On further review, hell any review, last night’s debate was a mess; a mess brought to you by the gang that cannot shoot a camera straight… There is no doubt in my mind which candidate provided the most thoughtful comments, Ron Paul. I know, I know, some of you are running around today thinking “gee, if his name wasn’t Huckabee and if he didn’t bear a striking resemblance to Gomer Pyle…” Forget about Huckabee (the joke in a cloak), he is simply the same problem we currently have. I’ll have much more to say about him in a moment…
I have a couple of thoughts on last night’s so-called “debate.” First of all, it was not a debate. It was an attempt by CNN to do something different with the presentation of the candidates – and it failed, miserably. Using questions from YouTube presenters, many of whom were also in the live audience, was, granted, unique, a little hip, and for sure timely. However, it added nothing to the national discussion and it resulted in an opportunity for three candidates to coop most of the time. How many times are we going to hear Rudy state he reduced crime in New York? It was almost as if, regardless the question, his response was: “you know, I reduced crime in New York by 70%.” Hey Rudy, we got the message and we know you did a good job as Mayor…
Then, unbeknownst (supposedly) by CNN, a John Edwards and Barack Obama supporter, plus a union activist, and the retired military fag (who is actually a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee) were submitting questions! You know, it would have been nice to know that prior to their question being asked….. Gee wiz!
Then you had an absolute nightmare with the amount of time that the non-moderating moderator, Anderson Cooper, allowed certain candidates. It was so pronounced that one can only conclude it was purposeful. Which is sad, because a presentation of the candidates at this stage of the cycle should, at least, provide each one with roughly equal time. So, the real issue, irrespective of the plants, with this so-called debate was the amount of time allowed and directed towards Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney and, interestingly, Huckabee (henceforth to be known as Gomer Huckabee).
A few comments about Gomer Huckabee are worth noting here because this may have slipped right past some of you… Gomer Huckabee was asked the following question by Tyler Overman:
“Hi. This is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee. And I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty, what would Jesus do?”
Gomer Huckabee’s answer was a stunner.. Huckabee, a guy with a theology degree and a former Protestant Minister, essentially disregarded the Sermon On The Mount and opted for Greek Justice by saying:
“I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix. . . . Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That’s what Jesus would do.”
But it gets worse, as if that was not enough incongruent hubris, when Joseph from Dallas asked (showing the Bible) if you believe every word of this book?
“Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It’s the word of revelation to us from God himself. . . . And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don’t believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says “Go and pluck out your eye,” well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical. But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. . . .’Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
OK Gomer, let’s take a little break here… “some messages that nobody really can confuse?” Fine, I agree – there are numerous messages in the Bible with which none of us can confuse and one of the bigger ones is the Christian concept of justice as laid out by Jesus in his Sermon on The Mount, which clearly flies in the face of your justification of actions as a Governor in implementing the death penalty. You cannot have it both ways, you even stated “you either believe it or you don’t,” but clearly you have established yourself as a biblical picker and chooser with hubris of an incredible degree here.
But there is one message above all that the Bible implies, and is the basis for all that follows; the concept of Original Sin. Without that conceptual precept, all the rest of it falls apart like a child’s unglued stick house in a hurricane of logic and reason… So, let’s press on with your next incongruency because, in light of my comment above, it is a doozy…
Gomer is on record from the debate as stating:
“Faith doesn’t just influence me. It really defines me. I don’t have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe? Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody’s politics. Not now, not ever. I believe life begins at conception.”
Then he said this”
“Because there’s a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist.”
Here’s the problem… again, Gomer, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot consider an unborn fetus as never been deemed guilty on the one hand, and yet adhere to the Christian concept of original sin. The fetus, if you believe is a life at conception, is riddled with guilt according to Christianity. It is one of the most incredible moral fallacies of history that Christians must fundamentally believe that they are damned as evil at conception, and then required to practice a good which it defines as impossible to practice – demanding that man accept his own depraved state without any say in the matter. Man must start with himself as the standard of evil. Thus he must use this standard as the means to define the good, which is what he is not… The Christian code implies directly that the good is not for man to understand, (Gomer actually admits this at one point in the debate) rather it is man’s obligation to live his whole life expiating for the guilt of his existence…
These are Gomer’s revelations, not mine… In the course of one debate he confuses Greek justice with Christian justice, and then shows a clear confliction between reality and original sin. Stunning. Well, he’s the one claiming hubris and taking on the mantle of being the most Christian of the bunch and, ergo, deserving of the accolades and votes of all the Christian Conservatives in America. But I ain’t buyin it and neither should you! Gomer may profess it, but clearly he doesn’t literally act it in real life – or he simply doesn’t really believe but wants all of the Christians out there to think he is a fundamentalist believer yet applicant to a modern view of an interpretable Bible so as not to be seen as toooooo religious… I find Gomer to be another incarnation of that which has resulted in the absolute disintegration of the GOP and he is the last thing this country needs in the White House.
The sad truth here is that in case after case, from farm subsidies to trips to Mars, the group as a whole (with the notable exception of Ron Paul) simply see a large, interventionist (both domestically and internationally), federal government as inherently virtuous – and it is that belief which has gotten us to the mire we are current in.
Uh-hummm, last one out please turn off the light because there is clearly no one left with a scintilla of reason here save Ron Paul.