Comments on: You Too Could Be a Stupid President Someday

by: Todd Seavey

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:09:00 +0000

To quote The Hoff (as fiscal policy): “I tried to save the world — but I forgot to save myself.”

To quote Gary Coleman (as sound foreign policy not so unlike the position that prevailed at last night’s Debate at Lolita Bar on military matters): “Don’t give me any of that Doctor Doom jive!”

by: D------

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:00:49 +0000

Or maybe these two can run as a ticket, http://backintheday.blogharbor.com/david_coleman.jpg

by: Todd Seavey

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:54:21 +0000

You think _he_ seems too theocratic, think how alarmed I was for a moment when D., above, suggested “Luther” running for president.

Then I thought maybe he meant Luthor (who really was president — in fiction, I mean) and was even more alarmed. Then I watched the clip and understood.

People seem to survive living in Louisiana and Texas, but the drawbacks to such an existence will be addressed in the _February or March_ Book Selection, _Atheist Manifesto_ by Michel Onfray — a Frenchman, no less. I’ve got it covered.

I’ll bet he knows the Earth orbits the Sun.

by: Christopher

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:44:39 +0000

I’m surprised you think the notion that “freedom requires religion” and will “perish” without it is harmless. But as has been noted before, living in NY (or MA) one is pretty well protected from the less tolerant among our Jesus-freak brothers. Were you an open atheist in west Texas or Louisiana, you might find that kind of mentality less harmless.

by: Todd Seavey

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:27:49 +0000

Well, even our swell Deist early presidents were prone to say republican virtues rooted in religious beliefs are what keep people from needing earthly, more coercive restraints, so while I disagree with his basic premises, I don’t think he’s out of line with traditional (and mostly harmless) American thinking here.

I’d be more disturbed if he said, for instance, “We need religion, not political freedom,” which is the basic Islamist-type and garden-variety authoritarian position — or even if he thought true freedom just _is_ adherence to religion, as some of the early Progressives thought (as will be discussed in this month’s Book Selection in a few weeks, about Jonah Goldberg’s book).

And as my harmless and seemingly secular friend Ryan Sager wrote in _The Elephant in the Room_, “religion + freedom” (closely related to “socially-conservative + fiscally conservative” or “conservative + libertarian”) has historically been the GOP’s winning formula.

As for endorsements (for ex-minister Huckabee) from the likes of Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent, and wrestler Ric Flair, note that _January_’s Book Selection will be _Made in America_, co-written by libertarian Michael Malice…and Ultimate Fighting champion Matt Hughes — and you _know_ the world’s greatest grappler could take down even Chuck Norris with his mixed martial arts mastery. So liberty wins once more.

by: Christopher

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:57:26 +0000

And speaking of stupid…Romney: “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Pretty impressive to come up with a statement that’s philosophically AND historically incorrect for one of your defining campaign themes. But I hear that he’s going to get endorsements from King Kong Bundy and the drummer from White Snake, so…

by: Eric Dondero

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:59:37 +0000

I can’t stand Huckabee. But did you know he’s “Ted Nugent approved”?

Bizzarre. Huckabee is THEE MAN of the Nuge.

by: Scott

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:15:13 +0000

You would think Bush would have discredited the would-you-have-a-beer-with-this-guy test for picking a president for all eternity (especially since it would have to be a non-alcoholic beer in Bush’s case). But apparently not.

As for bringing babck smoke-filled rooms, we’d have to un-ban cigarettes first.

by: D------

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:21:41 +0000

Maybe Luther should run for president. He seems to inspire and lead others, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Fj0Hul6-M

by: Todd Seavey

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:51:03 +0000

Jeez, I don’t pretend to any expertise on that question, but my guess would be that no primaries would make things less demagogic, more apparatchik — which could go either way in terms of ideological content, but perhaps on balance the populist-demagogic-primary route is _more_ likely to produce (often bad) ideologues, so if I want ideologues, perhaps I should count my blessings that we have primaries. I want _better_ ideologues, of course, but then, doesn’t everyone?