Quote:

---

excon agrees: The Dems don't use their religion as a political position. The Republicans do. Can't have it both ways

---

Then why do they so often campaign in church or about their faith ? BarackObama.com | Obama Campaign Announces Iowa Faith Steering Committee

Quote:

---

But Mr. Obama said that religion has a rightful role to play in American politics, and he praised people of faith who he said are now using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the health care crisis and the violence in Darfur.

"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work," he said, speaking before more than 9,000 people at the Hartford Civic Center in front of a red and black backdrop with the church's marketing slogan: "God is still speaking."

---

Quote:

---

"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought,"

---

Hillary Clinton

If Tootsie Pops were an important issue, like religion has become in recent campaigns, the candidates and their campaign people would be handing them out on street corners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In my opinion they were more concerned with "viable" .

---

Which tells me that their real priority is holding onto power, not promoting the principles of good governance.

And they wonder why so many of us don't take them seriously.

Quote:

---

tomder55 agrees:Who?? National Review ?

---

Yes, and the Republican Party whose mouthpiece they are. The conservative principles that matter most to me--Limited but Accountable Government Institutions and Services, Fiscal Responsibility, Individual Liberties Protected From Infringement by the State--have all been systematically trashed by the Republican Party whenever it has been in power ever since 1980. As soon as they came to power, they promptly abandoned the principles of good governance they used to stand for. That's why I don't take them seriously anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Yes, and the Republican Party whose mouthpiece they are. The conservative principles that matter most to me--Limited but Accountable Government Institutions and Services, Fiscal Responsibility, Individual Liberties Protected From Infringement by the State--have all been systematically trashed by the Republican Party whenever it has been in power ever since 1980. As soon as they came to power, they promptly abandoned the principles of good governance they used to stand for. That's why I don't take them seriously anymore.

---

You said it all right there OG. I don't give a damn what they say they stand for since only time will tell what they really stand for... usually when it is too late we find out. Rudy can run New York. Hillary can run her mouth. What a difficult choice.

I think what we're seeing right now is a serious rift in the coalition opening wide for all to see. People I would describe as Bible Christians are embracing Huckabee, who doesn't have the flip-flop history of Romney or the personal baggage of Rudy. The conservative media is uncomfortable with Huckabee because of his heterodox positions on everything but life and family issues, and conservative Catholics are uncomfortable with a new-Earth biblical fundamentalist being the nominee of our party. I fall into the latter group, and am very wary of a candidate who claims a Christian mandate for governance. That strikes me as just as dangerously messianic as the rhetoric Oprah speaks about Obama being "the Truth."

I hate primary politics for exactly this reason: it exposes the discontinuities and conflicts between normally cordial members of the conservative coalition and magnifies them to the point of caricature. Hopefully we come out of this with a candidate that can expand the coalition, not divide it.

EDIT: I didn't mean to categorize Huck's positions as inconsistent. I don't know enough about them to say that. I can say they are heterodox to the conservative media's line on tax policy, national defense and foreign policy &c.

Even Charles Krauthammer sees through the Romney-Huckabee slap fight.

Charles Krauthammer - An Overdose of Public Piety

Quote:

---

It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment, and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.

---

"Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?"

Nope. But will Lieberman's endorsement of McCain make a difference?

Hello, Steve:

You mean Republican Lieberman?? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?"

Nope. But will Lieberman's endorsement of McCain make a difference?

---

I must say that I've always liked Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You mean Republican Lieberman????
excon

---

Yes, well almost. He reminds more of the Democratic views I once knew decades ago, more centrist than liberal. But I never vote on party affiliations anymore and I think more and more Americans are less straight party tickets voters as well.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello, Steve:

You mean Republican Lieberman???? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.

---

The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

I must say that I've always like Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.

---

I like Joe, and I think his endorsement of McCain could have some interesting effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself. :D

---

True. I still don't think he is conservative enough for most Republicans. Although the same could be said of Pres. Bush to a lesser degree, as that was the knock on him that caused some dissension among the base.



Bobby

Necoutous

Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.

I posted on another discussion his disjointed Foreign Affairs essay . It is a diatribe against Bush Administration policies that ,if I didn't know any better,could've been penned by Dennis Kucinich .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...cy-163146.html

Foreign Affairs - America's Priorities in the War on Terror - Michael D. Huckabee

There are also issues that have been exposed about his governance Arkansas ,and questions about everything from his spending and law enforcement priorities.

But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.

---

Personally, I wish this suddenly religious campaign would go away, and should the Huckster or Romney win the nomination I bet it does go away in a hurry - except for selective pandering to the evangelical community. After all these years of the alleged "Bush theocracy" the last thing the GOP needs is a holy war.

Quote:

---

But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .

---

The Huckster has pulled out a Christmas ad, and in his best Max Lucado impersonation tells us "Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? I don't blame you. At this time of years sometimes it's nice to pull aside "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ..."

http://www.foxnews.com/images/330994...bee_xmasad.jpg

Steve ; yeah less about Mormonism and more about how Mitt launched Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority, as well as the Salt Lake City Olympics ;and how that business know-how could be utilized as Chief Executive.

Edit

K-Lo nails the Huckster Kathryn Jean Lopez on Mike Huckabee & 2008 on National Review Online

Quote:

---

Comments on this post
Tomder55 agrees: I can only say that indeed they have been guilty as charged to most of your critique;especially regarding good conservative fiscal management . The option the other party offers is far worse is their only defense. Weak indeed.

---

Not just weak, but completely false.

The deficit was brought under control after the Reagan Binge because the Democratically-controlled Congress adopted and enforced pay-as-you-go budget rules in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This budget process remained in effect throughout both Clinton Administrations. The most recent five-year extension passed in 1997. By the time it expired in 2002, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and could easily have continued it. But they wanted to do a big tax cut without having to reduce spending to offset it, so they let it expire, and predictably, the deficit has ballooned. On the second day of business after the 2006 election (January 4, 2007), the new Democratically controlled Congress re-adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting.

So with regard to budget discipline, it just is not true that "The option the other party offers is far worse". The other party is the only one in the last thirty years to show a shred of fiscal integrity.

Really ? The omnibus budget that Congress just passed added 9000 additional earmarks worth est. 20 billion dollars to the budget . As I recall the Democrats won in 2006 with a promise to reform the earmark process. As far as I can tell all they want to do to fix the budget is to tax us more. You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue . Yes the Republican record on spending was pretty bad but I see the proposals for government expansion coming from the Democrat campaign ;not the Republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue

---

It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise. There is no disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a conservative's view: Townhall.com - The Logicizer

Quote:

---

Yes, federal revenues have been increasing since 2003, but, needless to say (or one would think), that coincidence hardly establishes causation. While some talk show blowhards, politicians and editorial page / op-ed writers persist in contending that the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues, the strong, broad consensus among economists -- including conservative economists and Bush's own current and former top economists -- is to the contrary: The Bush tax cuts have had a net negative impact on revenues (i.e. revenues would have been higher, and would be higher today, if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place).

---

There follows a very long list of quotes from conservative economic luminaries who reiterate the point.

Facts are neither conservative nor liberal, and it is a fact that government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been otherwise. In the absence of spending restraint (not much room for disagreement about that), simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts. So no, tax cuts without spending restraint is not responsible governance. The Supply-Side Dream is dead.

I know what the revenue is . You are countering with theories of how they might have been . I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy and that is why the revenue has increased. Would the recovery had been so dramatic (going into it's 6th year of expansion if the housing bubble bust doesn't slow it down ) ) had there not been the tax cuts ?