“I am going to try to be so persuasive, so that those of you who are still wavering . . . will suddenly come to the conclusion — a light beam will shine through — will light you up — and you will experience an epiphany — ‘I have to vote for Mike Huckabee!’ “
Well actually this explicit religious appeal was made by Barack Obama. But as Deal Hudson referenced this won’t set the theocracy watch types into any kind of frenzy. Well I already had a epiphany with Barack when Gerald Augustinus aptly wrote "That he’s more pro-abortion than Planned Parenthood, …" A nice bright light beam powered by a 100 watt incandescent bulb no less shined through since that it was good true rhetoric does.
I found it rather strange with Hillary’s push calls challenging Obama’s abortion record. Let them get into a who is more pro-abortion fight. While it might help them in the primaries this type of debate would be poison in the General Election since it nulls out all of those references about wanting abortion to be rare, etc. Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infants Act while Obama just voted "present" on a similar bill in the Illinois version of the act.
One thing about the abortion debate in politics today is what candidates can get away with saying. They are allowed to say things that are so incoherent that it would give debate teams strokes and yet interviewers will sit there like they just said something sane and rational.
For example I saw an interview where Obama said that abortion is a moral question, but that we should trust women to make the right decision. Why don’t we trust women when it comes to murder of their spouses or boyfriends? If something is a moral question it is objective instead of being subjective. If in fact if we can just trust women to make the right decision on a issues, then why can’t we just trust men on other issues. This logic leads in fact to the idea that we don’t really need laws in the first place since we should just trust people to do the good.
In a sane world the interviewer would have dropped his jaw in disbelief at such an answer. A rational interviewer would have followed up asking why it was a moral questions and if this moral question is seen as murder why would it be left up to an individual within a gender group to make it?
Good info on Huckabee.
I am convinced sane interviewers get fired–or never hired in the first place. Facts?? Logic?? Hello?? Sometimes you can’t believe the drivel. Then Fred Thompson says something sane and rational and they just don’t know what to do with it. Even Ron Paul has said a couple interesting things, but they just lie there. Only banality gets a follow up. And if I hear the word “change” one more time! If the Founding Fathers watched the primary debates, there would be an earthquake as they collectively rolled over in their graves.
Sorry–I am so tired of all this already. But you’re right–hearing Barack and the Hill arguing on who likes dead babies more is sickening.
With regards to abortion, I agree with you, Stalin, Nicolae Ceausescu, and the SS- Abortion is wrong and should be illegal.
You shall be judged by the company you keep.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Hey, wait a minute– Hitler breathed air. Stalin breathed air. I have a sneaky feeling you do too, UAB. You shall be judged by the company you keep.
Choosing to get married is a moral question. Do you think the government shouldn’t trust people to make the right decision about that?
The problem with Obama’s answer isn’t that it leads to arguing against all laws; it doesn’t. The problem is that, in order to argue rationally that abortion is more like marriage than murder, you wind up having to assert something monstrous.
What marriage is and what abortion is, however, are not moral questions, but are truths that some people have chosen to ignore.
Choosing to get married is not a moral question, it is discernment, which is the decision between two or more good things. Marriage is a good. The single life is also a good. There are some limits (which are moral questions) as to who you might marry and when you might marry. The state recognizes and imposes these limits. So, yes, I do think that the state has some say-so in marriage.
Catherine – good comment about discernment.
Faciamus – thanks for the Huckabee links. I noted with alarm that Huckabee also believes that the world was created 1000 years ago and that humans walked with the dinosaurs!
Comments are closed.