Posted on 01/05/2008 4:56:50 AM PST by Puzzleman
-- snip --
So, Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left. If that's the choice, this is going to be a long election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I hope religious people at freerepublic and elsewhere will resist the lure of religion that is the public face of the religious left. Left means powerful government. The history of powerful government (Nazis, commies, and others) is a history of brutality and collapse. More socialist years in Britain and the US, were years of stagflation and decline. The longer and further a US state has high taxes, the more it tends to lose jobs, population, and even tax revenue. Big government is a bad idea. The Judeo-Christian approach puts the emphasis on the individual in the this life and the next. One may choose to give one's time or money to help others, but it is an individual's choice before God. IMO, proper religion doesn't support raising taxes on everyone (stealing) so that the state can “do good.” That is a siren's song we must resist.
bumPing that. Good read.
You’re absolutely right in that this is simply part of a continuing trend. I think it actually accelerated under Bush, and all Americans now automatically look to the government for a fix for anything in their lives that’s broken. Or for protection against having anything break in the first place.
I honestly see virtually no difference between the leading GOP candidates, except for the fact that Huckabee is more socially conservative (and this is the reason I will vote for him). And as for differences between the GOP and the Dems, it seems to be only in the aggressiveness with which they wish to impose statism. Whoever gets elected this time around will certainly have several Supreme Court appointments, and our fate will be sealed. So at the moment, I think we’d still be better off with a Republican, aside from the fact that all the Dem candidates are even nuttier than the GOPers.
But philosophically, nowadays there’s very little difference.
Excellent!
Where I part company with Huck's supporters is in believing he's any kind of solution. He's friendlier to the teachers' unions than any other so-called "cultural conservative" – which is why in New Hampshire he's the first Republican to be endorsed by the NEA. His health care pitch is Attack Of The Fifty Foot Nanny, beginning with his nationwide smoking ban. This is, as Jonah Goldberg put it, compassionate conservatism on steroids – big paternalistic government that can only enervate even further "our culture."
I believe what we are seeing is an attempt by the 'Christian Left' to hijack the GOP. They would like nothing less than codification of Baptist legalisms into US federal law and activist judges overrunning state's rights. This is Holy-Huck's base. They want a theocracy.
Just looking back to the Terri Schiavo reponse by the federal government: This was the beginning of the end for the GOP majority in congress. Continue on this path, the GOP will not hold any of the 3 branches again in our lifetime.
We HAVE our freedoms - including the freedom to shop at a mall without being blown up - because we took the fight to the extremists
Looks like its time for:
The battle IS over. Christ has vanquished evil. We are in mop-up operations. The Kingdom of Christ on earth does not depend on having a Christian as President. Else Jimmy Carter would have ushered in the New Age.
Rather, it depends on us, to NEVER give up hope, to do our best individually, to fight on.
If you have already given up (’it is over’) after ONE Primary in Iowa (where, again, IS Iowa?), I challenge you to sharpen your sword. There is much to be done. It is not heaven down here, nor was that ever promised.
Steyn only erred in the name for Christian Left. The proper moniker would be the religious left. Christ is neither left or right, he is Holy. Religious Marxism would be an even better description of the Hukabee phenomena. Nothing new really, been going on a long time. A dangerous soup of out of context bible and socialist utopianism delivered by a political messiah.
Or, if you can’t decide between a Senator and a Governor, why not vote for someone who held both offices? John Ashcroft would be an excellent President. As with Cheney, the left would have fits.
Steyn correct as usual.
EVERYONE: Read the whole article!!!!
Thank you for that excellent post.
Huckabee is conservative on: Life, Gay Agenda, Guns, Defense.
He is populist on: Taxes, Amnesty, Border, Health Care.
Oh bunk! This is just ridiculous.
He did, only one time. He encouraged people to vote for Pat Buchanan over George Bush Sr. for about three days. It was to teach George Bush senior a lesson.
Rush hasn’t done it since.
It is not a great observation. It’s a cheap shot. This Party is no longer “Grand” and I’m sick of it.
“And, as for Sen. Clinton, her Thursday night third-place was the nearest Bill and Hill have come to a Ceausescu balcony moment”
________________________________________________________________________________
Here’s hoping that stays true.
Rush doesn’t need to listen to you or anyone else telling him what he should or shouldn’t say. If you don’t like him, don’t listen.
Personally, I wish his listnership would double. Or triple. America would be a better place as a result.
I believe Rush won’t say who he backs because he has to back the Republican nominee regardless of who it is. Therefor he’s afraid to go too far in pushing one or another of the candidates.
Or pro-life Democrats.
Or religious Populism.
Huckabee may well be William Jennings Bryan. But Ronald Reagan he's not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.