Third Party & Independents Archives

First Woman, First Black, First Latino, or First Honest President?

The phrase honest politician has become an oxymoron. We should not be impressed by the prospect of having the first woman, first black or first Latino president. What would be far more radical would be to have the first honest president, if not ever, certainly in a very long time.

Presidents in recent memory have been excellent liars, contributing mightily to our culture of dishonesty. Bill Clinton had the audacity to look right into the TV camera and blatantly lie to the American public. George W. Bush has probably set a record for official lying, though it might take many decades to fully document them. Carl M. Cannon saw the bigger truth: “posterity will judge [George W. Bush] not so much by whether he told the truth but whether he recognized what the truth actually was.”

Things have gotten so bad that hardly anyone can even imagine an honest president. But if we don’t expect an honest president, how can we expect to trust government?

Don Nash made these insightful observations, “If America was ever faced with a politician who spoke truth to the people, no-one would know what to make of the oddity. This politician could probably not get elected to office. Sadly, Americans can’t handle the truth. …Lies, then, are the consequential destruction of American democracy. Little by very little, the lies and lying politicians have chipped away at America’s Constitution and the American form of government.”

Rampant lying by politicians is a major reason why so many Americans have stopped paying attention to politics, stopped hoping for political reforms, and stopped voting

Lying politicians probably tell themselves that the public cannot take the truth. Many convince themselves (lie to themselves) that lies of omission are not really serious like lies of commission.

Just how bad things have become is shown by the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the state of Washington that lying politicians are protected by the 1st Amendment. They are free to lie as much as they can get away with. Free speech apparently is a green light for lying, even though it leads to rotten, dishonest government.

During this primary season it is worthwhile to look at Republican and Democratic candidates from this honest-president perspective. A truly honest president would have the greatest loyalty to honoring the rule of law, the Constitution and the needs of the public, rather than what we have grown used to: greatest loyalty to their party and the moneyed interests funding it. If the nation really wants a change president, honesty should be a requirement.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul looks like the most honest candidate. Straight-talk John McCain still seems to have better than average honesty, and Mike Huckabee seems relatively honest, except when he talks about his record on taxes as governor. On the Democratic side, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel look the most honest, with Bill Richardson running close. Among third party presidential candidates in recent history, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan stand out for their honesty, which clearly was not sufficient to prevail against liars.

Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are pretty comparable big-time, gold-medal Republican liars. And with Romney we might get the first Mormon president, but not an honest one. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, then the most dishonest Democratic candidate will have prevailed. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that only 34 percent of Americans view Senator Clinton as honest. As to Barack Obama, viewed as 50 percent more honest than Clinton in some polls, his statements about his upbringing, universal health care, and campaign funding cast doubt on his honesty. Still, he seems successful in selling himself as honest. Liars are bad, but liars claiming to be honest are worse. Odds are that there will be no honest Republican or Democratic presidential candidate to vote for in 2008.

An honest president would threaten the corrupt, dishonest and rigged two-party political system, so one getting a presidential nomination is improbable. How could an honest person obtain financing for their campaign? How could they get diverse groups to support their candidacy? Candidates tell different groups what pleases them, and eventually contradict themselves. Flip-flopping sounds bad, but is even worse when the new position is a lie.

Some may suggest that a candidate does not have to be honest during campaigning, but only be honest once elected president. But can someone with real character find it easy to lie repeatedly during campaigning and then have the ability to stop lying once elected? I think not. Besides, how can citizens detect the potential honest president if that person is behaving like all normal lying candidates during campaigns? A truly honest person must stand out and be seen as exceptional by the public because of their habitual honesty. Much of the appeal of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is their perceived honesty. But the candidates most likely to succeed attract supporters for their policy positions, promises or ability to win, despite not being seen as honest. That makes their supporters delusional. They lie to themselves to justify their support.

This means that most people reject choosing a candidate on the basis of their perceived honesty. They knowingly choose dishonest politicians. Why?

Lies entertain. Honesty disturbs. Honesty produces painful truths about the nation, government, and failed public policies. Truth-telling politicians usually say things that people would rather not hear and or think about.

Meanwhile the mainstream media and pundits, promoting confrontation and horse races to entertain and keep their audiences, are reluctant to call lying politicians liars. Instead, they use oblique language and euphemisms to conceal the truth about lying. They are as dishonest as the politicians they talk about. How interesting it would be to have media people ask candidates something like: Are you being the most honest person you can be in this campaign? I don’t think the majority of dishonest ones would not say “yes.” Instead, they would dance and blabber.

Tragically, Americans have become used to lying politicians. Can our democracy survive when most people believe that an honest president is both impossible and unnecessary?

Of course, honesty by itself is no guarantee that someone will be a great president. Nor is it by itself sufficient reason to vote for someone. But imagine if we insisted that it be a necessary, minimum requirement for supporting politicians.

In the end, without honesty, every reason we use to vote for someone is a joke. Delusional thinking about candidates has produced our delusional democracy. Time to stop voting for liars. Better to not vote at all. Voting for liars only encourages more lies.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 20, 2007 5:27 PM
Comments
Comment #238813

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

Posted by: gravel kucinich paul nader at November 20, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #238820

The American people have no LEGAL right to expect truth from politicians. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that politicians commit no crime by lying to the public.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 20, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #238822

Washington State Supreme Court overuled a 1999 law (trying to) prohibiting lies by candidates.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003926782_scow05m.html

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 20, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #238829

Divided we fall. Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Such wisdom. I love Nader’s quote that the lesser of two evil’s is still evil. Such wisdom.

Though I am personally pulling for Huckabee, I think Ron Paul and Huckabee would be absolutely unbeatable, and might actually usher in some refreshing honesty into our blackened caucases.

Only in the glorious age of the internet, does a candidate have the chance to fundraise in the equivalent way that the “shoe-ins” do. RP did over 4 Million in one day. That’s insane, and gives me a little hope, but his poll numbers are in the toilet.

Like a cop on a beat, the reason (I only did reasearch after having this experience) I am not for Guiliani (who is being handed the nomination) or Thompson, or Romney, or McCain, is my gut. If you turn off the spinning in your head for a minute and listen to them talk, and look at their faces, especially in a debate when someone ELSE is talking, you see it. They are all slime. Dirty as the day is long. I am in advertising, and being able to read people is how I make my living - I get nothing but real from Huckabee.

He’s in 5th place and I’m smoking crack for thinking he might get in there, but nonetheless, if I can’t have hope, then what the hell am I doing blogging?

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 20, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #238831

Yukon, I can’t help but notice that you make a lot of references to crack in your posts, and I’m wondering if you would vote for a candidate who was honest enough to admit they were hooked on crack. The second thing is, you all agree dishonesty is prevalent, and you all agree that all the ways to win an election are in favor of the dishonest. Statistically, take a guess at the chances any of the “honest” candidates have based on the numbers you’ve found in your reasearch.

Posted by: Right Now...please at November 20, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #238860

Yukon Jake, Ron Paul and Huckabee have commendable characteristics, and I understand their appeal to many.

But, they are not, as you imply, mainstream candidates, and there are good sound public opinion reasons for that. Ron Paul would destroy our economic future by attempting to return our currency to a commodity based standard. Might as well just set off all our nuclear weapons in the center of our nation. That’s one genie that can’t be put back in the bottle unless the rest of the world agrees to do the same and that isn’t even in the realm of possibility.

Huckabee would appoint the most conservative justices to the Supreme Court, overturn Roe v. Wade if possible, and on nearly every other policy issue look exactly like GW Bush in deed and action, save demonstrating a vastly superior aptitude for language. The American people have had quite enough of GW Bush and don’t want a mirror image of him named Huckabee for another 8 years.

Still, they both have appeal to some in our society and I am glad they are running for office to shape the debate and give those Americans supporting them a candidate to put forth representing their proclivities.

Ron Paul’s adamant demands for fiscal responsibility are highly praiseworthy.

Huckabee says he will be a good steward of the earth, but also that he will pursue Nuclear Power. He has no answer to the current nuclear waste stockpiles let alone the new stockpiles his pursuit of new nuclear power plants would create.

Huckabee says “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.”

Rather scary to Americans who would prefer facts and information making the decisions in the White House, as opposed to yet another President who talks to God and allows God’s replies to drive his decisions.

On foreign and international issues Huckabee is Bush all over again. Huckabee says: “Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.” “I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them.”

Bush all over again. Huckabee truly does not understand our enemy. There god is not impersonal by even Christian standards. Their goal is not annihilate each of us who believe in a free society. Huckabee cannot effectively wage war on an enemy he is monumentally ignorant about yet, while insisting his ignorance is faith driven knowledge and intelligence.

Huckabee would be at least as dangerous to America’s future and international relations as GW Bush. He is only at the 10% level in the Republican polls. His general election prospects diminish even Republican support for his candidacy.

Ron Paul at least has the distinction of being nothing like GW Bush, which is why he tracks high in the youth polls, but, research indicates only between 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 between the ages of 18 to 29, will even show up to vote for any candidate.

Welcome to the “I backed a losing candidate out of good conscience” club, though. I have been a member for decades.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 1:11 AM
Comment #238872

David,

There are a million things I could counterpoint, but since we both belong to the wasted vote club, and I actually WISH someone would get elected who listened to god instead of special interests (GW does the latter while claiming the former - hence the poll numbers) Listening to the facts and information and then asking God for the Wisdom to choose what is the best and most fair course of action is noble, and quite honestly, our founding fathers would not have had it any other way. But I won’t try and argue the point with you, because it will go nowhere. You’re an atheist, I’m a believer - moving on.

Interesting that you Libs attack Nuclear Power as though it’s a bad thing. I heard a report just today on CNN Radio, that the waste generated from generating my electrical needs via Nuclear Power (for my lifetime) would fit in a can of Soda. ALL other methods either Wind, Solar, or Hydroelectric, do not yet have efficient enough technology to feed our energy-gluttonous country, and aren’t likely to catch up with the demand in the next 50 years, which leaves steam plants powered by fossil fuels, which will (again over my lifetime) create 167 tons of waste. We have the technology now to shoot payloads of Nuclear Waste into space and at the sun for disposal, so why then is the left so ANTI-this fuel source?

The technology is THERE to get us off of oil and provide CHEAP, CHEAP electricity to power electric cars and electric heat etc. What is the deal?

Posted by: Yukon at November 21, 2007 2:45 AM
Comment #238874


Yukon: An excellent point. The nuclear power power plants can fill 300 million soda cans with waste that will be radioactive for at least 10,000 years and send one to every man, woman and child in America. They can bury them in their back yards, problem solved.

About the time that those new nuclear power plants are completed and the consumers start getting the bill, the consumers will be watching their electric meters run backwards.

Those giant fixed blade windmills that produce 2.5 megawatts per hr. are already obsolete. A new version of windmills with vertical blades allows them to turn no matter which direction the wind is blowing. They are more than twice as efficient as propeller type blades.

Much has been made about people not wanting giant wind mills in their neighborhoods. I wonder how they will fill about replacing the windmills with nuclear power plants?

Posted by: jlw at November 21, 2007 3:41 AM
Comment #238881

What about a… Clever President, instead?

Honesty is good, but an honest dumb president wont make him a good one either.

Looks for competences first. Like with any job applicant.

Posted by: Philippe houdoin at November 21, 2007 7:00 AM
Comment #238882

Competences *and* experiences. I hope it was obvious.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 21, 2007 7:03 AM
Comment #238887
Huckabee says “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.”

How many people really desire an ordained Baptist minister as their president???

After watching the “Christian Right” “Moral Majority” trying to take over our government for the past 20-some odd years, I’m guessing not too many!

Posted by: Rachel at November 21, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #238909
Ron Paul would destroy our economic future by attempting to return our currency to a commodity based standard. Might as well just set off all our nuclear weapons in the center of our nation. That’s one genie that can’t be put back in the bottle unless the rest of the world agrees to do the same and that isn’t even in the realm of possibility.
That’s right.

Ron Paul and Huckabee also want the un-FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax/Rebate system. After the rebate runs out, it is nothing more than a regressive flat sales tax (despite the fraudulent claims to the contrary), and all sales taxes are regressive.

Also, the problem with the money system is NOT that it is not backed by a commodity. The problem is that the Federal government and the privately owned Federal Reserve abuse the money system for nefarious reasons (excessive money creation). New money for every loan is created at a 9-to-1 ratio, and the banks get the interest on that new money created out of thin air. The abuse of the monetary system is primarily why the U.S. dollar is falling significantly.

However, there doesn’t seem to be many (if any) candidates that will adequately address:

  • (01) the abused monetary system (inflation); nationwide debt of over $20 Trillion; 40% of the U.S. population have essentially zero net worth)

  • (02) regressive taxation and dozens (if not hundreds) of different taxes (Warren Buffet’s income tax rate on 46 million: 17.7% ; his secretary who made $60K: 30%)

  • (03) illegal immigration; Congerss wants another amnesty; Congress is despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits from cheap labor

  • (04) the $9.1 Trillion National Debt; PBGC pension debt of $450 Billion

  • (05) $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent out of Social Security with an approaching 77 million baby boomer bubble

  • (06) Healthcare is increasingly dangerous and unaffordable, and government meddling is a huge part of the problem.

  • (07) Wars in Afghanistan and Iraw; 7 wars in the last 90 years (a few there were probably unnecessary; i.e. no WMD ?)

  • (08) Do-nothing Congress is corrupt and FOR-SALE (a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more) and increasingly an oligarchy that is controlled and influenced by a very few with vast weatlh.

  • (09) Congress is violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution

  • (10) rampant pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and graft while our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits

There doesn’t appear to be a single candidate that has it right on those issues, because they are all FOR-SALE.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving !

Posted by: d.a.n at November 21, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #238914

The only way for this country to have an honest President is for the voters to demand one. And after Bush, Clinton, and Bush I’m surprised they aint. Instead they seem hell bent on electing another liar to the White House just to have the first Women or first Black or the first Mormon President.
I personally don’t believe any of the candidate in either party are honest. They’re telling the voters what they want to hear to get the nomination. Then if they get it they’ll tell them what the want to hear to get elected.
If any of these candidates were honest they’d be telling the voters the truth. That unless we get federal spending under control, secure our borders, improve education, stop the flow of jobs to foreign countries, and just plain get accountability back into government that we’re gonna find ourselves in the middle of a depression that will make the one on the 30’s look like a boom. Instead they’re offering pie in the sky and the voters are falling for it again.
One candidate maybe a little more honest than than the others, but they’re all still liars.
And we all know where liars go. To DC. :)

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #238918
Joel wrote: In the end, without honesty, every reason we use to vote for someone is a joke.
It certainly doens’t make sense to reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters do.

Joel wrote: Delusional thinking about candidates has produced our delusional democracy. Time to stop voting for liars. Better to not vote at all. Voting for liars only encourages more lies.
No, to “not vote at all” is not better, because it would let those in office stay in office, grow more corrupt, more powerful, and more tyrannical.

There’s a MUCH better way:

    Vote out bad incumbent politicians (which is most, if not all of them), over and over and over, until they get the message.

The problem is not that all candidates are corrupt from the very beginning.
The problem is that voters repeatedly reward bad politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates, which encourages and rewards them to grow more corrupt.
The solution is for voters to do the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, no-brainer, and responsible thing that the voters were supposed to be doing all along.

Recommending voters to NOT vote will ONLY make things worse, because 40% to 50% of voters ALREADY do not vote. So how has 80 to 100 million of the 200 million eligible voters helped by not voting?

Protesting by NOT voting is like Lee Jamison wrote in Comment # 238314, that:

    solution is like protesting air pollution by putting a plasic bag over your head.

There’s a better way:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Don’t Re-Elect Them!

Posted by: d.a.n at November 21, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #238922

Yukon, why would you come to the absurd and false statement that I am an atheist? Is it your view that anyone who would not vote for Huckabee Must be an atheist?

I simply don’t believe god answers personal prayers. If that were true, most people who have died in the last several centuries would still be alive and all be very wealthy.

The people I have known who hear god’s voice have all been patients with whom I worked as staff in a psychiatric hospital. If it weren’t for privacy issues, I could recommend a number of them to you to vote for president. And those who committed them were all Christians as far as I know. You don’t get elected as a judge in Texas running as an atheist.

But, it is a mistake to think that people who disagree with you are therefore atheists. And speaks to the leaps of judgment you will make in your comments when your opinion is opposed. (Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord). Or, am I speaking to Lord Yukon, now?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #238929


We live in a society where greed is the name of the game. Honesty is something that has to be enforced by law and enforcement is rare. I realize that this is a cynical attitude but, examples of honesty are rear compared to examples of greed.

Posted by: jlw at November 21, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #238937
Yukon wrote: David, …You’re an atheist, I’m a believer - moving on.
“moving on” ?

As if “moving on” to some higher moral ground?

In reality, quite the oppposite, since that comment was obviously supposed to be a put down based on religion. And it is not even true.

It is reminiscent of George H. W. Bush (41) who said

    No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
That sort of bigorty based on religion is just as revolting as bigoted statements based on race, color, gender, etc.

Funny. I didn’t see anywhere in the Constitution (nor the 1st Amendment) that required religion to be a citizen of the U.S., nor necessary to “choose what is the best and most fair course of action”

Posted by: d.a.n at November 21, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #238945

Huckabee is a liar. I am not calling him that, other Republicans are. Fact Check has this to say about Huckabee lying on the campaign trail:

* Huckabee claimed that a speech in which he implored the state Legislature to raise taxes was in response to a state Supreme Court order to increase education funding. But he specifically said in that speech that he would address the education matter at a later date.
* He said a tax on beds filled in nursing homes was a “fee” not a tax, despite the fact that he himself has called it the “bed tax.”
* Huckabee claimed a gasoline tax was only passed after 80 percent of voters approved it. Not true. The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs.
* He frequently says he cut taxes “almost 94 times” but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure. In the end, he presided over a net tax increase.

I though not bearing false witness was one of the Bible’s Ten Commandments. Is he a Christian abiding the Commandments, or a politician abiding the Supreme Court which said politicians lying to the public is not a crime?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #238969
The technology is THERE to get us off of oil and provide CHEAP, CHEAP electricity to power electric cars and electric heat etc. What is the deal?

The Oil Industry profit.

And the fact that goodies transportation, responsible for 40% of CO2 emitted, is not done by personal cars but trucks, boats and planes for which no electric powered replacement models is ready or, even, designed.

And uranium is a fossil resource too, and the estimated level wont last long if every developed nations were massively switching to nuclear power.

Last but not least, we should have learned our lesson: diversify your resource dependency. Moving from one big to the next one is not diversifying.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 21, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #238976

To everyone who flamed me over my dismissal of the point of arguing with David on the merits of actually praying for guidance - so sorry to have offended you with my suffocating bigotry.

David said: Having someone in the Whitehouse whose decisions are driven by faith is rather scary to Americans who would prefer facts and information making the decisions in the White House, as opposed to yet another President who talks to God and allows God’s replies to drive his decisions.

David made the judgemental leap that saying his decisions are driven by faith means he’s a whack job who doesn’t decide anything for himself, and just walks around like an automoton at the whims of a schizophrenic booming voice that only he can hear - which David clearly assumes.

Since everyone wants to flame me as a bigot (classic liberalism) I will explain what I mean.

By calling you an atheist, I am incorrect. I genuinely don’t know and personally could give a crap which is the reason I said “moving on” meaning moving on to other things worth debating -because debating something as personal as religion is truly pointless over a blog.

Interesting how the assumed judgements that I am some pious, holier-than-thou right-wing zealot actually displays how YOUR assumptions and predispositions about Christians reveal themselves. Have a coke and a nap d.a.n., you are a little zealous yourself if you think, the words “moving on = No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Those of you who have ever read anything I write know that I am no Bush supporter, and lumping me in the same category as him just because we both claim to be Christian is no more fair that lumping all Atheists in with Charles Manson because you choose not to believe. It’s patently ridiculous and demonstrates how myopic your OWN view is of the world and the people in it.

In “moving on” I was simply saying, let’s talk about something that can be argued - faith cannot. You either have it, or you don’t, and having it (to me) just means that you run your actions and decisions through a filter that says, “Is this what I think God would want me to do, based on what I know of him from reading the bible.” There is no booming voice, there is just your own voice. Atheists, who are quite often wonderfully-moral people just call it a conscience. It is simply the existence of a conscience, which has no scientifically provable value to our evolution, that makes me side with a creator and ask myself that one faith based question when I think and act on things.

David, never have I equated myself or stated myself to be a Lord, or anything other than a conservative guy in Alaska. I believe humble Christians (televangelists and public figures excluded) who have their prayers answered merely take a minute to count their blessings, or close one chapter of their life and open another, thereby separating themselves from the EGO that stifles those who think the world starts and stops at their fingertips. Hence the FACT that people of faith overall are happier, live longer, take less medication, etc.

You say I came absurdly to the notion that you were an Atheist, when really, I formed the opinion from reading your posts for years now, and seeing a trend of trashing all things Christian on principle. As though nothing can come from or of being Christian, besides bigotry, zealotry, regression, violence, and all the other great things you frequently imply are typical follies of those people in power capacities that label themselves as Christians.

Flame me for bigotry all you want, you know I cannot prove you to be an atheist, but because I made the (according to you) incorrect assumption, you get to label another Christian (me) a judgemental whack job who labels everyone atheist when they disagree… And THAT is what’s absurd.

To jlw,

I’d rather have 300 million radioactive soda cans on one rocket headed for the sun and all the US power needs met for the next 80 years, than the 1.2 billion olympic sized swimming pools full of waste that we will be leaving our children now.
All I was saying about Nuclear power was that it should be INCLUDED in the diversification of power generation, not blacklisted by the foaming-at-the-mouth left.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 21, 2007 9:09 PM
Comment #238980
Yukon Jake wrote: Have a coke and a nap d.a.n., you are a little zealous yourself if you think, the words “moving on …
AHhhhh … resorting to personal attacks is exactly what I expected.

No amount of lame excuses, back-pedaling, and more excuses will undo the bigotry of the statements above. Calling someone an atheist is pure bigotry.

Cloud the issues, obscure the facts, and dance around it in everyway possible, and it does NOT change the plain and obvious meaning of the bigoted statements above.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 21, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #238985

Yukon said: “By calling you an atheist, I am incorrect.”

Thank you. I have been a Buddhist nearly all my life, which is a far cry from atheism. That too is sprinkled throughout many of my comments over the years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #238987

Yukon Jake said: “To everyone who flamed me over my dismissal of the point of arguing with David on the merits of actually praying for guidance - so sorry to have offended you with my suffocating bigotry.”

A comment which prejudges others without evidence or fact, is a prejudiced comment. The rest of my commentary was about politicians like Huckabee. Your comment about my being an atheist was inappropriate and in violation of WatchBlog’s rules. But, I don’t see where anyone has called you a bigot. Only your comment. And critiquing the messages people leave is appropriate, not the messengers themselves.

Do you know GW Bush and Huckabee personally? Did they confess to you the true meaning of their words when they said: (July 9, 2004 GW Bush:) “God speaks through me.” Or, on Huckabee’s campaign site at this very moment: “My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.”

Did they tell you their words do not accurately reflect what they meant? I am curious because your comments spend a lot words trying to apologize for what they in fact, said, attempting to explaining their words away from their most obvious meaning.

And if Huckabee’s faith conflicts with the facts, it is clear to me that Huckabee, by his own words, will not be influenced by the facts, but “driven” by his faith. Remember that GW Bush invaded Iraq on the ‘faith’ that Iraq had WMD, instead of the FACT that he didn’t have them. That is what can happen when one is “driven” by faith, as president.

As I said before, many folks, including myself, find these words scary for a potential leader of our nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #238988

Yukon Jake said: “You say I came absurdly to the notion that you were an Atheist, when really, I formed the opinion from reading your posts for years now, and seeing a trend of trashing all things Christian on principle.”

Please provide some quotes, Yukon. I respect very much the Christian faith, and the teachings of Christ. Always have. Always will. It is what some people who call themselves Christians do with the faith, like the KKK and Aryan Nation and many of the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians who who seek to destroy the 1st Amendment of the Constitution through calls to legislate the U.S. a Christian nation, that I have railed against.

But, by all means, if you can find a single quote from me in context that denigrates the religion of Christianity, please produce it. Otherwise, I will consider your comment uninformed and tainted by predispositions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 21, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #238990

Yukon
I’m a Baptist. Huckabee is a Baptist. In fact he’s an ordained Baptist Preacher. And guess what? I wouldn’t vote for him for dog catcher. Reckon by your thinking I’m an Atheist too?
Just because someone doesn’t like a candidate that claims to believe in God doesn’t automatically make him an Atheist.
I would like to see a President (in fact a Congress too) that would ask God for guidance and wisdom as they make the decisions that effect this country as much as you. But if they aint honest to start with asking God for anything aint gonna do anymore good that spitting on a house fire to put it out.
Fact is Huckabee is a liar. He’s lying about his record as Governor of Arkansas. Specially his record on taxes. The man aint never seen a tax he doesn’t like. But that aint what he’s telling folks. That right there makes him a liar. And that makes him dishonest.


David said: I though not bearing false witness was one of the Bible’s Ten Commandments. Is he a Christian abiding the Commandments, or a politician abiding the Supreme Court which said politicians lying to the public is not a crime?

I reckon he’s the second. If he was the first he wouldn’t be doing all the lying he is.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 22, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #239000

Gadzooks people, what is with this ridiculous witch hunt? I have explained it twice now and never did say it in the first place, I don’t assume people who disagree with me, or don’t like Huckabee, are Atheists. For crying out loud, read the post Ron, not just the flames coming from the posts.

To d.a.n., your reply makes absolutely no sense.

To David, if stating someone is an Atheist is an attack on the messenger, then so is saying someone is a catholic, or a muslim, or black or asian or whatever. You libs are so wrapped up in political correctness that fact has somehow become and attack. It’s ridiculous. Calling someone a moron is an attack, which I routinely resist the temptation to do based on the comments I read, but if atheist to you is a dirty word, then so must be believer, or else you’re not being intellectually honest. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Huckabee’s not going to win, but I’m glad you vetted your vespers, we’re going to get Jackass Juliani (can I attack him?) and he will probably win by a teeny weeny margin over Hilary just because everyone will get frothed up over Democrats being weak on defense.

Unfortunately, Juliani will be just as bad as Hillary, just in a different way. It’s all a sham, crooked wings on either side of the same vulture. I’m going to go drink a cold beer and read my bible.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 22, 2007 1:02 AM
Comment #239016

Yukon, WatchBlog’s rules state: “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. …To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.”

I don’t see how it can be made any clearer. A person’s personal choice of religion is not open for critique by WatchBlog’s rules, nor is their intelligence, looks, hairdo, choice of occupation, family, or friends.

We agree, Huckabee is not going to win. There are scenarios, in a match up between Guiliani and Hillary, in which Guiliani could win. But, that would require a major miscalculation or erroneous act on Hillary’s part. The polls show the public has soured on the Republicans in general. And last I checked, Guiliani is running as a Republican.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment #239020
Yukon Jake wrote: To d.a.n., your reply makes absolutely no sense.
It’s about religious intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry in your comments (i.e. calling David R. Remer an athiest is only part of it, as the hole continued to get dug even deeper). Is that clear enough?
Yukon Jake wrote: To David, if stating someone is an Atheist is an attack on the messenger, then so is saying someone is a catholic, or a muslim, or black or asian or whatever.
First of all, David R. Remer is not an atheist.

Second, your usage was an obvious put down and clearly revealed an intolerance based on religion. That sort of bigotry is no different and no less repulsive than prejudice and discrimination based on race, color, gender, etc.

  • Posted by: d.a.n at November 22, 2007 10:32 AM
    Comment #239021

    Am I the only one that finds it deeply ironic that everyone has gotten into a froth over the religious statements of politicians…. in a thread about how all politicians lie? :-)

    Now, to get back to Joel’s original thread. While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that honest politicians would be a vast improvement, it’s not like dishonesty is somehow a new development in the world of public office. To quote Jefferson:

    In Great Britain it is said their constitution relies on the House of Commons for honesty, and the Lords for wisdom; which would be a rational reliance if honesty were to be bought with money, and if wisdom were hereditary.
    What is different is not the amount of honesty, but the combination of our infotainment society and the eternal, unblinking eye of the media, which judges not on worth but on how many heads it will turn.

    And what turns heads, ladies and gentlemen? To quote a very different source, namely the Green Goblin from the first Spider-man movie (hey, I’ll take truth where I can find it)

    The only thing that people like better than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying.
    This is the source of our media fixation: our slow-down-to-see-the-accident mindset. We love to see anyone placed up on a pedistal fall flat on their backsides, and with the exception of our celebrities, nobody falls more dramatically than our politicians.

    L

    Posted by: leatherankh at November 22, 2007 10:51 AM
    Comment #239029

    d.a.n, I appreciate your defense. But, I see nothing wrong with Yukon or any voter supporting a candidate on religious or other biased grounds. All voters have value sticks by which they measure their impressions of candidates, and all values are at least, philosophically, debatable as to their importance and worth for a population as a whole.

    Our political world has grown so overwhelmingly complex and virtually unknowable before the fact, that short cuts to political assessment are forced by circumstance upon the voting public. Those short cuts will inevitably result in biased assessments of candidates based on items like the candidate’s faith, skin color in some cases, gender, as well as other more academic biases such as what favored columnists have to say about a candidate, or whether one’s parents prefer one candidate over another, or respected teachers or professor’s choices of candidate.

    I can’t fault Yukon for seeking shortcuts to choosing his preferred candidate. I seek shortcuts myself to the work, effort, and expense of seeking a personal audience with each of the candidates, even if that were possible. And short cuts to acquiring all the relevant information are inevitably going to result in some prejudging of political choices by less than directly informed sources.

    I am personally biased toward candidates with an excellent command of the English language. I assume from their command of the language that their thinking is rational and logical. Though that may not necessarily be the case.

    I also tend to assume that if a candidate comes across as logical and rational, that they are also honest. I made that assumption about Obama early on, and was proved wrong by his later positions on border security, illegal immigration, and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Which make his comments, in my opinion, about standing up for working Americans and the Middle class, a dishonest claim.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 12:44 PM
    Comment #239030

    Comment #238872
    David,

    There are a million things I could counterpoint, but since we both belong to the wasted vote club, and I actually WISH someone would get elected who listened to god instead of special interests (GW does the latter while claiming the former - hence the poll numbers) Listening to the facts and information and then asking God for the Wisdom to choose what is the best and most fair course of action is noble, and quite honestly, our founding fathers would not have had it any other way. But I won’t try and argue the point with you, because it will go nowhere. You’re an atheist, I’m a believer - moving on.

    Ya still reckon ya didn’t?

    leatherankh
    Right! Dishonesty in government does go back a long way. Most likely back to the first government ever established.
    But it’s time that we the voters start demanding honesty from all our elected officials. Instead of letting them say one thing (or a thousand different things, all contradictory) to get elected and then doing completely the opposite once in office, we need to start demanding they tell the truth during their campaigns. Then keep on telling it while in office.
    Do you trust someone you know that’s dishonest? Why do the voters continually trust politicians that prove themselves dishonest before they get elected?
    And your right, the media sure don’t help it any.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at November 22, 2007 12:45 PM
    Comment #239031

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING Y’ALL

    Posted by: Ron Brown at November 22, 2007 12:49 PM
    Comment #239033

    Ron, reckon not. Happy Thanksgiving, Ron, Yukon, d.a.n, and all others reading this thread. For all our squabbles, we all have indeed, great bounty to be thankful for.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 1:08 PM
    Comment #239048

    Now the problem is how do we tell if the President is telling the truth or not, as the last few president, well thinking about it, way back have all lied at one time or another to the public, therefore how do we know at the time if they are telling the truth or not, can’t have them hooked up to a lie detector all the time, besides the results are not allowed in a court(Supreme).

    I guess we just have to hope that whoever is elected does what is right for the People they are suppose to represent and not looking how for those that padded their election war chest.

    I am tried of a president thinking that the average american is dumb and since they are president they know what is best for everyone, congress does the same thing.

    Posted by: KT at November 22, 2007 9:40 PM
    Comment #239050

    David
    We do have a whole heap to be thankful for. Specially my family. My son and one nephew returned safe from Iraq this month. And we have a new grand baby on the way.

    KT
    We can watch them close during their campaign and listen to what they say at each stop. Any inconsistencies, or lack of, in what they’re saying can be an indicator as to how honest they’d be as President.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at November 22, 2007 11:56 PM
    Comment #239066

    Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2007 1:18 PM
    Post a comment