Can't you do something about all the democrats in this county that are running as republicans? Your help would be appreciated. Although I do not agree with democrats, I respect it when they admit what they are and stick to their beliefs like you do.

It is depressing isn’t it and frankly, I blame (surprise) the Republicans for it! They spent years demonizing liberals to the point that no one can hope to be identified as one and win an election. Then the Republicans almost totally abandoned any semblance of fiscal restraint and went on wild sprees of deficit spending. It was mostly a mistake (although a great slogan) to label the Dem’s as “tax and spend” advocates. What they really wanted to do was just spend. The taxing part was always the hardest and most politically damaging and in most cases no-win politically. Once they saw how successful the Republicans were at spending without taxing to pay for it was like Nirvana! Throw in the fundamental lack of any real conviction (which I roughly define as being willing to risk one’s political career by voting on principle on an issue instead of voting to pander) and, Voila! small “d” democrats flooding the Republican party.

Look right here in Fayette County. Heidi Becker, founder of the Fayette County Democratic Women’s group changing parties last week and announcing she will run for Dan’s seat as a Republican. Do you think she really had some kind of epiphany last week and suddenly saw the light? Or is it more likely that she really doesn’t have any real political convictions at all that she was willing to stand for and is merely changing parties for completely opportunistic reasons?

Next thing you know, the pendulum will swing and fiscally conservative Republican will be admitting that it was Clinton and the Democrats who balanced the budget and controlled spending and will be avowing that they were liberal Democratic Hillary supporters all along.

It’s depressing alright.

Next thing you know, the pendulum will swing and fiscally conservative Republican will be admitting that it was Clinton and the Democrats who balanced the budget and controlled spending and will be avowing that they were liberal Democratic Hillary supporters all along.

I heard rumblings that Westmoreland may be considering a party switch.

Our standards are low enough already but you are slandering us.

That is a very interesting--and compelling--scenario coming from someone with his ear to the ground or finger on the pulse or....

When I first heard of Huckabee I expected him to be a nut. But so far I have been pleasantly surprised.

On the "evolution thing," I've not heard his full view laid out, but in his interview with Rose he seemed not to preclude an evolutionary account alongside his theism. Indeed, he indicated that he thinks that theistic explanations take up where scientific explanations reach the end of their tether. He cited C.S. Lewis as well as Francis Collins. Collins, as you know, was instrumental in mapping the human genome. He is a scientist with impeccable credentials, but he is also an evangelical Christian. But then he does not challenge the basic tenets of Darwin's theory--just the randomness bit, which any and all theists must challenge.

Anyway, I'm sure that the higher he climbs, the more dirt his opponents will attempt to dig up. I will not be surprised to discover that he is squeaky clean.

Hey, he and his wife married at age 18. My wife and I have that in common!

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Wonderful. Another Republican candidate who does not accept evolution.

When asked about evolution, Huckabee could have simply said that as President he would follow the best science in all matters and that the consensus of the scientific community is that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on this planet.

But instead he either showed his ignorance or was pandering to the biblical literalists in the Republican base who have not yet made their peace with the modern world.

We are electing a President for the 21st, not the 12th century.

I see Huckabee as a spoiler at best, and maybe a possible veep for Giuliani or Romney as a sop to the Christian Right while they run to the middle in the general election. If that doesn't work out he will almost certainly have a radio or cable tv talk show within the year.

I watched the debate last night and was struck by his suspiciously overpolished speaking style. Probably a result of his time as a Baptist minister.

If he keeps climbing, some of the assorted weirdities he’s uttered will come back to bite him. In addition to being one of three candidates to raise his hand when they were asked who didn’t believe in evolution (of the other two, one is out of the race and the other is a nonfactor), he has called abortion a “holocaust,” which by extension means he thinks America is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. It's one thing to be against abortion, another to call any American who supports limited abortion rights a moral Nazi. Waxing nostalgic about his pro-gun stance, he told an NRA audience about the time that an angel guided his bullet into a deer’s beating heart. Maybe he was kidding, maybe not, but the message was that God wanted that animal to die just to bring a little sunshine into Mike’s day. One of his first jobs was as PR man for James Robison, the TV evangelist. Must have been a good flak because Robison has endorsed him.

His big applause line is getting rid of the IRS, but I have yet to hear him go into any detail about why he thinks a national sales tax (known in these parts by its marketing moniker, Fair Tax) would be workable or preferable.

The Economist magazine has an evenhanded piece on him in the current issue, and here is what it said about that:

“Mr. Huckabee’s tax plan is as radical as it is ill thought-out. To achieve a populist goal – abolishing the income tax – he proposes a federal sales tax. To make up for lost revenue it would have to be a stiff one, and levied on practically everything…..This would be horribly regressive. Mr. Huckabee says he can solve that problem by giving monthly rebate checks to those who need them. But to track Americans’ income month by month would require a bureaucracy nearly as intrusive as the one Mr. Huckabee hopes to abolish…The plan is a non-starter.”

I suspect Huckabee himself knows that, but waving the Fair Tax banner is a way to pick up some niche support…

deleted duplicate

In addition to being one of three candidates to raise his hand when they were asked who didn’t believe in evolution....

Define "evolution."

Is it the idea that speciation is the product of undirected but relentless selection pressure given the contingencies of the evolutionary landscape? And does the "undirected" part make any essential appeal to Bertrand Russell's famous assertion that "Man is a product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving"?

Then I guess I have to raise my hand right along with these candidates. This is the stuff that I spend my days reading, thinking and writing about (particularly, Darwin's views on the genealogy of morals as he discusses it in Descent). But, at least in its unvarnished version, no, I do not believe it.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

In addition to being one of three candidates to raise his hand when they were asked who didn’t believe in evolution (of the other two, one is out of the race and the other is a nonfactor), he has called abortion a “holocaust,” which by extension means he thinks America is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. It's one thing to be against abortion, another to call any American who supports limited abortion rights a moral Nazi.

You simply fail to understand the full gravity of what an abortion is if pro-lifers are correct. Late trimester and partial birth abortions in particular--which have as their "subjects" individuals who are clearly sentient (and indiscernible from newborns in all morally relevant respects), in addition to being genetically distinct humans--amount to the killing of some humans for the sake of the comfort or convenience of other humans. If you believed this, then words like "holocaust" might not seem very wide of the mark. Of course, if you think that abortion involves no such thing, then the "holocaust" language may give offense. In this respect, your criticism begs the question.

But suggesting that abortion is America's holocaust need not be taken, except by the hyper-sensitive or ideologically driven (who wish to portray the speaker as an extremist), to amount to referring to any pro-choice advocate as a "moral Nazi."

You might as well say that the pro-life side is not permitted to say or think that abortion involves the taking of innocent human life because, "by extension" this would be to suggest that all pro-choice advocates are "murderers"--a nasty thing to say about well-meaning physicians or terrified teens in trouble.

"Murder" is a term that should be reserved for special cases. A grizzly bear may maul and kill an unfortunate hiker. But no grizzly that I have ever heard of has ever murdered anyone. And this, of course, is because "murder" applies only when the killer is a moral agent, and the killing is done in a particular intentional way. (In the same way, not just any utterance of a falsehood is a "lie"--a point that the "Bush lied" crowd should perhaps learn.)

Many years ago, my sister-in-law became pregnant when she was a teen. Under pressure from the boy's parents, she went secretly and had an abortion. On my own view, the result was the killing of a human with a right to life. But the girl was not a "murderer," precisely because she had no concept of what she was doing. (An aside: the procedure rendered her forever unable to bear children, and the emotional scarring has been tremendous for these 28 or 29 years.)

So I might well assert that abortion entails the violation of a right to life without also asserting or implying that anyone who thinks differently is a "murderer."

In the same way, I see no direct entailment between "Abortion is America's holocaust" and "pro-choice people are Nazis." Precisely the same considerations apply. The "holocaust" language might be employed to communicate to well-meaning people that they are defending a practice that similarly results in the killings of individuals who enjoy a right to life, and that in the millions.

Interestingly, did you know that Peter Singer--Mr. Animal Liberation--referred to factory farming as a "holocaust" and even compared chicken magnate Frank Perdue to Adolph Hitler? That same Peter Singer is a defender not only of abortion, but of infanticide. Save the chickens! Kill the babies!

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I wondered about the "angels guided my bullet" comment. Was this evidence that the man is a kook? Or is it perhaps out of context?

You can judge for yourself here: Huckabee's Hunting Story

Slide up to about 5:50 and he is beginning to relate the story. His point is that in the Lander (Wyoming) One-Shot Antelope Hunt, he did his part to help his three-man team win. The hunters were literally afforded only one shot: miss and you're out. He spotted an antelope 250 yards away on an upward trajectory (i.e., a very difficult shot), and the shoot was in bitterly cold conditions to which he was not acclimated. He hit his target despite the conditions. The "angels" point was not a weird theological remark. He was neither asserting nor tacitly implying that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob took a particular interest in his hunting efforts that day and thus sent his messengers to bear the missile to its mark. It was a metaphor used to describe the fact that he made the shot against these odds. His invocation of the angels (and, indeed, "the grace of God" just before that) also served to offset any appearance of boasting. I think he hit his target with the speech itself just as surely as he did on the hunt.

Was it goofy for him to be telling such a story in the first place? Well, I'm neither a hunter nor a gun owner myself. But I can readily understand his motives. He was trying to communicate to this crowd of people that he is the genuine article--a real hunter and NRA supporter--and not a poser trying to score a few "redneck votes." I have a few surfing stories that I can imagine relating if asked to speak before the right crowd.

Now, you--or Rosie--have a right to disagree on whether little baby animals should be shot by big mean men, or whether people should be permitted to own guns. But that is a national debate that is still very much alive, and Huckabee's coming down on one side of it does not qualify him for the loony bin.

Actually, after watching the entire speech, I came away thinking even more highly of him. One thing I want to know of a candidate who claims to be an evangelical is whether he has any brains.

Perhaps as I learn more about him I'll find reason to change my mind. For one thing, I confess that my understanding of the Fair Tax proposal is still second hand. But as yet this guy stands head-and-shoulders above the rest.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Huckabee won last night's debate hands down! Although I don't agree with some of his views, he's looking better everyday.

What about the angel comment? I say stuff like that all the time.
To me it makes him seem normal.

Muddle, thanks for the videos.

Yes, the main thing that I am saying is that I have some reason to think that I know this guy. Not personally, of course. But my impression is that his outlook has been shaped by the same forces that have shaped my own. If this is correct, then I have reason to trust in his overall integrity and intent--even if we have not arrived at all of the same conclusions. And, again, if this is correct, it is amusing though frustrating to hear someone like that caricatured as a fanatic. (Of course, I will fail to convince anyone by saying this. Rather, I will simply make myself a candidate for the same characterization!)

To illustrate, I have actually interacted personally with not a few individuals who have come into the limelight in recent years. In particular, I think of some of the more prominent advocates of Intelligent Design (Dembski, Behe, Johnson). Their opponents engage in rhetoric that portrays them as sinister, attempting to undermine our democracy and force religion--Taliban-style--upon our culture. I am asserting here that I know better, and for very good reasons.

So far, I have the same kind of feeling for what Huckabee is up to.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

You're a good man. When I grow up I want to mature with many of you philosophical and arguementive skills. For those of us who agree; you represent us well.

You make me proud to be white.

I'm actually a black, transgendered lesbian.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I'll compliment him by mentioning how proud he makes me feel about my being black.

You have to admit that 'original' line is hilarious if you think about it.

"You make me proud to be a black, transgendered lesbian"?

(Anecdote: When I first graduated and hit the job market for philosophy teaching positions, I quickly discovered that (a) the market was saturated and (b) the affirmative action policies of most universities strongly favored minorities, women and non-heterosexuals. I threatened for a while to argue in my applications that I was actually a black lesbian atheist trapped inside the body of a white, Christian heterosexual male. Since the "weirdness" factor seemed to count on a campus like UW-Madison, I figured that it could only help if they concluded that I was a complete lunatic.)

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Are you the one running for office in Riverdale?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Have you read the book about the Fair Tax? You should check it out. It would give you the answers about the plan that Huckabee supports. It isn't something he arbitrarily threw together; it's a well-thought out comprehensive plan that would actually, in my beliefs, improve our economy. Just check it out-- you might be surprised!

**Become a Card-Carrying Member!**

Muddle,

On hunting: He could have just said it was a darn lucky shot.... He also said there's duck hunting in heaven -- pretty good for him, not so good for ducks. Wonder what other temporal pleasures he thinks await? I can't tell if he's being tongue in cheek or not. It's just weird.

On holocaust...we're just gonna disagree here...I think that if you say abortion is murder then you ARE saying doctors who do them are murderers and people who get them -- including teenage girls -- are at the very least active accomplices to murder. If you believe that, fine. Shout it from the rooftop. But if it gives you pause to call a terrified 14-year-old girl an accomplice to murder, or to imply that America is no better than Nazi Germany because our judiciary allows the practice (with limits), maybe you ought to reconsider the flamethrowing rhetoric. Pro-life extremists want to bash us over the head with terms like murder and holocaust and genocide, etc., but when someone calls them on it they quickly retreat and say, oh no I didn't mean anyone in YOUR family is a murderer or mean to suggest you are a Nazi because you favor limited abortion rights...sorry, can't have it both ways.

BTW, I too know someone who had one as a young teen. She knew the difference between right and wrong. So did her parents, who took her to the doctor. None of them are murderers, and I do not use that term in referring to abortion.

On Peter Singer, I never heard of him but if he said Frank Perdue is Hitler because he kills chickens he's as bigger wingnut than Huckabee.

EmmyJune (what a lovely name!): I'm well familiar with national sales tax arguments and I believe the Economist's take on it is spot on.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure you've taken my point fully into account.

Dick Cheney shot a lawyer in the face, apparently mistaking him for a pheasant. There was, apparently, no murderous intent. (And because he lacked the intent to kill a lawyer, we probably should not praise him for his efforts.)

I suspect that it is an exceedingly rare thing for a woman to have an abortion and to do so while harboring the understanding that what she is contracting to have killed is a human being with a full right to life and that, further, the killing is itself without moral justification. (After all, even if the fetus has a right to life it does not automatically follow that abortion is morally wrong, because the woman's own rights regarding her body are involved as well. The locus classicus here in defending abortion on such grounds is Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion".)

In the event that a woman (or a doctor) did operate with such an understanding, I would be no slower in calling it murder than I am when a woman strangles a newborn because she wishes not to be bothered by its care.

The relevant difference between the having of an abortion and the strangling of a newborn, in my opinion, is that it is more difficult to imagine someone not understanding the full moral import of what they are doing in the latter case. But, particularly in the current cultural climate, it is easier to imagine someone coming to believe either that a fetus is not a bearer of rights or that a woman's rights are in fair competition with the rights of the fetus. While I can imagine someone being ignorant of the fact that newborns are people, too, it is difficult to imagine that ignorance in that case is not the byproduct of a character flaw (so that it is culpable ignorance). If fetuses are also the bearers of rights, but pro-choice advocates are simply ignorant of that fact, then it is far easier to see that ignorance as non-culpable, and this is because the issue is simply more complicated.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Pleasure swapping thots, Muddle.

So it turns out abortion is a complicated issue involving intensely personal decisions made under wildly differing circumstances and states of mind. Who knew?

I think we are in agreement that Huckabee or anyone else has a perfect right to call abortion "murder" or "holocaust" or anything else -- but if they say it they should be willing to acknowledge there are human beings on the other end of that accusation. It takes a murderer to commit a murder and a people to commit holocaust, so be prepared to name names if you're going to use such a broad rhetorical brush to inflame opinion.

That's all for me...