let’s be honest. When you talk about the '08 election, you talk about whether it will be McCain or Giuliani running against Hillary Clinton. Those are the only 2 viable Republicans
Why do you think so? I would suppose that in order to win the Republican nomination, you need the support of conservative voters in the primaries. Neither McCain nor Giuliani will have it.
Neither McCain nor Guiliani are what I would call religious fundamentalists. But McCain is a poor choice for other reasons.
John McCain is not a religious fundamentalist but religion certainly is an influence in some his decision making. Here are some examples:
Why do you think so? I would suppose that in order to win the Republican nomination, you need the support of conservative voters in the primaries. Neither McCain nor Giuliani will have it.
How can you think conservative voters will not vote to nominate McCain? True, he is more prone to compromise with Democrats than the typical Republican is, but he still falls squarely in the conservative camp. Guiliani is questionable, because he is socially liberal…that’s the main reason why I fear that the election will end up being between McCain and Hillary and, thus, not leaving me a decent option to vote for.
Mitt Romney’s campaign will go nowhere, because he is a Mormon. Ron Paul’s will go nowhere because no one has ever heard of him. Name recognition is a huge factor. In elections where there are a bunch of relatively unknowns running (i.e. '04 Democratic primaries), that isn’t such a big deal. But there are 2 nationally knowns superstars running for the Republican nomination, who will dwarf any potential rivals.
John McCain is not a religious fundamentalist but religion certainly is an influence in some his decision making. Here are some examples:
- He is in favor of teaching creationism in public schools.
- He is against abortion in all cases but the common exceptions: rape, incest and if the mother’s life is in danger.
- He is against gay marriages (but at least is opposed to banning them with a constitutional amendment.)
I actually didn’t know that about creationism…but the other 2 are pretty much standard for anyone who calls himself a Republican. Religion may shape some of his views, but not nearly to the same extent as it does with Bush. However, I think that McCain would do far more damage to this country than Bush has, for a host of other reasons that are unrelated to religion. So, when I say that he isn’t a religious nutjob, don’t take that as a defense. The last thing I want to do is defend John McCain.
Do you have a reference?
As for his association with the Libertarian Party, see his biography.
As for anti-Semitism–well, for starters, he was the only Republican to vote against the House resolution supporting Israel’s right to self-defense in the conflict with Lebanon. If you read his comments on Israel in his various speeches and articles (such as this one), you won’t find it difficult to spot a pattern.
As for his association with the Libertarian Party, see his biography.
As for anti-Semitism–well, for starters, he was the only Republican to vote against the House resolution supporting Israel’s right to self-defense in the conflict with Lebanon. If you read his comments on Israel in his various speeches and articles (such as this one), you won’t find it difficult to spot a pattern.
I don’t doubt the libertarianism, but the anti-semetic charge seems unfounded. Him being unwilling to support the state of Isreal with US tax dollars does not equate to anti-semitism. I have been looking online and nothing I have read by him so far strikes me as antisemtic. He is a libertarian and isolationist no doubt, but I think calling him anti-semetic is unfair. If you know of some Mel Gibsonlike, “I hate jews” rampage, let me know, but that article doesn’t qualify.
How can you think conservative voters will not vote to nominate McCain? True, he is more prone to compromise with Democrats than the typical Republican is, but he still falls squarely in the conservative camp.
LOL, have you ever talked to a conservative? The overwhelming majority of them hates McCain. All the influential conservative pundits hate McCain. You’re not the only person who’d rather move to North Korea than have to choose between Hillary and McCain.
Yes, Romney is a Mormon and the liberal media will have a field day with that, but conservative voters don’t tend to pay much heed to the liberal media. They listen to people like Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, and Rush Limbaugh, all of whom are much likelier to support him than McCain or Giuliani.
If you know of some Mel Gibsonlike, “I hate jews” rampage, let me know, but that article doesn’t qualify.
Not all anti-Semites are so blunt about their anti-Semitism. Since explicit Jew-hatred is bound to attract condemnation, second-handers (which most anti-Semites are) prefer to express it in more indirect terms, such as talking about the alleged influence of Jews on American government, or highlighting the deaths of “Palestinians” due to Israeli retaliation while neglecting to mention the acts of terrorism that provoked it. That article–and especially this paragraph:
The information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists? We should remember that Palestinian deaths are seen by most Arabs as being American-inspired, since our weapons are being used against them, and they’re the ones whose land has been continuously taken from them.
–is the closest Ron Paul will get to saying he hates Jews. But isn’t the message clear enough?
It’s a bit like it was with Communist sympathizers. Most of them didn’t explicitly admit they admired Stalin and wanted to establish socialism in America; they just said things like they “leaned” left, they wanted “world peace” and “detente,” and they were working on bringing about “social change.” Don’t be fooled by this kind of talk–if something makes no sense but implies sympathy for a particular kind of evil, you may as well take it as an admission of belonging to that school of evil.
Not all anti-Semites are so blunt about their anti-Semitism. Since explicit Jew-hatred is bound to attract condemnation, second-handers (which most anti-Semites are) prefer to express it in more indirect terms, such as talking about the alleged influence of Jews on American government, or highlighting the deaths of “Palestinians” due to Israeli retaliation while neglecting to mention the acts of terrorism that provoked it. That article–and especially this paragraph:
–is the closest Ron Paul will get to saying he hates Jews. But isn’t the message clear enough?
It’s a bit like it was with Communist sympathizers. Most of them didn’t explicitly admit they admired Stalin and wanted to establish socialism in America; they just said things like they “leaned” left, they wanted “world peace” and “detente,” and they were working on bringing about “social change.” Don’t be fooled by this kind of talk–if something makes no sense but implies sympathy for a particular kind of evil, you may as well take it as an admission of belonging to that school of evil.
I think you are reading way too much into that statement above. It smacks of cultural relativism, and you could make a strong argument against his isolationism on those grounds, but there is no indication of racism, your psychologizing of his “true intentions” not withstanding.
I think it a far better policy to judge people based on what they say and do rather then what you think they believe.
While both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney sound like people I might actually enjoy voting for, let’s be honest. When you talk about the '08 election, you talk about whether it will be McCain or Giuliani running against Hillary Clinton. Those are the only 2 viable Republicans, and I just don’t give Obama much of a chance at beating Hillary.
It is fairly certain that the Democratic ticket in 2008 will unfortunately be Hillary Clinton for President and Barak Obama for Vice President.
However, it would be hasty to conclude that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the “only two viable Republicans” as each one of them lacks support from a signficant fraction of the Republican base. Rudy Giuliani will be adamantly opposed by the religious base and John McCain, who is presently in favor of Bush’s new strategy for Iraq, will probably distance himself further from some Republicans because of this position. Furthermore, in general many Republican stalwarts (i.e. those voting in the primary) are distrusting of McCain since he is too willing to work with Democrats on many issues as opposed to marching in lockstep with the rest of the party.
To reiterate, I believe that Mike Huckabee is a serious contendor for the Republican nomination. The former Arkansas Governor is not widely known now, but he is in serious contention to win the Republican primary. Here are some reasons.
1.) He was a very popular governor. As a governor, he lacks a well documented voting record that a senator would have. Almost any extensive voting record almost always hurts a presidential candidate. The last senator to be elected President of the United States was John F. Kennedy.
2.) He is a staunch religious conservative, but does not have the goofy reputation of Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn or Rick Santorum. He is pro-life, actively combats same-sex marriage and he is in favor of teaching creationism in public schools. Mike Huckabee has also spent about twelve years as a Baptist pastor before getting into politics.
3.) He generally supports tax cuts. I could be wrong about this here since his gubernatorial administration has had multiple tax hikes. However, I think these primarily stemmed from the predominately Democratic legislature in Arkansas. Mike Huckabee did get some tax cuts passed during his tenure though.
4.) He has a politically “safe” position on Iraq. He supported the invasion initially but does not have a record of voting for it that can be used against him. He is also against a time-tabled withdrawal. It is my understanding that he is not a fan of the President’s current “new direction” for Iraq.
5.) He is in favor of the President’s “guest worker” program on immigration. I perceive that a protectionist, flagrantly anti-immigrant stance will not will the majority of Republican support in 2008.
6.) He has a charismatic personal story. After being diagnosed with diabetes in 2002, Governor Huckabee put himself on a personal mission to get healthy. In a little over one year he lost over 100 pounds and participated in the 2006 New York City Marathon. He likes to preach personal responsibility when it comes to adopting a healthy lifestyle and campaigns “Health not Healthcare”. I think that this message will really touch the American public, especially given the fears over the obesity epidemic that CDC keeps on publishing reports on.
Overall, I am definitely not a fan of Governor Mike Huckabee because of his deep religious views. Nevertheless, I think he has a strong chance of winning the Republican nomination as a dark horse given the present disorganized state of the party. We need to be informed of his potentially dangerous views before another ultra-religious candidate receives the Republican nomination.
but (wanting Roe v. Wade to be overturned and opposing same-sex marriage) are pretty much standard for anyone who calls himself a Republican.
Tragically yes.
there is no indication of racism
I didn’t say he was a racist. I said he was an anti-Semite.
A racist is a person who judges people by the color of their skin. An anti-Semite judges people by the culture they belong to, and singles out the Jewish/Israeli culture as the target of his hatred. Anti-Semitism is much more closely related to anti-Americanism than to racism; it is a form of hating the good for being the good.
I think it a far better policy to judge people based on what they say and do rather then what you think they believe.
I didn’t say “I think he believes bad things about Israel.” I provided an example of the things he’s said about Israel.
An anti-Semite judges people by the culture they belong to, and singles out the Jewish/Israeli culture as the target of his hatred.
Is there some fact that you can point to in support of the cultural theory? It was certainly originally used racially and included (Muslim) Arabs. The correct term for a person who opposes Israeli culture is “Anti-Israeli”, not “Anti-Semite”. It’s bad enough that people think that Arabs aren’t Semitic, let’s not misuse the term any further.
Well, I hope you’re right about Paul and Romney having more of a chance, but I think all the signs are pointing to it being between McCain and Guiliani.*
And I don’t think you can call someone anti-Semitic just because he doesn’t support Israel. I fully support Israel and think that those who don’t are wrong, but thinking that Israel is too aggressive and that we should not be funding its war does not make one anti-Semitic.
*What is the correct way to spell that man’s name?
I didn’t say “I think he believes bad things about Israel.” I provided an example of the things he’s said about Israel.
Again, being opposed to Isreal, or more particularly, being opposed to taxing Americans to uphold Isreal’s socialist government (to the tune of $2 trillion over the last 30 years) does not make the man anti-semetic in either the racial or cultural sense of the word.
It is fairly certain that the Democratic ticket in 2008 will unfortunately be Hillary Clinton for President and Barak Obama for Vice President.
I’m going to counter the conventional wisdom on this one and say that I think Hillary will pick someone other than Obama. Bill Richardson is my guess at this early stage. He brings some geographic diversity to the ticket, he’s generally considered to be a centrist (Hillary is all about pretending to be a centrist), and he’s a Clinton lackey. On the other hand, Obama helps mostly with a group that is already committed to voting Democratic (Blacks) and he has the potential to overshadow Queen Hillary on the ticket. On top of that, I think she realizes that being the first female candidate for one of the major parties will be portrayed as a huge milestone by her acolytes in the mainstream media. She really doesn’t need the additional notoriety (and perhaps controversy) that will be associated with the first Black man on the ticket.
All of this is nothing more than idle speculation at this point, but that’s my half-assed theory.
Is there some fact that you can point to in support of the cultural theory? It was certainly originally used racially and included (Muslim) Arabs.
That may be so, but nowadays it’s almost exclusively used to refer to Jew-haters, many of whom profess to be “sympathetic to the plight of” the “Palestinians.” So it’s clear to me that it is not a racial thing.
Well, I hope you’re right about Paul and Romney having more of a chance, but I think all the signs are pointing to it being between McCain and Guiliani.*
Is that addressed to me? I don’t think Paul has any chance at all. Romney has.
*What is the correct way to spell that man’s name?
Giuliani.
And I don’t think you can call someone anti-Semitic just because he doesn’t support Israel. I fully support Israel and think that those who don’t are wrong, but thinking that Israel is too aggressive and that we should not be funding its war does not make one anti-Semitic.
It’s not just the funding he’s opposed to. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. He’s dead set against any form of alliance with or even any moral support for Israel at all. Sure enough, he is against alliances with other countries as well (“isolationism” he calls it), but that doesn’t absolve him from evading the moral distinction between Israel and the terrorists. If that kind of evasion is not what makes one an anti-Semite, what is?
Anyway, the more fundamental problem is his libertarianism. His stance on Israel is merely a consequence of his more general ideas about the role of government and the morality of national self-defense. He’s opposed to the U.S.'s retaliation against terrorists too. He’s not just anti-Israel, but also anti-American–as all true libertarians necessarily are. Libertarianism is based on a hatred of reality, and consequently a hatred of all men–and nations–that deal effectively with reality.
Is that addressed to me? I don’t think Paul has any chance at all. Romney has.
I guess time will tell. I don’t know enough about Romney to know whether or not I would prefer him to Giuliani, however.
It’s not just the funding he’s opposed to. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. He’s dead set against any form of alliance with or even any moral support for Israel at all. Sure enough, he is against alliances with other countries as well (“isolationism” he calls it), but that doesn’t absolve him from evading the moral distinction between Israel and the terrorists. If that kind of evasion is not what makes one an anti-Semite, what is?
I’ll grant you that there is no excuse for moral equivocation of Israel and Palestinian terrorists, but I still don’t think that merits the title of anti-Semite. In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, I would only use that term when talking about someone who blatantly makes up facts (Norman Finklestein, Jimmy Carter) that portray Israel in a worse light than is justified. I would also use it with people who place all of the blame for the current situation squarely on the shoulders of Israel (Noam Chomsky, Pat Buchanan). Someone who insists on placing an equal amount of blame on both sides may be committing a grave error in judgement, but I don’t think it merits the title of anti-Semite.
Anyway, the more fundamental problem is his libertarianism. His stance on Israel is merely a consequence of his more general ideas about the role of government and the morality of national self-defense. He’s opposed to the U.S.'s retaliation against terrorists too. He’s not just anti-Israel, but also anti-American–as all true libertarians necessarily are. Libertarianism is based on a hatred of reality, and consequently a hatred of all men–and nations–that deal effectively with reality.
I have to agree with this point. If domestic concerns were the only thing I were worried about, I wouldn’t hesitate to endorse the Libertarians every time. But their refusal to recognize the ongoing Clash of Civilizations is reason enough for me to be wary of actually electing someone with such principles. I would have no problem using libertarians as a protest vote, in order to send the message that I want smaller government. But when one manages to sneak into one of the 2 main parties, I start to worry a little that he might actually get elected.
I am currently kinda excited about Mike Pence for President. As soon as I have time I am going to do more research and formally decide if I intend to help his campaign.
I’m going to counter the conventional wisdom on this one and say that I think Hillary will pick someone other than Obama. Bill Richardson is my guess at this early stage. He brings some geographic diversity to the ticket, he’s generally considered to be a centrist (Hillary is all about pretending to be a centrist), and he’s a Clinton lackey. On the other hand, Obama helps mostly with a group that is already committed to voting Democratic (Blacks) and he has the potential to overshadow Queen Hillary on the ticket. On top of that, I think she realizes that being the first female candidate for one of the major parties will be portrayed as a huge milestone by her acolytes in the mainstream media. She really doesn’t need the additional notoriety (and perhaps controversy) that will be associated with the first Black man on the ticket.
All of this is nothing more than idle speculation at this point, but that’s my half-assed theory.
Actually, before reading your post, I reflected on what I wrote this afternoon. I now also question if Hillary Clinton would eagerly choose Barak Obama as a runningmate. While I think him being the first black candidate on the ballot would be an advantage in accumulating additional votes, I think Hillary might perceive it to be even more advantageous to choose a centrist who will help her secure a swing state. Some potential candidates include New Mexican Governor Bill Richardson (as you suggested), former Virginian Governor Mark Warner and Florida Senator Bill Nelson. In my opinion, these three are among the better Democrats.
I don’t think (Ron) Paul has any chance at all.
This is certainly true and probably for the better. If I am not mistaken, Ron Paul embraces the Libertarian principle of tit-for-tat self-defense (if even that) and nothing more. There have been many claims that Democrats like John Kerry would jeopardize our national security through inaction if it became popular amongst voting citizens. However, Ron Paul is arguably more dangerous since he would preach military inaction on principle.