My fear about McCain...

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
My fear about McCain is that he may have some insecurities about not appealing to the Religous Right and feel he has to choose Huckleberry as his VP.

This would really be an embarrassment to the United States and bring shame to the ideals of the founding fathers.

If he does choose Huckleberry Ill have to donate lots of $ to Senator Clinton or Obama and join the local campaign as a volunteer.
 
Jarod said:
My fear about McCain is that he may have some insecurities about not appealing to the Religous Right and feel he has to choose Huckleberry as his VP.

This would really be an embarrassment to the United States and bring shame to the ideals of the founding fathers.

If he does choose Huckleberry Ill have to donate lots of $ to Senator Clinton or Obama and join the local campaign as a volunteer.
Click to expand...

Hucklebee and economic populism garbage will not fly.
 
If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate (I don't think he will for strategic reasons with nothing to do with Huckabee's religion) I will put a sticker on my truck....something I haven't done since Bush ran the 1st time and had decided it was highly unlikely that I would do it again.
 
leaningright said:
If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate (I don't think he will for strategic reasons with nothing to do with Huckabee's religion) I will put a sticker on my truck....something I haven't done since Bush ran the 1st time and had decided it was highly unlikely that I would do it again.
Click to expand...

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." --- Mike Huckabee


Are you okay with that, and what kind of changes is he talking about?
 
leaningright said:
Oh, and by the way, no way Huckabee is an embarrassment to the US.
Click to expand...

Sure he is, most other people, except large portions of the middle east, understand that government and religen should be kept seperate. Just look at what that mix has done for the middle east!
 
Jarod said:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." --- Mike Huckabee


Are you okay with that, and what kind of changes is he talking about?
Click to expand...
You know he is talking about Right to Life, using the quote out of context makes it like he wants to exchange it for the Bible.

Many of the uber-religious are on board with an anti-abortion Amendment.
 
Damocles said:
You know he is talking about Right to Life, using the quote out of context makes it like he wants to exchange it for the Bible.

Many of the uber-religious are on board with an anti-abortion Amendment.
Click to expand...

I belive thats one of the things he is talking about, and I find it offensive for a canidate who is seriously considered by the republican party to be willing to monkey with this nations sacred document on a single issue instead of an overriding principal. (Sure its been done before, but usually it has resulted in a huge mess). Our Constitution, as much as possable, should lay out broad principals, guiding lights, not single issue decrees.

The world is not black and white and those who see it as such, and have a chance at power, bring fear to my hart.

It also conserns me that other things would be monkeyed with based on the way this guy sees the doctrines of Christianity!
 
Jarod said:
I belive thats one of the things he is talking about, and I find it offensive for a canidate who is seriously considered by the republican party to be willing to monkey with this nations sacred document on a single issue instead of an overriding principal. (Sure its been done before, but usually it has resulted in a huge mess). Our Constitution, as much as possable, should lay out broad principals, guiding lights, not single issue decrees.

The world is not black and white and those who see it as such, and have a chance at power, bring fear to my hart.

It also conserns me that other things would be monkeyed with based on the way this guy sees the doctrines of Christianity!
Click to expand...
Like what? You pretend that he wasn't specifically speaking about that issue when he made the statement because you want to lead people where you wish them to go rather than present accurate information. The statement is about the Abortion Amendment which many Rs have presented before, it is nothing at all new. Whether it "worries" you or not is ridiculous. It is an attempt to get out the uber-religious voters, and it has been shown time and again that they'll never get 2/3 majority in the Senate to support it....

Seriously, sometimes you get all obvious in the partisanship.

Huckabee isn't going to win, and he won't be VP. "Seriously considering" is a bit faux too. He won in one place where the uber-religious hold sway. He won't win again and isn't popular enough to even beat a Mormon when the uber-religious come out to vote. He'd be a weight against, not a buttress for an R candidate.
 
Damocles said:
Like what? You pretend that he wasn't specifically speaking about that issue when he made the statement because you want to lead people where you wish them to go rather than present accurate information. The statement is about the Abortion Amendment which many Rs have presented before, it is nothing at all new. Whether it "worries" you or not is ridiculous. It is an attempt to get out the uber-religious voters, and it has been shown time and again that they'll never get 2/3 majority in the Senate to support it....

Seriously, sometimes you get all obvious in the partisanship.

Huckabee isn't going to win, and he won't be VP. "Seriously considering" is a bit faux too. He won in one place where the uber-religious hold sway. He won't win again and isn't popular enough to even beat a Mormon when the uber-religious come out to vote. He'd be a weight against, not a buttress for an R candidate.
Click to expand...


I hope you are correct and that my worring is for naught. On this issue I am partisin because I am VERY offended by people using relign as a tool to gain polical power. It happens on the national level and is the root of the problems in the Middle East, and it happens at the local level and that harms many people on an individual level. It is my observation that it is USED by social conservatives more than any other group. It is what defines a social conservative.

That being said, I would be against amending the constitution on any single issue basis, unless it could be done with broad strokes that set forth broad principals, not single issues. I would be against single issue amendements if they were "liberal" or "conservative" issues.
 
Damocles said:
Like what? You pretend that he wasn't specifically speaking about that issue when he made the statement because you want to lead people where you wish them to go rather than present accurate information. The statement is about the Abortion Amendment which many Rs have presented before, it is nothing at all new. Whether it "worries" you or not is ridiculous. It is an attempt to get out the uber-religious voters, and it has been shown time and again that they'll never get 2/3 majority in the Senate to support it....
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to assume his view only applies to abortion. If the Constitution should be brought to "God's standards" on abortion why not other issues? From what I understand, he was also referring the marriage amendment. This is a dangerous principle.

Why is it we are supposed to believe the Republicans really don't mean what they say (we already know they don't like when they talk about limited government), like with this and McCain's crackpot war mongering, but Obama says a prayer and that is somehow shows he's a theocrat?

On the original post... I don't see how anything could increase your fears about McCain. McCain alone is bad enough. Huckabee could not get an amedment as President much less as VP. McCain can/will further our descent into a nation of war.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't see any reason to assume his view only applies to abortion. If the Constitution should be brought to "God's standards" on abortion why not other issues? From what I understand, he was also referring the marriage amendment. This is a dangerous principle.

Why is it we are supposed to believe the Republicans really don't mean what they say (we already know they don't like when they talk about limited government), like with this and McCain's crackpot war mongering, but Obama says a prayer and that is somehow shows he's a theocrat?

On the original post... I don't see how anything could increase your fears about McCain. McCain alone is bad enough. Huckabee could not get an amedment as President much less as VP. McCain can/will further our descent into a nation of war.
Click to expand...
I think he means it. I said that he doesn't have the support to gain such an amendment and that he knows it.

It is a classic example of a wedge issue. This time it isn't working. Those only work when the candidate has some support from other areas as well. As I said, dude is losing to Romney among even the uber-religious. He isn't going to be chosen as VP. The person who did so would ensure a loss.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't see any reason to assume his view only applies to abortion. If the Constitution should be brought to "God's standards" on abortion why not other issues? From what I understand, he was also referring the marriage amendment. This is a dangerous principle.

Why is it we are supposed to believe the Republicans really don't mean what they say (we already know they don't like when they talk about limited government), like with this and McCain's crackpot war mongering, but Obama says a prayer and that is somehow shows he's a theocrat?

On the original post... I don't see how anything could increase your fears about McCain. McCain alone is bad enough. Huckabee could not get an amedment as President much less as VP. McCain can/will further our descent into a nation of war.
Click to expand...

My fear is someone who espouses such dangerous views getting to power on them. If we are going to change our constitution to bring it in line with Gods Standards" whose interpertation of Gods Standards should we use? Anyone who promotes a rule or law because it is what "God" would want, instead of a practical reasonable well laid out basis for a rule or law is scary to me, because that argument can be used to justify just about anything.
 
Damocles said:
I think he means it. I said that he doesn't have the support to gain such an amendment and that he knows it.

It is a classic example of a wedge issue. This time it isn't working. Those only work when the candidate has some support from other areas as well. As I said, dude is losing to Romney among even the uber-religious. He isn't going to be chosen as VP. The person who did so would ensure a loss.
Click to expand...

I find it scary and offensive when someone uses something like this as a wedge issue, especally when it works. So far it appears it is not working, but my fear as outlined in this thread is that it will work to get him on the ticket as VP.
 
Jarod said:
I hope you are correct and that my worring is for naught. On this issue I am partisin because I am VERY offended by people using relign as a tool to gain polical power. It happens on the national level and is the root of the problems in the Middle East, and it happens at the local level and that harms many people on an individual level. It is my observation that it is USED by social conservatives more than any other group. It is what defines a social conservative.

That being said, I would be against amending the constitution on any single issue basis, unless it could be done with broad strokes that set forth broad principals, not single issues. I would be against single issue amendements if they were "liberal" or "conservative" issues.
Click to expand...

Using religion as a tool to gain the presidency is SOO un-American. Why can't he just money and cronyism like all the rest of them ?
 
Jarod said:
That being said, I would be against amending the constitution on any single issue basis, unless it could be done with broad strokes that set forth broad principals, not single issues. I would be against single issue amendements if they were "liberal" or "conservative" issues.
Click to expand...

This makes little sense. Would you prefer if Huckabee offered a "broad" amendment that said that biblical law takes precedence or was written with broad strokes which a future activists court might interpret that way?
 
Dilloduck said:
Using religion as a tool to gain the presidency is SOO un-American. Why can't he just money and cronyism like all the rest of them ?
Click to expand...

I dont like the idea of using either, but I am much more offended by the abuse of religin over the abuse of money or cronyism.

Relign askes people to belive something on FAITH, to use that for personal or political advantage is a particularly egrious form of abuse, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top