See update at bottom: Scarborough nails Shuster on Huck/Obama double-standard.
If a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, does Mike Huckabee's sweet way with a word make tolerable views that would be rejected as extreme in the mouths of others less verbally gifted?
That's Willie Geist's view of the matter. The genius of the Morning Joe panelist normally resides in his ability to avoid the controversial while remaining interesting. But the anodyne-if-endearing Geist went out of character in today's opening segment on the subject of Mike Huckabee. And he did so in a manner the former Baptist preacher might not find so fetching.
The subject was a speech Huckabee gave yesterday in which he advocated changing the Constitution to adapt to the word of God.
View video here.
WILLIE GEIST: Talking about God and the Constitution, Mika. Governor Mike Huckabee.
Cut to clip of Huckabee addressing an audience.
MIKE HUCKABEE: I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it's in God standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
After some [presumably facetious] banter about Mika's acceptance of the stricture that wives be subservient to their husbands, Willie was ready to move on, when host Joe Scarborough chose to make a serious point.
JOE SCARBOROUGH [with some trepidation]: I got to stop there. I will say, and I think it is interesting, and I think we should comment on it -- just in passing -- he's our friend, Mike Huckabee is our friend, and I have always been the first guy to say that evangelicals should be able to talk politics just like liberals should be able to go into churches and talk politics. I will say that some might find that statement very troubling: that we are going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible, and that's all I'm going to say.GEIST: And isn't it interesting that Mike Huckabee, because of his charm --
SCARBOROUGH: Well I'm going to say one more thing: render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and onto God that which is God's. Let us worry about the spiritual on one side -- anyway, go ahead.
GEIST: Let's imagine someone else saying that, someone without his charm and his personality. He'd be dismissed as a crackpot, wouldn't he? But he's Mike Huckabee and he's basically the frontrunner.
SCARBOROUGH: I like him. God help me, I like him.
GEIST: Amazing. One quick note before we get to Mika's news --
SCARBOROUGH: Actually, seriously, I just have to say, seriously. That is more of a reach, more of, I think liberals would say, a breach of the line separating church and state, than Mike Huckabee has --
GEIST: I guess. To change the Constitution --
SCARBOROUGH: To be in line with the word of God.
GEIST: You might say that. You might say that.
Nothing is unconstitutional, of course, if the Constitution is amended to permit it. Still . . .
Update 8:45 AM ET | Scarborough Backs Shuster Down on Double-Standard
When during the 6:30 AM ET half-hour David Shuster criticized Huckabee for "demeaning" religion by injecting it into politics, Scarborough nailed him for his hypocrisy in not pointing out how Obama had done something very similar, going into a church to preach his political word. So successfully did Scarborough corner Shuster that the MSNBC "correspondent," as shown here, literally threw up his hands and admitted he'd been "boxed-in."
View video here.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberals vs Common Sense
January 15, 2008 - 07:41 ET by DCC1The problem isn't that the constitution isn't inline Biblically, because it pretty much is, it's that through the doctrine of the "living constitution" liberals have managed to twist every word, and come up with ideas that our founding fathers never would have dreamed could be possible in the USA, like one man getting married to another...come one I doubt they ever even thought of that. If we could just get back to a strict literal translation of the constitution and use some common sense where it doesn't specifically say we would be alright.
The real problem lies in liberals using common sense.
I disagree, DCC1 Huckabee
January 15, 2008 - 08:51 ET by motherbeltI disagree, DCC1 Huckabee actually said (emphasis mine) we should "amend the constitution so that it's in line with God's standards." (I'm guessing he's referring to abortion and same-sex "marriage.") That's a pretty loaded statement, and one that's going to get him into trouble.
GEIST: Let's imagine someone else saying that, someone without his
charm and his personality. He'd be dismissed as a crackpot, wouldn't
he?
I don't find that particularly offensive...and I actually think Geist
was right. If Huckabee were more of a "fire and brimstone" type, he
would certainly be called a "crackpot" for saying what he did.
I agree with Scarborough: we do want evangelicals and religious
people to be able to talk politics; but I think Huckabee went over the
line with his suggestion that we change the constitution to conform
with what he deems "God's word." He's really flirting with theocracy
there.
That's going to scare a lot of people away from him that might otherwise have supported him. And I don't think there are enough fundamentalists in the country to make up for that.
Well, it scared me away from him and I found it offensive.
January 15, 2008 - 13:28 ET by IamTinmanTalk like the Hucksters is what caused the founding fathers to put that clause in the first amendment in the first place!
Guys like Huckabee believe that theirs is the true and only correct vision of God (A view shared by Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and a host of other wannabe dictators). A significant percentage of the USA and the great majority of the rest of the world disagrees.
If you want a conservative in the White House in 2008, there are far better choices, without the holier than thou baggage of the evangelicals.
Tinman, I disagree with
January 15, 2008 - 22:47 ET by MikeBTinman, I disagree with your first statement. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, not even the first amendment. Read it again. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (the ACLU and the libs need to pay attention to this next phrase) or prohibiting the free exercise therof."
All that meant was that Congress (or the executive or legislative branches of the Government) could not pass laws establishing the Church of the United States as there was a Church of England, or as Germany had made Lutheranism the State Church of Germany.
There are plenty of writings of the founding fathers wherein they made clear that the type of government they were founding could only work for a God fearing populace who followed the Word of God. They just didn't believe that the Church should be mandated by the Government and supported by taxation by the Government.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mike B
January 15, 2008 - 23:01 ET byAmendment I, with contemporary writings (ie: context) click # 58 for the famous 'wall of separation' phrase.
GoHunter08
I don't agree with Huckabee.
January 15, 2008 - 11:05 ET by William PhelpsI think the country should be more moral, but when you force them into being more moral (especially after a statement like that), you push them into being more immoral. I know the country should be in line with GOD's will, but when you put mandates on people, they will reject him just as they did the Catholic Church. Only with freedom do people truly accept a moral principle. That is the main reason I would support that this statement challenges the freedom of religion.
Liberal screwball interpretations of the Constitution is what has driven Huckabee to feeling that he should make such controversial statements. If they wouldn't put their spin on it, we would be fine. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
delete double
January 15, 2008 - 07:40 ET by motherbeltdelete double
Actually,
January 15, 2008 - 07:54 ET by voodoodaddyActually, he had me scared Hello! And not with his religious views, although this one I do believe is going a bit too far and he probably will pay for it, but with his record of loving taxes. You would think he was a Democrat based on his tax record alone.
Huckabee is not fit to be POTUS....
January 15, 2008 - 08:39 ET by RJ....as if we needed more proof.
And if he were to become the Republican nominee, that stupid statement alone would sink him in the general election.
Neither was Bill Clinton,
January 15, 2008 - 08:59 ET by NL207Neither was Bill Clinton, but that did not prevent hime from assuming office.
Well, both ARE ex-Arkansas governors,
January 15, 2008 - 09:14 ET by RJbut a major difference is that Clinton wouldn't self-eliminate by stupidly saying things that give the impression he wouldn't mind turning the U.S. into a theocracy.
Huckabee is now officially unelectable...and I'm not unhappy about it.
Debates over says RJ...but...
January 15, 2008 - 12:34 ET by vrwc13Giuliani 11%
Huckabee 21%
Thompson 12%
Romney 13%
McCain 22%
...Rasmussen 1/15/08
v
Once again, vrwc responds to his own voices
January 15, 2008 - 12:35 ET by RJTry to shut the voices out, vrwc, and respond in the real world.
Did I say the debate is over?
I said Huckabee has made himself unelectable.
RJ, You said: Huckabee
January 15, 2008 - 12:39 ET by LeonRJ,
You said:
Huckabee is now officially unelectable
Translation: The debate concerning Huckabee is over. He is out.
V adeptly responded with polling numbers showing that Huckabee is not merely in the race, but one of the top dogs.
Translation: A far cry from being officially unelectable.
Your 'gut' analysis based on nothing vs. V's analysis based on polling. I think I'll go with V.
Thanks Leon, I knew we would
January 15, 2008 - 12:54 ET by vrwc13Thanks Leon, I knew we would find something to agree on one day!
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
That's a sad attempt to defend your buddy vrwc, leon
January 15, 2008 - 13:22 ET by RJFrankly, when I consider the two of you, I can't decide who got the worse of the deal. I'm tempted to tell both of you to run. :^)
leon, when you have a losing position like vrwc's, it's pathetic to try to "save" him by misrepresenting my words....but then, that's one of the things you do best, isn't it?
Really, guys (I'm assuming here), are you so desperate that you try to tag me with saying "the debate is over" because I said Huckabee has made himself unelectable? hahaha!
RJ, You said he didn't
January 15, 2008 - 13:30 ET by LeonRJ,
You said he didn't respond to your statements.
Unfortunately for you, he did.
That makes you a liar and effectively ends our conversation.
buh-bye leon
January 15, 2008 - 13:39 ET by RJAnswering my post with a non-sequitur is "responding?" hahaha. Thanks for the insight into your Trolling Handbook, leon. :^)
RJ, Non-sequitor? do
January 15, 2008 - 13:41 ET by LeonRJ,
Non-sequitor? do you even know what that means?
By the way you employed it, clearly not.
To reiterate, you claimed that V didn't answer you when he did. This is callled lying. All NB viewers are free to see this.
Deny reality all you want, it doesn't change anything.
leon, I think it's cute that you've become vrwc's
January 15, 2008 - 13:56 ET by RJbosom buddy in his voice-filled fantasyland.
He answered whatever voices he was hearing, not what I said. Clearly, you've been doing the same.
Agreed RJ
January 15, 2008 - 09:15 ET by Six String SpiffWe don't need an evangelical POTUS spewing out 'God says' about everything. His little "Those birds I just shot were not Huckabee supporters.." Was the DUMBEST thing he's ever said, and turned me right off of him. Huckabee is Dangerous. The dems are not attacking Huckabee. I wonder why? It's because the man cannot control his mouth, and it will sink us in the GE. Libs know this and yet the guy is still thought of as some kind of Conservative. I personally don't like Huckabee, as he has started a religious war with the GOP itself. I cant IMAGINE what kind of garbage, he'll get us into world wide... We already have a Jihad. One side says they need to kill us because their God says so. I personally don't need a biblical reason to defend our nation from religious terrorists. Just kill them and be done with it.
HRC's campaign chairman
January 15, 2008 - 09:27 ET by motherbeltHRC's campaign chairman said that if Obama were the nominee, the Republicans would probably bring up his drug use, question whether he had sold drugs, etc. and that would doom him.
Well if Huckabee ends up being the Republican nominee, there would be endless replays of him saying we should amend the Constitution to bring it in line with God's word.
He went too far (see my comment above: I believe he's talking about abortion and same sex "marriage"). I think he just doomed any chance he had.
"I think he just doomed any chance he had."
January 15, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Six String SpiffExcellent
Finally
January 15, 2008 - 20:37 ET by shannon20I know, right! Now if McCain would just screw up on immigration again.... :)
Shannon
January 15, 2008 - 20:46 ET by JABMcCan't is a liberal looser abusing the title of Republican. He has not a conservative bone in him. I think he will try to win us over as he has tried to do in the past. Take a look at Duncan Hunter, if he sticks to his platform, he is the man for the office.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
take a look at Duncan??
January 15, 2008 - 21:13 ET byGoHunter08
try this one instead
botg
January 15, 2008 - 21:29 ET by JABThanks for the back-up & link, I shall pass it along.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
The Huckster
January 15, 2008 - 09:28 ET by R D HelmHuckabee's only redeeming trait is his support for the Fair Tax. Other than that, he is just another republican masquerading as a conservative, one who will most likely be soundly trounced by the democrat (whoever it is) should he become the republican nominee.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Whatever his proposals for
January 15, 2008 - 10:03 ET by jdhawkWhatever his proposals for amending the constitution, he is a liberal masquerading as a Republican.
On almost every issue that would make him a conservative, he fails.
If he earned the nomination of our party, he would simply give voters the difference of a little bit of liberalism (his) and a heaping steaming pile of liberalism from either of the two front runners, billary or bambi.
jdhawk and others...quiz on who's conservative...
January 15, 2008 - 10:33 ET by vrwc13...take this little quiz, and I think you will find how you "line-up" with Huckabee.
http://www.votehelp....
Might surprise you.
v
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
I took this quiz.
January 15, 2008 - 10:56 ET by R D HelmI also answered the extra questions.
Fred Thompsom ws listed first (92.9%), which is as it should be.
The Huckster came in 6th, just ahead of Barack Obama.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Quiz seemed to work for me...
January 15, 2008 - 12:10 ET by vrwc13...although I'm surprised McCain was as high up as he was.
Other than that:
Huckabee
Thompson
Romney
Paul
Guiliani
Obama
Kucinich
Edwards
Clinton
order was pretty much the way I would put them.
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
This may surprise you about
January 15, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Clear thinkerThis may surprise you about Huck....
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/neil_stevens/2007/nov/12/mike_huckabee_and_his_campaign_lying_about_his_record
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
And this... I saw a
January 15, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Clear thinkerAnd this...
I saw a part of him preaching in SC on Sunday because our local news covered it (I’m in NC).
Huck started his sermon by saying he would not be talking about politics, then less than 5 minutes into his politics-free sermon he stops to tell a joke about him running for president. So much for keeping his word.
How can christians fall for his sleight of hand?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
This is what Huckabee talked about on SC...
January 15, 2008 - 12:05 ET by vrwc13On Sunday in South Carolina, Huckabee avoided politics entirely, instead preaching about humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates of heaven.
"The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 2,500 members.
"On that day, when I pull up, I'll be asked, 'Do you have what it takes to get in?'" Huckabee said. "And if I ask, 'Well, what does it take to get in?"Gotta be perfect.'"
"Well, I'm afraid I don't have that, but you know what, I won't be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and he's promised that he would never leave me or forsake me," he said.
Asked by reporters later if he thinks only Christians will go to heaven, Huckabee refused to say. He often says that as a minister, he joked that he doesn't even believe all Baptists are going to heaven.
"I'm going to stick to the things that make it critical for me to be president of the United States," Huckabee said Sunday. "I have deep convictions about who goes and who doesn't, but as far as who makes that decision, it isn't me, it's God. I'm going to leave that up to him."
h/t Drudge
v
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
Dumb quiz, vrwc...
January 15, 2008 - 11:04 ET by RJ....REALLY dumb quiz.
In the first place, it generalizes and morphs my scaled answers into a flat "agree" or "disagree" with each candidate's position on each issue. Bullhockey!
Second, it's plain wrong in it's conclusions. For example, I agree with Hillary on government spending? With Huckabee, McCain and Edwards on immigration? Bullhockey!
Third, the candidates are listed as being within a couple of percentage points overall of each other on the combined issues. Bullhockey!
The quiz is nothing but a transparent attempt to claim that Huckabee is a "conservative."
RJ calm down...
January 15, 2008 - 12:01 ET by vrwc13Take a few minutes instead of flying off the handle because you did not like the results.
First: it "shades" your responses to the degree that you agree/disagree i.e. for me Hillary was mostly red/pink and Thompson mostly different shades of green
Second: Did you read their positions? Maybe you do agree with HRC on some things.
Third: This is an independent site, read their disclaimer and try checking the facts of their details of each candidates positions.
Fourth: take something to calm yourself...we get it that you like Romney and dislike Huckabee.
v
"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
"calm down?" hahaha vrwc.
January 15, 2008 - 12:04 ET by RJTypically, you didn't answer a single point I made....just followed up with a bunch of your usual empty generalities. hahaha :^)
Actually, vrwc responded
January 15, 2008 - 12:07 ET by balboaActually, vrwc responded with specific, reasoned responses to your "concerns."
Bal, RJ seems to have vrwc13DS...
January 15, 2008 - 12:20 ET by vrwc13Bal, RJ seems to have vrwc13DS...especialy when I disagree with him. Hmmm, seems to me that kind of falls under the definition of bigot: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
hahaha vrwc, you're funny
January 15, 2008 - 12:24 ET by RJIt's fine for you to disagree but when I do, it's "bigoted?" hahaha!
You behave more like a liberal every day, vrwc...you even have liberals defending you... :^)
vrwc...you even have liberals defending you...
January 15, 2008 - 12:56 ET by vrwc13...defending my context versus content. Get the difference?
v
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
vrwc, once again you're talking to voices in your head
January 15, 2008 - 23:03 ET by RJ"defending my context versus content"
Huh? Since versus means against, you're saying "your context is being defended against content?"
What content, vrwc? Whose content? What the hell are you trying to say, man?
Sorry, no.....I don't "get the difference."
Sorry, no.....I don't "get the difference."
January 16, 2008 - 09:56 ET by vrwc13figures
v
ver·sus /ˈvɜrsəs, -səz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vur-suhs, -suhz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–preposition 1. against (used esp. to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sports contest): Smith versus Jones; Army versus Navy.
***2. as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train. Abbreviation: v., vs. ***
Please educate me, balboa
January 15, 2008 - 12:15 ET by RJI look forward to your showing me the specifics of how he gives "specific, reasoned" responses to my points.
(But we know you won't, don't we?)
If you can't see it (or
January 15, 2008 - 12:18 ET by balboaIf you can't see it (or refuse to), why bother?
hahahaha bal. Told ya!
January 15, 2008 - 12:25 ET by RJ...to no one's surprise. The only thing you're capable of providing to this board is leg-humping snark.
Bal, thanks for your support
January 15, 2008 - 12:33 ET by vrwc13Bal, thanks for your support of the obvious. RJ's maturity is showing again.
v
(watch...)
speaking of maturity, vrwc
January 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by RJI'm not trying to tell you how to pick your friends, but if you stopped and actually thought it through in a mature manner, you'd wonder why you have a couple of liberals defending you. Could they have underlying motivations? Think about it. ;^)
Yeah, my "underlying
January 15, 2008 - 12:50 ET by balboaYeah, my "underlying motivation" is a desire to see common sense prevail instead of your usual.
Still waiting for those specifics, bal
January 15, 2008 - 12:56 ET by RJ...instead of your "usual" leg-humping.
Better than blind refusal
January 15, 2008 - 12:36 ET by balboaBetter than blind refusal to follow a discussion.
Still no specifics, balboa?
January 15, 2008 - 12:42 ET by RJJust more childish "I'm right and you're wrong?"
On the other hand, I'm happy to discuss any specifics you care to give. No?
RJ, Why do you keep
January 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by LeonRJ,
Why do you keep pretending V didn't answer you?
He did so here:
LINK
Right below your post. ha. You know the customary placement for replies.
It's amazing to watch you ignore reality like this.
If you have many more outbursts like this, which have been much more frequent recently, you might have to register for a new name.
Show me, leon
January 15, 2008 - 12:53 ET by RJSince vrwc and balboa are incapable of showing how vrec's responses to my post were not generalities, I guess that leaves it up to you.
Lay it out for me.
Sigh RJ, Are you really
January 15, 2008 - 13:00 ET by LeonSigh RJ,
Are you really this stubborn? This is a depressing exercise.
RJ Statement/Question #1:
In the first place, it generalizes and morphs my scaled answers into a flat "agree" or "disagree" with each candidate's position on each issue
V's Reply #1:
it "shades" your responses to the degree that you agree/disagree i.e. for me Hillary was mostly red/pink and Thompson mostly different shades of green
RJ's Statement/Question #2:
Second, it's plain wrong in it's conclusions. For example, I agree with Hillary on government spending? With Huckabee, McCain and Edwards on immigration?
V's Reply #2:
Did you read their positions? Maybe you do agree with HRC on some things
RJ's Statement/Question #3:
the candidates are listed as being within a couple of percentage points overall of each other on the combined issues.
V's Reply #3:
This is an independent site, read their disclaimer and try checking the facts of their details of each candidates positions.
There you go RJ. Clearly laid out for you. V answered each and everyone of your questions. Furthermore, I have no idea why you keep claiming he did so with generalities. His responses are perfectly reasonable and adequate.
Nice try, leon
January 15, 2008 - 13:13 ET by RJBut all you've done is a long version of "he's right and you're wrong." In spite of your wishes, those are generalities that don't respond to my points.
Go take the quiz yourself, examine the results with what you know about the candidates and then tell me (1) why I'm wrong and (2) why you think vrwc gave specific responses.
RJ, He directly responded
January 15, 2008 - 13:29 ET by LeonRJ,
He directly responded to your points as I've clearly demonstrated.
I'm done.
Feel free to embarass yourself further. Watching you slowly unravel over these past few weeks has been delightful.
So that's a no, leon?
January 15, 2008 - 13:45 ET by RJBut we all knew right from the start that you wouldn't/couldn't make specific arguments, didn't we? :^)
RJ, It's not a NO at
January 15, 2008 - 13:48 ET by LeonRJ,
It's not a NO at all. It's more of a RJ is insane and beginning to scare me kind of thing.
Being stubborn is one thing. Creating an alternate reality that only exists in your mind is a completely different beast.
Good luck with all that.
As for anyone reading this thread, I'm certain they'll find you to be in the wrong. V answered you. You chose to ignore his answers and pretend he never made them. You're a liar. Simple and plain.
No point in discussing this further. We can all read what has been written and there's nothing more to say.
Well this was a fun
January 15, 2008 - 13:56 ET by JasonCWell this was a fun thread.
So I took that quiz and it said I'm 97% aligned with Kucinich.
Hmm....
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Back atcha, leon
January 15, 2008 - 14:04 ET by RJSince you can't POSSIBLY be as stupid and childish as you've made yourself appear on this thread, you must be deliberately lying....of course, that's nothing new for you. ;^)
quiz
January 15, 2008 - 13:03 ET by AgnosticI took the quiz and thought to be good in general but the specific wording could have been clearer. Candidate positions were seemingly taken from statements and voting records so you could end up 'agreeing' with someone who has an mixed bag of voting on an issue eventhough you disagree with the popular opinion of the candidate's stand on the issue. Senator McCain is a perfect example; his conservative voting ranking is only a few points behind what Senator Thompson's has been but according popular opinion comparitively he is extremely liberal. I'm not saying the poll is 100% but I found it generally correct after I read everything on which they based their Agree--->Disagree standards.
BTW, mine came out Thompson/Giuliani/Mccain which is pretty much what I would have expected going into the quiz.
Thanks, Agnostic, for the reasoned response
January 15, 2008 - 13:27 ET by RJbut we disagree on the effectiveness of the poll. For just one example, the poll puts me in agreement with McCain, Huckabee and Edwards on immigration. Also that I agree with Hillary on government spending.
Utter nonsense.
Either the poll is badly constructed or the positions of the candidates are not entered correctly.
Thompson, Guiliani, McMain,
January 15, 2008 - 13:49 ET by RESTLESS 1Thompson, Guiliani, McMain, Huckabee on mine. Dennis the menace was dead last by a long shot. Seems right to me.
I am sorry, but this survey
January 15, 2008 - 11:31 ET by jdhawkI am sorry, but this survey is bogus.
I disagree with most of McCain's views, yet the survey attempted to put me in line with his views. For example, on the issue of illegal aliens, the survey stated that our views are similar. That is categorically wrong. We couldn't be further apart as are the majority of the American people. He attempted to pass legislation with Kennedy to given illegal aliens a free pass. The legislation did nothing to secure our borders or deal with the invasion already ongoing.
McCain voted down President Bushe's tax cuts and has stated that he would do it again today if he could. I categorically disagree with McCain's view on this matter. In fact, I think that we should make the tax cuts permanent.
The survey attempts to play down Fred Thompson's views on several matters. He, in my mind, is the most conservative of any of the candidates. It is unfortunate that he is not doing better as a candidate.
The simply fact is that if McCain wins the nomination (which I think liberals hope he does), Republicans will lose the presidency for the reason that conservatives will stay home like they did in 2006.
I took the quiz
January 15, 2008 - 12:24 ET by LionKingIt told me what I already knew...FRED IS THE MAN!!!
[Quiz worked for me. 2nd was Romney and 3rd was Huckabee.]
LK...quiz
January 15, 2008 - 12:30 ET by vrwc13I have found the quiz to be quite reasonable...as have others. But some appear to dislike/dicredit it after taking it. Maybe they didn't like their results. Maybe they don't line up like they think they do. Maybe they are mired in cognitive dissonance.
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
R. D., the Fair Tax is not
January 15, 2008 - 22:57 ET by MikeBR. D., the Fair Tax is not fair. The only "fair" tax is the flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate. The Fair tax is regressive in nature. If the Fair Tax is ever put in force, it will end up like Europe's VAT tax in that Congress will, at whim, raise the rate, and all the sheepul will know is that the price of everything just went up. When that happens, the Commucrats will blame "the evil corporations" for price gouging, and enact price controls. I don't think those in favor of the so-called Fair Tax have thought things through.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mike B
January 16, 2008 - 19:44 ET by R D HelmFirst of all, I will assume you have read the Fair Tax book (If you haven't, I urge you to do so). All my copies are currently loaned out, so I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but I will attempt to respond to your points as best I can. No, the Fair Tax is not perfect, I will grant you that, but it is far better than the system currently in place.
If the Fair Tax is ever put in force, it will end up like Europe's VAT
tax in that Congress will, at whim, raise the rate, and all the sheepul
will know is that the price of everything just went up.
Sure, they can raise the rate if they wish. They can also do the exact same thing right now. Nothing is stopping them. If congress attempts to raise the Fair Tax rate once it is in place, everyone is
going to know about it. They will be unable to sneak anything past
anybody, as they currently are able to do with relative impunity, since most Americans currently do no know how much they are currently paying anyway. If the Fair Tax rate is raised, everyone will notice it on the transaction receipt the very next time they make a non-food purchase. Not
even the liberal MSM will be able to cover that up.
Approximately 28% of the cost of everything you buy today, including food, is going to pay federal taxes to everyone who labored to get that item to you, from the guys who mined the ore or cut down the tree all the way to the retail establishment you purchased the finished product from. Even the gas you burned driving home with it.
The federal income taxes associated with the production of that item, including transport and storage, are simply passed on to the next person down the line. You and me, the consumer, are at the end of that line, and we the ones who take the hit. This is referred to as the embedded tax. With the Fair Tax, this embedded tax goes away, as there will be no federal income taxes anywhere along the line that have to be paid.
I don't think those in favor of the so-called Fair Tax have thought things through.
The Fair Tax has been researched more thoroughly than any other tax plan ever thought of.
Additional benefits will be the elimination of the IRS in its entirety, as it will no-longer be needed. The mechanism to collect and process the Fair Tax is already in place.
The 16th Amendment will be repealed, as this is a mandatory requirement of passing the Fair Tax.
Americans and American corporations will no-longer have to spend the approximately $250 Billion a year to comply with the current, outdated and inneficient tax code. It is also estimated that Americans spend about 5.4 Billion hours a year working on their tax returns. All of this goes out the window.
The federal government will no longer have access to anyone's private financial data. (This is particularly attractive if you are a privacy nut like me).
Illegal aliens who are being paid in cash will now be actually paying federal taxes, as they buy stuff, too.
Currently, there is approximately $13 Trillion of American's money that is currently working off-shore. Much of it, I believe, is out there due to our hideous tax system, which I believe, corporate-wise, is the second highest in the world. I would like for most of that money to be brought back here, to this country. It costs roughly $100,000 to create just one job in this country.
The Flat Tax, which accomplishes none of the above, as far as I am concerned, is not a viable alternative for several reasons:
-It leaves the IRS in place.
-It leaves the 16th Amendment in place.
-It will allow illegals to continue skirting our income tax.
-It will allow the federal government to continue spying on all of our finances.
The next book in the Fair Tax series is coming out in about three
weeks. Many of the criticisms that have been leveled against the Fair Tax are going to be
answered:
http://www.amazon.co...
If you are interested in finding out more, you can go here:
http://www.fairtax.o...
And here:
http://fairtaxgroups...
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Is there a "there" there?
January 15, 2008 - 10:03 ET by celatorMy issue with Huck is that he is a tad too glib, and a bit too snarky. I'm not sure what that signifies in terms of what's going on in his head, but it spells non-transparency to me. He's said a few things that cause me to say, "WHAT???", and that's making me watch him closely. His mixing of his brand of Christianity and his remarks about the Constitution trouble me as well. I'm searching for his center, where he really lives, and I can't find it.
Huckabee's center...
January 15, 2008 - 10:29 ET by vrwc13"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
v
Huckabee's faith
January 15, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Cool ArrowI'd have a problem with Huckabee's faith if it weren't so closely aligned with the Constitution already.
Nobody seems to care we've drifted away from the Constitution.
There are those who latch on to his statements as "theocratic" even though they know his aims are no such thing.
Let's all make fun of evangelicals. It's fun, and besides, they won't leave the Party anyway.
Yeah, let's kick them around. And while we're at it, let's kick Ron Paul supporters around too. HoooWeee! They'll fall in line for us Fiscal Conservatives.
I ♣ My Seal
It's not his faith..
January 15, 2008 - 18:31 ET by celator"
I'd have a problem with Huckabee's faith if it weren't so closely aligned with the Constitution already"
For me, his personal faith is not the issue at all. But it does seem at times he is two exit stops from suggesting a religious test...some of his comments re Romney etc. I think that's the wrong sandbox to play in.
For example: would he have only those of his faith in his cabinet? As he has said, "I want to return this country to Christ". Well, do you accomplish that goal politically (the core of my concerns with him), or do you do it by good example and thus influence others?
Where is he with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other Christians who don't happen to suscribe to his specific biblical exegesis? Does he interprete the Constitution through the eyes of his particular faith? If so, how?
At any rate, all I am looking for is some sort of explanation from him, since he is the one who has positioned himself as a true believer for all to see.
I always enjoy your posts, BTW
Me thinks Huckabee is going
January 15, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Chris NormanMe thinks Huckabee is going to have to make a speech, "clarifying" his beliefs about the constitution.
Maybe Chris
January 15, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Cool ArrowI've always thought amending the Constitution was generally a last resort. Some of those Amendments have come back to kick us. But for the kneejerk reaction to FDR's years in office, we could have had 4 more years of Reagan.
Prohibition gave us a strengthened Mafia.
I ♣ My Seal
CA,I'd say (and obviously,
January 15, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Chris NormanCA,
I'd say (and obviously, I'm no expert) that the amendments written to address specific issues have caused trouble. The constitution seems best left as underlying rules and principles, for the most part. I don't like the idea of it cluttered up with answers to the problems of the day. That's clumsily worded, but do you know what I mean?
I agree, Chris
January 15, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Cool ArrowIf we'd read and follow it as written, we could avoid a lot of the "I'm smarter than the Framers" pitfalls.
I ♣ My Seal
" If we'd read and follow
January 15, 2008 - 18:45 ET by celator"
If we'd read and follow it as written, we could avoid a lot of the "I'm smarter than the Framers" pitfalls."
I'm not sure the U.S. Constitution is even taught anymore, or is given the emphasis it used to have in "US Government" or History classes.
But you are right. We don't have to reinvent that amazing document at all. It works just fine if we are willing to pay attention to it, and learn what it really says.
I've taken to reading it once a month or so, along with the Declaration of Indendence. I have them both in a little book I purchased last year.
They really are the most amazing political documents ever written, and when you begin to study the discussions the Founders had before, during and after they were written, you get a sense of the richness of the thinking behind these documents.
The basic assumptions they propose reach far back into history, but were not really incorporated into an actual, working political document until the Founders did so. What amazing people they were!
Yes
January 15, 2008 - 18:34 ET by celatorThat's the point of my message to Cool Arrow. How does he blend his theological beliefs with his political philosophy? And what impact does that have on his decisions?