Glenn Reynolds cites to this post on the Classical Values blog. It recommends a book that looks really interesting on the pioneers who crossed the Rockies, and has some, um, interesting, observations about the role of wives in those pioneer days.
Suffice it to say that much has changed. I’ll leave it to any commenters to say whether for better or worse.
Please, please do not buy me any Christian merchandise. Depressing story here. Why is the target demographic middle-aged moms? (No offense to middle-age moms; it just seems to be a rather monochromatic approach.) Does this depict American Christianity? Ok, maybe I’ll just give in. You can buy me the bull-riding Jesus.
That you don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire or any of the other early voting states, or else you’d have to see drivel like this every time you flick on the TV:
This is just about the worst political commercial I’ve ever seen. Is this supposed to be part of her charm offensive? Should we be like small children, eager to get the goodies she’s promising? Like she’s the political version of Santa Claus? I guess it’s really nice to promise to give out gifts that will be paid for with other people’s money.
How unbelievably patronizing. No wonder her poll numbers are tanking.
One of the events I look forward to every Christmas season is the Christmas Festival at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. It is simply one of the finest presentations of Advent and Christmas music in the country. It was designed as a worship service and employs several different choirs, orchestra and wind ensemble. The recordings are available from St. Olaf’s site, for any interested.
This year’s concert can be heard here. I would encourage any who enjoy quality music- especially seasonal music- to check this out.
Apparently, All Good Christian Men/Women should not be shopping at Gap, Kohls, Bloomingdales, and Marshalls this year. Why? Article here. In other news, if you can’t find me, I’ll be in the Gap.
I’ve picked on the Republicans lots lately, so here’s some equal time for the Dems.
Free advice for Hillary: When you’re married to the man who made famous the line “but I never inhaled,” don’t go insinuating that folks shouldn’t vote for your opponent because he’s done drugs.
I’ve been blogging a lot lately about the ‘08 race, especially on the Republican side. Since my last entry, though, two really interesting developments have taken place that involve religion’s role in politics.
The first is Mitt Romney’s speech on the role of religious freedoms in the American political tradition. It was almost universally well received. I read positive reviews from everyone from Chris Matthews (notorious leftie), to Pat Buchannan (notorious rightie), to Dr. Dobson, to Peggy Noonan. You can find the text here and the video is probably on YouTube if you go looking.
Romney made two interesting points that might be considered contradictory. First:
If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Then:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
Now, I think that there’s an element here of having your cake and eating it too. I agree that no candidate should be required to be an apologist for his religion. But that really isn’t reality, is it? Obviously, as a religion that most folks aren’t familiar with, Romney’s mormonism rightly raises questions about what he believes and how it will affect his conduct as president. I’m not sure that’s the same thing as having a religious test, something Romney implies is the case.
The second event of the last week was the revelation about Huckabee’s speech to the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998. The article describing the speech is here. He’s quoted as saying “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” This implies that, at one time, the nation was Christ’s. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I’m thinking this means Huckabee subscribes to the notion that the US has been blessed for its faithfulness, as a special province of God, a view I do not share.
Here’s another interesting quote from the article:
“I [Huckabee] didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.” He compared his entry into politics to “getting inside the dragon’s belly,” adding, “There’s not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what’s done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner.”
I’m not sure I understand, then, why he’s in government instead of ministry.
So, for better or worse, religion seems to be figuring prominently on the Republican side this year (almost as prominent as the dueling proxy star power of Bill Clinton v. Oprah on the Democrat side). So I’ll pose two questions for consideration and comment:
I’d be interested to hear from those a bit more adept in economics interact with Congressman Paul’s views on the Inflation Tax. It makes good sense to me.
How long can we as a country live way beyond our means, pump fiat cash into the system, finance our debt through foreign countries, and continue to expand government at the rate it has grown under President Bush?
The latest boomlet in the GOP primary belongs to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, and with the fading of Fred Thompson’s campaign, has become (supposedly) the darling of the Iowa Christian conservatives. He now leads in most polls of Iowa GOP voters.
You know, the Republican party has historically had two really identifiable wings. The first are Christian social conservatives. These are the ones that the mainstream press loves to write about, but has not a clue about, because most of them don’t know any actual Christian conservatives. The other wing of the party are the economic conservatives. These used to be the east coast Rockefeller types, who didn’t really care much for the social cons, thinking they were a bunch of religious whacko hicks. Nowadays they’re more libertarian - think “South Park” conservatives. They aren’t too crazy about the social cons either.
The political revolution of Ronald Reagan was to be acceptable to both the economic cons and the social cons. Since Reagan, most GOP presidential aspirants have sought to mimic this feat (whether or not it seemed terribly genuine). Dole, who had never been much of a tax cutter, never could seal the deal. George W did a fair job of it, at least at first.
But an interesting thing is happening this time. There is a champion of each wing, and neither seems to be too terribly interested in becoming Reagan. Guiliani is obviously the economic con. He’s pretty unapologetic about being pro-life, pro-gay rights, etc. - things that just don’t set well with social cons. He has made some conciliatory gestures (especially on appointing judges, which in my view is where it counts most). But, unlike Romney, he does not profess conversion to the pro-life side.
Now the social con wing seems to have a champion - and of all the unlikely candidates in this race, it’s Mike Huckabee. Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas when he was governor. Much is being made about stuff like that by the Club for Growth, and other folks of like mind who really like Rudy better in the first place. And Huckabee does champion the National Sales Tax (aka the “Fair Tax”). I personally favor the flat tax instead (maybe I’ll detail why in a future post), but any tax reform that simplifies cannot do anything but help matters, IMHO. The economic cons don’t like Huckabee, though.
What’s shocking to me about Huckabee’s embrace by the social cons is that he’s taking some positions that I would expect to be deal-killers, yet his support is only increasing. For instance, he advocated giving the children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition when governor, and has not backed off this position. Additionally, he’s now saying that he’d ban the use of waterboarding for interrogations of terrorists, and would close Guantanamo Bay. Doesn’t this seems like a Democrat position? Get this quote:
I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing.
Wow. It’s like Obama talking or something. Video here. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
So the Christian cons, at least in Iowa, seem to be latching on to one of the weaker candidates in the field. Why? I can only conclude that it’s because he’s “Christian.” After all, Rudy is a lapsed Catholic at best, Romney is a mormon, McCain is, well, McCain, and Fred is sinking like a stone. I frequently bemoan the lack of wisdom that evangelicals seem to display, especially in the sphere of public affairs, and others on this blog have addressed the need for “Christian” versions of everything. It appears that we’ve got to have a “Christian” candidate, even if he’s the weakest in the field, splits the party on some pretty critical issues, and has some pretty poorly conceived positions (no word on where he’d put the Guantanamo detainees, AFAIK).
I think that, in the long run, social cons rallying to Huckabee will weaken Romney, which, in turn, strengthens Guiliani. Regardless, the winning Reagan formula seems to be falling away, with only Romney trying to use it.
For those not familiar with the verb “to fisk”, it means to analyze a (typically absurd) written piece on the internet, ripping it to shreds logically, frequently line by line. I think it came from a bad writer whose last name was Fisk, whom other bloggers frequently held up to ridicule for factual errors, agenda journalism, poor logic, etc.
The fisking in this case is done by Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison Law Professor Ann Althouse, and can be found in its entirety here. The article being fisked is this one from the AP, which purports to analyze the performance of Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s hostage drama.
Here’s a key quote:
Afterwards, she [Clinton] used the occasion to make a show of her emotions (or did you think she was cold and mechanical). She said:“It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time.”Is that what you want in a President? Someone who feels extra confusion because she’s a mother? … She probably wanted to make sure not to confirm the widely held belief that she’s unemotional, and, while she was at it, delight all the ladies out there who lap up emotional drivel.
Just a hunch, but I don’t think Prof. Althouse has much use for either the AP or Hillary.