SC GOP Debate
It has been interesting to read the rehash of what went down about an hour and a half south of me last night during the Republican Presidential Debate in Columbia, SC.
Most of the national right-leaning bloggers are giving the debate to Rudy based, basically, on his “response” to the increasingly nutty-looking Ron Paul’s assertion about America’s role in the 9/11 attacks.
It wasn’t so much a “response” as it was, well I’ll let Jim Geraghty explain:
I’ve never seen a candidate put his foot up another candidate’s tushie the way he did to Ron Paul tonight.
Or how about Stephen Green’s “drunkblogging” assessment:
Rudy won tonight, if for no other reason than the well-deserved b*tch-slapping he administered to Ron Paul.
While I understand many believe US foreign policy played a significant role in the motivations of the 9/11 terrorists, the vast majority of those holding that belief lie outside the Republican party. Most (if not all) GOP voters are not looking for what they consider a “blame-America” candidate.
As some others are joking this morning, Paul should be charged with a campaign-finance violation because the contribution he gave to Rudy’s campaign last night far exceeds the limit.
But while the national bloggers are giving Rudy round 2, The Palmetto Scoop was there and saw things differently:
McCain looked strong, and was by far the best of the frontrunners.
Giuliani was crushed on abortion and immigration. This may have been the final nail in his SC coffin.
Huckabee shined. He looked like he may very well be ready to join the top-tier.
Hunter was almost entirely forgotten by Hume et.al.
Brownback could be a candidatean but he was a bit too folksy.
Thompson was stiff and looked like a grumpy old man.
Romney was okay, but he needed to do more if he wants to break out of single digits in SC polls.
Gilmore shouldn’t be up there. Period.
Tancredo reminded us of why he’s a “single-issue candidate.”
Paul was annoying and sounded like a Democrat. He killed what little credibility he has by saying he would kill DHS.
If it was not for the Giuliani laying it to Paul, Mike Huckabee would have had to most memorable line of the night:
…we have a Congress that spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.
This is probably an impossibility, but the one thing that would make future debates better is to narrow down the field. Clearly, Paul, Gilmore and Thompson don’t belong, to some extent neither do Hunter and Tancredo (maybe even Brownback).
Why not make this really interesting for viewers and add a Survivor/American Idol element where one person is voted off after each debate? I’d watch it, if for nothing else to see the scowl on Paul’s face when Brit Hume says, “The tribe has spoken.”
…we have a Congress that spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.?
Why is it that Republicans seem to think that gay-baiting is both acceptable and funny? Following on whatsername's calling Edwards a "faggot," Huckabee thinks it okay to use the same jibe (what "real man" goes to a beauty shop?). And, of course, Aaron quotes it approvingly. More xian (Huck's a fundie too)sensitivity. I'm sure it plays well with the Republican base.
I don't say this much but – Lous, get over it. Not everything has to do with being gay. Yes Ann Coulter, stupidly called Edwards a "faggot." I have ripped her for being an idiot and saying stupid things. That was one of her stupidest and in case you don't remember, she got ripped a new one by the right for that.
What Huckabee said had nothing to do with homosexuality? You need to step away from Andrew Sullivan for a moment and stop making everything fit into the paradigm of how any statement is an offense to gay people. Comments like this make you seem like the boy who cried wolf – it takes away from your caue when actual discrimination and persecution are present.
Edwards is a happily married man with children. I don't think he is gay and that has nothing to do with Huckabee's comment anyway. It has to do with, surprisingly enough, Edward's hypocritical policies and statements.
He runs around campaigning about "2 Americas" – one for the rich and one for the poor, blah, blah and then he lives in the largest house in NC, runs off his "scary Republican" neighbor because the property taxes are too high with his mansion, and gets $400 haircuts in Iowa that the campaign (ie supporters) paid for until it came out in the media.
It was a funny line about Congress spending too much money. The vast majority of Americans believe that $400 on a haircut is way too much money. What in the world does that have to do with "gay-baiting?"
If Huckabee had said anything about Edwards being gay or anything of the sort I would have written him off and dismissed him as a legitimate candidate for President, but he didn't, so stop the perpetual "offendedness."
This makes me realize one thing – the modern, whiny, far left democrats (the majority of that party that think and act like Michael Moore) who hate FOX will become increasingly more irrelevant and childish, and will soon be entirely ignored.
Perhaps we'll have a resurgence of Kennedy Democrats (you know, the ones that have left the party because they are not anti-religion, pro-choice, or anti gun control). Oh wait, that's the neo-cons.
Seriously, the neo-con movement was basically born out of the thinking of liberal intellectuals in the 1970's. I guess when the intellectuals leave your party you end up with what we've got today – whiny activists and atheist intellectuals (oxymoron in one sense, since atheism is such a bankrupt ideology).
I'm not surprised that neither of you get it. So what? I don't give a damn. My point stands.
Lower your bigot defenses for a moment: inferring that a man binges at a "beauty shop" is a direct slap at his manhood – how many manly men go berserk in a beauty shop? How many manly men even go into a beauty shop? It's irrelevant whether Edwards is a "happily married man." The implied slur here echoes Coulter's attack: Edward is a wuss, effeminate, and not fit to be commander-in-chief. And, of course, these qualities are associated with the bigot, anti-gay stereotypes creeps like stinker love to parrot. It's gay-baiting, pure and simple, and illuminating that it comes from the conservative, christian, Republican hacks running for prez.
And why should I "get over it"? Why shouldn't I be able to point out this crap when I see it? Just because you guys don't see it, don't want to see it, and don't believe it because it damages your ideas, doesn't mean I can't point it out. You should get over it.
As for stinker's jibe concerning atheist intellectuals: it's pure idiocy but entirely typical of your tactics.
You know what really bothers me about you Aaron (I discount the irrational bigot stinker)? You are incapable of imaginatively entering into the life of someone like me. You want to be perceived as a reasonable, sympathetic, "good" xian kind of guy, but you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that someone like me actually has a legitimate point of view. It seems to me that xians should cultivate this as part of their Lord's commandment to love their neighbor as themselves. Doesn't this imply that you have to shut your own ego down occasionally and see things from the viewpoint of the Other – even your enemies? Why can't you do that with me? Doesn't the fact that I remain here, enduring calumny and scorn, to offer you my viewpoint mean anything to you? Am I not your brother? Can't you lay aside your righteous holiness for just a few minutes and try to imagine things from my side just once?
whatever…
I do understand one thing about Jesus: why he flew into a rage when confronted by the Pharisees.
Louis, I do attempt to look at things from other's perspectives, yours included. Most times here I appreciate your candor and restraint in dealing with issues that impact you personally. I am glad that you hang around and comment here despite the fact that we disagree on many issues, some of which are very personal to you. I believe that you have a legitimate point of view and on most issues, most of the time you raise interesting points.
Having said all that, I find your position on this completely illogical. As I said, I don't tell you to "get over it much" and perhaps I shouldn't have said it this time, but when posting that comment I never once thought about Edwards' sexuality, Coulter's idiotic comment or anything to do with homosexuality. I thought it was a funny jab about spending. So I was a little offended myself that you went into a "gay-baiting" slam and say that "of course" I quoted it approvingly – insinuating that I am all for the gay-bashing. Then you insinuate that I don't follow my faith well and that I am a "Pharisee."
I don't know what connotations a "beauty shop" has. When I get my haircut it is at a beauty shop (most of the time I just cut my own hair with clippers). I just took my 4-year-old son to a beauty shop last week – I didn't know I was injuring his childhood manliness. But I pay less than $10 for a haircut, so it's not the beauty shop thing that meant anything to me – it was the $400. I would say the same thing if Edwards spent that at a "barber shop."
My point about Huckabee's comment is this – have you seen the video? Do you know any of the context in which it was spoken? If he had used the word "faggot" then no context would really be needed, but using a line about spending too much at a beauty shop needs to be evaluated within the debate context. Everything he said before and after that was about fiscal policy and government spending. He compared Congress' spending to Edwards' spending.
There was never an indication of anything to do with sexuality – but you found something anyway. That is what I am talking about. If you want to be offended by that you have every right to be. Go ahead. But I also have the right to think you are being irrational and deluding your case for actual offensive comments about gay people. When people become seemingly perpetually offended (as Sullivan is sometimes), you start to lose your audience and your influence.
This was about nothing but spending. I'm just asking you to not read into things when they aren't there.
Why couldn't he have picked a different comparison? Out here in the west coast boondocks, beauty shop has an entirely different connotation. I picture a place where women go to get "gussied up" – hair-dos, manicures, make-up, gossip, giggling, etc. It is definitely a feminine situation (or, at best, metrosexual). What I got out of Huck's comment was yet another sneer at Edwards for his lack of manliness (similar, but not as blatant as Coulter's). Put the two together, and you get gay-baiting (not "gay-bashing").
I don't think I'm being over-sensitive. I think it's time these things were pointed out. Call it consciousness-raising.
And, yes, at times you guys remind me of Pharisees, with your insistence on the letter of the Law. Those guys were the religious establishment at the time and were instrumental in oppressing people who didn't (or couldn't) measure up to Moses' strict code. They felt they were the righteous, the truly religious, and anyone who didn't rise to their level didn't count. Sometimes, when I observe the evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative xian movements, I hear echoes of the Pharisees, that's all. Falwell was a perfect example. I have yet to see you, Aaron, dispute stinker's views on gays (maybe the tone, but not the essentials). So, why shouldn't I accuse?
btw: Why would Huck attack Congress for overspending when it's been in Republican hands for the past several years?
I'm not surprised that neither of you get it.
Who is both of you? I've said nothing about the $400 haircut. Heck, mine cost $500 ;)
What a petty series of exchanges about a whole lotta' nothing. The debates only prove one thing and that is this is going to be a long drawn out blood bath to try and whittle down a candidate pool of +8 contenders on each side.
All this banter about liberal whining, and Fox is just a bunch a BS. Same thing goes for the whole Edwards/Coulter exchange.
I am very glad I was in Las Vegas without any internet connection when most of this exchange happened. What a lot of useless drivel…
You want to exchange ideas? How about a serious exploration into the state of media and the political process? Or…maybe look at election data and the what these debates (if you can even call them that) really mean.
You do that and I will come to town. Just grow up.
Respectfully,
Silver
No, you grow up ;) The point is well made that MSNBC did a horrible job, and fox did an excellent job of grilling the GOP candidates, despite their rightward lean. BRAVO to Fox for continuing to display excellence in the face of the rest of the whiny, leftward, sloppy MSM.
Wow, that was long.
Wow, Silver can be condescending when he swoops in to tell us children to debate something of worth. ;)
I do not believe a change is likely to happen at all, unless that person has the Holy Spirit living and working in their life because that is going to be a dramatic, difficult change. I do not consider it to be a mental illness – just sin, nothing more, nothing less.
I agree with all that you've said, Aaron, except the statement above.
First, I think people can heal their SSA through therapy and proper gender undertanding and clarification. I do not think that it is necessary to become a Christian to be ex-gay, any more than it is necessary to become a Christian to be a recovered alcoholic.
Regarding mental illness, I remark that many people are stuck in sin as an addiction, and that warped or injured self-concepts (which to me are mental illness) are often part of one's addiction to or refuge in certain sins (including gluttony).
To say that emtional healing is not required for escaping the grip of sin is oversimplistic. For this reason, I would say that people with anger issues have a mental illness, and so do homosexuals. I just use a broader definition of illness – I think even ADHD is considered an illness that can be treated.
Is ADHD a sin? No. But homosexual orienation is an illness, and acting out on it is a sin.
I think many of his views are misunderstood because of some unfortunate word choice and language usage.
Perhaps you could be more specific about my "unfortunate word choice." Is calling it an illness a poor word choice?
BTW, I don't necessarily directly equate bestiality w/ hx. But they do share this commonality – both involve physical acts which are contrary to the design of the human body, i.e. contrary to nature. I understand that animals are not human, and that is a difference.
And I actually do find the fact that people are offended by the comparison a display of their judgmental attitude towards bestialists – who are they to judge so harshly, when they themselves engage in unnatural sex? Hypocrites. The fact is, all sexual sin is grievous.
And regarding Paul's use of the phrase "brute beasts," I note that he says that those engaged in hx behaviors are AS brute beasts – he is not calling them beasts, but merely saying that they are acting like brute beasts (who have no moral sexual sense).
This is a significant difference, though not to the easily offended. Saying "you are a jerk" and "you are acting like a jerk" are two very different things.
If it's truly about the $400, then you need to get over it Aaron…
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/01/20…
Aaron,
You do understand that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because of our presence in the Middle East, right? It isn't that the terrorists "hated" our freedoms – its that they hated our friendship with Israel and our presence near Mecca and Medina. This isn't highly classified information. This is well known. Paul, for all of his shortcomings, was right. Rudy was wrong.
Why on Earth some people can't admit that is beyond me. It shows the thickness of the wool people are conciously pulling over their eyes about even 9/11 itself.
In reaction to Aaron and seeker's comments above:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
A gay christian makes as much sense as a jewish Nazi.
Further, I didn't reject xianity, it rejected me. I guess we're just "children of a lesser god."
It's interesting: I was just about to try to explore the good of Christianity, trying to find common ground here. I now see that that was a stupid and ridiculous task. Xianity has no good, at least for me. It is one of the great evils besetting mankind and should be stamped out, violently if necessary.
I've talked to Aaron for…what? two years or so? I perceive no change in his attitudes, regardless of what I've said. Thanks for your charity, Aaron! Moron that I am, I thought what I've written here could have made a difference. But I now see that xians cannot be convinced. This is what I meant when I said that you people have been inoculated against reason and simple human decency. How could I have been so stupid!! The entire history of f*ckyouanity has proven that xians will do anything to uphold their holy book by keeping fags non-human.
Good-bye.
I was just about to try to explore the good of Christianity, trying to find common ground here.
If your entire search entailed looking here, I'd say your'e not doing a very smart job of searching. Read the Bible for yourself. Ask pertinent questions.
This site often discusses contentious subjects. What in particular did you expect that you are not seeing here? What did you see here that makes you go from a seeker to some virulent opponent overnight? Sounds to me like you were looking for a reason to not believe, if you made such snap judgments.
then you don't realize who I am, stupid.
But I now see that xians cannot be convinced. This is what I meant when I said that you people have been inoculated against reason and simple human decency. How could I have been so stupid!! The entire history of f*ckyouanity has proven that xians will do anything to uphold their holy book by keeping fags non-human.
You came here in order to convince us that hx is ok? Tall order, in light of what both scripture and nature have to say about it. What light were you trying to shed?
That homosexuals are people too? We get that. That homosexuals don't choose their orientation? We get that too. That you've tried to change, even going the Jesus route, and you found that it didn't work? Got that.
You say that moral disapproval is tantamount to hatred and the encouragement of violence. We disagree that it is hatred, and the fact that some people take that moral disapproval as a license to do violence does not make that moral disapproval wrong, although along with it, we should also discourage such violence. And we have, but perhaps not enough.
You say that being against gay marriage is discrimination. We say that being for it is detrimental to society, and that government neutrality in such controversial cases is the safest and best approach. You don't like that because you don't care that we would be mainstreaming such unhealthy practices and self-concepts.
And quite honestly, just because you failed to change our minds does not make us inoculated to reason, any more than our failure to change YOUR mind means that YOU are inoculated to reason. You may feel that way, but no one here has merely claimed biblical authority and refused to enter into debates of science, philosophy, and reason.
We have discussed many reasonable, philosophic and scientific ideas regarding hx, including that
- scientific studies that show that hx is probably not any more than 40% genetic
- there are proposed psychological models for the formation of SSA and based on those models, pscychologists have devised possible therapies
- the relatively low rate of success of reparative therapy may mean it's bogus, but it's successes may also be within the statistical success of other recovery models
- the fact that something is genetic does not make it morally OK or natural – that's a bogus argument
- we've discussed studies that show the possible environmental causes of homosexuality
And on and on. You see, it's not that we've abandoned reason, any more than you have. It's just that your arguments did not convince us.
But you are right. You will have an almost impossible time convincing Christians that hx is morally acceptable, because for xians, the bible is the book of truth, and it clearly condemns it as sin. And because of the obvious design of the body and hx's violation of said design, the mental and physical maladies associated with hx, and the plain fact that homosexuals can't reproduce, make an almost open and shut case against you.
The only arguments you have in favor of accepting hx are :
- it doesn't hurt anybody (unless you count the children whom you dupe into it by telling them it's ok)
- many have tried to change and can't (but some have succeeded, and further, many people in recovery fail repeatedly until they deal with their deep issues, so failure does not mean that it's not possible or desirable)
- we should accept people as they are and not judge
I'm sure I've missed some, but no one is trying to dehumanize or make you a second class citizen. We are merely trying to protect society from unhealthy self-concepts, mental illness, and social breakdown. Philanderers, the promiscuous, adulterers, and homosexuals will be with us always because man is fallen and injured. But that's no reason to say that it's ok. None.
Until you are really ready for Christ to change you and be Lord, and to deal with the emotional roots of your orientation, you will not change. And you will not find a home with Christ's church. And you are right about one thing – trying to get Christians to accept hx is like trying to get them to accept Buddha as savior.
Christians could be more compassionate and understanding. But seeing hx as normative is just not going to happen unless you join one of the unbiblical, nice but spiritually vapid gay-affirming Christian churches. They will even ordain you if you like. Maybe they know Christ better. But you and I both know that they are following the bible very loosely, and don't really honestly interpret the scriptures.
I was just about to try to explore the good of Christianity, trying to find common ground here.
Common ground with what? There is plenty of good in Christianity, but not if you want to justify sin. What did you expect? All of us are nice people, are nice to our neighbors, give of our money and time to serve others, are open to truths from other faith traditions, and whatever other common ground you might want to find.
But justifying sin? Not going to happen.
If I continue to participate here I will not do so on this topic anymore. It's clear that your minds are closed on the matter, so why bother?
Enjoy your (self-)righteousness.