Huck contra Catholics

Even if Alan Keyes is a bit crazy, he is still right on many moral and social issues.

Again and again I say unto you: I am deeply dissatisfied with all the Republican candidates. Of the men on offer, I find I like Huck and Paul most of all. There are no truly Kirkean candidates in this race. Republicans talk about limited government, but that's all it is and all it ever has been: talk. Look at the record. Besides which, the American people seem to like it that way.

I think it's Nova Nordis.

Since I was offended in 2000 by Bush and I AM offended by Romney.
[Rod check out the ANTI-endorsement of the Concord Monitor on Sunday!]

I'd like to respectfully say this. It's not just the visit. It's the implicit acceptance, not contradicted by his sermon, that saddens and rightly concerns me.

I didn't hear Huck challenging the views of Pastor Hagee, did he?
Huck didn't have the message of Alan Keyes.

Here's a quick article/recap from 2000.
[McCain, like Keyes, also had it right.]

Bush Expresses Regret . . .

Reeling from criticism that he failed to condemn the school's ban on interracial dating and school leaders who have expressed anti-Catholic views, Bush sent a letter of apology, released Sunday, to Cardinal John O'Connor, Archbishop of New York. O'Connor is a nationally recognized Roman Catholic leader.

"I should have been more clear in disassociating myself from anti-Catholic sentiments and racial prejudice," Bush's letter read. "It was a missed opportunity, causing needless offense, which I deeply regret."

Bush's main GOP rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, said Sunday on ABC that he would have carried a different message to Bob Jones University.

McCain said he does not mind "going any place where people have views that I find hateful" -- but "when I go there, I'm going to tell them exactly what I think of them."

McCain added that he would have told the Bob Jones audience that "they ought to get out of the 16th century and into the 21st century."

"The things that they espouse, including a ban on interracial dating, are personally offensive to me, but more importantly offensive to almost all Americans," McCain said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/27/campaign.wrap/index.html

True, candidates should not be judged simply for agreeing to speak before groups who take positions considered "controversial." When such candidates have the nerve to criticize such controversial policies in front of such groups this really should be obvious. Nor should campuses be criticized for inviting such "controversial" speakers to appear and face their intellectual opponents.

I would also like to see a moratorium on demands (from both sides of the political spectrum) for candidates to disavow statements on incendiary issues made by others who might or might not support them. One can oppose abortion, for example, and oppose political violence, but not be required to ritually criticize Eric Rudolph. (Simply to have to make such a statement implicitly connects the candidate and the criminal.) One can oppose the war in Iraq, and support the troops, but not be required to criticize Move-On for running an ad. Etc.

This country is based on a Jeffersonian politics, with chips flying and truths emerging, not the symbolic arranging of followers in conformist ranks. Or so I hope.

As a non evengical but beliver in Christ I feel that Huckabee's religous intolerence is ovious. The wisdome of the nation is our tolerence of all faithes. Huckabee nomination would be the only way I would vote for Hillery.

if mike huckabee,and evengelical freinds want to sit down and have dialoge about religion and politics. in america with our bishops in washington dc, then i might vote for him but until then i wont. and thats final. thank you god bless