I have been proved wrong

[softwareNerd]

I agree with Strangelove and Mammon that:

• Many GOP candidates can be statist too: see "Sarbanes Oxley", Medicare drug plan, "No Child Left Behind"
  
• Democrats are generally worse in this regard, but their philosophy and approach, and being beholden to "special interests" is nothing new; it's been around for decades, and one of their more centrist candidates is unlikely to "lurch" toward socialism any more than a centrist GOP candidate will lurch toward religion. Comparing Hillary to McCain or Huckabee, I would not be surprised if she runs smaller deficits than those two. The point being that the differences aren't that huge
  
• Even a GOP candidate like Huckabee won't lurch toward religion. Americans respect the church-state divide, even if they may think the atheists overdo it.
  

This thread was basically about Huckabee, and the danger of someone as religious as he is. What could Huckabee do? Well, every time someone like that is in power, they will try to push their agenda forward another inch. Any such changes will come in secular garb. Huckabee does not have to plot and scheme to dress up religion as being a more general moral value. People like Huckabee genuinely equate religion and morality. The message will not be about Christianity, but about doing good. For instance, despite its name, "faith based initiatives" has an appeal to some centrist, relatively secular, socialist types because they understand that community organizations can dole out money more effectively than government can, and "it just so happens" that many are religious organizations.

Example: If I were a religious President, I might target K-12 schools next. I would point out something that is true, and that many regular, fairly centrist, fairly secular folks can agree with. I would say that our public schools are failing because they have stopped teaching values. We have retreated to a nihilist approach, that finally leads to Columbine. We have to bring back the teaching of values to our schools. We do not need to teach any specific religion, and the government must not even try to influence what is to be taught. However, each community should be encouraged to introduce the teaching of values into the curriculum, in whatever way it likes, as long as it does not amount to teaching any particular religion as being the true religion.

If done right, one can get a toehold into schools this way. Take that, and couple it Federal funding, and with one more SCOTUS justice who thinks like Scalia, and what's to stop a good percentage of the country's school districts from starting moral science classes? If packaged right, I think it could get a toe-hold. Religion has started to gain stature, being reintroduced into places like Harvard. Why not the K-12 schools; why wait till it's too late?

Once we religious folk have a platform like that, we can work on the next step. For instance, we might ask for a fair representation for the idea that the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. if we can get that, we can start to explain to the next generation of children, that -- while they might be atheists -- their country is not.

</end example>

[fletch]

The fact that there is even discussion about changing the constitution to define marriage. The establishment of "faith based initiatives". More importantly, there is the informal level of power which has been given to the religious right which manifests itself in destructive ways. For example, the Defense Department's contract with Blackwater did not come because Backwater proved they would be best for the job in Iraq, but because their CEO is an evangelical and that was good enough for them. It has also meant that our Air Force academy is full of evangelical preachers who are trying to associate military success with religious devotion.

None of these things you mention really effect me in any negative way. Certainly not in the way that higher taxation, a fast track strangulation of the free market, the socialization of health care and the embrace of Kyoto will. Let me say that Huckabee is hardly my first choice for the top of the republican ticket. But as much as I dont want him as president, I want Hillary less.

Now let me address your points. First, the marriage amendment bit demonstrates my point. Even with a born again president and a republican majority, the whole amendemnt idea never really got off the ground. Today, it is essentially dead. Will the idea of socialzing medicine similarly fade away during a Clinton administration? I think not.

As for "faith based initiatives," for me, that is a big "so what?" Today, the government takes money from the people and passes it out to just about anyone who holds out their hand. Why should Christians be excluded? They pay taxes just like the rest of us. I assume that like me, you oppose any government "initiative" that is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. I see no reason to oppose a particular "initiative" simply because it is faith based.

Blackwater. I cant say I know much about this or the Air Force bit, but if you are correct and Blackwater was chosen because the CEO was an evangelical than that is pretty dumb. But I dont know that it is that much worse than choosing Blackwater beacuse it is run by a big donors brother in law or some political cronies.

Socialism in my mind is more of a threat because the American people generally accept its basic principles. America, does not want a religious theocracy, but they do seem to want a welfare state. There may be a yearning for a return to a more moral era in American history, but I would be willing to bet that even repulican primary voters will not elevate a guy like Huckabee to the top of the ticket. The secularists and democrats were able to mount a principled defence against any co-mingling of church and state. There is not likely to be anyone taking a principled stance against the left's plans to expand the power and size of the state and its intrusion into our lives. No one, that is, with the exception of people on this site and those like it. Republican are certainly not up to the task.

[The Wrath]

While I generally agree that socialism is more of a threat than religion, we haven't had a President who is as open a religious nutcase as Mike Huckabee. Bush lets his faith intrude on his politics, but I don't think it's fair to say that his faith controls his politics.

[Inspector]

Seriously, you guys crack Hillary up to be a lot worse then she is. You act like if she got voted all the sudden a dark spiral of thunder clouds will appear over the White House and she wil reveal her Ulimate Form as the Socialist Ice Queen of Washington in the classic Disney Film style.

I'm fully convinced she's every bit as evil as that. But... and here is the point: people can see it. I'm not convinced she would get away with implementing her agenda. In fact, I think that giving her that kind of limelight will only make things worse for her party, since it will lay bare just how crazy the far left is.

If anything, what worries me most about her is that she will so discredit the dems that someone like Huckabee might actually stand a chance of being elected the next time 'round.

[Mammon]

Speaking of Huckabee I found an interesting article, only read the first two paragraphs so take that as you may...

http://www.ilanamercer.com/HucksForHuckPaulsForAmerica.htm

[Mammon]

After reading through the article I posted, I noticed a there is glaringly obvious endorsement for Ron Paul at the end. But, honestly, I'd prefer Paul over Huckabee.