TCS Daily

How Huck Can Win

By Lee Harris - November 27, 2007 12:00 AM

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is a former Baptist minister with a hick name, who has received the enthusiastic endorsement of such luminaries as pro wrestler Ric "Nature Boy" Flair and karate expert turned actor Chuck Norris. Huckabee is opposed to gay marriage and civic unions, accepts the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, and he thinks that creationism should be taught in the school. For understandable reasons, he is popular among conservative Christians, especially in the South. Newt Gingrich has called Huckabee "the most interesting dark horse" in the current race for the Presidency, and recent polls have shown that he may well have a good chance of beating out Mitt Romney in both Iowa and New Hampshire, despite the fact that Romney has vastly outspent Huckabee. If Huckabee can pull off an upset in these two states, he will be a figure to be taken seriously. The question is, Is this bad news or good news?

For Christian fundamentalists, it will obviously be good news: support for Huckabee requires no morally debilitating equivocation. A person who believes that abortion is wrong can vote for someone who shares and supports his own view. Such a voter will not need to explain his vote to himself, his community, or his God. In his fight for his party's nomination, Huckabee will attract many voters who might vote for Attila the Hun on election day, in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, but who, without Huckabee on the ticket, would simply sit out the primary. Thus, a Huckabee surge in Iowa and New Hampshire could make Giuliani seem less "inevitable" in a race where the mere appearance of inevitability may well be a candidate's greatest asset. Americans, who don't mind wasting anything else, don't like to waste their votes, and will often hold their nose to vote for an unpalatable sure thing; but if Christian fundamentalists think that they may have a real winner in a man who believes in everything they believe in, the Republican party may find itself in the middle of the world's biggest tent revival.

Against this scenario it may be objected that a strong showing in Iowa by Huckabee would at best be a replay of the Pat Robertson's second-place finish in that state's 1988 primary: a religious conservative wins in a religiously conservative state, but goes on to defeat in subsequent primaries. But this objection overlooks a number of important considerations. First, Robertson's opponent in 1988 was the incumbent Vice-President George Bush. In 2007, in contrast, the Republican to beat supports both abortion and gay rights. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Robertson and Huckabee represent wholly different styles of Christian fundamentalism. Robertson, to put it bluntly, scared people; Huckabee doesn't.

Of course, for many Americans, all Christian fundamentalists are pretty scary. In certain enlightened circles today, Christian fundamentalists are looked upon as "our" fanatics, and it is unlikely that those who hold this point of view could ever accept a former Southern Baptist minister as a candidate for Presidency—but then, how many who hold these views will be tempted to vote for any Republican in the first place? So the real question for Huckabee is a simple one: Can he persuade people who are not Christian fundamentalists to support him?

There are two ways Huckabee could win such support. First, he could get people to vote for him despite the fact that he was once a Southern Baptist minister, just as many people support Mitt Romney despite the fact that he is a Mormon—or, going back to an earlier analogy, the way many people voted for John F. Kennedy despite his Catholicism. But there is another possible way: Huckabee could win over people who are not themselves Christian fundamentalists, but who are deeply convinced that at this point in history we need a leader who sees the world in starkly, perhaps even simplistic, moral terms, as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil.

Lee Harris is author of The Suicide of Reason and Civilization and Its Enemies.



Huckabee can win the nomination and the race. But what happens afterwards?
After every one of the Republican debates, you will see somebody asking people which candidate surprised/impressed them the most, and each and every time, the answer is: "Mike Huckabee." He almost always has the best laugh lines. He is generally one of the first to counterattack when designated buffoon Ron Paul starts spewing his isolationist drivel.

He has Charisma, with a capital 'C,' and his climbing poll numbers prove it. Every time the man speaks, even in hostile environments, he gains new adherents. He has Ronald Reagan's ability to clearly communicate a message and savage his enemies while sounding friendly and approachable.

The problem is, he does not believe what Ronald Reagan did. As a former fat man, he has made it clear he wants to go after fatty foods, smoking and lack of exercise with the zeal of a convert. He is a protectionist, and is proposing some of the biggest tariffs we have seen since Smoot-Hawley on China. These two questions alone are enough to make me want to vote for somebody else. The phrases "nanny state" and "Great Depression" mean a lot to me, and none of it is good.

On the other hand, he is a backer of the Fair Tax. He is pro-life, distinctly pro-gun, and I have very little doubt that he will both be able to make the case for the War on Terror, but be willing to do so.

Compared to Hillary or Obama, Mike Huckabee is a superstar, and I have no doubt that he would crush them. Compared to most of the other Republicans, Mike Huckabee is, in my opinion, more likely to win. He is also more likely to do some insanely stupid things like start a trade war with a fifth of the people on this planet.

Can't we find a Baptist minister who has read The Road to Serfdom or Basic Economics?

No way! The Guy is a Tax and Spend Big Government Sell-out worse than even Bush
Have any of you looked into this guy's record on taxes?

Bob Novak sums it up just fine in yesterday's op-ed:

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

Read it all at:

Whereas, Rudy HAS a proven record of cutting taxes..again and again.

Then again, I'm not into conservatism because of the social issues as much as the economic ones, I admit.

Zyndryl - - Ever Heard of the FairTax? And you trusted the Novak Piece? You are in the minority...
Bob Novak has slowly marginalized himself through the years to where he finally has become irrelevant.
See the following:
Novak, the Fake Journalist

The only thing that Robert Novak's article, "The False Conservative", proves is that Novak has apparently mastered the 'copy and paste' function on his keyboard. No journalistic digging and reporting, only repetition of rants by Arkansas discontents and organizations who feel their power threatened.

Christian fundamentalists for Prez
I'm sure most of the US enemies and many of it's not so close friends would love to see another religious nut in the Whitehouse. With China trying everything to close the technology gap what more could they ask for but a anti-science type like this in the Whitehouse.

As opposed to what, a intellectual giants like Hillary or Edwards?

Yes, like those who support AGW 'science'?
If you believe Al Gore, then you ARE just as 'anti-science'.

Something for everyone
Zyndryl is right: Huckabee's problem is that on the basis of his past record, he offers fiscal conservatives nothing, or worse, everything they don't want, such as the expansion of the federal welfare state, profligate spending, unsustainable budget deficits on top of unfunded future entitlement liabilities, higher tax rates and broader tax bases, and in sum - the further erosion of America's economic freedom.

Therefore, fiscal conservatives will stay home on election day rather than vote for a candidate, Huckabee, who will do the very same things in office that his Democrat opponent will do. Worse, the same holds true with respect to Guiliani and social conservatives.

The Republicans find themselves in dire straights, as I see it.

and what's wrong with that?
to the far left, anyone who doesn't agree with them qualifies as a nutcase.

Since when are Christians Anti-Science?
Since when are Christians antiscience? Thats a new one to me since I live in the 4th most high technology city in the US which also resides smack in the middle of the bible belt. I cannot even count the number of engineers and PhD's I know that are devoutly religious. Some top experts in some very hard core science. This ignores the fact I am also a scientist and Christian.

In fact, I will argue science without moral guidance is dangerous. Can we say Iran? Nazi Germany?

I think you need a lesson, as does Bob Jones, in Christian ethos. First and foremost in it is free will. Christianity is predicated on free will, as in it is all about choices.

The real objection I suspect is that reigious people see ethical and moral issues as absolutes and inviolate while the people like you? and Bob Jones see things in relative terms. The problem with moral relativity is that what is you reference point? If you have no compass and no anchor point then your essentially changing your views relative to pop culture. I think the results are obvious in todays society.

The intolerance of the left
There is something in the mindset of most liberals that requires them to believe that people they disagree with arren't just wrong, or even mistaken. They are evil, and they must be destroyed.

Hence if you disagree with research on embryos, it can't possibly be because you have moral qualms about such research, it's because you are anti-science.

If you disagree that CO2 is going to kill us all, it's not because you look at the evidence differently, it's because you are in the pay of BIG OIL (tm).

BTW, I believe it's the Calvinists who believe that everything is predestined, and hence free-will doesn't come into play. (My view: Just because God knows in advance what decision you will make, doesn't disprove that you have free will.)

**** Morris reaches the opposite conclusion

During the time when Arkansas tax burden was going up 47%, the average for the all states was closer to 100%.

He put a tax surcharge on high earners, but when the economy improved, he fought (and won) to have the surcharge repealed.

The left is anti-science
It turns out we Christians were right to trust science to come up with an alternative to cloning humans to harvest their cells for research, if the latest news on stem cell research turns out to be correct. Check out this link, all you leftists who think Christians are not on the side of science:

It also turns out that the left is against science in many ways, such as new weapons and surveillance technologies and GM foods. Shall we call the left the new Flat Earth Society?

Not just free will
Knowing good and evil is knowing the difference between the state that is and the state that should be, which knowledge implies the ability and freedom to characterize states as good or evil as utility dictates, and knowing how to get from one state to the other. Therefore, Christianity is not only about choice, but also the purposeful application of choice to some end derrived by referrence to the freely characterized nature of things. In other words, it's up to individuals to decide what's good and bad for them and how to get from a bad pass to a good one.

As you've correctly stated, moral relativism is infernally dangerous because it negates commonly-held and agreed characterizations of good and evil arrived at both through convention and reason, which characterizations would otherwise limit the individual's assessment of both the character of various states as well as the actions required to move from one to the other.

This is why the moral relativist sees no problem with cloning human embryos to later destroy them and harvest their cells for scientific research: Doing evil that good may result presents no moral dilemma to them, requiring no balancing of costs against gains. The human resulting from moral relativism becomes a monster, seeing nothing more than his immediate utility regardless of the irreperable harm he causes others, and the resulting scientist doubly so for his access to Pandora's Box and his itch to open it.

Some interesting problems
"In fact, I will argue science without moral guidance is dangerous. Can we say Iran? Nazi Germany?"

Kindly explain to me just how Iran is not religious. Some would argue that Iran's problem is that it has too much of it and that the nation constitutes a theocracy.

"Christianity is predicated on free will, as in it is all about choices."

More rubbish. Protestant christianity is based on the doctrine of predestinarianism. The further away a sect is from Catholicism and the doctrine of good works, the more predestinarian a sect is. Hence, free will has a diminishing role in christianity.

"The real objection I suspect is that religious people see ethical and moral issues as absolutes and inviolate"

More utter garbage. Anthropological evidence has been clear for over a century that morality has nothing to do with and long predates anything resembling established modern religion. This is the perpetual propaganda of the true believers, that only religion is the defence of civilization against immorality.

As to moral absolutes, ever heard of such charming fellows as Pope Innocent VIII, Alexander VI or John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury? More recent? Let me introduce you to the Rev, Jim Bakker, Rev. Peter Popoff, Rev. Jimmy Swaggert and the kingpin of moral relativists Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Seems to me a whole lot of "do as I say, not as I do" going on here. Quite rightly the leaders of the green religion have been pilloried for their hypocrisy about their claimed creed but they're doing nothing more than was entrenched long ago in established religions.

I would remind you that every one of the 9/11 terrorists was devoutly religious. What drove them to kill 3000 Americans? Religious fanaticism. Got the picture loud and clear now? Religion, the social virus making us get our moral instruction from some supposed higher authority, is a lethal disease.

Not really
The Socialists have their own set of idiotic beliefs but so do "you christians". Flat Earth Society? The religious fundamentalists already laid first claim to that prize with Intelligent Design.

Marginalized? And who are those folks?
1) The first link you sent is just a forum like this one. Big deal. Worse, its a evangelical fundamentalist one at that. (more on that later)

2) The second appears to be written by a nobody (at least Novak is a 'somebody'). While I appreciate the counter points of that article, I also don't have the time to check to see if they weren't just made up.

However, after reading the other comments in response to this, I am willing to admit that my initial take on these facts might not be accurate.

HOWEVER, I won't vote for a evangelical christian fundamentalist even if Joseph Stalin himself was resurrected and running on the other ticket. The fundamentalists have their place in electing conservatives, but they should not BE elected, in my more libertarian-than-social-conservative view.

When the economy 'improved'?
In order to improve economic growth and get MORE in tax revenues, you CUT taxes on the high earners, not increase them. Works EVERY time it is properly done.

So, I am sorry. Just as I don't want some witch doctor applying leaches to me to 'cure' my high blood pressure only to see him 'fight and win' against the the 'consensus' to repeal use of that treatment after my blood pressure goes down because I exercised and lost weight, I sure as hell don't want that Huckabee in the White House to inflict similar damage.

And another thing...
It's easy to advocate for a Fair Tax that has NO chance of being passed by Congress in a cynical attempt to hide one's lack of bonafides in BEING an actual small government leader - like Huckabee is blatantly doing.

And YES, the Fair Tax doesn't have a chance in hell of being passed or implemented, except for in name only. Huckabee knows this. The odds of aliens landing on the White House lawn in front of the news cameras or a communist revolution in this country happening are greater -- way greater.

So, all of you who want to diss me on that position, forget it: You are -- to paraphrase a term from the Left -- 'Reality Deniers' of the first order. So, if you start a major thread on this (thus sucking up IP packets better used by somebody watching online porn or buying futures in homebuilder stocks) and wonder why I don't bother to respond, its because I've stated my position right here and now. I'm not going to get into the mud with the Useful Idiots over this one, that's for sure. Not this time.

Fact: The Fair Tax is NEVER going to happen. The political efficacy of actually implementing the Fair Tax is more fantasy & fiction than 'Alice in Wonderland' or the actual truth told in a presidential debate involving Hillary is. Get over it.

- A Recovering Fair Tax Supporter Who Got Mugged By Reality

Yes, really, Mustapha.
"All our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook." ~ World Controller Mustapha Mond, 'Brave New World'

As long as their "science" can like that, then the Left are all for it.

But, not otherwise. Just ask Al Gore.

After all, the Left IS doing all it can to bring about the Brave New World.

more than one layer
When Bush cut taxes, the economy of the US as a whole improved. Missouri is part of the US. Therefore the economy of Missouri improved, even though missouri taxes weren't cut.

Your objections to Huckabee are based on misconceptions and untruths.

protestants are all over the board on the subject of predestination.

do you even know what intelligent design is
if you answer creationism, then you obviously have never studied it, just gave a knee jerk rejection.

You didn't disprove my position
..which was: ANY politician who doesn't understand the basic concept of 'cut taxes on investment and risk = more economic growth and tax revenue' is not a Rep or a Libertarian candidate.

That is regardless of what else said politician might do otherwise.

And that is not an objection based upon misconceptions and untruths. That's a fact.

Here's another truth: Huckabee is a Big Government Nanny State Christian Wacko Fundamentalist. Bush's behaving the same way (No Child Left Behind instead of just abolishing the Dept of Education, Medicare's new Drug Entitlement, etc.) is what peeves me off royally about him, too.

Not creationism, just something that becomes really absurd when you follow it to its logical conclus

What logical conclusion?
Take me through the logical calculus, Zyndryl. I don't find Flying Spaghetti Monsters even remotely illustrative or meaningful.

Or, we could kibbutz and klatsch about Darwinism, which till now has been founded on a boneheaded illogical assumption that man emerged from an unbroken line of monkey mutations. This flawed assumption arose from the theory itself, which secularists enthusiastically accepted without parsing its logic or subjecting the same to probabilistic scrutiny.

This brings us round to Mark's point: Darwinism is blind orthodoxy beating its head against a wall. Why not use that head to analyze the wall instead?

Rubbish begets rubbish
"More rubbish. Protestant christianity is based on the doctrine of predestinarianism. The further away a sect is from Catholicism and the doctrine of good works, the more predestinarian a sect is. Hence, free will has a diminishing role in christianity."

If time is virtual, that is, a cognitive perception rather than a physical force, field or dimension, then both free will and predestination coexist. Therefore, there's no getting away from free will whether you're Catholic or Calvinist.

"More utter garbage. Anthropological evidence has been clear for over a century that morality has nothing to do with and long predates anything resembling established modern religion. This is the perpetual propaganda of the true believers, that only religion is the defence of civilization against immorality."

Moral philosophers instruct us that morality arises from convention and reason, with a resulting necessary tension between the two. Moral commands deriving from religion rely heavily on convention for their authority, which is why I suspect secularists despise religion. But the secularists have given us little or no reasoned moral commands in exchange for our conventions (cf. Peter Singer), instead introducing mankind to the moral magnificence of eugenics, partial birth abortion, death camps and radical socialism. Hence, given a full account of these things, any reasonable man would hew to moral convention and reject unfettered moral experimentation, or better put, honor his father and mother. Capice?

"Seems to me a whole lot of "do as I say, not as I do" going on here. Quite rightly the leaders of the green religion have been pilloried for their hypocrisy about their claimed creed but they're doing nothing more than was entrenched long ago in established religions."

Two wrongs make a right? That's the kind of inspired moral reasoning we've come to expect from secularists.

"I would remind you that every one of the 9/11 terrorists was devoutly religious. What drove them to kill 3000 Americans? Religious fanaticism. Got the picture loud and clear now? Religion, the social virus making us get our moral instruction from some supposed higher authority, is a lethal disease."

How does one segregate duly enacted laws from the social viruses making us get our moral instruction from some supposed higher authority? Who's to say that the death camp guard, who was merely obeying the law, was not blameless? Is it always right to do what one has a legal right or obligation to do?

See, it's the painfully obvious tendency of secularists to embrace one-dimensional moral reasoning that prevents them from offering humanity a moral philosophy more attractive than the religious moral conventions it favors. So why not spend more time at the drawing board and less time ridiculing your superiors?

Since you didn't prove that Huckabee takes that position, why should I disprove it

I see you don't know what you are talking about. Again.
If you don't know the first thing about your opponents position, how can you possibly declare it to be wrong?

I disagree
I couldn't disagree with the premise of this article more.

President Bush is a guy who sees things in "starkly, perhaps even simplistic, moral terms..."

And he's exceptionally unpopular.

The last thing the GOP needs is another nominee who is a social conservative but not an economic conservative. Indeed, Huckabee would likely be even worse than Bush on economic issues.

A large part of the disaster for the GOP (and for the country) was the GOP's losing any focus on fiscal responsibility, tax cutting, spending restraint, etc.

Huckabee is no cure for that disease.

As a reporter from Arkansas said on the radio yesterday, Huckbaee is likable on first glance, but he's much less interesting upon getting to know more about him.

Not black & white
Mike is an interesting fellow but, alas, would never be able to get past being an intellectual cartoon. If only the world were cast in black and white, but its not. While he, at least, said the some of the bible was allegorical, he cannot get past his past. Creationism? More like cretinism. Any Democrat would skewer him on this and the blogs would have a field day mocking him. Think of YouTube, Daily Cos, MoveOn etc. And worse, think of Leno. He would be almost as roundly mocked as Romney, should he emerge. And no one is going to elect a little guy with big ears and a squeaky voice (think Perot) so that sort of leaves the GOP with a hard-edged New Yorker with baggage. Yikes.

wrong on two counts
The media portray Bush as seeing things in "starkly, perhaps even simplistic, moral terms..."

Those who actually know the man, say just the opposite.

You are also presuming that Bush is unpopular because the media portray him as a man that sees things in "starkly, perhaps even simplistic, moral terms...".

Reagan was also a man whom the media protrayed as seeing things in "starkly, perhaps even simplistic, moral terms...", remember the evil empire comments?
Reagan, on the other hand, was much more popular during his administration.

Whether it be God, the Spaghetti Monster, the Flying Nun, etc. its all the same thing -- putting irrational belief in some supreme being behind/involved in creating life and using it as a de facto backdoor attempt at shoveling such illogic to the kiddies at school.

Engaging in illogical fantasy myths is what liberals & the characters of Battlestar Galactica do. And just as I don't want to live on some commie Animal Farm, I don't want to live in your Repubic of Gilead(1), either.

1) From The Handmade's Tale

Because I didn't prove it -- YOU did
Please, please try to torture less those of us who have basic comprehension skills? I refer specifically to taking what you say in context to the entire thread as opposed to it being just some momentary memetic burst devoid of relationship to what was previously written (both by you and others) on the thread, which is what you seem to be doing.

Here, let me break this down for you in case you don't quite grasp what I am saying in the above:

1) You contend that I am wrong in my take that Huckabee lacks proper bonafides in being a small government conservative. As way of proof, you then contradict yourself by stating that he RAISED taxes on high earners just like Charlie Rangel is currently proposing.

2) I point out the above logical error. You don't either understand what I wrote or just don't see it. Either way, by letting your contradiction stand YOU leave proof that I was correct all along.

3) I give you the 'leeches' analogy to make it simpler for you to grasp. You still don't get it.

4) Then, somewhere in there you also state that the Bush tax cuts allowed Huck to eliminate the surtaxes. By the logic you yourself are proposing, then you are also stating the the converse is true: If the economy didn't improve because of the BUSH (not Huckabee) tax cuts, then those surtaxes would not have been removed. THAT only proves my point even more -- that Huck is no small government conservative.

5) I do see where I was wrong: I should have titled one of the subject lines "You didn't disprove my position" to "You keep PROVING my position" or something similar instead. It would have been more clear, I think. Tsk, tsk..I have to work on my 'dumbing down my writing so fools can understand it' skills again.

6) And then you bring up Missouri in the context of the Bush tax cuts when we've been talking about Arkansas' economy under the Huckabee tax hikes. Besides, even if the same outcome that you mention affected Arkansas the same way it only proves that it happened DESPITE Huckabee BEING a tax hiker. That's like saying that someone stupidly walking into the wrong street in Iraq didn't get shot due to some incorrectly implied skill/action of that person in dodging the bullet when in fact it was because the sniper was too busy reloading his gun at the time.

7) Finally, all of the above also relates to this claim of yours "Your objections to Huckabee are based on misconceptions and untruths." -- in that I agree, since I'm getting those misconception from context of what you've been writing.

So, I'd like to give you some advice: Don't drive while drunk, don't go to prison (or vote for Mike Huckabee) w/o bringing your own K-Y Jelly and don't post on forums while not paying attention to the context of what has been written before and/or while you are not lobotimized.

How about Giuliani?
I don't like his gay stuff. But I guess, he is the only one who could defeat Clinton in many important states like California, NY, etc.

Because it is not about that at all. It is about you being naive.
Here. Let us look at the cast of characters in Animal Farm mapped to those of in this forum as illustrative of where the logical conclusion I refer to are:

Snowball/Trotsky (MarkTheGreat,robertbennet,scientists who actually study climate): These are the intellectuals who get together to discuss the purely abstract merits of their cause celebre in a good faith attempt at keeping it within the realm of intellectual honesty. So far so good? The problem is that they think that the actions of the Napoleans are not of concern to such pursuits when in fact they are. They also are clueless to reality when trying to implement actions based upon their intellectual pursuits. They usually end up with a bullet in their brains while in exile in Mexico City.

Napolean/Lenin (Hillary, Huckabee, Al Bore): These are the power mad folks who hijack Snowball's cause and send Snowball packing for Mexico City. But, they continue to use the intellectual works of the Snowballs as cover to further their power grabbing agenda - which in practice bears little resemblance to what Snowball ever wanted. The rest of us suffer as a result. Therefore, the rest of us are more than justified to identify the 'movement' with these tyrants despite the splitted hair entreaties of the Snowball Useful Idiots trying to salvage the situation.

The rest of us (the horse sent to the clue factory, the peasant farmers resisting collectivization sent to Siberia, the taxpayer-to-be-screwed-over by the Global Warming crowd and those of us who don't want our kids indoctrinated by the religious fundamentalist under the cover of 'Intelligent Design'): Nuff said

So, you guys can debate the merits all you want. But the Church of the Spaghetti Monster has already been established and the rest of us with our heads grounded on Planet Earth have to deal with it. Therefore, don't expect us to take you seriously or even waste our time with you naive enablers of the forces we must oppose.

Is that 'logically conclusive' enough for you? Note: you may DISAGREE with it. You may be offended even by my characterizations of your role. But, what I am asking if you UNDERSTAND my position since, as per the context of this thread, that is what I comprehend what you write to be the issue at hand.

I'm afraid you lost me ...
... because you're train of thought derailed about two posts back. I suspect that this is why you peasant farmers complacently allow the Snowballs to do your thinking for you while compliantly grabbing your ankles to facilitate the Napoleans' rogering of you. How is it, again, that you've earned your own self-pity? Good thing that your ilk can at least knit warm sweaters.

Come on, Zyndryl, grow up. The natural, physical universe needs abstract proofs just as much as the abstract, cognitive universe needs natural, physical proofs. It's a team, get it? Without abstract thought, the peasant farmers would still be harvesting fleas off each others' scruffy napes in dank, smoky caves. And without the peasant farmers, the Snowballs would still be scratching itchy patterns on cave walls.

QED, it's the Napoleans we can all do without (except the Napoleans, of course), and it's fine by me if you peasants rise up en masse and exile them to Mexico City to put a bullet in their heads, although I recommend you do the latter first to cut costs (freight carriage is cheaper than passenger). But please, keep the noise down, and do start at a decent hour; a good lie conduces thought.

Maybe you need to go buy a history book?
First, I was talking post-reformation in the US. Second, I was speaking soley of Christianity, not Islam or a theocratic state. Were not talking inquisitions here.

You speak of 9-11 and religious fanatics, perhaps you need a history lesson. Was the US founded by agnostics? Perhaps but it has persisited. Read George Washington's Thanksgiving Address or the founding documents for that matter.

They are filled with references to God. The entire concept of the Free state, ie the United States, was predicated upon both Christian thought and Free Will.
In essence your arguing the entire premise of US existance is a viral outcome.

If you read the teachings of Christ you will see that it is about choices. Islam is not about choices, in fact, Isalm means submission.

As a conservative politically I am diametrically opposed to anything but free will. However, free will must be mitigated by a higer moral authority, not by force, but by the realization that is is a pathway to a better and more rewarding life.

Without the mitigation of a moral foundation (absolute) we have anarchy.

Is this what you advocating?

I have included GW eloquent address below.

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

Dribble, this is dribble seething with ignorant hatred.

There is no conflict with science and Christianity except in your mind. I know several devoute Christians who are a top scientist in specialized fields. You will find many physcians are very religious.

Explain how that is possible in your narrow views?

I don't even think God knows in advance.
Call me odd but I think we truly have free will in that we are really God's children, just like we have children, and that we make choices. Like a father, he presents arguments that are the right path and we choose, imperfect as we are.

Call me narrow, but if life is predetermined, whats the point?

It is like Revalation, it is a warning, not a destiny?

your the one who claimed that Huckabee is a big spending, big govt liberal
nothing you have written supports such a claim.

You know nothing about the details of why and how Huckabee came to sign a surtax on high earners, and you give him no credit for fighting to get it repealed as soon as circumstances permitted.

Finally, if you don't think that the state of the national economy has an impact on state economies, then I am really embarrased for your public school school teachers.

advance knowledge
By definition God is omniscient. With omniscience comes the ability to make perfect predictions. On anything.

I agree, your belief system is quite simple minded
So you take it for granted that any belief in the supernatural is irrational.

Thank you for demonstrating that your entire belief system is founded on intolerance and an inability to think.

Please use logic
To your three points:

1) He IS a sellout. ANY Republican that imposes a surtax EVER is a sellout to the Nanny State (except in times of war or other real emergency). It is not my fault that such selling out is AOK for you. It is not for me or the vast majority of fiscally conservative primary voters. It certainly is not for libertarians.

2) Details doesn't matter. He sold out, period. If he was a TRUE small government conservative, he'd let the entire state government SHUT DOWN before caving into the legislature. He would have demanded wholesale slashing of government departments, privatization of state assets (like the highways), etc BEFORE EVER imposing more taxes. Anything else is a bipartisan date-rape on conservative values. I get enough of that from Gov SchwarzenKennedy, so why should I accept that from Huckabee? This IS the Republican primary here, so as a primary voter I should try to get the candidate that best conforms to the conservative ideal. In the general election and afterwards, sure the candidate can renege. I can't control that as much, true. But that doesn't mean I should settle for less.

3) I never said that the national economy doesn't have an impact on state economies. Once again, you need to learn to READ. In fact, the state economies add up to BE the national economy. What I do have problem with is that being an excuse for a Republican governor to impose surtaxes while he tries to claim he's a small government conservative.

In short, you seem to think all of this is acceptable for a small government type. For example, in one of your statements you state that Arkansas' taxes went up only 47% or so compared to other states' tax burdens going up 100%. Let's say you get sent to prison. You show up in the prison yard and within five minutes two gang leaders approach you. Gang Leader #1 says, "Join me and you'll get raped only 47% of the time." Gang Leader #2 says, "While I can't guarantee you don't get rapes, if you join my gang we'll try to keep it down to ZERO percent." Which gang you going to join?

Excuse me
But if you had actually read what I wrote and applied basic comprehension skills, you would know that I simply stated that I don't want those beliefs imposed on me or in public policies that impact me. Did I advocate stopping you from being a fool? No. You are entitled to believe that crap all you want. Furthermore, you are also entitled to think less of me because what I believe.

That is not 'intolerance' but freedom. And your last statement proves you are the one who is intolerant of others' views.

you lost me because..'re too stuck in your ivory tower, I suspect.

The Napoleans are the symptoms, not the cause. To deal with the cause we need to disarm the Napoleans of the well-meaning, but hopelessly lost intellectual fools who provide them with the ammo to do what they do. After all, there will ALWAYS be Napolean-wannabes ready to replace the real ones. So, your logic is a bit flawed.

But I am used to flawed logic from religious nutjobs. Esp the ones who equate their theology as 'abstract thought' that got rid of the fleas. That was science that did that DESPITE being opposed by the intelligent design folks of their day.

Do try to push your sermons on a crowd that actually cares.

Care about facts ...
... such as the fact that Napoleans actually did and do exist, and that you peasant farmers provide them with the ammo to do what they do, both in the form of bullets, butter, and the gullibility required to don funny armbands and crowd olympic stadiums to scream approval at populist promises. Please do tell me which Mao, Stalin or OBL hasn't exploited peasent ignorance as cannon or bombvest fodder?

Religious nutjob, eh? When the ad-hominems start flying, so do the bullets. Too bad for the peasant farmers, who usually find themselves in the ballista's way. Why aren't you helping these folks out, Zyndryl? I certainly want to. That's why I propose a Gospel possessed of the power to change the world without demanding the human sacrifice of peasant farmers.

Want to sign on?

Those guys in San Francisco that dress up...
like women might think he looks 'cute' in a dress & vote for him. Otherwise he wouldn't have much of that much of a chance in California. Why do you think he would be the only one who could defeat Clinton? He'd be even worse 'big spender' President than she would if elected. That would be a scary choice if it came down to those two!

Sorry, but 'religious nutjob' was use of accurate terminology, not ad hominems
No, I don't want to sign up to your Republic of Gilead any more than I want to sign up for Animal Farm or Al Gore's version of Ecotopia, as I state several times previously.

I'd like to live in a rational society that is not governed by myths and dogma proven to be such. rips Huckabee's fiscal claims
From the Summary:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been hit with criticism over his record on taxes as governor of Arkansas. The faultfinders have been members of his own party, who take issue with tax increases he enacted. In recent interviews on Fox News, Huckabee responded to some of these questions, but we found him to be misleading and incorrect on several points:

* Huckabee claimed that a speech in which he implored the state Legislature to raise taxes was in response to a state Supreme Court order to increase education funding. But he specifically said in that speech that he would address the education matter at a later date.
* He said a tax on beds filled in nursing homes was a "fee" not a tax, despite the fact that he himself has called it the "bed tax."
* Huckabee claimed a gasoline tax was only passed after 80 percent of voters approved it. Not true. The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs.
* He frequently says he cut taxes "almost 94 times" but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure. In the end, he presided over a net tax increase.

And The Club For Growth has a web site dedicated to exposing Huckabee's fraudulent 'fiscal conservative' record as well:

TCS Daily Archives