I have leaned to Mitt Romney most of the past year. At times, I have come close to endorsing him or Duncan Hunter. Mitt can win. Duncan can’t. Both would be great for America.
I want to win, and I think that Rudy Giuliani would win in a landslide. He would also be a great choice.
But when a candidate who is as good as the above candidates on every issue; would also probably win; and, significantly, expresses a willingness to address three of the main things I have been looking for in a nominee, I have to re-consider my intention to remain uncommitted until November.
I speak of Fred Thompson’s
1) 1) Description of Iran as committing “acts of war” against the United States;
2) Willingness to consider ending “birthright citizenship” including his recognition that the claim that the 14th Amendment requires same is not settled law; and
3) Consideration of even the Florida Everglades as not necessarily off limits for oil exploration, so critical is it for national security that we not be dependent on Middle Eastern oil and that our purchases not fund terror sponsors.
I have written extensively for over a year that:
1) We need to acknowledge (and wage war in return) the ongoing war Iran has been waging against our troops in Iraq, not to mention the war since the 1979 Hostage taking thru the 1998 Khobar Towers bombing;
2) Birthright citizenship is a right that has been conferred by Congressional and executive bureaucratic action, and is not mandated by the 14th Amendment; and
3) It has been suicidal for us not to expand drilling areas for our own oil since 1978 and that any candidate that doesn’t advocate same FIRST before they mouth the “alternatives” dribble (see alchemy dream), makes my stomach turn.
Fred can win. Fred is right. Fred has a clear-eyed view of the world, a great presidential demeanor and articulately expresses his conservative principles and policies.
Plus, in less than a month, he has shown that he is willing to consider three of my favorite issues while I had been waiting in vain for the other candidates to echo this Rooster.
How can I not endorse this guy now?
He’s the Foghorn to this gamecock’s Leghorn!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
September 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Who doesn’t like Fred Thompson? I mean, except Democrats and Indepenents.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Foghorn Leghorn! LMAO!
I know someone who calls Mitt Romney “Count Chocula”.
Funny how we come up with these nicknames to personalize the politicians we talk about everyday.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Fred Thompson:
All the executive ineptitude of George W. Bush combined with the convenient forgetfulness of Alberto Gonzales.
Sounds like a superhero combination to me!
September 18th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
JS,
You forgot to add “with the appearance of being old enough to be John McCain’s father.”
September 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Nicholas,
Make that Roberta McCain’s father and you’ve got it right. Even she looks better than Fred.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
You’ve got to be kidding! Have you drunk the Arthur Branch Koolaid, too?
Everytime he’s out on the campaign trail, he shows his ignorance of the issues –
especially pertaining to the state that he campaigning in.
He shoots from hip to cover himself, or someone around him covers for him so his
ignorance doesn’t look that bad.
I can’t believe anyone could be serious about this guy.
And it’s no wonder he doesn’t want to go on stage to debate the other candidates who have
a handle on the issues and have well-thought solutions.
His t.v. audience would then see him for the incompetent that he really is.
He’s 6′5″ tall and 200+ pounds of nothing.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Sigh…”Fred can win”. I just bet the absolute farm against the sucker’s who believe that on realclearpolitics’s new Fantasy08′ intrade statistic. If I had any cash I’d bet real money against the 34% of people who think he’ll be the next president as well.
I don’t mean to be overly critical Gamecock, but this decision strikes me as sheer lunacy. I’m being pushed increasingly closer to Rudy’s camp, by entries of this nature. If I had my druthers, I’d favor McCain slightly, and I’m wishing for Newt desperately, but if Rudy’s needed to stop this Fred nonsense, then so be it. I’m going to remain undecided for a few more weeks, but, and I never imagined I’d say this, if the NJ primary were held today, I’d have to cast my ballot for Rudy Giuliani.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I need to see him in a debate.
Kavon, the reason some call Mitt Count Chocula, is because I believe yesterday he was interviewed and asked what his favorite sugary cereal was. (stupid question) He answered Count Chocula and Cocoa Crispies. 2 of my favorites too.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
But seriously. Regardless of the IMMENSE ELECTABILITY of Fred Thompson (only 8 or 9 points down from Hillary and Obama and a mere 12-percent-long hair’s length below Edwards, in the RCP averages) at this point in the campaign, I assure you that if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee, we will lose the White House. Mark my words. Fred Thompson will win all the Bush red states of 2004. Except for Ohio. And probably Iowa. A.k.a, he doesn’t get to 270.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I have to echo the comments above mine as well. I honestly don’t understand the mentality that leads one to believe Fred Thompson is capable of winning a presidential election in 08′. This isn’t meant to be a mean-spirited attack. Rather, it’s a weary resignation to the notion, that I understand the Fredheads just about as thoroughly as the average American understands the ideology that propels Salafi Wahabbi Pan-Islamism. I feel like I’m attempting to read Hegel in the original German. Again, sigh.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It’s been a great week on R4′08:
Romney has lost Matt and Gamecock.
Woo hoo!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Matt: ‘I’m wishing for Newt desperately’
Do you think he could win the general election? He’s got higher negatives than Hillary.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Here’s what I think our ideal nominee would be:
Ron Paul.
Only pro-victory in Iraq.
With Rudy Giuliani’s executive experience.
And John McCain’s personal history.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Matt and Gamecock, why have you soured on Mitt?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Fred is probably my #2, unless Newt gets in, but Romney still beats them all in my opinion.
Right now, no Reublican is gaurenteed to win, and no Republican is gaurenteed to lose, but I can give you one really good reason why I think Romney can beat Hillary: he takes away her top issue. Hillary is going to be the DEM nominee, and her major issue is going to be health care. She can’t bring up Iraq, because she will find herself in the same position JFK did in 2004, and no Democrat is going to win on Immigration. Hillary is going to be focusing a lot on Domestic issues, and that is the one area where, unquestionably Romney can beat her. He has actually done more on Health care, and is more skilled and informed when it comes to economic issues. He has laid out specific policies to cut spending, and has a record of keeping his campaign promises. He has the speaking skills that Fred doesn’t, the Conservative positions that Rudy doesn’t, and the energy that McCain doesn’t.
Romney is the best choice.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Gamecock, regarding Iran and the Everglades, Rudy, more than anyone, is the kind of candidate that can stick to seemingly unpopular ideas you’re not supposed to touch… and end up re-educating the public and the media until he’s won them over. And he’s actually done it–including the last part–more than Fred has. But I do admire for these things, too.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
M.T.,
No… this person has referred to Mitt as “Count Chocula” for some time now because he believes there is a physical resemblance between the two.
My mom would never let me get any of those cereals: Count Chocula, Frankenberry, or Boo-Berry, because she insisted they were nothing but sugar.
Pity my poor underprivileged childhood!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“He has the speaking skills that Fred doesn’t, the Conservative positions that Rudy doesn’t, and the energy that McCain doesn’t.
Romney is the best choice.”
Unfortunately, he also has a record of flip-flops unparalleled by any presidential candidate in recent memory.
Also, good luck trying to paint Hillary as the plastic, calculating opportunist she is with Romney as the Republican nominee.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Kavon, not a bad mom. The #1 mistake most parents make is feeding sugar to their kids– in the form of fruit juice. Parents, WHY do you do this?
Kids should drink milk or water, without exception. Science is very clear on the harmful effects of sugar. Why do we addicted our kids to it? It took me many years to finally wean myself from drinking sugar.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
“Kids should drink milk or water, without exception.”
What about tea? Very healthy. I was raised on it.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Tea’s not bad, but caffeine and kids are not a good mix.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Metro,
My 32 year-old self agrees with you
September 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“flip-flops”
“flip”, yes. “flop” no.
Romney is not Kerry, and I think the public is smart enough to know that. All of Romney’s conversions were in one direction: to the right, and came during a time where his new position was in the minority.
Kerry’s problem was not that he changed positions, its that he did it over and over and over again, no such problem with Romney.
–
“Also, good luck trying to paint Hillary as the plastic”
I’ve got a better idea, why don’t we paint her as the socialist, inexperienced, liberal she is? Romney would be able to do that EXTREMELY effectively.
Rather than going after character and personaility, why don’t we stick to going after issues?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“What about tea”
only with milk and sugar.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Awakened,
I think Newt has been quietly running as an anti-Bush Republican for over a year now. From statements like “we’re losing the war on terror”, to his seeming buddying up with John Kerry on Global Warming, he’s been fairly deftly disconnecting himself from the current Republican Party. Sometimes he goes right, sometimes he goes left, and sometimes he simply veers off in directions entirely non-ideological in nature, but the separation has been such a consistent theme that, currently, Newt’s probably farther away from the Republican establishment then any candidate other then Paul. Do I think he can win? I think he’s politically positioned to win; to be the Sarkozy candidate he’s demanded.
And I think that the image recasting he’s doing has been every bit as effective (though on a smaller scale, due to his lower profile) as Hillary’s equivalent recasting. So we get a kinder, firmer, less partisan Newt. And with his terrific debating and oratorical skills, that’s a Newt that’s more then capable of bringing the Republican Party out of this mess. Now, the trick of course is media coverage. Is Newt’s recasting going to be ignored by the media. Are they going to portray him as old firebrand, yet again? Undoubtedly they’ll try. Which is why I think quite alot depends on how much press Newt is able to get out of America Solutions, where he’ll be the “non-partisan problem solver” he’s been playing for quite some time now. I also think, Newt has a significant advantage, in that he’s consistently referring to the nature of the conflict in proper terms. It’s absolutely astonished me that Republican candidates, from Romney to Rudy have been unwilling, or incapable of describing the true depths of this particular conflict. It’s a fight for Western Civilization.
If you read books like America Alone, Londonistan, The Force of Reason, Jihadism vs. Democracy, etc, this becomes abundantly clear. And, I’m absolutely convinced that the great failing of the Democratic Party for the last 40 years, is it’s inability to describe great ideological struggles in such sweeping and grim terms. If the Republican nominee says “this is a fight for the Western Values we’ve built from Charlemagne to Churchhill”, and then talks about the conflict in terms a fight against Radical Islam, not terrorism (in Bush speak) or the terrorists war against us (in Rudy and Romney speak), they’ll win.
That is to say, if the Republican candidate manages to break out of the disastrous spiral of political correctness, and multiculturalism, and do so in a reasonably unthreatening manner, they’ll win. And Newt’s the only who’s shown any inclination to discuss the conflict consistently in such terms. I have hopes that Rudy will “get it”, and I think Romney actually does “get it”, but is too eager to please to avoid amending any civilizational conflict remarks with “Islam of course is a religion of peace” sort of qualifiers. But, right now, it’s Newt.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
“Kavon, not a bad mom. The #1 mistake most parents make is feeding sugar to their kids– in the form of fruit juice. Parents, WHY do you do this?
Kids should drink milk or water, without exception. Science is very clear on the harmful effects of sugar. Why do we addicted our kids to it? It took me many years to finally wean myself from drinking sugar.”
I don’t think without exception. I think it’s okay to have a soda once or twice a week. But my mom wasn’t very responsible in this department — I had milk from time to time, sure, but it was indeed as much fruit juice and soda as I wanted. And don’t even get me started on the snacks.
It wasn’t until this year — I guess pretty early in my life, relatively — that I pulled a Mike Huckabee and went from being obese (220 lbs) to thin (162 lbs). (I’m 6″0.)
September 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“All of Romney’s conversions were in one direction: to the right, and came during a time where his new position was in the minority.”
All of Romney’s conversions also came during a time where he started to lay the groundwork for a presidential candidacy as well.
Won’t it look suspicious that 60 years into his life, Mitt Romney finally comes to his REAL worldview…like, say, between the years 2004-2005…?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Folks… The inexperience criticism isn’t gonna work on Hillary.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Matt — I honestly think that Newt Gingrich may be electable. When people start hearing him, they’ll know why he’s so popular within the party: because he’s at the vanguard of the ideas ‘movement.’
As for Rudy, it’s been him that dared the Democrats during each of the debates to utter the words ‘Islamic terrorists.’ Rudy’s not afraid to define the war as it really is. That’s why he keeps doing it — over and over and over again.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
That may be true, but lest face it: some of our most important allies in this conflict are Muslims or from muslim nations. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.
Also keep in mind that Romney wants to make supporting moderate islam a key focus of his fight against terror – he needs to avoid portraying all of islam as violent or hungry for jihad.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Kavon’s right — say what you will about Romney, but there’s really no dispute that he has enough experience to be President.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
All of the top candidates are running basically on the same platform. The best way to differentiate between them is on the basis of performance. They all can talk the talk but can they walk the walk? Can they deliver the goods?
I liked Fred Thompson when he was a senator but this improvised campaign for the presidency that he is patching together is a train wreck waiting to happen. For one thing, he is playing a role instead of being himself. Maybe the reason I’ve been immune to fredmania is that I knew him when he was in congress. Even his accent is different now.
Look, I don’t mean to burst anyone’s bubble but you can bet that in the coming months we are gonna be seeing videos of Fred Thompson saying some very nice things about Bill Clinton. They used to send each other cigars, etc.. Thompson voted to acquit him of perjury. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
ACT Blog — We already do support moderate Islam. But “Moderate Islam” is going to have to start doing something itself. For a partnership to work, both sides have to be willing to do something, and thus far, “Moderate Islam” has been rather silent.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
dblagent007,
It’s a pretty simple matter for me. I no longer think Romney is capable of saying the sorts of things he needs to say to both dismiss the “opportunist” label and actually cast this election in the terms it deserves. He has to add an ellipses here, and a qualifier there, and a conditional here, to virtually everything he says. And I think it’ll ultimately see him sinking into the place where potentially good candidates go to die: the land of the slow death.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“Won’t it look suspicious that 60 years into his life, Mitt Romney finally comes to his REAL worldview…like, say, between the years 2004-2005…?”
I think Romney’s political positions prior to 1994 are largely unknown. and I believe that he started shifting rightward in 2002 – two years before Bush was re-elected, and six years before he would be elected President. I don’t think anyone is going to be able to draw a successful comparrison between Romney and Kerry – because they would have done it by now, if they could.
–
“Folks… The inexperience criticism isn’t gonna work on Hillary.”
That very much depends on who you run and what kind of experience you are talking about. Hillary has spent six years in the Senate, and eight years as first lady – none of it executive experience. Romney has spent 20+ years in the private sector, and a term as Governor – all executive experience. I think it could work if we run Romney, and maybe McCain.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“Look, I don’t mean to burst anyone’s bubble but you can bet that in the coming months we are gonna be seeing videos of Fred Thompson saying some very nice things about Bill Clinton. They used to send each other cigars, etc.. Thompson voted to acquit him of perjury. You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
All four of our top guys have spotty histories in having liberal policies on this or that issue or supporting this or that Democratic politician, interestingly.
McCain is obvious — tax cuts, ‘agents of intolerance,’ campaign finance reform, immigration, etc.
Rudy — Cuomo endorsement, Clinton quote. Supports gun control and abortion rights.
Romney’s flip-flops on abortion, gay rights, immigration, tax pledges, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, minimum wage — hell, everything. Ex-Romney aide praises Hillary’s new plan because it’s similar to Romney’s, now.
Thompson’s whining about McCain-Feingold not being called “McCain-Feingold-Thompson,” voting to acquit Clinton, lobbying for Libya and for abortion rights.
All of our candidates have some liberal ties. But Rudy’s, sans gun control, seem to be more words than anything. Everyone else’s had actions connected to them. Rudy endorsed Cuomo, sure, but what did that do as far as his mayorship went? Nothing. And as for saying that his policies were like Clinton’s? On the defining issues of our time, Clinton and Giuliani couldn’t be more different. On terrorism? Health care? Judges? Iraq? Taxes? Do you really think Clinton and Giuliani would be similar Presidents?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Oh, Kavon said Hillary! Why did I read Hillary as Romney?!
Because they’re both phonies, I guess.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“It’s a pretty simple matter for me. I no longer think Romney is capable of saying the sorts of things he needs to say to both dismiss the “opportunist†label and actually cast this election in the terms it deserves. He has to add an ellipses here, and a qualifier there, and a conditional here, to virtually everything he says. And I think it’ll ultimately see him sinking into the place where potentially good candidates go to die: the land of the slow death.”
I don’t know. I think Romney is more adapting to being a national candidate, rather than one who is simply running in the Conservative circles in Iowa. He has to moderate his message without moderating his positions, and so far, I think he has done a pretty decent job.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
TLG,
For me, I have one more defining issue: life.
and, as you know, Rudy is simply not good enough for me. His abortions positions is, in my opinion, more or less a slightly moderated version of Hillary’s.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I’m going to go a quick rant on birthright citizenship. You’re fooling yourself if you think the 14th doesn’t mandate it. It couldn’t be clearer. Let’s take a look at it. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Now, you’re going to latch onto “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and say this somehow means Congress can exclude those born to people here without our consent. I think that’s hogwash. Why? Because at the time the amendment was enacted, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. It was impossible to be here without consent, unless you were an invading army. Indians were excluded, essentially on the ground that they were tribal subjects first, and only in the US by virtue of the various treaties the tribes had. Much the same way children of diplomats are excluded via that clause, by operation of customary international law that leaves diplomats beyond the reach of national law. Or children of the above mentioned invaders, again essentially by operation of the law of war. There was plenty of immigration happening through the period, and plenty of talk of beginning limitations on entry, so the drafters had every opportunity to make an exception for children of those circumventing the rules if congress choose to implement such, but they didn’t. And since they didn’t we’ve got to go by the plain meaning of what they said in the 14th, which is children are automatically citizens, unless they fall into the very narrow set of exceptions covered by the jurisdiction clause.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Oh, and now after reading Thompson’s comments, he’s dropped in my personal rankings, probably below McCain now, and he was a fairly distant fourth. First he says he’s not sure whether it would need a constitutional amendment, which is hardly an informed position. Either you read the way I do, or the way Gamecock does, but either way it’s the wrong policy all the way around. Beyond a Constitutional command, I think it is the only moral position in a nation such as ours, founded on ideas and not petty tribal loyalties.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Argemenon (is that from Troy?), I pray for the day when FDT is shown up to be the empty suit
and pretender that is so we can get down to the real competitors in the race. To me, he is
nothing but a distraction.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
There are a lot of Constitutional Amendments I want to see passed:
Citizenship of illegals
Balanced Budget Amendment
Human Life Amendment*
Federal Marriage Amendment
Line Item Veto
Three Senators Per state OR Four year Senate terms.
at this point, I think its time we start to examine the pros, cons, and legalities of a Constitutional Convention
September 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Please … one of you smart guys here … tell me what Fred D. Thompson has ever
managed, organized, successly led, or executed??
He can’t even execute an opinion on an issue successfully.
And the only thing he’s managed lately is to get on Jay Leno to announce his
run for POTUS while all the other candidates were at the debate in NH.
Big loser!
Admit it, if this guy was not a well-known t.v. and movie actor and hadn’t read Paul
Harvey’s script every once in awhile, we wouldn’t even be talking about him today.
Here’s another one — if 9/11 had happened in Boston when Mitt Romney was Governor, and he
had performed as well as Rudy did in that kind of an emergency – who would be ahead right now?
The National Polls are based on name recognition.
Rudy (who I like and could vote for) is well known because of 9/11.
FDT is well known because of Law & Order and the incessant re-runs that are on t.v.
every night.
Mitt, in my opinion, has accomplished more than each one of these guys together, and yet
nationally, people are just getting to know him.
Big sigh.
Oh, and one more thing — everyone criticizes Mitt for changing his mind on abortion.
Fred Thompson wanted his name on McCain/Feingold, but now when he’s confronted with his
support of it, he says, “Oh, I feel differently now.” But none of his adoring fans will
accuse him of flip-flopping. Big-time hypocrisy.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Please … one of you smart guys here … tell me what Fred D. Thompson has ever
managed, organized, successly led, or executed??
He can’t even execute an opinion on an issue successfully.
And the only thing he’s managed lately is to get on Jay Leno to announce his
run for POTUS while all the other candidates were at the debate in NH.
Big loser!
Admit it, if this guy was not a well-known t.v. and movie actor and hadn’t read Paul
Harvey’s script every once in awhile, we wouldn’t even be talking about him today.
Here’s another one — if 9/11 had happened in Boston when Mitt Romney was Governor, and he
had performed as well as Rudy did in that kind of an emergency – who would be ahead right now?
The National Polls are based on name recognition.
Rudy (who I like and could vote for) is well known because of 9/11.
FDT is well known because of Law & Order and the incessant re-runs that are on t.v.
every night.
Mitt, in my opinion, has accomplished more than each one of these guys together, and yet
nationally, people are just getting to know him.
Big sigh.
Oh, and one more thing — everyone criticizes Mitt for changing his mind on abortion.
Fred Thompson wanted his name on McCain/Feingold, but now when he’s confronted with his
support of it, he says, “Oh, I feel differently now.” But none of his adoring fans will
accuse him of flip-flopping. Big-time hypocrisy.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Act Blog,
“I don’t know. I think Romney is more adapting to being a national candidate, rather than one who is simply running in the Conservative circles in Iowa. He has to moderate his message without moderating his positions, and so far, I think he has done a pretty decent job.”
It’s not about moderating his positions. Moderating one’s positions in preparation for entering the national stage is perfectly understandable. Romney’s not moderating his positions. He’s making them mealy-mouther incoherence. People ask him what he thinks about Petraeus’s report and he says something like “I agree with his recommendation to start bringing the troops home”. That’s not moderating his position. That’s, as they say, “trying to have it both ways”. And that’s a disastrous for a person fighting charges of opportunism.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy, I was obviously only referring to the republican candidates. And that nonsense you wrote about romney is not even worth refuting.
My point was that if a candidate has no executive experience I don’t even consider him. I can agree with him on everything he says but if he can’t deliver he will probably do more harm than good.
Does anyone think Fred Thompson can face down a democratic congress to pass federalist legislation? Just look at his track record. He rolled over on the chicom investigations when he was the chairman and the democrats were in the minority. John Glenn played him like a piano and the investigations on the clintons were cut short and they started investigating republicans. As a reward Glenn got a two way ticket for that space mission. And Thompson faded back into obscurity.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Matt -
I did not say he is moderating his positions, I said he is moderating his statements. His positions are the same that they have been.
About the surge, I think his position is pretty clear: No armchair generals. Give people like Petreaus the resources and room to do their job. He is not going to get into exact strategy.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Fred Thompson = the Republican version of Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I agree completely with PnGrata. Those who suggest we’re capable of ending birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment are, frankly, uninformed on the issue as far I’m concerned.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
People criticize Mitt for changing his mind on abortion.
Fred Thompson wanted his name on McCain/Feingold, but now when he’s confronted with his
support of it, he says, “Oh, I feel differently now.” But none of his adoring fans will
accuse him of flip-flopping. Big-time hypocrisy.
Please … one of you smart guys here … tell me what Fred D. Thompson has ever
managed, organized, successly led, or executed??
He can’t even execute an opinion on an issue successfully.
And the only thing he’s managed lately is to get on Jay Leno to announce his
run for POTUS while all the other candidates were at the debate in NH.
Big loser!
Admit it, if this guy was not a well-known t.v. and movie actor and hadn’t read Paul
Harvey’s script every once in awhile, we wouldn’t even be talking about him today.
Here’s another one — if 9/11 had happened in Boston when Mitt Romney was Governor, and he
had performed as well as Rudy did in that kind of an emergency – who would be ahead right now?
The National Polls are based on name recognition.
Rudy (who I like and could vote for) is well known because of 9/11.
FDT is well known because of Law & Order and the incessant re-runs that are on t.v.
every night.
Mitt, in my opinion, has accomplished more than each one of these guys together, and yet
nationally, people are just getting to know him.
Big sigh.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“My point was that if a candidate has no executive experience I don’t even consider him. I can agree with him on everything he says but if he can’t deliver he will probably do more harm than good.”
I have no interest in Fred Thompson, but this seems like an absurd statement to me. You wouldn’t have considered Abraham Lincoln? Really? Executive experience is an excellent positive, but I think you can compensate for it by deep knowledge on issues. Fred, unfortunately, doesn’t possess this trait.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Matt: ‘I think Newt has been quietly running as an anti-Bush Republican for over a year now. From statements like “we’re losing the war on terrorâ€, to his seeming buddying up with John Kerry on Global Warming, he’s been fairly deftly disconnecting himself from the current Republican Party. Sometimes he goes right, sometimes he goes left, and sometimes he simply veers off in directions entirely non-ideological in nature, but the separation has been such a consistent theme that, currently, Newt’s probably farther away from the Republican establishment then any candidate other then Paul. Do I think he can win? I think he’s politically positioned to win; to be the Sarkozy candidate he’s demanded.
And I think that the image recasting he’s doing has been every bit as effective (though on a smaller scale, due to his lower profile) as Hillary’s equivalent recasting. ‘
I immediately thought of Hillary when I read your first paragraph. Newt Gingrich’s situation is very similar to Clinton’s, up to the very point of having a very unpleasant voice. You’re correct that Gingrich has tried to dissociate himself from Bush-Republicanism, and he’s done it well. Unfortunately, I think that the voters will like Gingrich. The very name . One of Clinton’s main lines of attack in 1996 was to attack ‘Dole-Gingrich’, instead of the real ticket, which was ‘Dole-Kemp’. Gingrich was so unpopular that his mere presence as Speaker of the House was used by people so politically savvy as Clinton’s campaign team. I think that one of the main reasons that the Republicans still have a chance, is because Clinton has such high negatives. Gingrich, however, has even higher negatives. They’re abut 40/60. I honestly can’t see how he could win, though he would be a great loser – like Barry Goldwater, energizing your ‘base’, setting the stage for a future Republican comeback.
‘Is Newt’s recasting going to be ignored by the media. Are they going to portray him as old firebrand, yet again?’
The problem is that Gingrich’s style portrays him as a firebrand. When he first won his Congressional race, he did so as somewhat of a Rockefeller Republican, or so I’m told. No matter how much you moderate your positions, people associate his voice and demeanor with what they don’t like – extremism and partisanship, and not because Gingrich displayed thosecharacteristics when he was Speaker of the House. Someone who has a low voice and doesn’t yell (or appear to do so), will be better able to bring conservative positions forth without seeming to be extreme. Gingrich is a genuis, and I want him to be a senior adviser to any presidential candidate, but for him to be the candidate himself…
‘I also think, Newt has a significant advantage, in that he’s consistently referring to the nature of the conflict in proper terms. It’s absolutely astonished me that Republican candidates, from Romney to Rudy have been unwilling, or incapable of describing the true depths of this particular conflict. It’s a fight for Western Civilization. ‘
I know you won’t like this, but there is one person who has been referring to this as what it is, and it’s Fred Thompson. He has also identified our enemy, and that’s Islamo-fascism (he actually calls it that).
‘If you read books like America Alone, Londonistan, The Force of Reason, Jihadism vs. Democracy, etc, this becomes abundantly clear. And, I’m absolutely convinced that the great failing of the Democratic Party for the last 40 years, is it’s inability to describe great ideological struggles in such sweeping and grim terms. If the Republican nominee says “this is a fight for the Western Values we’ve built from Charlemagne to Churchhillâ€, and then talks about the conflict in terms a fight against Radical Islam, not terrorism (in Bush speak) or the terrorists war against us (in Rudy and Romney speak), they’ll win. ‘
Full disclosure: I haven’t read those books, but I’m very worried about Islamic fundamentalism and violence. I also don’t think that the American people will buy a re-framing of the war. I think this is how they would think: For years, Bush has branded this as a war on terrorism. Now, all of a sudden, someone of his party is saying that it’s not a war on terrorism at all, but a struggle for Western values. And it just happened to be such a struggle when support for the war dissipated. How convenient…
Besides, I think that Bush has done his part to frame this as a struggle for democracy and freedom, though, as always, he has done so ineptly. I hope that you’re right (because you ARE right that it is a struggle for Western civilization), but I fear that you’re wrong.
‘I have hopes that Rudy will “get itâ€, and I think Romney actually does “get itâ€, but is too eager to please to avoid amending any civilizational conflict remarks with “Islam of course is a religion of peace†sort of qualifiers.’
I think that even Bush gets it. But he doesn’t want to alienate his Arab allies by calling our enemy what it is. I don’t want to criticize him, because he might be right about this, alienating our Arab allies will make the struggle against Islamic fascism even more difficult than it is today. Now this might seem inconsistent with my desire to nuke Mecca and Medina, but, despite my most fervent desires to see Islam removed from this earth, I would only want our government to do as a response to a vicious terrorist act by Muslims.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Just to be clear, I think that Bush is making a mistake in praising Islam. It might be wise not to attack this evil cult, but praising it will only be perceived as a sign of weakness by our existential enemies. “Look, even the President of the United States admits that the words of the Koran are true.”
September 18th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘We already do support moderate Islam.’
And rightly so. It will ease the suffering of many people. Moderate Muslims would at least use a sharp knife on your throat, instead of prolonging your misery.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
ACT Blog: ‘There are a lot of Constitutional Amendments I want to see passed:
Citizenship of illegals
Balanced Budget Amendment
Human Life Amendment*
Federal Marriage Amendment
Line Item Veto
Three Senators Per state OR Four year Senate terms.’
Number of Constitutional Amendments you want to see passed: 6
Number of those Constitutional Amendments that will pass: 0
September 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
““Look, even the President of the United States admits that the words of the Koran are true.—
That depends on what part of the Koran you are talking about – after all, all of the three major holy books talk about some of the same things. You can’t really call the Koran a book of falsifications without calling the other religions the same thing.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
and why would none of them pass?
September 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Matt: ‘People ask him what he thinks about Petraeus’s report and he says something like “I agree with his recommendation to start bringing the troops homeâ€. That’s not moderating his position. That’s, as they say, “trying to have it both waysâ€. And that’s a disastrous for a person fighting charges of opportunism.’
Similarly, Giuliani opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion, saying that he wants to preserve that option for women. But later on, he says that Congress made some findings that the procedure was never necessary to save a woman’s health, “with which I (Giuliani) agreed”, and that he therefore decided to support the ban. Make up your mind, Mr. Mayor, if you agreed with those findings in the first place, you would have supported the ban. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t ‘agree’ with those findings, you would be ‘convinced’ by it, you would be ’satisfied’ by it.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“he says that Congress made some findings that the procedure was never necessary to save a woman’s health”
I also have to say that I don’t think most in Congress are in anyway qualified to make any kind of finding. With the exception of a few doctors in Congress (Paul, Frist), most are unqualified to give much more than their opinion.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
ACT Blog: ‘That depends on what part of the Koran you are talking about – after all, all of the three major holy books talk about some of the same things. You can’t really call the Koran a book of falsifications without calling the other religions the same thing.’
Now you’re tiring me out. You’re arguing that it can’t be said that the Koran is all false, which is true. Even the most despicable work has some truth to it, including Hitler’s book. However, to say that the word of the Koran is true is completely different, and many of those words indeed contradict those other religions. For example, the Koran claims that the Jews crucified someone in Jesus’ stead, that he was never raised from the dead. This work of plagiarism and fantasy should not be mentioned positively by the President of the United States.
‘and why would none of them pass?’
For no particular reason, but they will not pass, of that, you can be sure.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“Now you’re tiring me out. You’re arguing that it can’t be said that the Koran is all false, which is true. Even the most despicable work has some truth to it, including Hitler’s book. However, to say that the word of the Koran is true is completely different, and many of those words indeed contradict those other religions. For example, the Koran claims that the Jews crucified someone in Jesus’ stead, that he was never raised from the dead. This work of plagiarism and fantasy should not be mentioned positively by the President of the United States.”
Our enemies will twist any word to make it favor their side, and, at this point, I think we are better advised not to try to combat our enemies with a statement that might offfend our friends.
–
“For no particular reason, but they will not pass, of that, you can be sure.”
without any particular evidence, no, I can’t. I can see that the human life amendment and federal marriage amendment would have problems, but the others I think we could pass, and, to my knowledge, no amendment has ever attempted to change the size or term of the Senate.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Although I have to say, I like the idea of having three Senators per state.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Awakened:
“And rightly so. It will ease the suffering of many people. Moderate Muslims would at least use a sharp knife on your throat, instead of prolonging your misery.”
Listen, I hate Islam as much as you do. I was talking about a US policy, not what I wanted. I don’t know enough about the subject to seriously try to craft a policy. I also don’t think that I know how to run what is really a multi-national war, at this point. Unlike most civilians, I don’t claim omniscience and think that the commanders on the ground are best suited to win this war. So, whatever they’re going with, I’ll go with, because they know more than me about the subject. I know what I want out of the war, but I don’t know how to carry it out. If supporting ‘moderate Islam’ is the way to go, according to the commanders on the ground, based on what they know about the particular state of the region and religion there, then I’ll support that.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
the republican has to win FL, drilling in the everglades means no way in hell.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
ACT Blog: ‘Our enemies will twist any word to make it favor their side, and, at this point, I think we are better advised not to try to combat our enemies with a statement that might offfend our friends.’
Lookit, I didn’t say that the President should have a press conference in which he denounces the Koran, I merely objected to language that praised the unholy book of these Islamicists.. And that’s something that offends most of the President’s domestic friends. ANY positive remark from our sides about their religion *WILL* be regarded as a sign of weakness. And if there is one thing the Muslims don’t like, it’s weakness. Not only will they be more likely to attack us, they will also disrespect us. They’re like animals, the only thing they respect is strength.
‘without any particular evidence, no, I can’t. I can see that the human life amendment and federal marriage amendment would have problems, but the others I think we could pass’
For years, the Republicans have tried to pass a balanced budget amendment, and they have failed. And that was good, by the way. I think an amendment limiting the deficit might be more appropriate. It makes little economic sense to demand a budget that is 100% balanced. I would favor an amendment that says that spending may not be more than 102% of revenue.
As for citizenship for illegals, forget about it. Democrats want the votes and they’ll not enable such an amendment.
Line-item veto? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Congresspeople love their riders and earmarks too much.
Senate membership? I have no idea.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
this is late but…say it aint so Matt re. #7.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Listen, I hate Islam as much as you do. I was talking about a US policy, not what I wanted. I don’t know enough about the subject to seriously try to craft a policy. I also don’t think that I know how to run what is really a multi-national war, at this point. Unlike most civilians, I don’t claim omniscience and think that the commanders on the ground are best suited to win this war. So, whatever they’re going with, I’ll go with, because they know more than me about the subject. I know what I want out of the war, but I don’t know how to carry it out. If supporting ‘moderate Islam’ is the way to go, according to the commanders on the ground, based on what they know about the particular state of the region and religion there, then I’ll support that.’
Calm down already. I wasn’t criticizing you, I was criticizng Islam and ‘moderate’ Muslims. I actually agree with you that we should be supporting moderate Islam, if people who are in the know deem it appropriate. Nonetheless, forgive me for being somewhat cynical about the ‘religion of peace’.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Awakened,
You said: “I know you won’t like this, but there is one person who has been referring
to this as what it is, and it’s Fred Thompson. He has also identified our enemy,
and that’s Islamo-fascism (he actually calls it that).”
I know you have an aversion to Mitt Romney, but he identifies are enemy the same way.
Maybe he doesn’t say it with a southern drawl and a cigar hanging out of one side of his
mouth, but he speaks to this subject alot.
“The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments
generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a
theocracy.”
- Governor Romney, Omaha World Herald, January 23, 2006
For more information on his views on Isalmofascists war on Western Civilization, check here:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Defeating_the_jihadists
September 18th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Awakened — Calm down!? Say what you will about what I wrote, but I was most definitely CALM throughout it.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
bethtopaz: ‘I know you have an aversion to Mitt Romney,’
Absolutely not. I like him personally, though I don’t like some of his flip-flops and his apparent dishonesty about his political beliefs.
‘Maybe he doesn’t say it with a southern drawl and a cigar hanging out of one side of his
mouth, ‘
To a cultured Northeasterner, a ‘Southern drawl’ means absolutely nothing, and it’s even a negative. But it’s crucial that our enemy be identified. If it takes a Southerner to do that, so be it.
‘“The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments
generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a
theocracy.†‘
That is correct, and Romney would be good at fighting the war against Islamism. But I really want to hear the words ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamo-fascism’. Thus far, Fred Thompson has been the only candidate who will take the word ‘Islamo-fascism’ in his cigar-filled mouth. And that’s a positive.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
bethtopaz, I made up the name. I remember you from FR. You used to be on a certain ping list that I used to ping alot
September 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Awakened — Calm down!? Say what you will about what I wrote, but I was most definitely CALM throughout it.’
I’ll take your word for it, but the fact that you started it with ‘Listen’, made it appear as if you were at least somewhat irked by my comment.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Argamenon: ‘bethtopaz, I made up the name.’
I was wondering. It looks like an amalgamation of ‘Armageddon’ and ‘Agamemnon’.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Awakened,
While Fred may be great at delivery – he is highly unqualified to be President of the
United States.
He is old — he looks old, he is sick — he is sick. He’s aimless and befuddled and doesn’t
like to work hard. You may like his schtick, but he is laughable as a candidate.
I see so many other candidates that are much more capable that FDT.
I do not dislike Fred Thompson as a person. I have nothing against him as a person.
He seems like a real nice guy. But like one poster said, “I like my neighbor. I feel
comfortable drinking a beer with him and watching a football game with him, but that
doesn’t mean I want him to be President of the United States.”
I would like someone to answer my question: “If FDT didn’t have tv/movie fame as a DA and
president, would we even know about him or be talking about him right now?”
September 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Argamenon – I started going on Free Republic when we invaded Iraq in 2003. It was a great place
for support, but now it has just turned into a Fred Thompson love fest.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I’m not even sure that Fred is “great at delivery”
September 18th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
#14 Not sour on Mitt, just sweet on Fred for the reasons stated.
#16 I agree with you on Rudy.
#25 Yes, the GOP must stop letting the MSM lib pc’ers define the debate.
#28 Yes, Kavon, I care not for experience. I care about values, policies and character.
#40 What is the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” doing in there, if it has no limiting or restrictive function? In fact, the phrase was added, back in 1868, so that black former slaves would be included, while “Indians not taxed” would be excluded. Is an illegal alien more like a black former slave who was born in one of the several states, or more like an American Indian who — while living within the boundaries of the continental U.S. — might have been considered (in 1868) “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
September 18th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I join with Gamecock in praise of Fred Thompson. Actually, I endorse Fred Thompson
September 18th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Hey Tommy — that is a surprise!!
#75 – ACT – I agree, just threw that in to be polite.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Of course it has a limiting function, it’s just much narrower than you think and not subject to congressional interpretive expansion. And to your question, a child born to an illegal alien is more like the black former slave than the Indian. The child has no other home or people than America, while the Indian, at least in the time the amendment was passed, had his tribe (which have always been viewed as “dependant nations,” with a separate identity from the U.S.).
September 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I think FDT will probably be the nominee but I don’t think he will win.
The only possible winners I see for 2008 are McCain and Huckabee. I hope Rudy implodes so McCain can take back his voters and become the frontrunner again.
No one besides McCain has the military experience nor the unshakable honor to tell Americans things they don’t want to hear and still win.
Huckabee has a shot because he’s so much more likeable than any candidate in either party. He has the communicative skill of Clinton without the sex scandals.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
TLG, How has Mitt flopped on gay rights? He has always been for gay rights but not for gay marriage. Gay marriage was not an issue in 1994, or 2002. He has always been against gay marriage, but does not want to discriminate against gays in any other way. He has not flipped or flopped. Please explain.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
#79 Mexico’s President said wherever is a Mexican, there is Mexico. That’s even better than being Cherokee! try again
September 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
81 m.t., You fell into PC speak. You just advanced that Romney discriminates against gays in only one (somewhat accepetable in your mind-set) way. He does not want to discriminate in any other way, just that one, according to your post.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
You’ve killed me with this one Gamecock.
The one candidate who cedes the main advantage the GOP holds over the Dems this cycle.
Ideology won’t help us in ‘08, not after 8 years where people are convinced ideology “trumped” governance.
We have two (or three, including Huckabee) candidates with lengthy backgrounds as executives, and the Dems have none (Richardson excluded). But you’ve passed them over for Fred.
The undistinguished one-term Senator. The never-ran-anything actor. The formerly pro-choice, now-pro-life candidate who differs from Mitt only b/c he won’t admit he’s changed.
Gamecock, I hope your fame and influence continue to spread far and wide. But I hope the Thompson candidacy dies a quick death. I’d hate to have to pull the lever for a certain loser in ‘08.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Yes Scott. Because it involves children. My point was that he has not flip flopped. He has always been against gay marriage. Just because you are against gay marriage, doesn’t mean you hate gays.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Somehow, mt, I can’t imagine Mitt Romney declaring a Youth Gay Pride day as President or handing out 2008 fliers at Gay Pride parades. I don’t imagine he supports gay adoption and I don’t imagine he’s against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell anymore. What about how he used to have a strong desire to “make gay rights a mainstream concern”? What about how he used to say that Republicans had to reach out to gays? Romney saying that the Boy Scouts should have to include homosexuals? Romney now opposes civil unions, but used to support them, am I correct?
This is ridiculous.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“Yes Scott. Because it involves children. My point was that he has not flip flopped. He has always been against gay marriage. Just because you are against gay marriage, doesn’t mean you hate gays.”
Usually, it seems to be that people who oppose gay marriage have at least slightly homophobic feelings, or feelings that gay relationships are illegitimate, homosexuality is a choice, etc.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
econ grad stud — DELEGATES win candidates the nomination, remember? Can you please explain how Fred could pull off 50 percent plus one of the delegates needed to win the nomination when he’s not polling well anywhere outside of the South?
September 18th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Awakened, TLG,
I don’t particularly care whether it’s called Radical Islam or Islamo-fascism. To be honest, the latter has always seemed pretty obnoxious to me. Fascism is about repression, for the good of the state. Islamic militants have no “state”. They’re trying to create one to be sure, but as of now the label doesn’t seem terribly fitting. To me the central issue, simply involves a widespread acknowledgment that we’re not fighting a tactic, but an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the values of Western Civilization. How you convey that particular message is secondary.
And I’m not particularly opposed to working with moderate Muslims. I am opposed to structuring our entire framing of the conflict around the idea that we can’t possibly risk offending a few marginally useful moderate Muslims. I don’t, unlike Awakened, want to wipe Islam off the planet. It’s not clear to me that it’s an inherently evil religion. But, I do think it’s been nearly irrevocably hijacked by nutjob fundamentalists bent on the destruction of the west. And I think that you’re not going to change that, if you’re too afraid to discuss Islam, and it’s manifest failings on the world stage, seriously.
As for whoever noted that Romney has often talked of the conflict in striking terms, I agree completely. Romney’s early willingness to discuss Radical Islam, and his depth of knowledge on the subject (he’s mentioned nearly a dozen books he’s read on the issue), was a primary factor in my initial support of his candidacy. But, his rhetoric of late has emphasized more of the soft aspects of the solution. He talks of bringing our allies together. He’s mentioned the need to bring moderate Muslim peoples to bear in the struggle. None of this is wrong per se. We do indeed want to bring our allies together, and entice moderate Muslims to join our side.
But, there’s little talk of the fact that our “allies”, particularly in Europe, incapable of acting against radical Islam. They’re in the middle the sort of demographic crisis, that makes anything remotely approaching serious action against Radical Islam, almost impossible. And there’s little talk of the fact that “Moderate Muslim” regimes such as Saudi Arabia have financed almost the entire growth of the radical ideology we’re facing. It’s like no one wants to talk about this. And unless they will, we’re not going to be able to frame this conflict in a manner that allows us to win either the election, or the greater struggle.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
My two cents on Thompson: I find nothing of value in him. He doesn’t inspire, doesn’t have the experience, doesn’t have the vision. Nor does he seem to have any ounce of charisma, which will have a great effect on voters minds and his electability. The only candidates I wouldn’t select before him are Ron Paul, Brownback, and possibly Tancredo. I don’t believe his boost in the polls will be long-lived.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Fred Thompson + More Experience + War Hero + A Life-Long Record of being pro-life = John McCain
They’re soul mates on immigration and campaign finance and Thompson endorsed him over Bush in 2000.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
i left out one important part of the formula.
PLUS electability.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Fred is Southern and he is cool. But what else? I thought we got that with Bush last time. How about accomplishments this time around not accents.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Matt, it’s called ‘Islamo-fascism’ because their aim is to create an Islamic state where all serve the good of the state, but the state is Islamic — so Islam and the state are interconnected and so too are service to the religion and service to the state. As the state flourishes, so will the religion, and vice-versa. And of course, all service will be coercive and repressive. So — it’s a combination of the two.
I don’t think Islamic terrorists are hijacking the religion. It seems to me that they’re the only ones reading the Koran for what it says. The others cherry-pick what they like. Same with fundamentalist Christians — they’re at least actually following what the book says. Theological debates on what the word ‘really means’ are just silly excuses to rationalize the evils of the Bible.
“Romney’s early willingness to discuss Radical Islam, and his depth of knowledge on the subject (he’s mentioned nearly a dozen books he’s read on the issue)” — Don’t mention this. It makes me sad when I realize how little I’ve read this year.
“But, there’s little talk of the fact that our “alliesâ€, particularly in Europe, incapable of acting against radical Islam. They’re in the middle the sort of demographic crisis, that makes anything remotely approaching serious action against Radical Islam, almost impossible.” — Right. They really can’t fight it because they’re going to be part of it in a few decades. France, especially. The failure of any major politician to point this out is downright horrifying.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Sampo – McCain is not my pick by a long shot, but I finally agree with you on something – #91 and 92.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
m.t “but does not want to discriminate against gays in any OTHER way”. My objection to your post was not your intent but your PC rationalization.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
nowandlater — You disrespectin’ the Sighowth, son!?!
September 18th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
TLG, I think if Fred pulls together what I think he will then he’ll beat expectations in IA and NH. Then he’ll win SC, FL and every other state outside of other candidates home states. Oh, Rudy gets a few NE states and Romney gets UT but besides that FDT runs the board.
He may be derailed but at this point I think he’s got a 60% chance of being our nominee.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
BTW, FDT isn’t as distasteful as Rudy to me but if we’re going to nominate FDT why don’t we go the whole way.
Why don’t we nominate a chair. Why not nominate a piece of furniture that the VP could sit on?
September 18th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
EGS – the people in Iowa and New Hampshire need to SEE Thompson in person for them to consider him. That’s not the kind of campaign Fred is running, nor do I think he has the stamina to campaign as vigorously as needed to win those states. The only person with a chance of debunking Romney in those states is Giuliani. My odds: Giuliani 40%, Romney 35%, Thompson 15%, McCain 7%, Huckabee 3%.
I’m in the Romney camp, not Rudy, and do believe the early primary strategy is a winning one, but Fred won’t get IA and NH and therefore has little chance.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TLG,
“I don’t think Islamic terrorists are hijacking the religion. It seems to me that they’re the only ones reading the Koran for what it says. The others cherry-pick what they like. Same with fundamentalist Christians — they’re at least actually following what the book says. Theological debates on what the word ‘really means’ are just silly excuses to rationalize the evils of the Bible.”
Let me amend my statement. I don’t think Islam necessarily MUST be an evil ideology. Plenty of people have interpreted the Koran in such a way as to condemn terrorism and violence. And in the early 1900’s, before the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, this interpretation was actually fairly prevalent. Many Islamic societies were reasonably modern, until fairly recently. Iran, for instance, was quite modern before Khomeni’s (sp?) take over in the 70’s. It’s still fairly modern in a pure technological sense, but it’s values have radicalized.
It’s in this sense that Islam has been “hijacked by radicals”. Whether or not their interpretation is more historically accurate, and I think there’s little question that Islam grew as an explicitly political religion (which is quite apart from Christianity by the way), is besides the point. The real question is, can we get rid of Islamism without getting rid of Islam? And I think there’s little question that it can be done, but we need to approach the conflict in the right frame of mind. And we’re not, currently.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
#97 Gen Beauregard has already been dispatched to bomb his Fort.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
As far as the gay rights/gay marriage issue, my stance has always been the same as Romney’s–strong supporter of gay rights, absolutely against gay marriage. This was my stance long before I ever heard Romney speak on the subject.
From what I understand, it’s only been a recent thing in history where gays have demanded “marriage”. I don’t think they should have marriage.
Are there people that discriminate against gays in the workplace, ostracize them in their communities, etc? Yes, and that’s wrong. I strongly believe that. But allowing them to marry? That’s wrong.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
It is a recent thing, yes.
As a libertarian, I’m against workplace discrimination laws for sexual orientation and think the government should get out of marriage. But as long as it’s going to inject itself into marriage, it ought not discriminate.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:30 am
To the author of this article … have you even been watching this campaign? I have Mitt Romney support all of your three issues. My bet is you had another reason for not wanting Mitt the Mormon.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Oh dear Gamecock has officially jumped the shark.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:23 am
MJN, Gamecock spent most of the last year supporting Romney, and specifically addressing how his religion should not be a factor.
BTW, Gamecock, You’re from South Carolina. I was curious as to your opinion of Tompkins?
September 19th, 2007 at 7:02 am
MJN — What is this witch hunt? Gamecock has been one of the only non-Mormon Romney supporters on this site for the longest time — you should be thanking him, not accusing him of anything. As a side note, I think there’s only one person on the site who supports Romney that isn’t a Mormon (MattC, now that Gamecock and Matt have backed down).
What you’re really trying to say — in typical Romneybot fashion — is that anyone not madly in love with Mitt must have some awful ulterior motive.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:04 am
102:
Careful, man, don’t pick a fight. The South got their butts handed to them last time they decided to do so, and have been sore about it ever since.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Sampo, you finally got one right:
September 19th, 2007 at 8:25 am
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Somehow, mt, I can’t imagine Mitt Romney declaring a Youth Gay Pride day as President or handing out 2008 fliers at Gay Pride parades. I don’t imagine he supports gay adoption and I don’t imagine he’s against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell anymore.’
At one of the debates, he used the exact same rationale as Giuliani to support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that we shouldn’t change policy during a time of war. You’re giving Romney a hard tme on his flip-flops, but at the same time, you’re giving Giuliani somewhat of a free pass.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Awakened,
Except Romney is now much more zealously courting the Religious Right than Giuliani is. And to do so he is making a campaign issue out of opposing gay marriage by running ads.
http:// news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_ads_3
As far as I can tell, Rudy is pretty much leaving that alone unless it is brought up by someone else. Then he takes the moderate position of supporting civil unions.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Matt: ‘I don’t particularly care whether it’s called Radical Islam or Islamo-fascism. To be honest, the latter has always seemed pretty obnoxious to me. Fascism is about repression, for the good of the state.’
I’m not so sure about that. It might be that Italian fascism can be described as such, but German Nazism was more for the good of the Germanic, Aryan peoples. Likewise, Islamists want to repress for the good of the Ummah, the Islamic people as a whole.
‘To me the central issue, simply involves a widespread acknowledgment that we’re not fighting a tactic, but an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the values of Western Civilization.’
I agree with that, but how has Bush not tried to get that message across? To be sure, his flattery of Islam is annoying, but he appears to define ‘regular Islam’ as something that is compatible with Western values.
‘I don’t, unlike Awakened, want to wipe Islam off the planet.’
Let me put it this way: is the world better off with Islam? If it isn’t, then we should strive to eliminate this cult. Of course, it’s not realisitc in the short-term.
‘It’s not clear to me that it’s an inherently evil religion. But, I do think it’s been nearly irrevocably hijacked by nutjob fundamentalists bent on the destruction of the west.’
I don’t think that his battle needs to be fought, because it has already been rendered moot by your comment that it has been hijacked. Regardless, I wanted to make a few points regarding Islam. There are quite a few standards by which one can judge a religion. By its founder, by its holy books and by how it is practiced. Let’s look at all these.
Founder: Jesus is someone even I can like, as a secularist. He preached peace, compassion and favored a separation of church and state. One might argue that this was because he didn’t have the political power, but we’ll never know. Jesus was more concerned with the hereafter than with this world.
Islam’s founder, on the other hand, was a vicious bandit-murderer who married a 6-year old girl as his ‘wife’ when he was 55. Some have argued that he is not a pedophile, because he also had relations with older women, but what right-minded 55-year old would want to have sex with a 9-year old? Regardless, he preached evil, said that apostates or those who insult the prophet should be killed. He also, from the very beginning, tried to expand the world of Islam by conquering nearby lands, sending them letters, warning them to submit or die. It’s not new for Islamists to be bent on the destruction of the West. On the contrary, Islam has been like this from the very first moment. In fact, Islam divides the world in two parts, the House of Islam and the House of War. Enough said.
Holy books: There are quite a few disturbing texts in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. However, since these are books authored by human beings over a period of thousands of years, they can be put in the proper context. The Koran claims to be dictated to Mohammed by Gabriel, the literal word of God. Even moderate Muslims acknowledge this. As long as there is a taboo on re-evaluating the Koran, Islam will remain a religion of sand and bombs.
How it’s practiced: Hijacked (or controlled from the very beginning) by nutjobfundamentalists
‘Plenty of people have interpreted the Koran in such a way as to condemn terrorism and violence. And in the early 1900’s, before the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, this interpretation was actually fairly prevalent. ‘
But they’re wrong, aren’t they? The prophet would have agreed with the fundamentalists of these days. Maybe he wouldn’t want suicide bombings, but he would certainly agree with a Jihad against the West, with the aim of establishing an Islamic police-state. Would Jesus agree with Christian fundamentalists?
‘The real question is, can we get rid of Islamism without getting rid of Islam?’
I know this is simplistic, but why not just get rid of both (if we can)?
September 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
All due respect to you sir, drilling in the Everglades is a loser issue. It will kill Thompson’s candidacy, because if he comes out for it he will not win Florida.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Adam: ‘Except Romney is now much more zealously courting the Religious Right than Giuliani is. And to do so he is making a campaign issue out of opposing gay marriage by running ads.
As far as I can tell, Rudy is pretty much leaving that alone unless it is brought up by someone else.’
Okay, but how does that change the fact that they have both changed their position on, among other things, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Romney is getting a lot of bad rap for flip-flopping, but people often forget that Giuliani is also a flip-flopper. It’s a difference of degree.
‘Then he takes the moderate position of supporting civil unions.’
Not anymore. He’s flipped on that as well. He’s to the right of Bush when it comes to civil unions. Surprising? Not really. Bush had said that he would sign the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. Giuliani used to be a strong supporter of both bills, but now he says that they’re state issues. So he’s also to the right of Bush on gun control. Bush would sign those bills, while Giuliani would veto them. As an opponent of gun control, I like his switch, but I don’t appreciate sell-outs. Does Giuliani want me to believe that state’s rights suddenly became important for him as he was running for President?
September 19th, 2007 at 9:08 am
“It’s a difference of degree.”
Agreed. They all do it. Romney more than anyone else. That’s just what his problem is.
How is he to the right of Bush? Because he supports the new law in NH passed by the state legislature? If that it’s it then that was really just a left-wing bill. How is Giuliani to the right of Bush on the subject? I really don’t know.
For Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – that issue isn’t really harmful to any GOP candidate because things have evolved in such a way that most of the Republican base (rightly or wrongly) supports DADT after criticizing it when Clinton made it official. So everyone is a flip-flopper and the waters are too muddy for it to hurt anyone.
I agree that the gun issue is a little bit of pandering. I’m all for the second amendment too though I don’t fault Rudy for supporting certain measures of gun control in NYC. Hunting is obviously not an issue in NYC. To be honest though, I think some of these NRA types take things a little far. Quite honestly, outside of NYC, I don’t think Giuliani cares about hunting either way, and his courting of the NRA is little more than trying to soothe their fears that he is coming after their hunting rifles.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Now that I am thinking about the Brady Bill wasn’t it just something that Bush paid lip service to? I mean we had A Republican congress. If memory serves, didn’t they put the kibosh on the entire thing before it ever got to Bush? And didn’t he know beforehand that this would happen? I am not so sure Bush would have signed it had he actually thought it would have ever been put on his desk for him to sign.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Bigoted comments against Islam like the ones above are extremely offensive. As soon as someone makes them I know they’re not dealing with reality.
We have Muslims within the United States military. My cousin is a Muslim who fought in Iraq and happens to be a Republican. I take extreme offense when he is attacked because of his religion.
Something tells me in the 1840’s the bigot here would have been railing against the Catholic menace.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
so anyway to follow up tp #117, I’m not so sure that Giuliani’s current position on guns is any further to the right than that of Bush.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Adam: ‘How is he to the right of Bush? Because he supports the new law in NH passed by the state legislature? If that it’s it then that was really just a left-wing bill. How is Giuliani to the right of Bush on the subject? I really don’t know.’
It wasn’t a ‘left-wing bill’, it was what he said he would support. There is really no dispute about the definition of ‘civil union’. Romney, to his credit, has never supported civil unions, so he didn’t have to flip on that.
‘For Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – that issue isn’t really harmful to any GOP candidate because things have evolved in such a way that most of the Republican base (rightly or wrongly) supports DADT after criticizing it when Clinton made it official. So everyone is a flip-flopper and the waters are too muddy for it to hurt anyone.’
But you can’t attack Romney for flipping on that issue, unless you also attack Giuliani. As for criticizing it when Clinton made it official, Romney and Giuliani were criticizing it because it didn’t go far enough.
‘I’m all for the second amendment too though I don’t fault Rudy for supporting certain measures of gun control in NYC. Hunting is obviously not an issue in NYC.’
Excuse me, but the Second Amendment is not for ‘hunting’, it’s for self-defense and that’s very much an issue in New York City.
‘To be honest though, I think some of these NRA types take things a little far. ‘
Please explain. The NRA is supporting improved background checks, to prevent people who are mentally ill from acquiring weapons. How are they extreme?
‘Now that I am thinking about the Brady Bill wasn’t it just something that Bush paid lip service to? I mean we had A Republican congress. If memory serves, didn’t they put the kibosh on the entire thing before it ever got to Bush? And didn’t he know beforehand that this would happen? I am not so sure Bush would have signed it had he actually thought it would have ever been put on his desk for him to sign.’
I don’t think that Bush is a liar. He supported both the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban in 2000 and 2004. And he would have signed it, if those bills ever came to his desk (but the Democrats won’t touch the gun control issue anymore). He was to the left of Hillary Clinton before he flipped, and to the right of Bush after he did.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am
econ grad stud: ‘Bigoted comments against Islam like the ones above are extremely offensive.’
My most sincere and humble apologies. How could I be so offensive? I’ll be out beheading some infidels, since you aren’t very offended by that.
‘As soon as someone makes them I know they’re not dealing with reality.’
Okay. Did Mohammed have sex with his 9-year old ‘wife’, or did he not?
Did Mohammed command his followers to kill apostates?
Did Mohammed command his followers to kill two eminent Arab poets who had mocked him?
‘We have Muslims within the United States military. ‘
Yes, and some of them have thrown grenades at their infidel comrades, unfortunately.
‘My cousin is a Muslim who fought in Iraq and happens to be a Republican. I take extreme offense when he is attacked because of his religion.’
Who is attacking him for his ‘religion’? As Pericles once said (paraphrased), you can be as deviant as you want to be, we will allow you to live freely, and we won’t even give you a nasty look for it.
That doesn’t mean that I have to like the cult of Mohammed. It has been a curse for humanity since it first came into existence.
‘Something tells me in the 1840’s the bigot here would have been railing against the Catholic menace.’
How is that comparison even remotely valid? Were Catholics responsible for 99% of the terrorist acts? I don’t think so. Listen, I’m not prejudiced against Muslims. It’s not a pre-judgement. I have observed them and have come up with a judgement-proper. When the prophet is a murdering, stealing, polygamous, torturing child molester, it’s really no surprise that ordinary Muslims, who see the prophet as the ideal human being, aren’t very ideal themselves.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Awakened,
Please answer my question in yesterday’s thread.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
#105 see below and disabuse yourself of your original thought
http://race42008.com/2007/07/16/why-a-southern-evangelical-gamecock-leans-to-mitt-in-r408/
September 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
It’s interesting I didn’t have to mention “Awakened” for her to realize she was the bigot I was referring to. It kind of undercuts her response when she assumes she fits the description of a bigot.
Nonetheless Muslim scholars disagree on all the points she mentioned. Islam has hundreds of sects with widely divergent beliefs. Sunnis are as united as Protestants. That’s not even bringing up the Sufi Muslims who take much of the Koran symbolically and completely askew violence.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am
#114 I’m just glad he has the mind set to consider all options.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:45 am
#107 I was an active dem and even dem couty party official in SC. I switched parties when I moved to Atlanta in 2000. Don’t know Tompkins, but didn’t like his anti-Fred website.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am
#109 Your right, in fact next time I favor a reverse secession plan where we kick blue states out and make them pass amendments before being re-admitted.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am
M.T.: ‘Awakened,
Please answer my question in yesterday’s thread.’
I just did.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
#108 THANKS TLG
AND TO MY BELOVED ROMNEYBOTS, I STILL LOVE MITT AND THINK HE WOULD BE A GREAT PRESIDENT. BUT FRED ADDRESSED SOME PET ISSUES OF MINE IN WAYS THE OTHERS HAVEN’T, AND SO HOW CAN I NOT BECOME A FRED-HEAD?
MIKE STILL NOT QUITE A FRED HEAD GAMECOCK DEVINE
(BUT HOW CAN I NOT BE?)
September 19th, 2007 at 10:56 am
econ grad stud: ‘It’s interesting I didn’t have to mention “Awakened†for her to realize she was the bigot I was referring to. It kind of undercuts her response when she assumes she fits the description of a bigot.’
1. I’m not a woman, a fact that should be very clear to you, so don’t pretend that you don’t know.
2. As for bigotry, I simply assumed that you referred to me as a bigot because of the truthful comments I had made about Islam. There is no ‘realization’ (mainly because it’s not true) in trying to divine your intent.
‘Nonetheless Muslim scholars disagree on all the points she mentioned. Islam has hundreds of sects with widely divergent beliefs. Sunnis are as united as Protestants.’
Let’s go back to the source, the sayings of the ‘prophet’. Reliable hadieths report that Mohammed said that apostates should be put to death. There are two or three traditions that make it very clear that Mohammed married his young wife when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. And that’s a fact. Why do you think that apostates are either put to death or punished in the vast majority of Islamic states? Because it’s agreed upon that it is not permissible.
‘That’s not even bringing up the Sufi Muslims who take much of the Koran symbolically and completely askew violence.’
How many Sufis are there? 2,000? They’re persecuted all over the Muslim world, because of (among other things) their views on violence. Instead of brining up some obscure minority, let’s discuss the beliefs that the Muslim community as a whole holds, shall we?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Sufis can exist among any branch of Islam (Sunni or Shi’a). It’s generally thought 10-15% of all Muslims are Sufi. However Sfuism is considered orthodox by all but two major schools of Sunni Islam.
It’s very evident you’re not aware of the complexities of Islamic thought. Traditions and even the Hadiths aren’t accepted by Shi’a.
BTW, if you don’t want to be mistaken for a female, perhaps you ought to use a less feminine moniker and stop having a whiny attitude like a housefrau who’s run out of snicker bars.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“But they’re wrong, aren’t they? The prophet would have agreed with the fundamentalists of these days. Maybe he wouldn’t want suicide bombings, but he would certainly agree with a Jihad against the West, with the aim of establishing an Islamic police-state. Would Jesus agree with Christian fundamentalists?”
I think it’s likely that salaffi Islam is a more accurate interpretation of the oroignal meaning of the Koran then Suffi Islam for instance. That’s clear. And I think it’s clear that mainstream Protestantism or Catholicism offer more accurate interpretations of Jesus’s dictates then thr Jesus Camp folks.
“I know this is simplistic, but why not just get rid of both (if we can)?”
Well, first of all, it makes little strategic sense to try to wipe out Islam. Middle East expert Walid Phares has estimated there a few million Muslims currently under the grip of the most extremist elements of Islam. A few million out of a billion. But, of this larger group, there’s a smaller group that actively considers conducting terrorist attacks. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand. And within this group, there’s an even smaller group that’s extremely active. Some 30k or so. If we were to destroy Mecca and Medina, at the very least those few million inactive radical Muslims, become Osama Bin Laden activists. Very likely, significant numbers of Muslims who are either moderate, or somewhat moderate, become radicalized. In other words, it’d be a monumentally stupid idea.
The second reason we don’t need to eliminate, is practical as well. Religions moderate themselves over time. Christianity is near to moderating itself out of existence. And there was every sign that Islam had begun that process prior to the 1920’s. They can begin it again, with our help. After all, even if we assume that Mohammed was indeed a murderous, rapacious, lunatic (I have no wish to contest that point), he’s hardly alone in that. Plato preached some absolutely shocking Eugenics and seemed to be unduly fond of little boys. Yet Western Civilization went along rather swimmingly, ultimately, through following many of his teachings.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Awakened, OK, thanks man. I never thought you were a woman. Can’t imagine how econ did.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
econ grad stud: ‘Sufis can exist among any branch of Islam (Sunni or Shi’a). It’s generally thought 10-15% of all Muslims are Sufi. ‘
I doubt it.
‘It’s very evident you’re not aware of the complexities of Islamic thought. Traditions and even the Hadiths aren’t accepted by Shi’a.’
I know that, but Shiites are only 10-20% of the entire Islamic population. And the Iranians did accept the story of Mohammed’s child-bride, because for a very long time, they allowed dirty old men to marry 9-year old girls.
‘BTW, if you don’t want to be mistaken for a female, perhaps you ought to use a less feminine moniker ‘
There is absolutely nothing female about ‘Awakened’. And I know for a fact that you intentonally ‘mistook’ me for a woman. You addressed me in the third person so that you could call me ’she’. Since you were respondng to my post, there was no need for you to do this.
‘and stop having a whiny attitude like a housefrau who’s run out of snicker bars.’
I believe this is the first time I’ve been called a whiner.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
#134 That’s what she said.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Matt: ‘I think it’s likely that salaffi Islam is a more accurate interpretation of the oroignal meaning of the Koran then Suffi Islam for instance. That’s clear. And I think it’s clear that mainstream Protestantism or Catholicism offer more accurate interpretations of Jesus’s dictates then thr Jesus Camp folks.’
I agree. It’s a pity that some Christians are more focused on the Old Testament than on what Jesus actually had to say.
‘Well, first of all, it makes little strategic sense to try to wipe out Islam.’
I didn’t dispute that. It’s an impossibility without killing more than 1 billion people. But if we could do it, hypothetically, shouldn’t we? Islam is the main force for destruction and evil in today’s world.
‘Middle East expert Walid Phares has estimated there a few million Muslims currently under the grip of the most extremist elements of Islam. A few million out of a billion. But, of this larger group, there’s a smaller group that actively considers conducting terrorist attacks. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand. And within this group, there’s an even smaller group that’s extremely active. Some 30k or so. ‘
The great arabist Bernard Lewis tells us that there is no theological difference between Muslim ‘extremists’ and ‘moderates’. The only difference is in what methods they use to achieve their objectives. And this makes sense. If most Muslims weren’t fundamentaists, we wouldn’t see the religious lunacy we do see in today’s Islamic world. And I’m not just talking about actions by individual Muslims, but by government actions. Why are even the most secular countries enforcing parts of the Sharia? They do that to appease the Islamo-theocrats in their country.
‘If we were to destroy Mecca and Medina, at the very least those few million inactive radical Muslims, become Osama Bin Laden activists. Very likely, significant numbers of Muslims who are either moderate, or somewhat moderate, become radicalized. In other words, it’d be a monumentally stupid idea. ‘
Perhaps. But I don’t see how else we could react to a nuclear explosing in an American city that kills 1 million+.
‘Religions moderate themselves over time. ‘
Islam is certainly not going to moderate itself in our lifetime. And I don’t think that Islam is as prone to moderation, as Christianity is. Sunni Islam has a system of decentralized orthodoxy. The ‘consensus’ of the Islamic clerics is what counts. And if you don’t agree on an issue of significance, you’re an apostate who should be killed. That’s one of the reasons why they have evolved little since the 7th century. Also, Muslims view the Koran differently than Christians view the Bible, and even the most moderate Muslim will agree with a literal reading of the Koran.
‘And there was every sign that Islam had begun that process prior to the 1920’s. They can begin it again, with our help. ‘
You’re more optimistic than I am. But your plans are also more realistic. I don’t see Islam moderating itself anytime soon.
‘Plato preached some absolutely shocking Eugenics and seemed to be unduly fond of little boys. Yet Western Civilization went along rather swimmingly, ultimately, through following many of his teachings.’
1. You’re talking about Plato’s Republic? I’m not sure we should read that book any different than 1984. I see it as follows: Plato tried to build an ideal republic, and fails.
2. It’s interesting that you would mention little boys, because I believe Plato was one of the people who opposed having certain relations with them, instead insisting on an Eros of the mind.
In any case, even if you’re right about him, we as Westerners can still see him as a human being. Since Plato, unlike Mohammed, uses reason, we can use our own minds to evaluate what he has to say. We are under no obligation to accept it. So Plato’s teachings have survivd on their own merits, not because people think they come from God. Also, because we don’t believe that Plato was God’s apostle or the most perfect human being, we are not required to excuse his behavior when we don’t agree with it.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Test
September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Gamecock: ‘That’s what she said.’
Now that you’re here, you might want to make yourself useful. Please get my post out of whatever filter you use.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
#138 Don’t know what you mean?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I meant #137
September 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I tried to reply to Matt, but it didn’t get posted. I didn’t include a URL or anything else, so I assume it must be because of the dysfunctional filtering system.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I am not the computer geek here. I’ll contact Kavon and Dave.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thank you, Gamecock and whoever restored my post.