The Desert of the Real

Unbelievable! This is definitely the debate everyone should see!

I’m only a part of the way through and I’ve been skipping through it and I’ve heard the most incredible things already. I’ll have more detail and exact quotes later, but so far I’ve heard McCain actually suggest that Ron should read The Wealth of Nations! Yet quite clearly McCain has never read it, nor any of the economic theory that sprang from it. (Or, if he did, he didn’t understand it. Kinda like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda:
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy!
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto. They just don’t understand it.
Allow me to correct a few things things for you:
     Aristotle was not Belgian.
     The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself.
     The London Underground is not a political movement.
Those are all mistakes.)

Then, you had Romney saying he wouldn’t consult congress before he went to war, he’d ask his lawyers. And Ron rightly lays the smack down on the whole group on the issue. Directly following this, Mike Huckabee clearly states that if he asked congress to go to war and they said no, then he’d do it anyway.

That’s without even getting into the exchange between Romney and Rudy that was so surreal I thought I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I mean really, listening to two fakes arguing over who is better at re-interpreting their past to fit their new conservative persona is just bizarre. This must be what it feels like to be on mind-altering drugs.

As usual, I want to be fair to the people I discuss on this blog. While Dr Dobson still doesn’t seem any closer to understanding the value of federalism, I am not so sure he’ll be supporting any of the so-called “first tier” candidates. In fact, he may not support a republican candidate at all—which could be interesting on its own.

However, the big thing I want to talk about is that it has come to my attention that he was on Sean Hannity’s show the other day. On that show, Hannity did his best to browbeat Dobson into supporting Giuliani and Dobson wouldn’t budge. Further, he openly rebuked Hannity for his politics of fear, that he would vote contrary to principle out of his fear of losing—and then maybe losing to Hillary later. It’s good to hear someone with some influence reject the “boogieman” approach to politics endorsed my men like Hannity and Jason Engwer.

This is something that really needs to be said and I’m frankly surprised that the person who did it was Dr Dobson, but I’m thankful it was said regardless. He held firm to his refusal to support such immoral candidates and I can’t blame him for that. I’d like for him to get on the federalism bandwagon, but even if we disagree on that I can respect his uncompromising stance.

I have not as yet been able to confirm this but I have heard that John Hagee has endorsed (or stated he could endorse, it’s not clear) Rudy Giuliani for president.

Now there is a clear display of what an unbalanced and unbiblical eschatology will bring you. Rudy’s pro-Israel position is apparently sufficient (for Hagee) to overcome his other moral failures. Apparently it no longer matters to John that Rudy is an adulterous pro-abortion, cross dressing candidate who has married his own cousin. As long as he supports Israel, that’s enough for him.

Then you have Dobson, who I really don’t know what he wants. He has openly rejected Thompson now (and by implication, Ron Paul as well) because he’s a federalist. Apparently, if you’re unwilling to use the sword of government in an inquisition against all those who disagree with the morals of the AFA you’re not worthy in his book. Even if you ARE willing generally, but for the sake of the election are spouting federalist noises you’re not worthy in his book. He has likewise (rightly) rejected Rudy, and apparently McCain too. Which leaves…Romney. Or maybe Brownback or Huckabee.

(One last thing, Dobson’s argument that states dealing with the marriage issue would result in 50 different definitions of marriage is just ludicrous. Honestly, can the man really come up with 50 substantively different definitions of marriage? Further, as I’m sure you’d guess from my recent post on this topic, I can’t reconcile the idea that a Christian should somehow bow to the state in order to get married. That’s just absurd.)

Some of my favorite excerpts from this article:

“The kids saw everything, guns drawn [and] masks on the face,” said Kristen Hendrix, the school’s director. “That’s pretty traumatic for four, five and six-year-olds.”

For four, five and six-year-olds? I’m 33 and it’s traumatic for me!

“What they saw they perceived as a high risk, high dangerous maneuver, but in actuality, it was a very low risk, routine type of police investigation,” Capt. Roland said.

It was low risk, so we sent a fully armed SWAT team. And of course, there is the continually disturbing idea that bashing in someone’s door and searching their home for what is most likely a non-violent offense that is hurting no-one but themselves is “routine” police work.