Something occurred to me tonight with Obama and Edwards' huge wins and also that of Huckabee's on the Republican side. Obama's win will become an absolutely monumental moment in our nation's history, but the overall movement of change and reform comes far from stopping there. For me the success that Edwards and Huckabee have had building up over the past few weeks have been quite amazing and I think they both made it clear tonight which side they're on and are trying to position themselves to be Obama's running mate.

With Edwards its obvious. I've been saying I would be happy with either Edwards or Obama in the white house, although it is crystal clear after tonight that Edwards will be playing second fiddle to Obama the whole race. I think you're going to see more and more people jump onto the movement and the lead of both candidates over Hillary and the rest will continue to grow. I also would not be surprised to see Obama's lead over Edwards improve from here either.

With Huckabee it's less obvious, but I think he knows that there is no way our next president will be a Republican. Most of my family is Republican and pretty much everyone I've talked to recently is trying to choose from the big 3 democrats. I have an uncle upset that he lost his job and can't afford $900 a month health care and a mom who thought the world was coming to an end when Clinton was elected but says there is no way she'll vote for another republican again for a long time.

I like Huckabee and he is at least tooting that same horn of change and he acknowledged the movement in a post caucus interview I saw. I really like Edwards, but I think it would be absolutely amazing if Obama chose Huckabee as his running mate as a symbol of unity for our country moving forward. Could you imagine if one of the most popular presidential candidates in recent memory ran with, and not against, the most popular candidate from the opposition party? We might have one of the biggest presidential landslide victories in our nation's history.

Is this a joke? Neither of those guys will be Obama's running mate.

Actually according to the poll one of them will be. Unless you were hoping for a trout victory? Polls never lie.

Nope, Obama would be better off running with a Trout.

Not possible.

I was initially going to include Ron Paul, but that is almost farther than even I'm willing to go. I think both of those are viable, although I suspect that Edwards may be close to locking it down. The only other option I can think of is someone completely unexpected - someone not even currently in politics. (Or maybe someone who tried to be involved but got shot down just prior to a conveniently timed WGA strike?)

Please, share your ideas as well. I surely don't have all of the answers.

I'm not a political expert, but wouldn't Obama want to choose someone a little more experienced than Edwards? And someone who's actually a Democrat?

Obama wouldn't choose Huckabee in a million years. So . . . Edwards I guess.

I agree he needs some experience on his side, but that goes completely against the message he is sending and what he is trying to do. Yes he needs experience on his side. But does he really need all that much <i>political</I> experience on his side? If the man wins big like I think he will suddenly every politician in Washington will, like him or not, have his respect. How are you going to politically fight the changes a president is proposing who earned, lets say, 70% of the popular vote from your own constituents? I think he is going to be absolutely huge and will be able to take care of himself politically. I could see the need for some foreign policy help, but there are plenty of university and history professors who could quite ably guide him without being Washington insiders.

I think it was the Tom Clancy book after Debt of Honor which sticks in my memory. Much of congress had died in a suicide airplane attack on the capitol building and the new president urges all sorts of different professionals to run for office to replace them and ushers in a movement of change for our entire system of government. Obama feels somewhat similar to me and I like it.

First of all, watch less West Wing. Great show, but unrealistic in many ways.

Second of all, if Obama nominated a Republican for his VP, that would be a political calaclysm of such proportions as to destroy his campaign. Especially conservative Republican who scares other Repubs like me. I am honestly scared that Huckabees may win our party's nomination, and a Clinton/Huckabees campaign would result in our country getting so butt rapes that I'd honestly consider leaving. Again.

-Abe

None of the above.

Obama will need someone viewed as experienced, though. If he wanted to go with a Democratic governor with foreign policy credentials, he could pick Richardson. I don't know that Richardson would be much help as a campaigner, though. Or I think Biden could be a decent choice as a running mate.

However, thinking a bit out of the box here - what if Colin Powell could be induced to switch parties? I've always felt that a) Powell's political views are more consistent with those of a moderate Democrat than a Republican, and b) that Powell has never run for president because he doesn't want to be president. But he might be receptive to being VP. And that choice would certainly amplify Obama's message of national unity.

Running with Powell would likely also amplify the race issue and might hurt his campaign.

And for the record I've never seen West Wing so I'm not sure what Anxiety is referring to. I'm guessing he thinks I'm being a bit too idealistic and unrealistic which I won't argue with, but there is nothing wrong with wanting our country to be united.

There are core moral issues that everyone in our country will never agree on, but there are also issues that he mentioned in his speech such as the war, the economy, and our oil dependence that all Americans want to see solved. I'm a bit worried that Obama has already decided that ethanol is the solution to our energy problems when I don't happen to agree with this at all. I'm hoping he instead uses his resources as president and actually reaches out to the rest of us in coming up with innovative solutions to the problems we face. To me he seems to be the only one willing to do so.

I hate to make political predictions, but if Obama wins the nomination I'm predicting he'll pick VA Senator Jim Webb as his running mate. Former Republican, military credentials, somewhat more conservative than Obama, and from the south. Seems to me he'd complement Obama pretty well.

Theres 2 things America really doesn't want right now.

1. Another Republican nutjob (circa GW). Huckabee is a fundy (not that Romney isn't a bit of one). He screams nutjob. If he wins the republican nomination, Obama wins in a landslide.

2. Anyone who is pro-war. Honestly, the best decision that Obama could make is to pick some unheard of person who is NOT a politician. People want change. Picking some (more) conservative senator/congressmen would undermine his entire message and push him back into the pile.

I hate to make political predictions, but if Obama wins the nomination I'm predicting he'll pick VA Senator Jim Webb as his running mate. Former Republican, military credentials, somewhat more conservative than Obama, and from the south. Seems to me he'd complement Obama pretty well.

I think Obama would pick Webb as well.

Theres 2 things America really doesn't want right now.

1. Another Republican nutjob (circa GW). Huckabee is a fundy (not that Romney isn't a bit of one). He screams nutjob. If he wins the republican nomination, Obama wins in a landslide.

2. Anyone who is pro-war. Honestly, the best decision that Obama could make is to pick some unheard of person who is NOT a politician. People want change. Picking some (more) conservative senator/congressmen would undermine his entire message and push him back into the pile.

I agree 100%. A pro war candidate will NOT win the general election. I've been saying all along that people don't want another George Bush. I think if Obama wins the nomination he'll win in a landslide against whichever pro war Republican is nominated. Edwards is finished. He took matching funds and failed to get the win in Iowa. If Hillary got the nomination it'd be a lot closer election, but I still think she'd win over the pro war Republican as she could run on the "change" candidate even though she represents the status quo.

Theres 2 things America really doesn't want right now.

1. Another Republican nutjob (circa GW). Huckabee is a fundy (not that Romney isn't a bit of one). He screams nutjob. If he wins the republican nomination, Obama wins in a landslide.


Now, see, I don't understand this at all. As a Republican I campaigned AGAINST Bush 8 years ago, precisely because I believed he was exactly what he has proven to be: a big-corporation, establishment Republican running falsley as an evangelical everydayman. A wolf in sheep's clothing. He has been exactly that -- still playing the "evangelical" card on social issues to try to appease the religious voting block, but in virtually every other decision just another power-hungry partisan Republican more concerned with appeasing lobbyists and hanging on to power than fighting for a positive, Republican vision for America.

Huckabee screams nutjob?? No, he appears to be exactly what Bush isn't -- an honest, main street Republican who governs from political conviction rather than powerlust. Don't confuse him with GW just because he actually is one of those that GW has pretended to be. Watching establishment insider Republicans like Romney and Guliani attempting to continue Bush's reign of corrupt Republicanism has sent at least this Republican scurrying to find a candidate to bring the party back to the everyday people of the red states that were duped into (or left with no other choice but) voting for Bush.

Like Obama, a populist outsider whose message of change and "out with politics as usual," is revealing just how disgusted Democrats are with the Clinton machine, Huckabee is the populist outsider whose message of change and "out with politics as usual" is revealing just how disgusted Republicans are with Bush and his Washington cronies.

Please -- take it from an active Republican -- there is a BIG difference, a monumental difference, between an f'ing elitist who courted the evangelical vote (Bush) and an honest-to-goodness everyday man who rose out of the evangelical community to champion mainstreet Republicanism (Huckabee). The latter has the former and his buddies screaming, spending, and frothing with attack ads (see how Romney spent his millions in Iowa in one of the most deceptive, viciously negative campaigns we've ever seen--a campaign that cost Romney thousands of votes) to maintain power in the Republican party. The rise of Huckabee represents a rejection of Bushies, not a return.

--revrew, reporting from Iowa

On another note, I suggest Huckabee stands the best chance vs. Clinton in a national election. His warm, charismatic, and message of change vs. her shrill, Washington insider B.S.? I agree we're ready for change, and I think Americans would prefer him to her. Obama, however, bringing much the same message of "change" and "hope" and "out with politics as usual" would be a tough opponent.

I agree 100%. The Obama and Huckabee victories, the Edwards "victory" over Clinton and even Ron Paul surprising with 10% show that most of us are on the same page here. We don't like the way things are now and the way Washington is being run. Each of the "change candidates" has different plans on how to affect the changes they want, but bottom line is that they all fundamentally are behind (or at least claim to be behind) serious <b>political</b> changes in our government. Regardless of who comes out on top this movement is something we desperately need.

Huckabee screams nutjob?? No, he appears to be exactly what Bush isn't -- an honest, main street Republican who governs from political conviction rather than powerlust. Don't confuse him with GW just because he actually is one of those that GW has pretended to be.
I don't believe any of that. The man is a politician.

Him being a minister makes him a completely non-viable candidate to me. It is impossible to do one of the jobs without neglecting the other.

And, for the record:


I'm from MA. After seeing what hes done to my state, if Romney wins the election, I will blow my brains out.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

According to the enterance polls, 38% of the people who were enthusiastic about the Bush Administration(20%) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. 34% of the people who said they were satisfied with the Bush Administration(48%!) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. Seems like there are a lot of Huckabee voters who like Bush and don't see that monumental difference. But also, 31% of the people who were disatisfied with the Bush Administration(26%) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. It seems the rise of Huckabee represents a large number of acceptance of the Bushies.

I agree 100%. The Obama and Huckabee victories, the Edwards "victory" over Clinton and even Ron Paul surprising with 10% show that most of us are on the same page here. We don't like the way things are now and the way Washington is being run. Each of the "change candidates" has different plans on how to affect the changes they want, but bottom line is that they all fundamentally are behind (or at least claim to be behind) serious political changes in our government. Regardless of who comes out on top this movement is something we desperately need.

Please... can we have an actual primary before we decide that everything is going to go topsy turvy in Washington with voters demanding a wholescale change? This is the Iowa causes. Things get wierd here. Hell, things get wierd in New Hampshire, where Pat freaking Buchanan won a primary.

These two states can help candidates a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean things are going to change.

And, for the record:


I'm from MA. After seeing what hes done to my state, if Romney wins the election, I will blow my brains out.

Can I have first dibs off your Shiba roster?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

According to the enterance polls, 38% of the people who were enthusiastic about the Bush Administration(20%) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. 34% of the people who said they were satisfied with the Bush Administration(48%!) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. Seems like there are a lot of Huckabee voters who like Bush and don't see that monumental difference. But also, 31% of the people who were disatisfied with the Bush Administration(26%) were Huckabee voters, most among Republicans. It seems the rise of Huckabee represents a large number of acceptance of the Bushies.

The premise of my argument is that Bush has duped a large number of evangelicals. He has courted them dupllicitously. He offered them a carrot (abortion, stem cell, gay marriage issues) while he has beat down the country with a stick. Those people that still support Bush (less than half of Republicans, according to your numbers above, a ridiculously low number for a sitting president of the same party) do so largely because of the carrot. A large proportion of the people duped by the carrot vote for Huckabee...well, duh--the point of my post above was that the carrot is Bush's attempt to look LIKE Huckabee.

More succinctly: If you're still happy with Bush, it's only because he's been consistent on (what some call) "values voting". Who's the candidate who most embodies those "values" this election? Huckabee.

But just because these duped Bush voters flock to Huckabee doesn't mean Bush and Huckabee are the same, only the same on those specific issues.

The "Bushies" I was referring to above (and the confusion here is my fault, sorry) was not those who support Bush, but his cronies in the elite leadership of the Republican party, those who are pouring millions into the Romney and Guliani campaigns, while Huckabee and Paul are left to pander to the general public. Instead of Bushies, I should have called them "Bush's Buddies" or something.

Yes, those few Bush supporters who are left are going to go to Huckabee. His stances on "values" and gun control will appeal to those Bushies.

But "Bush's Buddies" in Washington can't stand Huckabee, because Huckabee represents a populist revolt against Bush's elite ruling class. The quote that has been circulated here in Iowa (and I forget who said it) is that "The power houses of the Rebuplican party would rather maintain control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins." Huckabee just won in Iowa. They're ticked as heck, becaus it means they're losing control of the party. And it's showing in their ads, their pouring out of money, and they're spin doctoring.

Huckabee screams nutjob??

Huckabee thought AIDS patients should be quarantined. Yes, I consider him a nutjob.

Running with Powell would likely also amplify the race issue and might hurt his campaign.

And for the record I've never seen West Wing so I'm not sure what Anxiety is referring to. I'm guessing he thinks I'm being a bit too idealistic and unrealistic which I won't argue with, but there is nothing wrong with wanting our country to be united.

There are core moral issues that everyone in our country will never agree on, but there are also issues that he mentioned in his speech such as the war, the economy, and our oil dependence that all Americans want to see solved. I'm a bit worried that Obama has already decided that ethanol is the solution to our energy problems when I don't happen to agree with this at all. I'm hoping he instead uses his resources as president and actually reaches out to the rest of us in coming up with innovative solutions to the problems we face. To me he seems to be the only one willing to do so.

MILD WW SPOILER ALERT: There's a plotline in thw 7th season where a Democrat offers a Republican the VP spot. That's what I was pointing out.

FYI, as a Republican, and an ordained Baptist minister who considers himself evangelical, and a political science professor, allow me to lay out, in brief, my case against Huckabee:

1). After the poor fiscal policies of Bush and the Repubs in Capital Hill, another Republican who has some serious fiscal problems is not what I believe this country needs. Frankly, setting aside any other issue, as a Republican of the classic sense, I'd rather have a Democrat who is fiscally responsible than a Republican who isn't

2). Either Huckabee is a poor administrator or a corrupt one or a bad judge of character, because there were numerous ethics violations while he was governor. Maybe he hired bad people, maybe he couldn't figure out what goes where, or maybe he is corrupt. None of those are thing I want for a President.

3). Huckabee is guilty of some seriously disturbing demagogury: "Let's take this nation back for Christ" is one example. Another example (And I had to look this one up, to be fair, "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk" Come on now, Mike, I beleive homosexuality is wrong too, but "We KNOW it is a public health risk" is turning an acceptable view on ethics into a crusade against someone because they are different than you. )

4). This really concerns me, when Pakistani ex Prim Mister when killed, he essentially race baited by saying that Pakistanis were among the highest immigrant groups and hammering illegal immigration. Shameful to use a tragic even like that for immigration, but Pakistanis are no where near the top of the list for number of immigrants.

5). This one takes the cake. This one is so bad, I cannot believe a thinking person capable of running for President would do it. This is the infamous "Don't Mormons beleive that Christ and Satan are brothers?"

I have so many issues with that. First of all, everybody knows he is appealing to conservative Christians with the message. Secondly, he is slamming another man's faith, WHEN HUCKABEE HIMSELF has some flawed beleifs (see PS for an example). Thirdly, he was wrong, in that the Mormon's own dictionary makes no mention of such a belief. Lastly, even if it did, that doesn't mean that Romney follows it. Not every Catholic believes in purgatory, not every Christian believes in Revelation, etc. It was wrong politically for him to say it, because he is saying Don;t Vote for the Mormon, Because He's Mormon. It's wrong ethically because it goes way past the bounds of decency. It's wrong logically, because it's a flawed statement. And it's wrong from a religious perspective. I can't imagine Christ doing that.

Anybody who thinks that Huckabee is right for America is simply way to far to the right of me to be seen. I don;t even think Huckabee is Evangelical. I thinks he's Fundamental. (Examples see the PS below). No way I'd vote for him, support him or even consider suggesting that anyone should do so, and I hope my party wakes up and figures out an alternate candidate before its too late.

-Abe

PS - Here's my example as noted above. Now, for reference, I believe that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. By that, what I mean is that the Bible is the Word of God filtered through an imperfect lens - man. the Bible certainly isn't perfect, but it is an amazing book that has held up well through the Ages because its gets all of the important stuff right. The edges might be a little blurred, but the picture is still very clear.

Huckabee believes that the Bible is perfect. That every single word in the Bible is exactly the way God intended with no contradictions. Well, sorry Mike. That sounds nice and all, but frankly, either you don't know your Bible that well, or your are simply too dogmatic in the face of logic to admit your flawed belief. Examples include:

A). The Bible states that rabbits chew their cud. They do not, and they never have. You can find this in the passages that say what animals are clean and unclean.

B). The Bible contains a census with the numbers in two different places, and the numbers are slightly different. Biblical scholars say "rounding errors," but rounding errors are ERRORS. In other to say that this is not a contradiction, a reader has to assume that they are both right, or that they are different censues taking place at the same time and place.

C). This one is a good one. We don;t even know what passages are supposed to belong in the Bible. There are two new Testament passages that some manuscripts include and some exclude. If we honestly don;t know which is the right passage, how can we claim perfection, unblemished by man?

D). There are numerous translation errors too many and relatively minor to name, but translate a scripture from several languages into English, and you lose context and severity of many words. For example, the name, Lucifer, means Morning Star. It literally says Morning Star when talking about him. There is a passage that says, in an analogy, that Christ is the Morning Star. Now, in English, we have chosen to interpret the name of Satan in it;s original Hebrew, but we translate the analogy of Christ. That is a judgment call made by man, and not what the original text said. There are numerous other examples (for example, teh KJV uses words like bishop in the text, which I guarantee you the original texts did not say)

Now, with my belief, I can say, yep, the edges are fuzzy, but your can still read the message. On the other hand, a Biblical perfectionist has to defend all of these absurdities, and seriously defy logic. So, Mr. Huckabee, if you want to bring religion into it, and it appears that you do, how about this one:

If you prayerfully considered launching nukes proactively at South Korea and Iran, and you believed God was telling you to do so, would you do it?

Because, frankly, I'm not voting for someone who answers yes to that question. We'll all gotten the message wrong at some point in time.

So, Mr. Huckabee, if you want to bring religion into it, and it appears that you do, how about this one:

If you prayerfully considered launching nukes proactively at South Korea and Iran, and you believed God was telling you to do so, would you do it?

Because, frankly, I'm not voting for someone who answers yes to that question. We'll all gotten the message wrong at some point in time.

While not wanting to really get into an argument over the entirety of your previous post, this particular sentiment needs to be brought to attention, as it is dangerously flawed logic and far too prevalent. In fact, it's been used before: Mr. John F. Kennedy, "If the Pope told you to...would you do it?"

JFK was told he couldn't be president because he was Catholic. Reason? Would his allegiance to the pope supercede his allegiance to the nation? It was a shamefully bigoted fear tactic.

Now you're using essentially the same against any fundamentalist (or even evangelical) Christian candidate. "If God told you to...would you do it?" Would his allegiance to God supercede his allegiance to the Constitution, or reason itself? I've heard several atheists use this argument, but I'm surprised to hear it coming from a self-described evangelical.

So, in other words, anyone who speaks of his faith shaping his character is disqualified from executive power? That is what this argument amounts to, and it's preposterous, to be kind.

On this basis, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would have been "scary" candidates, too. They invoked the name of Jesus and prayed for guidance publicly and spoke of their faith publicly. Omigod, just be thankful they didn't have nuclear weapons at their disposal!

I have let slide all kinds of garbage that has been tossed at Huckabee and other candidates, but not this. To suggest a person might be dangerous in public office because he speaks openly about his faith is historically ignorant and wrong.

If you prayerfully considered launching nukes proactively at South Korea and Iran, and you believed God was telling you to do so, would you do it?

Don't you mean North Korea? :confused:

JFK was told he couldn't be president because he was Catholic. Reason? Would his allegiance to the pope supercede his allegiance to the nation? It was a shamefully bigoted fear tactic.

JFK wasn't ordained.

I admittedly don't know that much about Huckabee or even Romney. I know that I will never vote for Giuliani or McCain. I will not vote Democrat either. I am very disappointed with the entire presidency of George W. Bush. I am sure Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave, and George Sr. cannot be pleased (not that his presidency was anything special).

All I know is that we are a country divided and we do need change. But we need positive change, not change just for the sake of change. I know damn well that Hillary Rodham will not bring that change. I also know that McCain and Romney will not bring that change.

We need real people in office, not professional politicians. Remember when Jesse "The Body" Ventura was governor in Minnesota? It was rather amusing in a sideshow kind of way, but in reality, that is what we need. REAL PEOPLE in office. Not just people that say they are different. We all know that they aren't different at all. By believing all the hype, who are we really kidding, anyway?

On another note, I suggest Huckabee stands the best chance vs. Clinton in a national election. His warm, charismatic, and message of change vs. her shrill, Washington insider B.S.? I agree we're ready for change, and I think Americans would prefer him to her. Obama, however, bringing much the same message of "change" and "hope" and "out with politics as usual" would be a tough opponent.

I totally agree, which is why I really fear a Huckabee vs. Clinton showdown. That'd be awful.

I think Huckabee would be an unmitigated disaster as President. I don't really see what he brings other than his "warm folksy" attitude and his "values" (which pretty much boils down to hating gays and being pro-life).

Other than that, I have a hard time finding much substance, thought, or intelligence in a lot of what he says. First, I am not sure he has any grasp on foreign policy.

Second, his statement that “I don't want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia,” is foolish on many levels. America doesn't important much in the way of food from China and these cheap imports help those he claims to be a champion of.

Third, his tax plan is ill-conceived and not well thought out at all.

Fourth, he talks about the environment, but really hasn't said much in the way of substance on it.

In addition to all that, the whole calling for AIDS victims to be quarantined back in 1992 is outrageous. I think the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution is a sign that America will continue to be agressively negative towards science, which we really can't afford.

Is this a joke? Neither of those guys will be Obama's running mate.
I agree with this. To me the most likely VP candidates for Obama are (in no particular order) Bill Richardson, and Wesley Clark. Both of those guys bring experience and opposition to the war. Clark brings military and foreign policy experience, and let's not forget that he actually won more delegates than Edwards did in 2004 and he's from Arkansas. Richardson brings executive experience and helps him in the West (an underrated battleground in 2008; potentially far more critical for the Dems than the South). Salazar of CO & Graham of FL would be other people I think he'd consider though I think they're longer shots.

I didn't put Biden on the list because:
1. He was wrong on the war for a long time
2. He's in the wrong place geographically

Edwards would be on that list but I can't see him accepting the Veep slot AGAIN. Further I think Obama needs someone with experience in a place he lacks, so that makes me think he'd choose someone from the executive branch (with the Clark exception).

I think the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution is a sign that America will continue to be agressively negative towards science, which we really can't afford.

I was unaware of this. Although I definately lean towards conservatism and the Republican side of things, I also am not stupid. I believe in evolution and creationsim, and the last thing we need in office is someone who is that closed-minded.

The options for this election are abysmal.

We need real people in office, not professional politicians. Remember when Jesse "The Body" Ventura was governor in Minnesota? It was rather amusing in a sideshow kind of way, but in reality, that is what we need. REAL PEOPLE in office. Not just people that say they are different. We all know that they aren't different at all. By believing all the hype, who are we really kidding, anyway?

Except, unfortunately, Jesse was largely unsuccessful at doing what he wanted after some initial success.

Also I don't think you should be so down on Huckabee. While he doesn't believe in evolution, neither does he feel like that should matter for a President, which seems like the right attitude for the President to have. I find the argument that the President helps set a national tone on science to be fairly laughable. His lack of belief in evolution would mean that I would never consider him as a school board candidate. For President? That I don't think matters (though I find his statements on people with AIDS to be much harder to dismiss).

For President? That I don't think matters

That depends. If he's for federal funding of creationist education programs and not for those that teach evolution, then that could be a problem.

We need real people in office, not professional politicians. Remember when Jesse "The Body" Ventura was governor in Minnesota? It was rather amusing in a sideshow kind of way, but in reality, that is what we need. REAL PEOPLE in office. Not just people that say they are different. We all know that they aren't different at all. By believing all the hype, who are we really kidding, anyway?

I think this is a meme that needs to be addressed. You don't want regular people in office, you want skilled politicians because you need to be able to build coalitions to get the things done you want to get done.

All of the "government is bad bad bad" rhetoric of the past couple decades has really hurt us, IMO. The far right told us over and over that government was a bad thing, and then proved it by governing poorly.

Good government is a good thing. Hopefully we'll see that again sometime in our lifetimes.

I find the argument that the President helps set a national tone on science to be fairly laughable.

Really? Are you kidding? The President and his adminstration and the policies they set have a profound impact on how science is treated and research conducted in this country.

Might I suggest you read this: http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf

Or puruse this: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html

Read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/08/tech/main1109280.shtml

Or take a look at this quote:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339
The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/), an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html), "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement (http://www.ucsaction.org/action/display/wacmoreinfo.asp?item=15291) and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

"We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.




His lack of belief in evolution would mean that I would never consider him as a school board candidate. For President? That I don't think matters.

The President appoints the Secretary of Education.

That depends. If he's for federal funding of creationist education programs and not for those that teach evolution, then that could be a problem.
The Federal Government should only be funding education in the broadest sense (so here's X dollars for Special Ed and Y dollars for Science and Z dollars for low income schools). Huckabee seems to feel this way. If he didn't it would be a problem, but he doesn't so I don't think it is.

Really? Are you kidding? The President and his adminstration and the policies they set have a profound impact on how science is treated and research conducted in this country.

Might I suggest you read this: http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf

Or puruse this: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html

Read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/08/tech/main1109280.shtml

Or take a look at this quote:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339
The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/), an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html), "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement (http://www.ucsaction.org/action/display/wacmoreinfo.asp?item=15291) and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including those concerning climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

"We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
You're right. My statement about science education was far too broad. I maintain however belief in evolution is a requirement for a school board member and not a President. Belief in Global Warming? That's a requirement for a President. The science that a President effects is certainly important, whether it's stem cells or outer space. However, it's not evolution.

The President appoints the Secretary of Education.
If I wanted to impact elementary and secondary education policy I would rather be the <s>Superintendent</s> CEO of a large school district than the Secretary of Education.

The NCLBA is one example of the government f'ing up our educational system. There is nothing like punishing teachers in overcrowded classrooms to make me want to pay more tax dollars towards those very schools that have lost their federal funding. Unless, of course, I want to put my children in classrooms with excess of 40 students per teacher.

Thanks Bush for the stupid NCLBA. :mad: It sucks. Trust me. I am an education major and am related to a few teachers.

As long as I am thanking presidents, I can offer up a thank you to dumbass Clinton for the NAFTA as well. :mad: Moron.

While not wanting to really get into an argument over the entirety of your previous post, this particular sentiment needs to be brought to attention, as it is dangerously flawed logic and far too prevalent. In fact, it's been used before: Mr. John F. Kennedy, "If the Pope told you to...would you do it?"

JFK was told he couldn't be president because he was Catholic. Reason? Would his allegiance to the pope supercede his allegiance to the nation? It was a shamefully bigoted fear tactic.

Now you're using essentially the same against any fundamentalist (or even evangelical) Christian candidate. "If God told you to...would you do it?" Would his allegiance to God supercede his allegiance to the Constitution, or reason itself? I've heard several atheists use this argument, but I'm surprised to hear it coming from a self-described evangelical.

So, in other words, anyone who speaks of his faith shaping his character is disqualified from executive power? That is what this argument amounts to, and it's preposterous, to be kind.

On this basis, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would have been "scary" candidates, too. They invoked the name of Jesus and prayed for guidance publicly and spoke of their faith publicly. Omigod, just be thankful they didn't have nuclear weapons at their disposal!

I have let slide all kinds of garbage that has been tossed at Huckabee and other candidates, but not this. To suggest a person might be dangerous in public office because he speaks openly about his faith is historically ignorant and wrong.

This is not an attack against his faith, but his logic. Note that I don;t care what a candidates beliefs are, I vote for the best President, not he one who looks or sounds like me.

It's not an important question because evangelicals would answer Yes. I would answer no. In other words, if you felt God gave you a commond that went against everybody you knew about God and read about him, would you believe it? Or would you use your own logic and beleifs to make your decision? I think Huckabee would be dangerous in w ay that many other Christians wouldn't because I think his answer would be Yes.

-Abe

Oh, and by the way, I'd never be against someone for beleiving in anything, or speaking about it, because, everyone has beliefs or the lack of them. I don;t mind a candidate talking about faith where appropriate. What I do have a problem with is the way Huckabee uses it to denouce others against his faith. Take this nation back for Christ? That's not normal political rhetoric. The backhanded slap against Romney was a blatant religious attack. that;s not normal political rhetoric. Huckabee is scary in a way other Christian candidates, evangelical or fundamental, haven;t been. That's my point.

Don't you mean North Korea? :confused:

I did, but South Korea is funnier. :)

You're right. My statement about science education was far too broad. I maintain however belief in evolution is a requirement for a school board member and not a President. Belief in Global Warming? That's a requirement for a President. The science that a President effects is certainly important, whether it's stem cells or outer space. However, it's not evolution.

No, it's not. But evolution is an incredibly sound scientific theory. I find the fact that someone is completely willing to ignore/disregard evolutionary science to be a warning sign about a person's general view towards science. A few things he said about Global Warming (something along the lines of God will take care of the planet, I believe) also have me a bit concerned.

It's certainly possible that Huckabee's views/policies on science will be a vast imporvement over Bush's, but I am quite skeptical.

Take this nation back for Christ?

What does that even mean?

No, it's not. But evolution is an incredibly sound scientific theory. I find the fact that someone is completely willing to ignore/disregard evolutionary science to be a warning sign about a person's general view towards science. A few things he said about Global Warming (something along the lines of God will take care of the planet, I believe) also have me a bit concerned.

It's certainly possible that Huckabee's views/policies on science will be a vast imporvement over Bush's, but I am quite skeptical.
Fair enough. Evolution is basically scientific fact. However, I think Global Warming is a far better litmus test because there is a spectrum of answers one can take and thus gives, I feel, far better insight into the candidate.

I did, but South Korea is funnier. :)

You should have used Burma instead. There is just something inherently funny about the name Burma. :D

You should have used Burma instead. There is just something inherently funny about the name Burma. :D
Myanmar definitely doesn't have the same ring to it.

What does that even mean?

Thank about that, and it gets even scarier. We've had eight years under GWB. How much more does Huckabee want to move the nation? Look, there are minor issues I don;t care either way on, but really get the Fundies up and at em, like the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and Christmas Displays on the courthouse lawn. If that's all he means, I don;t care.

I don;t think that's what he means. The end of any semblance of gay rights? Crackdown on video games, movies and TV with even harsher interpretations of law than Bushies had? Illegal pornography?

Thank God we had democrats right now in control of the hill right now, because can you imagine he thinks a good Surpreme Court Justice looks like?

That's what bothers me. Take back this nation for Christ? How about Take back this Church for Christ. The Christian Church is gotta be one of the most
backward organizations sometimes.

Example: I believe that abortion is wrong, no question in my mind. You aren't going to delegalize it. Since Roe vs Wade, imagine how many dollars Christians have spent to fight the Pro-Life cause. All of the campaign dollars, speeches, money spent on gas to go to rallies, signs, pamphets, websites, and more. Imagine all of the time spent on weekends, lunches, and evenings. Imagine all of the pro-life paraphenalia, like calenders with the fetal cycle on them and such.

All of that time and money to waste. Now imagine that all of those Christians had spent that money and time and effort on feeding the hungry in this country. Sheltering the homeless, slaking the thirst of those in need, clothing the naked, and healing the sick. Imagine all of that effort channeled into one cause that you KNOW you could change. Imagine all of the lives saved, and imagine the witness for Christ you'd be at the same time. Chastising others and not allowing people to do what they want to do wasn;t on Christ's Top Ten Hitlist. By far, the top message in the Bible other than "Get Saved" is to take care of those less fortunate. Instead of spending money in political campaigns wit no real possibility of success, if we as Christians had banded together to stamp out hunger in this country, we would have Church reform. We might even actually "take back this nation for Christ" in a more meaningful way than I suspect Huckabee would ever envision.

-Abe

TThe Christian Church is gotta be one of the most
backward organizations sometimes.

Imagine that all of those Christians had spent that money and time and effort on feeding the hungry in this country. Sheltering the homeless, slaking the thirst of those in need, clothing the naked, and healing the sick. Imagine all of that effort channeled into one cause that you KNOW you could change. Imagine all of the lives saved, and imagine the witness for Christ you'd be at the same time. Chastising others and not allowing people to do what they want to do wasn;t on Christ's Top Ten Hitlist. By far, the top message in the Bible other than "Get Saved" is to take care of those less fortunate. Instead of spending money in political campaigns wit no real possibility of success, if we as Christians had banded together to stamp out hunger in this country, we would have Church reform. We might even actually "take back this nation for Christ" in a more meaningful way than I suspect Huckabee would ever envision.

-Abe

Though I have fervently disagreed with much of what you have said about Huckabee, this much above I agree with wholeheartedly. I DO advocate a political resistance to abortion (what can be more compassionate than seeking to prevent babies from being killed and women from being wounded?), but I agree that our primary funds and efforts at "taking the country for Christ" need to be spent on individual lives and not political action. The Christian church is remarkably skilled at shooting its own mission in the foot.