The campaign lurches along under more journalistic surveillance than ever before, but like other observers I’m often struck by questions — significant questions, in my estimation — that go unasked, or at least not asked very often or insistently. Of course, since I don’t read everything, it’s hard to know whether someone, sometime, has asked a given question of a given candidate. But if you think the public has the right to answers, and concede that only small slivers of the public are paying attention at any given time, it follows that significant or revelatory questions need to be asked more than once.
Here are some questions for the Republican candidate and former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. In the coming weeks, I’ll be posing questions for others, alternating Democrats and Republicans. Next: Barack Obama.
Questions for Mike Huckabee
1. In an interview on the Rev. Kenneth Copeland’s television show, “Believer’s Voice of Victory,” posted on his Web site, you said the following: “If we see any part of our society and culture that’s decaying, what’s going to keep it from rotting? The Christians. God’s people.” Do you believe that people who are not Christians are not “God’s people”?
2. In this same interview you referred to “God’s absolutes.” Could you tell us what “God’s absolutes” are?
3. You support a flat sales tax of 23 percent to replace all existing federal taxes, and you insist that its total effects will be “revenue-neutral.” Since lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than higher-income people, the result of your plan would be that a higher percentage of total taxes collected would be paid by lower-income people. Do you think this proposal is compatible with Christian beliefs? As a Christian, do you think it is consonant with the principles of Jesus to support the abolition of taxes on capital gains and interest?
4. In your book, From Hope to Higher Ground, you wrote: “Wal-Mart is a case study in the genius of the American marketplace.” Yet despite some recent improvements, most of Wal-Mart’s employees were not covered by the company’s health insurance. (Another round of improvements scheduled for January 2008 still requires an annual premium of $2,000 for a company whose employees often earn less than $20,000.) Moreover, the company has been forced to pay more than $200 million to employees they forced to work off the clock, and according to the Web site Walmartwatch.com, “Wal-Mart is currently facing the largest workplace-bias lawsuit in U.S. history for widespread discrimination against women employees; a class action lawsuit filed by African-American truck drivers; and numerous other cases involving discrimination against workers with disabilities.” What is your reaction?
5. Speaking about the children of illegal immigrants, you said recently that “we’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did.” Today, the children of poor people are penalized for their parents’ poverty. Obviously, they inherit less. Their schools are inferior. So are their job prospects. What would you do about this?
6. The other day, you said this: “Long before God ever created a government structure, the basic structure was the family.” When did God create a government structure? Did He create the government of the United States? Did He create the government of Iran? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Did He create the government of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? If not, who did?
7. There are many Biblical verses that support female submissiveness. Do you agree with them?
8. “I would love to see a human life amendment to our constitution,” you said last September. “Human life begins at conception.” According to some physicians, intrauterine devices (IUDs), emergency contraception (the “morning after pill,” or “Plan B”), the pill, the patch, and the Depo-Provera shot may work by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs—after conception. Does this mean that you support the banning not only of abortion but of any or all of these methods of contraception?
[Research assistance by Michael Meyer.]


Huckabee Has McLearyland Atremble with The Fear of God
I see the pitchforks are out now in the ranks of the neutral and impartial "watchdogs" at CJR!...
Funny that we didn't see "8 Questions Kerry Should Answer" from CJR... And we aren't seeing "8 Questions Clinton Should Answer"... Or "8 Questions Obama Should Answer".
It's almost like there's some sort of non-bias thing going on that closely resembles (to the ignorant and unworthy readers, that is) a flagrant liberal bias in the Ivory Tower of "Professional Journalism"...
Wonder what it could be?...
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 11:29 AM
If you read as far as the second paragraph, you'll see that I'm going to put questions to both Republicans and Democrats, in alternating order.
Posted by toddgitlin
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 12:05 PM
I think these questions are highly loaded and lean too much on religion. I'd personally like to hear much more detail about his policy plans for things like getting out of Iraq, providing health care, his justification for a flat tax (not your critique of it), etc. Questions should be questions, not attacks.
Posted by Ferdy
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 12:27 PM
Brilliant narrative! Mr. Huckabee, are you a misguided religious zealot, or merely a hypocrite? Gotcha!
Posted by Dawnsinger
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 01:07 PM
Mr Gitlin is obviously asking uncomfortable questions! The two reader comments so far bear testimony to this claim.
Lets try to get a little deeper (that is, if humble readers are allowed to go any deeper) to see what causes this queasiness.
There are two issues here. The first one relates to how 'truly' liberal you are (from what you believe about yourself). Can you truly separate the religious from the logical (governance), without making it irreligious? Do you have a truly scientific temperament that helps you support the logical even if it were going against some of your core personal beliefs?
The second one is about understanding ground-level political reality. Despite all claims of forward-thinking, free-from-encumbrances, progressive and science-oriented American way of thinking, the average American is as religiously petrified as anybody else in the (third) world. Only the facade has changed - the facade of education, opulence, communication...(politically correct one).
And the politician (remember Plato's Republic?)knows it better than everyone else. So he uses this one of the oldest-known tricks liberally. Mr Gitlins of this world may continue to ask difficult questions. And there would be Padikillers, Ferdys and Shreeshs commenting on it - some with belief, the others with skepticism. And the politicians would continue to laugh their way to the polls! Alas...
Posted by Shreesh
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 01:41 PM
Shreesh - I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with religion, empiricism, or any of the things you accuse me of. I think that the narrative of political discourse has GOT to change from making everything about religion and rich vs. poor. This is the way intelligent choice gets hijacked by emotional immaturity. We DO need to have policy that includes our hearts as well as our minds, but to let Huckabee or anyone else control that heart with religious dogma given tons of room in the cowed press does no one any great service. Many religious leaders consider faith to be a private matter--only some with political ambitions have pushed it into the public realm. I say, push it back or suffer the consequences.
Posted by Ferdy
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 01:47 PM
Ferdy - no hard feelings really and I am certainly not accusing you of anything. Actually we are on the same page. All that I am fighting is the 'scope' of the 'heart' in governance. Governance is all about applying rules. You can use the heart while laying the rules (if you - the intelligent choice person - ever have that kind of power) but you cannot use the heart in applying them. That leads to subjectivity - and corruption, nepotism etc (at another extreme). And that is what the examples of bad governance have to show from all over the world. If America has to hold a beacon to the world, its intelligentsia (and hopefully, some day the voting public) would have to first learn to tackle the basics and ruthlessly throw out the religious zealots out of its politics.
Posted by Shreesh
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 02:19 PM
Thanks, Shreesh, for clearing up your meaning. I don't disagree with your second comment either, fundamentally. Perhaps the best questions reporters can ask candidates is how they would restore ethical standards, commonsense application of the law (roll back mandatory sentences that don't allow for the heart to make choices), and statesmanship in government. Would they resign if they attempted to suborn the Constitution and force others to do so? Can we trust them to keep their word? How well do their actions reflect their answers?
I do remember some great statesmen like Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas, for example. We could have those men again if contempt and lawlessness at the highest levels were trashed and disgraced.
Posted by Ferdy
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 02:41 PM
The "Watchdog" Barks
If you read as far as the second paragraph, you'll see that I'm going to put questions to both Republicans and Democrats, in alternating order.
padikiller scoffs
Yeah... A Republican gets the first poke, of course... Why?...
We all know why...
Hukabee's on fire and the "watchdogs" are getting nervous... So they need a hatchet job fast... And a good cover...
So Huckabee gets the loaded, argumentative religious questions now... ("When did you stop beating your wife?...") And then in a couple of weeks Obama will get some real knuckle-biters, I'm sure... ("How do you strive to distinguish yourself from your vicious attackers?....")
This whole line of liberalized attack journalism is just typical, ridiculous CJR garbage...
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 04:03 PM
According to the Bible (1 Samuel ch. 8), which Governor Huckabee and his supporters believe literally, God created a monarchy at the request of the Israelites. Samuel apologized when he gave the request to God, and said that he had failed and the people had rejected him. God told Samuel that the people had not rejected Samuel, but had rejected Him, Yahweh God. He created a monarchy that was so oppressive that the people “shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
Moral: yes, according to the Bible God did once create a government, but God didn’t like doing it and God didn’t approve of it, and God made the people sorry that they had asked for a government.
I think it’s better to have a government created by “We the people” than one created by God, especially if God doesn’t want to do it. “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
Tom Paine used this story in Common Sense as an argument for popular government. Modern social scientists will recognize it as an instance of state formation.
Posted by John Philips
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 10:24 PM
Tom Paine was a smart atheist who fed a bunch of ignorant Colonial yocals the religious justification they needed to get behind the Revolutionary War..
Huckabee, on the other hand, actually believes the religion he espouses...
One can debate who was smarter, or more honest... The guy who parrots and exploits ideology he believes to be nonsense... Or the guy who parrots an ideology he accepts blindly...
But there is no question that CJR is out on another one of its trademark conservative hit jobs..
Posted by padikiller
on Tue 11 Dec 2007 at 10:47 PM
The pundits are clear. One should not use Romney's religion as a reason not to vote for him, but one should use Huckabee's religion as a reason to consider not voting for him.
Being a Mormon is off limits. Being a Baptist apparently is not.
In fact, every other candidate can be trusted to act in the interest of everyone, without regard to their personal beliefs.
Granted, Huckabee is fairly transparent about his. But everyone acts on the basis of some set of presuppositions about what is true and important.
Will this series challenge the deeply held beliefs of every candidate, or will the others simply be asked about issues of policy and governance?
Are the questions about Hillary to include the most controversial things she has ever said about the role of women? This is an example of a deeply held belief that we assume will be moderated by her role as president, even if it does influence her perspective on particular issues.
By the way, thoughtful evangelicals (it's not an oxymoron) see things like the creation of government as part of an unfolding revelation. They would consider the I Samuel passage one commenter refers to along with texts that teach respect for those in authority in the New Testament. God established government might be a more precise way to say it, although created is one way to say it. This includes all the governments mentioned here- Iran, etc.
Human agencies (including the church) are capable of failure because they are, well, human. Governments are thus capable of evil, so we have to examine the motives and actions of any government, including our own.
Such a viewpoint does not preclude good governance, and in fact may inform it. But the questions here are not about how Huckabee might govern.
Such questions might be more useful, and important.
Posted by wmetts
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 12:43 AM
Pundits, shmundits. I don't like either one of them.
It's unconstitutional to take someone's religion into account for federal office. It's not unconstitutional to take into account that they want to shove their religion down our throats. That's what bothers me about Huckabee.
Where people got the idea the United States was founded as a Christian nation is utterly beyond me. Tom Paine wasn't really an atheist, but as a unitarian and a Deist he was far from an mainstream Christian. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were also Unitarians, so in the election of 1800 you didn't even have a choice of a candidate who thought Jesus was God.
The "American Party" (so-called Know Nothings) of 1856 began their platform with great praise for the American system of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Their second plank was that we had to suppress the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church supposedly didn't believe in freedom of religion or separation of church and state. The American Party's candidate was Millard Fillmore, another Unitarian president who didn't believe Jesus was God. I suppose that if they were around today they would want to suppress Huckabee because he doesn't seem to believe in separation of church and state. Would he and his supporters agree to support a Unitarian for president today? Not even William Howard Taft?
An irony is that separation of church and state in America arguably began when Baptists set up Rhode Island to escape the religious persecution of the established church in Puritan Massachusetts. The Catholics have their own claim to having started it, though, in their colony in Maryland. Kennedy's speech about religion in his campaign of 1960 followed that American Catholic tradition, and Mitt Romney should have stuck closer to Kennedy's text. I don't see how Huckabee and his supporters can be following the old American Baptist tradition.
Posted by John Philips
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 02:38 AM
When Huckabee makes religion an issue, as he has, why wouldn't the media make it an issue, too? He seems to think it's important enough to ram it down our throats every chance he gets. I want to see the counter-argument when he does. The counter-argument is this: religion and politics don't belong together. Our constitution promises that we will never be under the thumb of religion; nor will religion be under the thumb of government. It makes for a more perfect union.
Huckabee, by his own words, wants to change all that. The fact that he was once a Baptist minister has no bearing on anything unless he wants to make it an issue. And he clearly does. That's frightening to most sensible people. I would be even more frightened if the media didn't call him on it. He's a presidential candidate who is pretty much promising to flout the law of the land once he gets into office.
Anyone who wants to take him on is a hero to me.
Posted by monicalee
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 09:30 AM
Monicalee - I agree with you, but I would go in a slightly different direction. If reporters, debate chairs, and other candidates refuse to engage him or anyone else on the matter of religion, his message will be weakened. He is determining the discourse of his candidacy. It is within the media's power to reject his image.
Posted by Ferdy
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 09:46 AM
For #7, We already know the answer. Huckabee was one of 131 people who signed a full page ad in USA Today that ran in August 1998. The ad supported the Southern Baptist Convention's statement on the family. The ad mentioned specific positions, among others: ""You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."
Posted by EL
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 10:00 AM
Ferdy: "He is determining the discourse of his candidacy. It is within the media's power to reject his image"
Ferdy, if I understand what you're saying, you think religion should be out of the mix altogether? In one sense, I would go along with that. I think, for example, the CNN/YouTube Dem debate was way out of line with the bible question. I was stunned that not one of them said, "My thoughts on the bible have no place here".
But when someone like Huckabee or Romney makes their religion an issue, it needs to be reported. All of it. I want to know how far they're apt to go, being the religious exemplars they are. I don't just want to know what they're spouting now--I want to know what they've said and done in the past.
Given the pathetic undersight in the press in the last seven years, I want to make sure that the next president carries no potentially destructive baggage into the White House.
During George W's campaign, he made no bones about the makeup of his cabinet should he become president. They would be neocons, fat cats and oil men. It wasn't kept a secret, it was FLAUNTED. And once he was in, it became acceptable--those people were given undue credibility and enormous power--even though anyone with a brain could have seen where it was headed.
So to say that Huckabee is "determining the discourse of his candidacy" is correct, but to suggest that the media should ignore it. . .I'm sorry. I just can't agree with that. Not after the Bush debacle. We have too much repair work to be done now. Any meaningful facts about the candidates are fair game. Note emphasis on the word "meaningful".
Posted by monicalee
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 11:01 AM
Monicalee - I'm suggesting that the reporters to continue to hammer his specific policy stances. If they are informed by his religious beliefs, so what? We need to maintain the separation of church and state, and only to the degree that a candidate would try to introduce religious mandates into the law of the land should it be covered. I don't want to hear about his interpretation of the Bible and whether he hates Mormons; that's the stuff of demagogues. We have to rise above this level to bring some kind of rational discourse.
Posted by Ferdy
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 04:54 PM
I completely agree with Monicalee's stance that all "meaningful" stuff spoken by the beguiling politician must be thoroughly debated and trashed in the media. The type of belief system being propounded by the likes of Mr Huckabee holds the potential to thrown back civilization by several centuries.
Posted by Shreesh
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 05:02 PM
Fair enough, Ferdy, but what if his specific policy stances are religious? We need to know that before we let him into the Oval Office, pen in hand. We've witnessed enough demagoguery to know it when we see it. We have to stop shouting "Demagogue!" at every truth-seeker. Attempting to get at who this person actually is--this person who is going after the highest, most powerful job in the land--is pure practicality at this point. An absolutely necessary intrusion when the stakes are this high.
Huckabee brings religion to the table in every speech he gives. He makes statements that are hair-raising to those of us ready to put our lives on the line to keep religion out of American government.
That is not an anti-religious stance. It's historically pro-American. The president presides over the nation, not the church. We are not all Christians--nor are we all religious. If you ignore the signs of zealotry by insisting that any talk of religion is a good message, we're heading for the dark ages. Please. . .a little dose of enlightenment in this terrible Age of Bush. We've had enough of blind, stubborn ignorance to last a lifetime.
Posted by monicalee
on Wed 12 Dec 2007 at 08:36 PM
I don't consider talk about religion to be a good thing in this day and age. It used to be fairly benign talk in the States, but no more. That's why I want to see this extremely destructive weapon defused. The more space we give it, the more space religious zealots and "morality" voters will feel they are entitled to. Change the discourse. So many narratives that are now second nature to reporters because the neocons and zealots have seized the structure of debate must be extinguished. Policy questions asked early, often, insistently--with the punishment of being shut out of the media if they are not answered--is the hard cure we need to swallow.
Posted by Ferdy
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 04:08 PM
Forgive me, Ferdy, if it sounded like I was accusing you of playing the Religious card. Not at all. I was speaking in general terms, but probably didn't make that clear enough.
I would love to see religion on the back burner during the campaigns, and I would love it if the media did their part to keep it there. Unfortunately, they'll leap on anything that draws audiences. I wish it were not so, but we've seen the media in action lo, these many years, and any one of them who assumes the lofty goal of sticking with the all-important policy issues is soon out on the sidewalk looking for a new job.
It's the mainstream media that needs educating. They need to understand that personalities and controversies might sell newspapers and airtime, but they do nothing toward advising us or enlightening us.
Shame on them. Surely they're smart enough to see what their past actions have done--eight long years of a destructive, flawed, runaway presidency should tell them something about the need for watchdog journalism--but they're still riding the wave of popularity and ratings, ignoring the damage their neglect has done.
On the other hand, we need to get a clear sense of what each candidate would actually bring to the office. If Hillary or Huckabee or anyone else makes statements that raise red flags, we need to bring them out in the open and deal with them. It's not enough that a candidate SAYS he or she will do A and B. We should be able to judge their authenticity by past actions. It's all we have to go on, after all.
Posted by monicalee
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 04:56 PM
Monicalee, I couldn't agree more about how our self-appointing watchdogs got fat on the nearest bone and fell asleep. Fortunately, the Internet has given those of us who are deeply dissatisfied with media consolidation and the press of propaganda and infotainment as news a way around their tricks.
I also very much agree that we need to know where the candidates stand. YouChoose on YouTube is a great source for the candidates' platforms in their own words. As far as how they would press their religion into the public sphere, fair game.
Posted by Ferdy
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 06:53 PM
There is no question that religous questions are fair game in Huckabee's case... He made the mess and he should answer for it. In a FAIR forum.. By responding to NON-LOADED questions posed by neutral journalists...The QUESTION is why the "watchdogs" at CJR are all afire to single him out now...Some other "fair game" issues include:
-Obama's drug use... (and his religious background)
-Clinton's support of the war (and the Aunt Jemima accent she affects everytime she faces a black audience).....
-Edwards' hypocritical life of luxury in "rich America" (and his loony, budget busting craxy ideas) ....
You're only going to see hard-hitting questions asked of Republicans here at CJR...That's just the way things work in McLearyland...
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 07:51 PM
padikiller, there are many legitimate issues we need to look into with all of the candidates. Obama's youthful drug use isn't one of them. Neither is Edward's "lavish" lifestyle. Many leaders live lavishly and still have the capacity to understand the plight of the poor and middle class. Hillary's war stance is troubling to me because if she becomes president her decisions will affect all of us. Her personal life is meaningless.
We waste a lot of valuable time by nit-picking the personal lifestyles of the candidates. Even Giuliani's. Unless there is evidence that their habits, their excesses, and their failings will translate into potential decision-making, they should have no place on the list of reasons we choose a president.
Religion isn't a lifestyle or a habit--it's a mission. And in Huckabee's case, it's a calling. Big difference.
Posted by monicalee
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 11:59 AM
Religion is only an issue in Huckabee's case because he MADE it an issue..
Otherwise it would be irrelevant. (Of course that wouldn't stop the "watchdogs" here at CJR- Paul McLeary drooled all over himself track down the "blockbuster" story of George Allen's "jewishness"..)
Edwards forced the issue too... By dividing America into classes, he made an examination of his own lifestyle fair game...
Obama's drug use is highly relevant and fair game (just as Bush's DWI was fair game)... People have right to know if they're electing a person who lacked judgment.
Giuliani's lyfestyle is also fair game....
The only problem here is that CJR only attacks Republicans...
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 12:58 PM
So now it was Edwards who divided America into classes?? No, no, no. . .the Republicans under Bush are masters at fostering that kind of division. Edwards, much to his credit, latched onto it as a selling point for his presidency, declaring a WAR on those divisions, and I'll vote for him because of it if I get the chance.
Obama's drug use as a teenager is a non-issue. He brought it out into the open himself long before he announced his run. He talked about it in one of his books, and it's not something he's proud of. Contrast that with GWB, who took the time during the aftermath of Katrina to joke about his high times in the Big Easy.
We've already had seven years of a president who "lacked judgment" in almost every aspect of his life, including his time in the White House. So far, I can count on one finger the number of times he's acknowledged his mistakes and shown some contrition.
An obscene number of lives have been lost because of his lack of judgment. A teenage dalliance with drugs or the purchase of a huge house seem pitifully inconsequential compared to the actions of the man you call your President.
Posted by monicalee
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 05:12 PM
OK, let's see where monicalee sits on the issue...
It's OK to go after Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney... They're all fair game...
But it's NOT OK to question any Democrats over their mildly illegal past "non-issues"... Not even the felonious ones they admit they are ashamed of... Because... Because... Because Katrina was all Bush's fault!... And because Bush laughed over the floating corpses in New Orleans before he senselessly tossed millions of lives away to satisfy his bloodlust...
Now, how can I argue with this kind of ironclad moonbat reasoning?....
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 06:42 PM
Oh, Padi, you really must learn to read within the lines. We're posting here because we read the original article on questions to ask Huckabee. The questions were about Huckabee's views on religion. I mentioned Romney because he also felt he had to air his religious views. Now, where did I say anything against Guiliani?
There are issues and there are non-issues. So, one more time. . .it's an issue if the outcome directly affects me and all Americans. It's a non-issue if it's personal and inconsequential to our lives and our livelihoods.
I don't care that Obama took drugs when he was a kid, because he's proven himself to be a conscientious adult now. See where this is heading?
I do care about Bush's lack of character, because it directly affects the lives of all of us.
And don't care about your incessant use of the word "moonbat". It says more about you than it does about me.
Posted by monicalee
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 10:41 PM
monicalee wrote
...it's an issue if the outcome directly affects me and all Americans. It's a non-issue if it's personal and inconsequential to our lives and our livelihoods.
I don't care that Obama took drugs when he was a kid...
padikiller responds
Frankly, my dear.... It's not all about you or your moonbat agenda...
You and your moonbat friends might not care about Obama's felonious drug use... But other people do... And their opinions are every bit as valid as yours...
Did you ever think about these "other people" by the way, or maybe the fact that these "other people" do not share your worldview?...
HUH?...
How about the wife of a crack addict who can't buy formula for her baby because her husband spends all of the family income on crack?...
Or how about the family of the 7-11 clerk who is murdered by a crack addict looking for $20 to buy a quick rock?.....
Or how about the grieving family of a cocaine addict who dies when some crack chef cuts the cocaine with No-Roach?....
Don't you think any of these people might want to know whether a presidential candidate has committed a felony of the type that has runied their lives?...
HUH?...
Journalism is not (or at least should not be) all about the moonbat agenda....
The sooner you deal with this reality, the sooner the world will be a better place...
Hop to it...
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 14 Dec 2007 at 11:20 PM
Padikiller - You have a point--up to a point. I do think a lot of people are concerned about what personal conduct might say about a candidate. To many people, doing drugs as a teen may not be seen as a harmless experimentation of youth. In other words, if you don't want the past to come up and bite you in the ass, live cleanly.
On the other hand, one would hope that people would use common sense in judging whether Obama's drug use really equates with a crack addict taking the food out of his baby's mouth. This is what drives moderates of both parties crazy--the leap to the shrill, worst-case scenario that is the equivalent of "if it bleeds, it leads." Such talk tends to drown out other opinions and quickly degenerates into argument and name-calling, as your post above indicates.
Character certainly has a bearing on candidacy, and personally, I find Obama's support of the Daley machine in Illinois and his friendship with Tony Rezko to be far more serious indications of his win-at-any-costs ethic than his youthful drug use. I wish some reporters would ask him about those political beds he's made, because his ambition seems to cloud his judgment.
Posted by Ferdy
on Sat 15 Dec 2007 at 10:20 AM
Padi, do you even think before you write? This is what you wrote:
"Did you ever think about these "other people" by the way, or maybe the fact that these "other people" do not share your worldview?...
HUH?..."
Huh, indeed! This from the person who never misses a chance to present his "worldview" on these pages, and, I suspect, on a host of others. So it's just your "worldview" that should be out there? How ridiculous.
How you carry on over Obama's youthful drug use! The man is an adult now. We're ALL adults now. What he does now as an adult is far more important than what he did as a kid. If you want to maintain that childish mindset, have at it. But in the meantime, those of us who know a real issue when we see one will pass you by and leave you snarling in the dust.
What an act! But who do you think you're fooling? You had better watch it. If you can't come up with anything more controversial than that, you're going to be drummed out of the Rovian School for Romping Rightedious Rabble Rousers.
Posted by monicalee
on Sat 15 Dec 2007 at 04:04 PM
Monicalee just isn't getting it...
Obama MADE his drug use an issue and there is NOTHING to indicate that his drug use ended in his adulthood..
Just like Huckabee MADE religion an issue...
Both issues are thus fair game....
It's not Bush's or Rove's fault that Obama once chose to deal with stress by playing with alcohol, marijuana and nose candy..
It is indeed a fair question to find out how Obama quit using drugs (if he in fact did quit) and when he quit....
Being President of the United States of America is the most stressful job on the planet. If Obama is the kind of guy who is going to be driven to substance abuse by stress (as he claimed he was driven previously) the people have a right to know...
Furthermore... Clinton and Edwards have both played the religion card, just as well as Huckabee or Romney... Their religious convictions (or lack of them, as the case may be) are also fair game...
But you won't see CJR going down that road... You're not going to see CJR asking why Clinton puts on her ridiculous Aunt Jemima accent every time she speaks at a black church...
It's about JOURNALISM here people... It's not about futhering a crazy, moonbat, political agenda...
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 15 Dec 2007 at 04:26 PM
Padi said: "But you won't see CJR going down that road... You're not going to see CJR asking why Clinton puts on her ridiculous Aunt Jemima accent every time she speaks at a black church...
It's about JOURNALISM here people... It's not about futhering a crazy, moonbat, political agenda..."
THIS is your idea of journalism? Is this a joke? Are you for real? What a colossal time-waster.
BTW, I've only been here for a few days now, and I've literally lost count of the times you've used the word "moonbat". Perhaps a good thesaurus might be in order?
Posted by monicalee
on Sat 15 Dec 2007 at 11:08 PM
monicalee babbled
THIS is your idea of journalism?
padikiller confirms
You mean fair, balanced coverage of the way ALL of the candidates exploit religion, and not just the Republicans?
Well, yeah... Call me crazy, but that indeed is my idea of what "journalism" should be...
I'm just a stickler for that "both sides of the debate" thing...
Posted by padikiller
on Sun 16 Dec 2007 at 03:50 PM
Both sides of the debate?? What journalism school sent you out into the world?
I was responding to your challenge to CJR to find out why Hillary Clinton puts on a black accent, and you got on your high and mighty, saying blah, blah, blah.
What do Hillary's mannerisms have to do with the big picture and why should any self-respecting news analyst spend more than a microsecond on it?
Shall we again go over GWB's many pathetic, often hilarious, fumbles? Thanks, I'd rather not. There are so many other issues relating to GWB that affect us all in a wholly different way. Better to concentrate on the effects of his presidency on us all.
Hillary's on-again, off-again accent? Who really cares? What an issue to campaign against. Can't you come up with anything else?
BTW, that thesaurus could also help you get out of that "babble" and "HUH?" rut.
Posted by monicalee
on Sun 16 Dec 2007 at 06:55 PM
Some Hillary Preaching That Will Be Ignored in McLearyland
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants."
But hey!... Hands off Hillary!...
Hillary can give us her take on the "Scriptures" but if a Republican does so... He's toast... Because monicalee "would rather not" talk about the Democrats who are pandering to religion.... Especially when they do it in blackface....
Such is the pathetic standard of "journalism" in McLearyland..
Posted by padikiller
on Sun 16 Dec 2007 at 08:00 PM
Padi, Padi. . .now you're just being silly.
Posted by monicalee
on Sun 16 Dec 2007 at 10:16 PM
cause and effect,everything that is happning is only effect altho they try say its the cause. ive watch all politics possible, and now no one addressed the cause. if the cause isnt curtailed,then the effect will repeat its self.one industry is behind our break down.they need laws and regulations to get them under control. they might not know they caused this to our country please see mike reads this thanks
Posted by lee on Fri 14 Nov 2008 at 01:08 AM