Thursday’s political round-up

December 27, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Hoping to end nagging questions about the candidate’s health, Rudy Giuliani’s campaign offered a statement from Dr. Valentin Fuster, the former mayor’s doctor for the past seven years, who said the candidate had passed a battery of tests after a headache forced him from the campaign trail last week. “It is my medical opinion that Rudy Giuliani is in very good health,” Fuster said. CNN reported, “The statement indicated that Giuliani had undergone a CAT-MRI scan of his brain, an ultrasound of his carotid arteries, a spinal fluid evaluation and a transesophageal echocardiogram, the last a test that uses sound waves to take detailed pictures of the heart.”

* Speaking of Giuliani, the former mayor is in “closing argument” mode, unveiling a new 9/11-focused TV ad for the last week before voters actually start expressing preferences. “When you try to take something away from us, like freedom,” Giuliani proclaims, “Americans are going to be one in resisting it. So the Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they confuse our democracy for weakness.” It’s pretty shameless.

* AP: Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson says there’s not a woman who should be president next year. It was a jab aimed at Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The former Tennessee senator was in Iowa today, challenging potential caucus-goers to choose the best man to help fend off what he described as a Democratic Party that would lead the country into a welfare state. Without saying Clinton’s name, he said ‘There is no woman on the horizon that ought to be president next year, let’s all agree on that.'”

* Mike Huckabee has taken the very unusual step of giving paid speeches during his presidential campaign. Huckabee, who has no day job, said speaking income “is all I have,” in addition to money from writing. “Otherwise, I don’t make my house payment or pay my insurance,” he said.

* And speaking of Huckabee, the Club for Growth announced yesterday that it will expand its anti-Huckabee advertising in Iowa this week, spending an additional $175,000 on ads, for a total of $550,000 in just three weeks. The commercial emphasizes Huckabee’s support for tax increases while governor of Arkansas.

* Fred Thompson, who appears to be running a weak third in Iowa, apparently doesn’t have the resources necessary to buy TV ads in Iowa for the final week before the caucuses. As Jonathan Martin noted, “[I]t’s a remarkable indicator of just how topsy-turvy the GOP race has been that the man once viewed as the party’s savior cannot even afford to buy TV time in the final days before Iowa.”

* Touching moment in Iowa yesterday: “Retired Air Force veteran Andrew Hampton grew emotional when he rose to ask Obama what he would do to ensure that others leaving the military get the health benefits they were promised…. ‘I feel strongly about my question,’ Hampton said as he paused to compose himself. He said he joined the Air Force on active duty in 1956 and was promised health benefits. He retired in 1988 and didn’t get coverage because of ‘political decisions.’ … He said he was especially worried about the veterans currently returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with terrible injuries…. ‘We can’t desert them,’ a weepy Hampton told Obama. The crowd responded with a standing ovation, and Obama walked over and hugged him.”

* Speaking of Obama, it looks like both his and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns got a little sloppy when crafting lists of ministerial supporters in South Carolina.

* John Edwards told voters yesterday that his accent might be an asset in the general election: “The last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter,” he said in his Carolina twang, “both talk like me.”

* Bob Novak makes the case that John McCain may very well be in the best position to win the GOP nomination.

* And with time running out, and weak support in the polls, both Joe Biden and Bill Richardson have new ads highlighting their experience in public office.

December 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm

…Giuliani had undergone a CAT-MRI scan of his brain, an ultrasound of his carotid arteries, a spinal fluid evaluation and a transesophageal echocardiogram…

Rudy must be really progressive on providing preventative care. Imagine if everyone went through rigorous testing like that every time they head a bad headache?

It’s probably just late stage syphilis, Rudy. Get thee some antibiotics.

Huckabee, who has no day job, said speaking income “is all I have,” in addition to money from writing. “Otherwise, I don’t make my house payment or pay my insurance,” he said.

Hmm. Didn’t Congress change the law a few years back so that candidates for Congress or President could draw on their campaign funds to pay themselves a salary up to that of the office for which they were running? If so, Huckabee has inept advisers or is lying.

That’s quite amusing Fred. A fellow senator with a better record than you isn’t qualified to be president, but your are?

What a lying joke sack of sh*t.

I just love the Republicans.

They are proving my point that you can’t be a good Christian and a good Republican at the same time.

Huckabee actually treated some poor people as the ‘children of God’. I am not sure, but I think he said that he will agree with the Republican party and treat any of the ‘children of God’ like the scum of the earth that is required under the Republican Party platform.

I know I get annoyed by many people on this site because I do consider myself a good Christian. I think the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot if the Democratic position is that you need to be an atheist to be a Democrat.

Huckabee has a weird compulsion to “get his” whenever in or seeking public office. First the gift registry for when he was going to leave the gov’s mansion, now making paid speeches on the campaign trail? Truly bizarre. Huckabee 08!

I think the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot if the Democratic position is that you need to be an atheist to be a Democrat.

Strawman, much? Name a prominent Democrat who advances this position.

Do I detect a whiff of the christian persecution complex here? Are you feeling left out by all these liberals at CB who revere rationality more than faith? I can tell you that the annoyance runs in both directions, but don’t take it personally. The basic problem—and one that’s virtually insoluble—is that each side (atheists and religionists) consider the other to be delusional. This is a definite hindrance to mutual respect, no matter how much one’s political or other views might be in relative alignment. The problem has only been exacerbated by the faux religiosity of the Bush administration and the increasing stridency it has engendered on both sides of the vast divide. Hence we see the spate of atheist manifestos being so popular these days (among some readers). And it’s all made only worse by the media’s love of feeding the flames, for nothing draws the viewers in like a good old fashioned fight, especially when you’ve got a dog in it (and most of us do). Hence the War on Christmas and all the other nonsense. And now that atheists (and agnostics, which are probably where most of those who label themselves atheists might more properly put themselves, since few of us pretend to be able to prove a negative) have been getting more support after having been so long the dissed ones, there’s a greater tendency to “come out.” Meanwhile you’ve got every politician seeing which one can out-pious the next, Dems and Repugs alike, which only seems even more distasteful to non-believers. It’s a crappy situation all around, and many are the people who thrive on the controversy so there’s little chance of it abating. Que lastima.

Edo:

I think a lot of the posts by CB and Morbo have that tone. I think a lot of the posts in these comments are even more blatant.

For example:
President Lindsay’s post Are you feeling left out by all these liberals at CB who revere rationality more than faith?

It probably only rates a 1 or a 2 on the 10 point scale of making fun of anyone who believes in Christianity. I am sure everyone reading this knows of posts that are far worse.

My point is not to defend my beliefs or to attack yours.

My point is to show that so many left of center bloggers and their readers are actually pushing some people sitting on the fence into the hands of Republicans.

Look– If you want to act rationally then I will go back to my argument that it isn’t worth your time to vote because your vote has ZERO chance of changing the outcome of ANY Presidential race.

You and 200 of your friends would not have changed things in Florida.

Why do you vote? Because you HAVE FAITH that it is a good thing to do. There is ZERO rational evidence that your vote has ever counted and ZERO chance of it ever affecting the outcome in the future.

I believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You believe your vote counts. Neither belief is rational but you pays your money and you takes your choice.

I believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You believe your vote counts. Neither belief is rational but you pays your money and you takes your choice.

This is hardly an equivalency. One is a collective tallying of votes, requiring the commitment of many to accomplish a desired result. The other is simply baseless belief in a bronze-age story. The first is, indeed, rational. It requires no faith whatsoever, unless you count as faith the hope that enough others of like mind will participate to achieve the hoped-for outcome. As for Jesus being the Messiah, that requires a whole host of beliefs all rolled into one, none of which is rational unless you consider believing in something just because a lot of other people believe in the same thing as being rational. In which case, why not try Islam? Or Hinduism? What makes your belief system true and theirs not? An accident of birth?

As I said, religionists and atheists each consider the other to be delusional. Because radical religionists tend to gravitate to the Republican party, the more moderate ones who swing Democratic probably end up confronting hostility to religion more often simply because they frequent places—like this—where more non-believers hang out. I’m sure you must find some of the comments here offensive, for many people freely express their disdain for religious belief. But if it annoys you (as you said above) try to imagine the annoyance that non-believers have felt for years and years when being totally dissed as not only foolish but immoral, unethical, and worse by believers. Whatever lumps you take here are minor in comparison.

Comments are closed.