you are running for President-you are a man of integrity and americans (all americans) need to think about the issues you raise in your campaign.
Does anyone honestly believe that Ron Paul thinks the Constitution is God-breathed in the 2 Tim 3:16 sense? I am not sure about this, but I do not believe Ron Paul means "divinely inspired" in a theological sense. It seems to me, at least I hope, Paul is speaking of God's providence. I take him to mean that our founding fathers, mostly men of faith, put forth a document founded upon what they believed to be God-given principles and man's natural longing for liberty. The founding fathers claimed this much. In that sense, it is divinely inspired, i.e. driven by men of faith who acknowledged God's guidance throughout the process, and not in any other. If Paul does believe God is the Author of the Constitution, and that the Holy Spirit carried the founders along in a biblical sense when they wrote the Constitution, and it can be proven in other writings or speeches, then no one should ever take him seriously again.
Republicans have ruled this country for 20 of the last 28 years. What have they done about abortion other than "oppose" it? Throwing the issue back to the states might actually save some baby's lives in fact, rather than in principle. This is the problem with the Republican opposition to abortion. They take a "whole loaf or no loaf" approach that guarantees that they will always be seen to oppose abortion without ever actually changing it. That keeps the millions of "one issue" evangelicals voting for Republicans who might jump ship if abortion was no longer a major plank in the Republican platform.
Joe, you're splitting hairs. The very first line says "Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception" Instead of declaring something human, you are declaring WHEN that something becomes human. Very well, I'll make a slightly different agruement. If we give the gov't the power to declare when something becomes human, we also give it the power to declare when that something is no longer human. It's easy to imagine a future where bankrupt social security combined with overpopulation from immigrants leads to the gov't declaring anyone over 80 not human. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint, but I don't see the issue of gov't power being addressed at all. Please someone make a counter agruement.
Divinely inspired simply means inspired by a devine source. It doesn't mean unchangeable, perfect etc. I can see how the Constitution, being very good, can be called divinely inspired just as great art or music is also called that.
That doesn't mean that the Constitution should be treated as a supernatural document. I see no reason to believe that. But logically it could be inspired and yet be changeable.
Actually didn't Bush run on the 'Ron Paul' position back in 2000? I seem to remember him saying something like "I hope someday everyone will agree with me on abortion and we can change everyone's heart but for now it should be a state matter"....presumably that means a state could adopt Roe.v.Wade as its abortion policy.
It is a bizarre thing to call our constitution "divinely inspired". If it sounds strange to Christians, just think of how this looks to the "theocracy hunters" on the left.
None of us Christians deny the providence of God, and thus his "inspiration" runs through all our affairs. But the term "divinely inspired" is used almost exclusively to refer to scripture. To call our own national constitution a divinely inspired document is to conflate the city of man with the city of God in a very dangerous way. God's kingdom does indeed break into our politics, and Caesar must bow the knee, but the United States of America is not the kingdom of God; nor is the constitution anything analogous to Holy Scripture.
Interestingly the amendment Joe supports could probably be read to permit abortion.
1. Since abortion is never mandated by the gov't in the US (in contrast to, say, China), 'depriving of life' would not apply.
2. 'Equal protection' could be dodged very easily. Abortion is simply permitted as a way for a woman to remove a fetus from her womb. 'Equal protection' is not violated since the law would apply equally to any human. Should Joe find himself inside a woman's womb (a very large woman I'd expect), it would be legal for the woman to have him removed just as if Joe was a fetus rather than a full grown man.
3. Of course pro-lifer lawyers would argue that the 'equal protection' provision would apply to state murder laws. In other words, states could not exempt mothers who have abortion from murder charges unless they abolish all laws against murder. Unfortunately that's not a very clear case AND it would also apply to any penalty for abortion other than full murder charges. If 'original intent' means anything it would be hard to square that reading with the reluctance of many (not all) pro-lifers to treat women who have abortion with the full blunt force of the laws against murder.
It is a bizarre thing to call our constitution "divinely inspired". If it sounds strange to Christians, just think of how this looks to the "theocracy hunters" on the left.
It looks like you guys are running a double standard for Ron Paul.
None of us Christians deny the providence of God, and thus his "inspiration" runs through all our affairs. But the term "divinely inspired" is used almost exclusively to refer to scripture.
Except when it has been used by the right to refer to the US Constitution up until Ron Paul did it. Then all in a sudden it became idolatry and you guys suddenly discovered 'seperation of church and state' wasn't a term coined by the ACLU.
Regarding moving the Abortion issue to the states, it is an achievable goal. All it would take is an ordiary act of congress signed by the president. It could have been done when the GOP had a majority. This act was proposed by Ron Paul, the Sanctity of Life Act. It takes away the jurisdiction of Federal Appeals courts to hear cases on abortion.
Mike Huckabee's goal is a constitutional amendment. This is fine, but, let's face it--at the present time it is unrealistic. The Sanctity of Life Act could be passed in the mean-time, while still trying to get the amendment through some time in the future.
Jay D
That's an interesting legal theory:
1. Pass a law to violate a Constitutional right.
2. Pass a law saying the Fed. Appeals courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases on that matter.
I know, I know, you don't think abortion is a Constitutional right but the trick should work just as well on something you do think is a real right as it would on something you don't.
Boonton,
Your scenerio would violate the constitution, but it would still "work" within the Constitutional framework of checks and balances. It would take two branches of government to carry it out, though. The legislative branch would have to pass the unconstitutional law, and the executive branch would have to willingly execute the unconstitutional law. If the executive disagreed, he has the power of the pardon as one tool, and just standing up and refusing to carry out the law would be another tool.
Checks and balances can only go so far, I guess. At least it takes the cooperation of two branches. Hopefully the people is able to change one of the two.
P.S. Your scenerio is basically going on right now. Congress passed wiretapping laws specifically saying that no judicial warrant is necessary. The exectutive carries out the wiretaps.
It's the third element where Congress takes away the power of judicial review from the courts so those harmed by unconstitutional wiretaps have no outlet to sue.
I suspect this is where the loophole would fail. The SC would have to retain its right to hear cases even if the appellate courts lost them.
Here's another problem. Suppose your scenero comes to pass. NJ passes a law restricting abortion and a NJ court turns around and overturns it on the grounds that Roe.v.Wade is still the law of the land hence it is unConstitutional. Pro-lifers would be slashed by their own double edged sword. They couldn't appeal the NJ ruling to the Fed. appeals courts because they removed abortion as an area appeals courts have jurisdiction over.
I suspect this is where the loophole would fail. The SC would have to retain its right to hear cases even if the appellate courts lost them.
Nope. The congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as it sees fit. It is a check on the power of the least accountable branch of government.
The SC has very little original jurisdiction. Even the "those in which a state shall be party" part was taken away by amendment 11.
I think I'm wrong about the amendment 11 part, but the rest is good.
You might be right although it sounds like its a receipe for chaos. Local courts could rule the Constitution means whatever they want and they couldn't be subject to appeal to either the Fed. Courts or the SC.
Needless to say, a state couldn't convict anyone of a crime without giving them due process of law. That means a real abortion ban would have to be subject to some type of judicial review otherwise it would be meaningless.
Are we sure that any of these men who said the Constitution is "divinely inspired" mean the same thing as theologians when they talk about the plenary inspiration of scripture? Perhaps they just mean it was written by godly men inspired by divine principles? Or maybe even they mean the writers were empowered by the Holy Spirit much in the same way any Christian, on any given day, would give credit to God for empowering them for their good deeds?
"Divinely inspired" - Awkward wording that causes unnecessary confusion? Yes. A real issue? I don't know...seems like grasping at straws.
Boonton, I challenge you to point out where I have ever supported someone in stating that our constitution is "divinely inspired". I never have, and never would have.
I know of no other statement by someone in the right using those terms to describe our constitution. If you make me aware of such a case, I will denounce them for it as well. Otherwise, your charge of hypocrisy is false, and you owe me an apology.
Wonders,
Please see post 28 for a small list of right wingers saying the Constitution was devinely inspired. The point is not whether or not this is a phrase you use, the point is that this type of rhetoric has been quite common on the right for a while now. It's odd that all in the sudden Ron Paul is 'creepy' for using it.
Thanks for clearing up the new meaning of fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative does not budget carefully, reduce expenditure, or lower/maintain taxes levels, spends money conservatively. A Fiscal Conservative spends money on ends approved of by people who consider themselves conservative. Someone who is fiscally conservative would work within the budget they had. A Fiscal Conservative can spend $100's of billions on a Medicare Drug Plan even if the money is not there.
I'm sure I am missing the nuances but that is the general difference? Yes?
Another important reason to punt abortion to the States: The States have fewer instruments of tyranny to enforce any legislation they make. They also would not be able to limit the first amendment rights of people who do not agree with their laws.
Also remember it is safer to oppose all expansion of government because as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow. Someday that power will be wielded by someone you wish didn't have it.
I saw no reply to my post. Do you then concede the point Joe that allowing the gov't to decide WHEN something becomes human it also grants the gov't the power to decide WHEN something is no longer human. If so, do you still support this amendment and why?
Boonton,
I followed the link you gave to Andrew Sullivan in regards to Mitt Romney calling the constitution divinely inspired.
To quote Andrew:
I misquoted Mitt Romney in his belief that America had a divine founding. He used the word "inspired." It's a little milder, but official Mormon teaching uses the terms interchangeably. "
I clicked on the "misquoted" link to see if it had what Mitt Romney actually said but that link was a dead link.
So from what I understand from what Andrew is saying, Mitt said the constitution was an inspired document. That could mean all sorts of things once you've taken off the divine part of inspired.
Do you have the quote of Romney so that we might judge for ourselves what he has said about the constitution?
Joe wrote;
"Fortunately, WORLD magazine publisher Joel Belz put his finger on what has bothers me about Romney's Mormonism: "
I too am bothered by Mormonism. Be it Romney's or anyone elses. My vote for Romney -will- -not- -be- an endorsement of his religious beliefs. The same would be true if I wer to vote for Thomas Jefferson.
Please know that I say these things as a supporter of neither Paul nor Giuliani.
1) I find it hard to understand that your objection to Paul comes from an assumption of a disconnect between his personal beliefs and his public actions, when a part of your distaste for Giuliani (based on earlier posts) seems to border on a denial of someone having such a disconnect.
2) Anyone who thinks that the RNC has put up a socially conservative candidate in the last 20 years is very naive. Let me know when Jesus is on the ticket.
I saw no reply to my post. Do you then concede the point Joe that allowing the gov't to decide WHEN something becomes human it also grants the gov't the power to decide WHEN something is no longer human. If so, do you still support this amendment and why?
To be fair to Joe I think the response would be that gov't isn't assuming the power to declare anything human but is simply recognizing something a human.
Baggi
So from what I understand from what Andrew is saying, Mitt said the constitution was an inspired document. That could mean all sorts of things once you've taken off the divine part of inspired.
From what I've read this was part of a minor eruption over what appears to be a Mormon doctrine of considering the constitution to be inspired.
Do you have the quote of Romney so that we might judge for ourselves what he has said about the constitution?
Sorry I don't. I'm sure Google can dig into that quote issue better than I can. If I have time today I'll try to dig something better up if you really want me to but I'm not sure I will.
"divinely inspired Constitution"? That is bizarre. It just sums up so much about Paul. Certainly a lot to admire and I wish more candidates took the Constitution seriously but that is just a bizarre way of putting it. I would like to ask the Congressman which of the amendments, if any, were also divinely inspired?
AJ-Again, it's impossible to see how Romney's Mormonism is relevant to whether one should vote for him. How is this different from the Dems going after Roberts and Alito because of their Catholicism? The evangelical right, I see, still has a little Norman Vincent Peale in it-he led the charge against Kennedy in 1960, based on religion. This is, pure and simple, bigotry.
As Luther said, "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."
So I guess you didn't understand my sola fide/scriptura reference-I couldn't possibly care less whether Mike Huckabee is a five point Calvinist, Wesleyan, or anything else. I wouldn't criticize the solas, except as a matter of their being ahistorical, unbiblical doctrines (read James, for ex., on sola fide-should settle the question for all not wedded to a personal agenda. But private intepreation necessarily leads to such agendas.)
But in any case I don't care that Guiliani is a lapsed Catholic, that McCain may or not be a Baptist, or that Hillary is a liberal-minded Methodist. For all we know she has the deepest Christian faith of anyone running.
Is Stephen Breyer a rotten Justice because he's Jewish? Stevens and Souter because they're Protestants? It does happen that all teh good guys on the Court are Catholic, but that's a happy accident, unfortunately.
I care about people's positions on this issues, and about their personal lives only to the extent that their integrity is at issue.
The only Republican candidate I would not consider is Rudy, because of abortion.
Joe's lapse into bigotry is, one hopes, out of character. If it persists, one hopes he will be removed from any positions he holds in Christian organizations.
John Salmon,
If Romney had taken Rudy's view of remaining consistent on his positions I wouldn't have a problem with the Mormonism. The problem, like Belz said, is that his dramatic changes on so many issues for convenience sake is consistent with Mormonism in general. Belz nails my personal discomfort with Romney's faith. There are other Mormons in office and who have sought office that I'm perfectly comfortable with.
"...his dramatic changes on so many issues for convenience sake is consistent with Mormonism in general."
Really? No state is more consistently conservative, to an excessive degree in fact, than Mormon Utah. Saying Mormons tend to waver in their beliefs is empirically silly, and a thin cover for a bigotted attack.
Lest there be any confusion, my own preferred candidate is John McCain.
How is this different from the Dems going after Roberts and Alito because of their Catholicism?
The Dems went after neither for being Catholic but I agree Romney being Mormon should not be a factor unless you reject the ideals that make America what it is and should be.
Really? No state is more consistently conservative, to an excessive degree in fact, than Mormon Utah. Saying Mormons tend to waver in their beliefs is empirically silly, and a thin cover for a bigotted attack.
It's true that Mormon's changed their positions on both polygamy and blacks but so what? Only a dead religion is truely static and its pretty silly to get into a long debate about whether those changes were changes to Mormonism's 'core principles' or not UNLESS one happens to want to get into a deep debate over Mormon theology which would be a little odd on this blog.
Regarding your comments on Romney:
More stupid anti-Mormon bigotry. Where Belz sees wavering on Mormon beliefs on the part of the LDS church leaders is beyond me. Just shows Belz's weakness in finding fault where there is none, just because he WANTS to find fault. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket, with no help from people like Belz who can unfortunately give all evangelicals a bad name with this kind of attitude, and frankly I'm sick and tired of it, and it causes me to despair over the future of our society. I fear for the future of our country when the conservatives who desperately need to be sticking together fight among themselves over petty prejudiced fault-finding and stupid thick-headed negative tendencies to condemn, accuse and bear false witness against ones neighbors, in this case anything or anyone that has anything to do with Mormonism. Just like the athiests, such as Christopher Hitchens, who condemn and find fault with all religion, especially Christianity, and can see nothing good in it, so do people like Belz find fault with Mormonism, and can see nothing good in it. The attitude is the same. Both put blinders on, so to speak, and are quick to criticize and judge things they don't understand, and to second-guess people without even once trying to put themselves in their shoes and to understand them. This is probably a waste of time to write this, as most people who frequent this website are probably of the same mind-set as Belz, but it just really pushes my buttons when people attack my faith, one which has made a huge difference in my life, and one which enhances and enlightens my sensitivity to God's guidance and love for all of His children. We cannot explain everything, and aren't meant to be able to in this life, but we have enough positive assurances and experiences based on our faith in God. To deny those experiences, just because one can't always explain everything, would be a fool's errand, and would be like sacrifice one's birthright for a "mess of pottage". God doesn't give us all the answers for good reason. We have to want to believe in Him, and have to seek after truth, otherwise we won't appreciate it and won't learn to be what we truly desire, not what someone else wants us to be. I try to raise my children to be sensitive to God's guidance, to respect and love others and God, to be good citizens, to be chaste, to be honest, and try to be a good example to them. When someone attacks my faith that teaches these things to me and my children, it bothers me a great deal, and it makes me want to "fix it", as I am a methodical perfectionist who wants to correct error. This same tendency also makes me want to prove and explain everything in life, but I have learned by experience that it is from our spiritual experiences, answers to prayers, practicing what we believe, that we draw closer to God, and these are the things that really change our hearts and make us better people, in other words wisdom is really what makes us better and more capable people, not knowledge: how we use our knowledge, not knowledge in and of itself.
-Phil
A person’s belief system is completely relevant in deciding whether or not to vote for them Mr. Salmon.
Let’s assume you’re pro-life. Let’s assume Candidate Smith is running for office. He’s also pro-life. When asked to explain his pro-life position, Candidate Smith says he became pro-life when two goblins (one green, the other purple) appeared in his room one night and told him he should be pro-life. Because Candidate Smith believes these goblins are messengers from God (or perhaps gods themselves), he informs the public that he does whatever these goblins tell him to do and holds whatever positions they tell him to hold. These goblins (which only he can see) continue to visit him on a semi-weekly basis and offer him political advice. And Candidate Smith states openly that he holds the same beliefs and positions of these goblins. What they tell him to believe, that’s what he believes.
Now, would it be your claim Mr. Salmon that Candidate Smith’s belief system is not AT ALL relevant to whether or not you should vote for him? You and Candidate Smith are both pro-life remember, but you would claim that Candidate Smith’s commitment to the political advice of invisible goblins is not AT ALL relevant to whether you should vote for him?
Your mistake sir is that you fail to draw a distinction between critically examining worldviews and “going after” people. Attacking people simply because they’re Roman Catholic, or because they’re Mormon, or because they’re Protestant, is FAR DIFFERENT than critically examining the particular worldview of a Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Protestant, and evaluating how their convictions may affect their job while in office.
I agree with the Martin Luther quote you provided, but in order to judge whether one is a “wise Turk” or a “foolish Christian” they first have to examine that person’s belief system. That’s not “bigotry” Mr. Salmon, that is wise discernment, and Mr. Carter has shown wise discernment in this area time and again. I disagree with his views on Ron Paul, but he’s not a bigot. And you owe him a retraction and an apology for such an unreasonable and unproven allegation.
Finally, which one of your erroneous statements concerning the sola’s would you like me to deal with first Mr. Salmon, the “ahistorical” claim or the “unbiblical” claim?
With all due respect Phil, please stop your bellyaching. No one is attacking your faith. While your religion is surely false, it’s really your whining that offends me.
Look, the issue is NOT whether there’s anything good in Mormonism. There certainly is much good in Mormonism – although those good things aren’t exclusively Mormon, so it’s more correlation than causation. The issue is whether Mormonism is true or false. And coming to the conclusion that your faith is false and the organization you belong to is a pseudo-Christian cult, and saying so openly, is not attacking you or the organization you represent. Please drop the persecution complex and start to engage the issues openly and honestly.
I respect a Morman's rights to practice their religion, but prefer not to vote for one. Just a preference.
Joe is right, Huckabee is the logical "evangelical" canditate to support. I can't support him because of his foreign and defense policy views. He will only perpetuate the over the top islamo-fascists are storming the gates rhetoric we get from the current administration and some well known evangelical leaders (who should know better).
Boonton:
It's the third element where Congress takes away the power of judicial review from the courts so those harmed by unconstitutional wiretaps have no outlet to sue.
It is more interesting than that.
Judge Andrew Napolitano from Fox News:
Boonton wrote;
Sorry I don't. I'm sure Google can dig into that quote issue better than I can. If I have time today I'll try to dig something better up if you really want me to but I'm not sure I will.
No need, i'm sure you and Andrew are both mistaken about Romney thinking that the Constitution is an inspired document, like Ron Paul has said.
Most of us are probably in agreement with Romney when it comes to the Constitution. Inspirational. Which is completely different from Ron Pauls position.
Inspirational does not equal divinely inspired.
Huckabee is a populist. I don't like populists.
Most of us are probably in agreement with Romney when it comes to the Constitution. Inspirational. Which is completely different from Ron Pauls position.
I take it you're also at odds with the Iowa Christian Coalition? I see this as a lot to do about nothing. I might worry about someone who asserts the Constitution was devinely inspired who acted like that meant infallible but since Ron Paul is on the record as advocating at least one Constitutional Amendment it's pretty clear that isn't the context he is talking about.
In all this talk of Ron Paul here, I'm surprised nobody else is troubled by his racist/white supremacist past.
Please be more specific tgirsch. Also does Rudy get the same criticism for his embrace of anti-American, anti-semite Pat Robertson?
Ron Paul-
"He may be pro-life and pro-marriage, but don’t expect him to do anything if a state like New York or California wants to keep on killing babies -- or if a state like Massachusetts or Oregon wants to perform gay marriages or hand out civil unions."
And rightly so. Are you trying to elect a President or a King?
And Mitt Romney is the new Pete Wilson.
In all this talk of Ron Paul here, I'm surprised nobody else is troubled by his racist/white supremacist past.
Are we missing something? I know of only two lines of reasoning why anyone would think this...
1) The usual kind of "all Republicans" (or all whites) are racist BS
2) Libertarians tend to be fairly honest about their views on race. Conservatives and liberals are usually too politically correct to do so. Liberals either live in fear of political correctness, or alternatively use it as a hammer in ad hominem attacks. Conservatives just whine like babies about how political correctness is holding them down. Libertarians just say what they're thinking and really could give a sh*t about political correctness. Sometimes conservatives and liberals will react in horror at this modus operandi, even though they happen to be thinking the same thing and wish they could say it.
Again, I could be missing something, and maybe Google has let me down, but that's about all I could find about Paul's supposed racism.
Romney took the same position as Thompson on abortion in March. He flipped again in August.
Vowing to support a ban on embryonic stem cells, voting against late-term abortion and cloning seem strange positions for a pro-choice candidate to take. I'm sure NARAL is all set to endorse him in the Republican primary.
Greg Baus emailed me this clarification:
Are we missing something? I know of only two lines of reasoning why anyone would think this...
Wikipedia has the most likely explanation for the Ron Paul = Nazi charge. In 1996 during a tough race it came out that a newsletter he published (the Ron Paul Survival Report) had a lot of 'problematic' statements such as a claim that 95% of all black men in DC were either criminals or 'semi-criminals'. Paul asserted that a ghostwriter had written the newsletter and he did not believe any of the statements but took 'moral responsibility' for it. Two magazines, Texas Monthly and the New York Times Magazine, agreed that Paul's denials were credible since the statements never matched anything in his record as a Congressman.
A more recent accsation has surfaced because one of his numerous internet donators turned out to be a neo-nazi type. Some of his critics have argued that he should return the $500 contribution. I think Andrew Sullivan put it nicely when he said that if Paul should give back a donation that came in off his website then Rudy should renounce the support of Pat Robertson.
Since the writer of the post has declined to tell us what he meant I'm assuming one of these two charges must be what he was thinking about. While I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul I don't think either charge is sufficient to call him a nazi.
Actually, what you have said in not so many words is that you have every intention of supporting people who won't follow the Constitution, when it suits your agenda. You will then cry foul when someone else does the same, with their agenda.
Joe, no offense, but from this point on, if you ever decry something as unconstitutional, you have just become a pure hypocrite.
I did not have time tonight to read through all the comments, but I wanted to add something to the discussion.
On Oct. 27th I went to a Ron Paul meeting in the Cloud Room at the Des Moines Airport. The meeting was intended to be with church leaders. It was not well attended. Since there was a small crowd I was able to ask several questions.
I asked Dr. Paul directly in front of these church leaders about the "divinely Inspired" statement.
While I can not quote him verbatim, his answer was in effect as follows. "I do not believe the Constitution is divinely inspired, that was a poor choice of words. I believe the principles in the Constitution are directly dependent upon Biblical principles, and natural law." " I have been asked numerous times about that statement and wish I had worded it differently, however to change it was impractical so I simply answer the questions, and explain what I meant when someone asks."
Two things I liked about his answer to me. First, he admitted it was a mistake, didn't try to weasel out of it, and second the position he takes is exactly as I believe it should be. The principles of the Constitution are rooted/founded in Scripture and natural law. They have a Biblical foundation.
Joe, where in the Constitution is there any authority for the federal government to be involved in education?? We currently have a president who ignored the Constitution with regards to education, how is Mike H. going to be any different???