C-Span Must Be Showing Reruns Again

He had a history as a moderate before he became the Republicans' standard-bearer, and I can't say I blame you if you got a little disgusted watching him try to prove to conservatives that he's one of them. He started spouting conservative clichés, and when they didn't sound convincing coming from his mouth he just made them meaner and uglier. He picked an untested right-wing ideologue as his running mate. He hit his opponent with cheap shots that weren't worthy of a serious candidate. He's walking proof that even a seemingly decent man with centrist instincts has to pander to Cro-Magnons to get Republicans behind him these days -- and he hasn't relented now that the primary season is over, a sure sign that he's their captive. Mark my words: If George Herbert Walker Bush is elected, this country is going way, way, way to the right.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Funny how every moderate reasonable Republican immediately becomes a radical right wing, racist, nihilist Libertarian who wants to reintroduce slavery as soon as they are a threat to win an election.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You forgot the woman-beating fundamentalist Christofacist part.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Christfag! /Derp

  • Whiterun Guard||

    But Romney's not a threat to win the election, so how do you explain it?

  • John||

    I think he is a very big threat.

  • tarran||

    Obama is utterly unlovable.

    Enough voteers have his number to swing the election to the Republicans - either because they will stay home in disgust or vote for the Republican. Ob paper, Romney, whose last job was governor of the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts should be quite acceptable to people who lean Democratic.

    To win elections, when one has no positive agenda, one needs to get voters to vote out of fear.

    Thus, Obama's only path to victory is to fan people's fear of Romney.

    Romney cooperates, because his only path to victory is to trick people into thinking he supports policies that are meaningfully different from Obama.

  • John||

    Romney cooperates, because his only path to victory is to trick people into thinking he supports policies that are meaningfully different from Obama

    If you actually believe that Tarran, then you need to vote for Obama and do everything you can to help him win. Regardless of what you think of Romney, when he is President the entire "right" including Libertarians who didn't vote for him will get blamed for his policies. So if the policies are going to be the same anyway, you want Obama in office so the left not the right gets blamed for their failures.

    Since I don't see too many fanatical Obama supporters on here that are not sock puppets, I doubt you really believe that.

  • tarran||

    If you actually believe that Tarran, then you need to vote for Obama and do everything you can to help him win. Regardless of what you think of Romney, when he is President the entire "right" including Libertarians who didn't vote for him will get blamed for his policies. So if the policies are going to be the same anyway, you want Obama in office so the left not the right gets blamed for their failures.

    There are some fascinating non sequitur's packed into that statement John. I can see why you love prosecuting people.

    Let's take them back to front:
    1) That I would prefer Obama to Romney since Romeny would damage the free market brand: I agree with this. Romney would discredit the free market policies he pretends to believe in.

    2) Therefore, you reson, I should be doing everything I can to support Obama.

    The answer is, of course, that this is stupid. I don't want Obama to win. I want Obama to lose the election almost as much as I want Romney to lose the election. In fact, I don't want anyone to win the election. I want the U.S. to not have a president.

    Moreover, it really doesn't matter too much who wins, anymore than it matters to a Ukranian whether the death squad kicking in his door have a swastika or a red star on their uniforms.

    The United States government is doomed. I can neither hasten its end or prevent it, and have no inclination to do either.

    Rather, my time is better spent reading Anne of Green Gables to my daughter.

  • John||

    But no one winning is not an option. Your thinking it is is the non sequiter. Go ahead and read your book and pretend unicorns are going to come from the sky and get elected President.

  • tarran||

    But no one winning is not an option. Your thinking it is is the non sequiter. Go ahead and read your book and pretend unicorns are going to come from the sky and get elected President.

    In other words, since what I want can't happen, I should be fighting for something I don't want?

    ROFL!

    John, I must say, you are cute when you start to flail.

  • John||

    So since you can't get exactly what you want Tarran, you should not worry about getting the best out of the options that are available. Yeah, the makes sense.

    Again, if you believe there is no difference between the two, then the best outcome is Obama winning. You won't admit that because you know there is some difference between the two. But say there is not because that is what you want to believe.

  • tarran||

    Ladies and gentlemen! This is what happens when John starts flailing. He stops reading what people are saying and starts arguing with the voices in his head.

    Today's example: here is what he just wrote.

    Again, if you believe there is no difference between the two, then the best outcome is Obama winning. You won't admit that because you know there is some difference between the two.

    This is in response to the following comment:

    There are some fascinating non sequitur's packed into that statement John ...

    1) That I would prefer Obama to Romney since Romeny would damage the free market brand: I agree with this.

    Please give to the United Military Lawyer College Fund, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    Or alternately, John should pick up a copy of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and read the chapter where Covey discusses Circles of Influence vs Circles of Concern. ;)

  • The Hammer||

    Leave Red Tony alone, Tarran, he's doing the best he can with what Romney has given him to work with, which is almost nothing beyond "totally not Obama, I promise!!!"

  • John||

    Yeah, Tarran, when someone points out the contradictions of your points, just say they are "flailing" and hope no one notices.

    That I would prefer Obama to Romney

    This is noted and really all anyone needs to know about you and this subject.

    Thank you.

  • tarran||

    Tarran, when someone points out the contradictions of your points,

    ROFL. Rather than stopping digging, he get's a bigger shovel! I love this!

    OK, JOhn, sweetie, you pointed out contradictions? Where?

  • Calidissident||

    John since you obviously think Romney is a lot better than Obama, why exactly aren't you voting for him? Your stated intent seems to contradict the majority of your posts here. That is, unless you're lying about your voting intentions. You are a lawyer right?

  • John||

    Caldissident.

    I think is better than Obama. But I go back and forth between whether he is good enough to make a difference or whether it would be better for Obama to win. I honestly don't know. And you can get me to give either answer depending on how I am thinking that day. But I don't consider it unreasonable at all to think it might be better in the long run for Obama to win and continue with his train wreck of an administration.

    But there is a difference between the two. Romney would be less of a personal crook if nothing else.

  • Calidissident||

    If that's what you think then why all the "you have to vote for Obama now since you think Romney's so awful etc etc" posts directed at other people? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical of you? And who knows if Romney would be more or less of a crook. I don't personally know either guy and I doubt you do either

  • John||

    No Calidissident,

    What I call people out on is when they claim there is absolutely no difference between the two. If you think that, then you have to hope Obama wins so that Romney doesn't destroy the right wing brand. If you think there is a difference, you could conceivably support either one depending on how much difference you think there is. But if you think they are the same, then Obama is your guy.

  • Calidissident||

    There's more than 2 options though, even if you do think that. You can vote third party or not vote at all. And why can't I use the same logic against you? If you think Romney's better, he has to be your guy. But (supposedly) he's not, because you factor other things into your vote. Why aren't other people allowed to do the same thing?

  • ant1sthenes||

    John, when you go back to the archives and read posts predicting you will increasingly turn into a Team Red shill as 11/12 approaches, and you steadfastly deny you will ever support Romney, do you feel even a twinge of shame for doubting those wiser than yourself?

    We predict your own future actions and beliefs better than you can. I daresay you should defer to us on this whole politics business.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The only way a Republican could be the combined power of Obama and the media is if he was a charismatic, witty and likeable leader. Romney is none of those (by design), and therefore has no chance.

  • John||

    If he has no chance, why is he within the margin of error on clearly over sampled Democratic polls? Anyone who thinks this election isn't a tossup is either lying and spreading Dem propaganda or just completely stupid.

  • Randian||

    please please please EC tie.

    For the love of Galt.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That would be pretty awesome.

  • John||

    That could happen. But it would probably mean Romney would be President since the Republicans are almost certainly going to control the House. But watching the Left go even more insane than they are right now would be very entertaining though.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Biden gets to determine our president? We'll see how well he's been treated by the Obama staff then...

  • robc||

    Biden gets to determine our president?

    Umm...no.

    The top 3 EC vote getters will be eligible for votes in the House, where members vote by state.

    Without looking at state by state breakdown, I think that goes to the GOP.

  • The Hammer||

    Top 3? How many friends does Johnson have in the House?

  • robc||

    Top 3?

    Thats what the constitution says. Johnson wont be getting any EVs (probably), but Paul will. 1-4 range.

    If the election is close enough, it will depend how many friends the Doctor made in the House. :)

    Not enough is the correct answer.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    And anyone who thinks Romney has a chance is utterly deluded.

    He's within the margin of error on over sampled Democratic polls since that propagates the narrative and inflates ad prices on various media by encouraging viewer/readership.

  • Randian||

    WG, would you care to make it interesting? I already have one decent bet out there, so I'll offer you the same terms:

    20 bucks says Obama doesn't crack 300 EVs.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I will put my money where my, uh, mouth is. You're on.

  • Randian||

    Sweet.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Fair warning: if I lose, I will have to pay you via snail mail. I will not put any financial information on the internet via the sources I have here.

  • Randian||

    Fine and fair.

  • The Hammer||

    It would be far more appropriate, libertarian-street-cred-wise, to send it via FedEx.

  • John||

    He's within the margin of error on over sampled Democratic polls since that propagates the narrative and inflates ad prices on various media by encouraging viewer/readership.

    That doesn't make any sense you half wit. If he were way behind and the media wanted to make it look close, they would over Republicans in the polls. Oversampling Democrats makes Obama look better not Romney.

    I may be deluded. But you have apparently lost the ability for rational thought.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Is news viewership up? Yes, absolutely. They are very good at what they do, and it's not a binary system where they go "let's make it look like guy X is way in the lead and that will make ratings increase". They have to make it believable AND seem important.

    But by no means should you let objective reality get in the way of your argument.

    Look at it this way, in a month or so, either I'll be right and very sad, or I'll be wrong and somewhat happy.

    Whereas YOU will either be right and happy or wrong and sad. I win something either way.

  • John||

    Let me explain it again to you WhiteRun.

    If you over sample Democrats, the Democratic candidate shows up stronger than he is. If you over sample Republicans, the Republican candidate looks stronger than he is.

    If it were the case that Romney was way behind and the media wanted to lie to make it look close, the way they would do that is over sample Republicans so Romney looks stronger than he is. But that is not what is happening. They are over sampling Democrats. That means either Romney is ahead or they got the sample right and it is as close as it appears. But it cannot mean that Romney is further behind than he appears.

    Since you don't seem to be functionally retarded, I would assume you can understand that argument and just don't have an answer to it. And that means you are just trolling and on here to spread bullshit like Skreek is.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I think we might have different sources. Granted, I can't watch TV over here, so I am somewhat limited. But from everything I hear on BBC, the polls are showing Obama comfortably ahead in places where it counts.

    Now what this means, is that people like you (employed guys that have and spend money) interpret that as meaning it's much closer than it appears. So you (theoretically) consume more of their products.

    The underlying theme is that all the polls are irrelevant. Not just skewed but completely fabricated (I'm not saying there's a conspiracy making them up out of thin air, but the questions are written and results crafted so they fit with what they want to broadcast - i.e. they're not true polls, even at face value).

    Unfortunately, Romney is not ahead. The media would not be toying with this as they are if he was.

  • John||

    But from everything I hear on BBC

    That explains everything.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I may be deluded. But you have apparently lost the ability for rational thought.

    admitting the delusion is part of the solution. congrats.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Paul Ryan told Fox News he didn't have the time to explain which deductions he and Romney would eliminate after he pinpointed the tax rate reductions.

    They are not serious.

  • John||

    Stop spreading Fox News propaganda and go back to listening to Rush you retarded little monkey.

  • Randian||

    The media treatment of John McCain was proof positive for any doubters out there.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it's fucking nuts. If Romney changed his abortions stance (again), he could be a successful Democrat candidate. There is nothing radical or even particularly right wing about him.

  • ||

    Dan Qualye was a right-wing idealogue? WTF?

  • Lord Humungus||

    potatoe conspiracy!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Lack of spelling ability is the surest sign that someone is a right-wing ideologue.

    Take John for example...

  • Jesse Walker||

    Dan Qualye was a right-wing idealogue? WTF?

    Go reread the press coverage of the 1988 GOP convention. That was a definite theme.

    There's one big difference between the reaction to Quayle and Ryan, though. When Bush picked Quayle it was widely suggested that he did it as an alternative to selecting Kemp -- that he needed to pick a conservative to keep the GOP's right wing happy, but he wanted someone easier to keep under control. Ryan, by contrast, is often portrayed as the real power on the 2012 ticket.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Kemp might've made a good president. Better than what we ended up with, in any case.

  • ||

    God, I LONG for a Republican candidate that doesn't pander to Cro Magnons. I would enthusiastically vote for even a war hawk if he was fiscally conservative and modestly libertarian, as long as he would shut the fuck up about religion and morals.
    I'm tired of having to explain to people why I would consider voting for someone who seriously thinks the earth was created 4000 years ago. Much less one who thinks God changed his mind about black people in 1975.

    If I had magical powers I would curse the Democrats to have to choose their leaders from a selection of scientologists.

  • Randian||

    Romney/Ryan are war hawks and have barely talked about religion and morals.

  • John||

    Religion and morals are pretty much irrelevant. Obama went to the Church of Christ for 20+ years. And Obama is a warhawk. So both of those issues are a push if you are choosing between the two.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Religion and morals are pretty much irrelevant.

    Religion is irrelevant. Morals, however, are very important.

  • John||

    True enough. But it is pretty hard to judge their morals from their public personas.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    But it is pretty hard to judge their morals from their public personas.

    Which is why it is important to have a strong 4th estate, so they can dig into the personal to see what kind of person they are. Unfortunately, our 4th estate seems to have abdicated its raison d'être.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Unfortunately, our 4th estate seems to have abdicated its raison d'être.

    Well, the 4th estate has been watered down by generations of public education regardless of pedigree. It's easier just to be a parrot, that's what most people do in any school anyway, parrot what the teacher fucking says.

  • ||

    Romney's not really a fiscal conservative, or a libertarian though.

    You can't be a fiscal conservative and propose cutting taxes and raising defense spending right now.

    I would vote for Ryan, but he's not the head of the ticket.

    Plus, Mormon, ugh.

  • John||

    If you don't want to vote for Romney because he is not a Libertarian that is perfectly reasonable and respectable. But the Mormon part is disgusting Hazel. I normally like you. But you should be ashamed of yourself for that. Who the fuck cares what religion he believes in? I would vote for Muslim if he was the best candidate.

  • ||

    Have you looked into what Mormon's believe? It's no less wierd than scientology. There's a reason trey Parker and Matt Stone just made a musical mocking them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

    Read that and tell me it doesn't scream "con artist".

  • John||

    Of course it is a scam. But that doesn't mean that a lot of perfectly reasonable and competent people believe in it for whatever reason. Everyone has a blind spot about something. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to understand that just makes you a nasty bigot.

  • ||

    I'm not saying Romney's a bad person because he's a Mormon. I'm just saying, I can't take a personson seriously as a presidential candidate if they hold reigiious beliefs of a certain level of ridiculousness.

    Would you vote for someone who openly proclaimed his belief that UFOs full of aliens were visiting us, or that he would be guided by astrology?

  • Randian||

    We regularly vote for people who believe a guy rose from the dead, magically produced bread and fish, walked around so that people could feel inside his wounds and raised other people from the dead as well.

  • ||

    At least those people have the excuse that their founding myths are passed down from before recorded history and actually are in actual ancient toungues.

    Everything to show that Joseph Smith was a total con artist is documentable and easily researched recent history. "Reformed egyptian" isn't even a real language.

  • Randian||

    Everything to show that Joseph Smith was a total con artist is documentable and easily researched recent history.

    Really? So you can prove and document that Jesus *didn't* come to America? That there are not other celestial worlds that you will take command of in the afterlife?

    Because that's the standard here. If you are going to compare originators (Paul and Co.) vs. originators (Joe Smith and Young), then that's fine, but you can't compare con-artist originators (Mormon) to supernatural silliness (Christian).

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Whose this "We" you speak of?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Would you vote for someone who openly proclaimed his belief that UFOs full of aliens were visiting us, or that he would be guided by astrology?

    Kucinich or Reagan??

  • ||

    Reagan used an astrologer in secret. And everyone laughed when they found out.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Plus I think it was his wife's idea. Like Mary Lincoln's seances.

  • John||

    Or Carter for that matter. Look Hazel, this is an election not a metaphysical debate. I find Objectiivsts to be silly and ignorant. But if there was an Objectivist who was otherwise competent and supported policies I agreed with, I would vote for them. The fact that Rand was a lousy writer and a worse philosopher is not relevant. I probably wouldn't hire them to teach Philosophy or Literature, but I certainly would put them in elective office.

  • Zeb||

    Every religion is fucking nuts in the same way, though (to anyone who doesn't believe that sort of thing). Anyone who claims that God is dictating a book to them is either insane or a scam artist. Mormonism just seems extra crazy because it is so recent.
    I'm less worried by the insane beliefs than by their tendency toward theocracy and the historical atrocities they have committed.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Romney/Ryan are war hawks and have barely talked about religion and morals.

    That's only because they're smart enough to know that Mormon/Catholic doesn't play well in Topeka.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think that's a dated analysis.

    It's not Topeka which staged a hit anti-Mormon play, for one thing.

    For another, if we're talking evangelicals, we're discussing people who prevented Bush II from nominating a fellow evangelical (Miers) and got him to nominate a Catholic. This isn't 1928.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If they're staying away from values issues, it's not only to play in Topeka, but to play in the suburbs throughout the country.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know that "anti-mormon"
    is quite the right word.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Tom Cruise 2020

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is why the Republican Party should split in two: the Honest-to-Galt libertarians and the Valuuuuuuz Voters.

    The former can have an honest debate about whether democratizing other countries with flying killer robots is in line with libertarian and American ideals. The latter can wear their "Keep Yer Government OUT of my Medicare!" teeshirts while they decide which clan of heathen mudapes to wipe off the face of the earth.

  • ||

    Exactly. I really don't want to stand next to the fat guy, wearing the jesus t-shirt, in the scooter demanding that government keep their hands off his medicare.

    That person embodies everything that is wrong with the modern Republican party.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are missing a big chunk of republicans there. There are quite a few who are not into the culture war/values shit, but are anything but libertarian. For example, neo-cons.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I think he assumed the neo-cons are part of the the Honest-to-Galt Libertarian debate. Which they aren't. They'll have the Libertarians gassed the first chance they get.

  • ||

    I think that was covered by "The former can have an honest debate about whether democratizing other countries with flying killer robots is in line with libertarian and American ideals."

  • Mike M.||

    Romney is the most moderate presidential candidate the republicans have nominated since Gerald Ford. Who would you like them to pick, the ghost of Thomas Paine?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    He wasn't born in America.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    DONALD. FUCKING. DUCK.

  • John||

    Much less one who thinks God changed his mind about black people in 1975.

    I am not a Mormon. But that is just horseshit. And if you take it to its conclusion you are saying that no practicing Mormon could be elected to public office of any kind. We don't have religious tests for public office.

    I am sorry you are a nasty bigot who clearly never internalized the concept that freedom means the right of people to hold views you don't like and still be judged by their own merits. That is a shame, especially in someone who thinks of themselves as a classical liberal or Libertarian.

    There are good reasons to dislike Romney. But his religion is not one of them. And mentioning that reason just show you to be ignorant and frankly not a serious person.

  • ||

    Would you vote for a scientologist John? Because it's just a religious faith?

  • R C Dean||

    Depends. What's his record? What're his views on the size and scope of government and government's proper role in society?

    He can be a loony on his own time, as long as he isn't a loony on my time.

  • ||

    Wouldn't the fact that he's a Scientologist say something about his capacity for judgement?

  • ||

    Wouldn't the fact that most religious people believe in a magical old man in the sky explicitly on faith say something about their capacity for judgement?

  • John||

    If he had a record as an honest person and supported policies I did, absolutely. As I said above, I would vote for an objectivist and I consider them to be about the level of a scientologist only a bit more silly and pretentious. But again, who cares?

  • ||

    Yeah, cause thinking that selfishness is a virtue, is just a silly as thinking that human beings are thetans from the galactic confederacy, who were thrown into a volacano by the evil overlord Xenu.

    And you go around complaining about false equivalancies.

  • John||

    Rand was an idiot Hazel. The only differences between her and Hubert was that she was not a crook and he could write a better novel.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    I would enthusiastically vote for even a war hawk if he was fiscally conservative and modestly libertarian

    I don't think you can have a war hawk who is fiscally conservative and libertarian. War is expensive and if they are hawkish, they are definitely not libertarian. It is one thing to say you are strong on defense, a libertarian position, but what most politicians really mean is that they are strong on offense.

  • ||

    That's a good point. It would have to be a war hawk who is very cost-efficient and only picks battles that have a low cost/benefit ratio.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    So...someone who supports using only James Bond-esque super-spies?

  • Drake||

    HazelMeade - I voted for Pete DuPont in the Republican primary in 1988. He is the last major contender (other than maybe Kemp) I can think of who fits your description.

  • Pro Libertate||

    DuPont--forgot about him. I think I voted for him in that primary, too.

  • Loki||

    What about Phill "I ain't runnin' for preacher" Gramm in '96?

  • ant1sthenes||

    At the rate the progs are going full retard, they'll be choosing their pols from a selection of eye-patch wearing imams soon, so you might be in luck.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama did shut down the Enron Loophole which drove gas prices up.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....3AX4q7Xhn0

  • Randian||

    Mr. "Goldwater Libertarian" Shrike says "yay higher fuel prices and increased commodities regulation!"

    Hm.

  • tarran||

    Shrike is a Rockefeller Republican. I've long suspected that either his outspokenly Republican dad used to sodomize him or that he wanted his dad to sodomize him and it never happened.

    But politically Shrike is a Rockefeller Republican.

  • John||

    Shrike is a sockpuppet run by various leftist who come on here to ruin the thread. Shreek is not a Republican anything. And yes I am sure at least some of his handlers pined for being sodomized as children.

  • Mike M.||

    But politically Shrike is a Rockefeller Republican.

    No he isn't. If he was a Rockefeller Republican he would be supporting Romney, the guy who ought to have "Rockefeller Republican" stamped on his forehead.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ Romney is actually more of a Kennedy Democrat. In a sane world Romney would be the D and someone like Paul would be the R in this race. But since the Democrats have gone insane and pulled the Republicans over with them to some degree he is running as an R.

  • Blueman||

    In a sane world, Gary Johnson would be the Democrat and Ron Paul the Republican.

  • John||

    What is Democrat about Johnson?

  • Mike M.||

    Your link is a 404, you stupid Shrieking Idiot motherfucker.

  • Drake||

    Thank goodness! That $4 gas I'm buying is much better than the $1.90 Bush gas we had 4 years ago.

  • Virginian||

    Pricing gas in gold is quite interesting. Look at what a gram of gold bought you in 2007 versus what it will buy you today.

    But remember, there is no inflation. Bernanke is handling it. Do not be alarmed.

  • Ryan60657||

    But Romney is a SEVERE conservative.

  • ||

    What's up with the Cro-Magnon defamation, dude?

    Wikipedia:

    The brain capacity was about 1,600 cubic centimetres (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern humans.[4] However recent research suggests that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation.[5]
  • ||

    You're right, comparing scooter-riding Medicare-Queen-Jesus-Freaks to Cro-Magnons is an insult to Cro-Magnons.

    Cro-Magnons ate a paleolithic diet and probably lived longer healthier lives.

  • Randian||

    Cro-Magnons ate a paleolithic diet and probably lived longer healthier lives.

    Ha ha, probably fucking not.

  • ||

    Ok, yeah, that was hyperbole.

    Still, I suspect the life of a Cro-Magnon person in a hunter-gatherer community involved a lot more mental and physical exercise. They didn't have the option to sit on the sofa and let their brains turn to jelly watching Sally Jesee Raphael. They had to be out there devising was to get food and build shelters and make clothing out of animal skins.

  • Randian||

    Still, I suspect the life of a Cro-Magnon person in a hunter-gatherer community involved a lot more mental and physical exercise.

    Physical yes. Mental, no way.

  • ||

    Physical yes. Mental, no way.

    Seriously. You think a person who sites around watching reality TV all day is more mentally stimulated than a hunter gatherer who has to invent his own snares?

  • ||

    There's plenty of evidence that a neolithic diet led to a decline in stature and probably general health not to mention increased disease from increased population concentration and diseases contracted from animals with the rise of husbandry. Not to mention the fact that hunter-gatherers don't work nearly as hard as farmers. This was offset by having a much more reliable food source, the ability to store surplus grain, ability to support an elite non-working class that could do things like invent writing and architecture, etc.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    If they're so smart how come they all got eaten by dinosaurs.

  • Delroy||

    lol

  • ||

    Duh, Raquel Welch survived.

  • John||

    Hazel,

    Here is the problem with saying that "so and so is a (insert whatever religion or philosophy her) and is unfit for office". To say the religion makes them unfit, you have to make a value judgment about the religion. And to do that you have to have a metaphysical debate about that religion. And that turns the election into a debate about religion rather than about the government. If Romney were claiming "I am a Morman and that makes me qualified to be President", then I could see it being an issue. But he is not claiming that. So therefore his and Obama's for that matter religion is irrelevant. We can't get into the business of judging people's metaphysical beliefs as a condition for elected office.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    More narrowly, I don't see any political position of Romney's which is based on Mormonism, except maybe the part about the U.S. Constitution being divinely inspired, which is similar anyway to what many other candidates claim to believe.

    I would be more bothered if he was on the Peace and Justice Committee of the local Presbyterian Church, where he discovered that Jesus wants higher taxes, more regulations and gay rights.

  • John||

    Exactly. People can and will always use religion or philosophy to justify their positions. All you can do is judge the positions and not worry about the justification.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think that certain religious views can actually influence their politics. But it takes more than simply noting the person's denomination. You need to look at the specific religious teachers who influenced the person.

    Saying someone is United Church of Christ might convey some information - viz, that (s)he is likely to be some kind of leftist. But to know more details, we'd have to look at (say) the congregation he chose and the philosophy of the pastor to whom he dedicated his books. To take a hypothetical example.

  • Virginian||

    ^^This

    For all the talk about right wing religious voters, there's a ton, probably close to the same numbers, of left wing voters who take their left wing values of redistribution from mainline Protestant churches, Catholic social teaching, and certain tenets of Judaism.

    Socialism has long been sold to Americans wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. You just need to read your history. In this country, Jesus sells. All political ideologies have at one time or another used churches and Scripture to appeal to voters.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, and I wish people would stop pretending that socialism is inherently atheistic or something. There is loads of stuff int eh bible, for example, which can be, and often is, interpreted to support socialistic policies.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Similarly, free-market, individual-freedom views are not inherently atheistic, either. You will find Jews, Christians, etc. who take their religion's emphasis on individual responsibility and the dignity of the human person, and from those premises derive many "libertarian" conclusions.

  • ||

    You never answered the question about UFOs and Astrology.

    What counts as a religion? Why should I give some supernatural beliefs a free pass just because lots of people have bought into them.

    It's like the Mohammed Cartoons. You have people say "well we should refrain from offending Muslims, because it's a religious belief".

    You want ot slap a label "religion" on certain ideas and make them immune from criticism, and force everyone to withhold judgement about the intellectual capacities of those who adhere to those beliefs.

    I say, I'm within my rights to find certain beliefs patently absurd, and to consequently judge the adherents lacking in critical thinking skills.

  • John||

    Sure you are withing your rights to do that. But if you would disregard an otherwise qualified candidate because you don't like their religion, you are bigot and frankly an idiot.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement