Frank Schaeffer on Maddow

Olowkow

Philosopher
Olowkow
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
8,230
Wow. Schaeffer's book is on my reading list, I think I'll have to move it closer to the top.

I have to say, this is the first time I have seen someone who could not be tarred with the liberal-commie-atheist brush say in a public forum what a lot of us have been saying for quite some time.

I think the question of "who can lead the Republican party away from this" is a good one, and I'm not sure. The problem with McCain was he is just not conservative enough to get good street cred. Same with Romney and others. Huckabee is part of the crazies himself and Palin...well let's just not go there.

If I had to pick I'd go for Gingrich. He's "conservative enough" for most Republicans and as far as I know not in the tank for the fundamentalist nutjobs, so he might have the chance to pull the party back from the brink.

My favorite quote: "You don't build the village around what the village idiot wants"
 
One thing though, if they were going to ask that question they should have first asked the person a little about their religious beliefs. Some people may have answered "yes" to the antichrist question as a goof, it would have been better to be able to correlate that against some other typical fundy beliefs like a young earth, rejection of evolution, belief in Jesus' imminent return, etc.
 
well, in the same poll 60% still have "questions" about Obama's birth certificate.

And even if we say, ok, 40% of them "goofed" when answering the antichrist question, we're still left with 20% of New Jersey conservatives thinking he is, or might be, the antichrist.

Very good interview and I too don't know who really could take the Republicans away from this course.

I really like what's happening with The New Majority - but they don't have pull in the party.

And while Huckabee is a bit of an eccentric character I don't think we should dismiss him based on his religious views alone. What about his tone? He isn't playing the "outrage" card. So while I don't think Huckabee could be the one to bring the Republicans all the way from the precipice on which they're standing now, I do think he can bring about a moderation in tone that could lead that way.

Overall though, I'd rather see the Republicans keep this up. Years in the political wilderness does wonders for introspection.
 
All good points. Glad to see someone else felt as I did about his eloquence.

Not to forget Pawlenty, whose popularity is at an all time low. The fact is, I don't see anyone with presidential stamina or credibility for the Republicans. I really think it will be someone we have not even thought of yet. Whoever it is will have to reject Limbaugh and all the rest of the hatemongers. Once someone does that, and pulls it off, he will be off and running as a new voice. The country needs a "loyal opposition" that is credible. That looniness is just not going to work for a broad base, as Schaeffer put it so well.

This is just a snippet of what the turn of the century was like:
http://www.enotes.com/1900-government-politics-american-decades

At the dawn of a new century the desire for political change was growing in the United States. Many Americans believed that democracy could be improved, that politics could be freed from the grasp of the corrupt political machines and "bosses" who had controlled the major political parties for the last several decades. Special-interest groups emerged to lead reform movements at the city, state, and federal levels, but there was no cohesive, national agenda, no single source of reform. Reform groups ran the political and socio-economic gamut, as businessmen, unskilled workers, farmers, settlement-house workers, populists, antimonopolists, socialists, and anarchists all worked for reform, and nearly every aspect of life was touched by their efforts. Cleaning up city governments was no longer enough. State governments had granted city charters and were the only entity with legal power to rewrite them....
Click to expand...

Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1900
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
well, in the same poll 60% still have "questions" about Obama's birth certificate.

And even if we say, ok, 40% of them "goofed" when answering the antichrist question, we're still left with 20% of New Jersey conservatives thinking he is, or might be, the antichrist.

Very good interview and I too don't know who really could take the Republicans away from this course.

I really like what's happening with The New Majority - but they don't have pull in the party.

And while Huckabee is a bit of an eccentric character I don't think we should dismiss him based on his religious views alone. What about his tone? He isn't playing the "outrage" card. So while I don't think Huckabee could be the one to bring the Republicans all the way from the precipice on which they're standing now, I do think he can bring about a moderation in tone that could lead that way.

Overall though, I'd rather see the Republicans keep this up. Years in the political wilderness does wonders for introspection.
Click to expand...

Mike Huckabee is the prototypical guy who says perfectly irrational things while sounding rational. In other words, his insidious tone is that of the person who is sincere in their own idiocy, ignorance and clinging-to of ideology over substance. He just happens to do it while sounding cool and collected. His brand of irrationality is still irrationality.

The Repuglicans went down this path with the evangelicals without even considering the law of unintended consequences and I doubt they cared. They would do whatever it took to win so they jumped into bed with the theo-con's and got drunk on their votes. Conservatism gets most things wrong (imo) but at least they used to be somewhat sane. Now it's all fear, aversion to change, hate and dangerous hyperbole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom