GOP Debate
I just finished watching tonight's GOP debate. I'm not going to get into a full and lengthy commentary about the proceedings, but I do want to list a very few simple impressions, beginning with the most powerful impressions and decreasing from there:
1) McCain looked really nervous at all times and robotic at most times. For him being considered as one of the top two GOP contenders, this guy seemed shaky and unsure of anything that he was talking about. He's always seemed comfortable during political interviews and even while entering the Lions' Den like Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. I was really surprised to see how unsure of himself he seemed tonight.
2) I know that you'll think I am biased (and you'd probably be right), but I was incredibly impressed with Huckabee. To be honest, I wasn't expecting to be this pleased with him since I already know all of his positions. However... I was blown away. He was intelligent, humorous, sincere, and continued to back up his record and my favorite aspect of him in saying that he would return to conservative principles of individual responsibility. He emphatically stated something that you've previously heard on this blog and that no other candidate has approached, "Our country isn't great because of its government, it's great because of its people" Also, I was absolutely thrilled to hear him come out on record by saying that "as President, I would support the FairTax." He is one of only two candidates to say so. He also backed up his record in saying that he is a man of faith, but that he respects people that are true to themselves. He respects someone that would say, "I'm an atheist" a lot more than he would support someone saying, "I'm a devout Christian" that hasn't been to church in 20 years.
UPDATE: As I'm typing this, I heard Huckabee on a post-debate interview wishing that he could discuss the FairTax in more detail. You should know that I've been planning a FairTax post for quite some time and just haven't gotten around to it. I'm convinced that it would solve almost every single problem that faces America today. Deficit? Social Security? Unemployment? Global War on Terror? All can be solved by the FairTax. Look forward to more later and I beg you to go to your library and pick up a copy of The FairTax Book.
3) Romney looked sleazy. He said mostly the right things... just seemed slippery while doing it. That's all. Purely subjective. I can't explain it and it may be my prejudged notions coming forth... But he just came off as way too calculated, insincere, and his explanations of recent position switching are coincidentally politically convenient.
4) Giuliani was way too moderate to win. Strong performance though. You know that I disagree with a lot of things in which he believes, so again, I could be biased. His moderate positions would serve him well in the final, general election. However, I don't know how he'll survive the primaries to get that far.
5) Ron Paul - I have always liked his positions but he has not a chance in hell. Besides, he had no charisma or style even though I agree with almost everything he says. He's as close to Libertarian that this GOP primary will see.
6) I would have loved to see Fred Thompson there just so I could compare him to Huckabee's outstanding performance. As you may know from offline discussions, but Fred has started to edge Huckabee recently in my mind. However, this debate has temporarily guaranteed Governor Huckabee's endorsement from The Musings of Milkey. Once Fred becomes an official candidate, there could be some changes around here...
This article is permanently linked here.
6 comments
6 Comments:
Did you see the part where Huckabee admitted that he doesn't believe in evolution? That's completely inexcusable.
There's a pretty good chance he thinks the sun revolves around the earth as well.
Hey Andy, I understand your concern with having a religious nut in the White House. I wouldn't want someone like that either that would legislate and push their religious views on someone else.
Thankfully, Huckabee isn't that guy. He would never pass a law saying that "you can't teach evolution in schools". He's on record with this. Check out this article where he gives more info and discusses that explicitly.
He is only saying that he doesn't believe in a God-less theory of evolution. He believes in a Creator at the beginning of everything.
I know you disagree and that's cool, but I also believe that there is some form of higher power (don't know exactly what that is but I don't think it's 100% exactly what's in the Bible) that put evolution in motion.
I know that there will never be a candidate that anybody agrees with 110%, but I would hope that you would prefer a candidate that will actively work to make America better and keep his personal religious beliefs to himself rather than support someone that isn't religious but has terrible policies that they WILL enact that further run our country into the ground.
(Not saying Huckabee should be your man, just that we need to focus on what candidates will actually do rather than personal beliefs that have nothing to do with Executive powers).
Thanks for the response, Mike.
After our e-mail conversation the other day, I'm much less concerned than I was initially about his policy on church/state separation issues. I'm glad you cleared that up. He seems to take a good approach to it, though I'll remain a bit wary for good measure :)
I saw a clip of the debate and the moderator asked if any of them did not believe in evolution, and he raised his hand. To me, that is him saying that he believes in no evolution, not even set in motion by a creator or whatever. That's troubling (well, both are; the former moreso).
This isn't a good time to discuss the "divine watchmaker" argument, so I'll leave it for now.
Why this incident concerns me has to do with the fact that as chief executive, one's administration directs the nation's policy on all matters, including scientific ones; we currently have a president who thinks "the jury is out" on evolution and the consequence has been an absolutely disastrous national science policy. I don't expect a super science whiz president, but Huckabee seemed to be proudly proclaiming a disbelief of fundamental, basic scientific fact - the basis of all modern biology, in fact. This does not bode well for an improvement and I must dock points for it.
As for your conclusion, of course I agree that you must support the most constructive candidate! However, I've yet to see that ruinous nontheist or his nefarious platform...
And of course I'm trying to focus on what the candidate would do in office. Perhaps the difference between you and me is that I seem to think more than you that a candidate's personal beliefs, especially religious ones, strongly influence the direction of his policies.
To me, that is him saying that he believes in no evolution, not even set in motion by a creator or whatever.
It's a good thing he fully addresses your exact concern in the Boston newspaper article I linked for you. It's so rare to have an explanation from a politician like that that completely answers your question and leaves it so you don't have to interpret anything.
I've yet to see that ruinous nontheist or his nefarious platform...
Good luck finding the nontheist candidate any time soon. I think you're stuck choosing between people that are religious and people that lie about being religious (including one who's hairdo hides her Mark of the Beast birthmark). Here's an interesting question for you: If absolutely everything else was a wash, which of those two categories would you prefer and why?
Every candidate will go on record as havin' some religion. We don't know where everyone stands on whether they would let personal religious beliefs influence policy, but at least we know that Huckabee is on record (and has a long record you can research) of keeping them separate. I don't know of any other candidate that you can say that about.
I [Andy] seem to think more than you that a candidate's personal beliefs, especially religious ones, strongly influence the direction of his policies.
Not at all. I want someone with strong personal beliefs. I want someone that knows who they are. I don't want a wishy-washy person that has to decide once they assume the most powerful job in the entire world what they think about core, fundamental, personal beliefs.
All I ask is that they keep them separate when appropriate, which Huckabee promises to do and has a history of doing.
The more I think about it, the more I think that you should be loving Huckabee on the religious issue over any other person because he's the only person I've seen (and provided you sources) where he says he won't factor in religious beliefs when it comes to making policy. I doubt Hillary would even come right and directly say that in fear of pissing off religious voters (which is a huge, huge majority of people).
It's a good thing he fully addresses your exact concern in the Boston newspaper article I linked for you.
That sarcasm is unnecessary and annoying, Mike. I read the article and he is clearly a proponent of intelligent design (which is not a theory, btw) though not a literal creationist. (Still not good enough for me.) I strongly disagre with his assessment that it's not an important topic for reasons I discussed previously. It's representative.
I think you're stuck choosing between people that are religious and people that lie about being religious ... If absolutely everything else was a wash, which of those two categories would you prefer and why?
I'm so frustrated that this is the choice I'm presented with, but it is indeed the situation.
On principle, and I know this is your view, I would go for the candidate with the most honest, transparent views. In reality, what this policy translates to is me having to vote for an openly devout christian since nontheists cannot currently run successfully. Not fair!
I want the least religious president possible, everything else being equal, and I recognize that such a candidate must pay lip service to the country's religious majority to be electable in today's unreaosnable climate of belief. Thus I must choose the liar as a step towards future secular government.
I think any of the democratic candidates would be relatively strong on church-state separation.
The more I think about it, the more I think that you should be loving Huckabee on the religious issue over any other person because he's the only person I've seen (and provided you sources) where he says he won't factor in religious beliefs when it comes to making policy. I doubt Hillary would even come right and directly say that in fear of pissing off religious voters (which is a huge, huge majority of people).
I do admire Huckabee's honesty, but being a devount minister is still a huge drawback for me. As much as I applaud his stated intentions (and solid history) of working to keep his personal beliefs separate from his policy, christianity nonetheless informs strongly his political positions.
That sarcasm is unnecessary and annoying, Mike
And unintentional. Didn't mean anything to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that you had no need for confusion, unless you think he's lying (which is always suspect with politicians).
As for your answer to my question, let me propose a scenario that continues this interesting dilemma we all face. It's what I think about when saying that I prefer someone that is upfront, honest, and transparent about his/her beliefs and how it would affect their actions.
Scenario:
Suppose the "War" on Terror continues to escalate and three years from now Islamic Fascists are setting off backpack bombs in American malls and stores on a daily basis. The vast majority of Americans, being Christian, relentlessly bombard the President to use some sort of un-wise retaliation or concentration camps in the name of the Christian God. Maybe 90% of the country demands that a law get passed that everyone must publicly convert to Christian/Jewish faith or be imprisoned "for our safety" or some other BS.
I actually believe that someone like Huckabee that has strong convictions about where he stands and has a history to back him up might be more resistant to that pressure than someone who is wishy-washy their whole political life and adopts Christianity or ethnicity depending on the particular campaign stop or most recent poll numbers.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home