Unelectable Hillary
31 comments | Permalink
First Things' Joseph Bottum writes on the presidential candidates (scroll down). Regarding the Democrats, he writes:
1. John MacArthur prophesying in tongues.
2. Mark Dever baptizing babies.
3. John Piper laughing uncontrollably at one of his own jokes during a sermon.
4. Mark Driscoll wearing a tuxedo with a pink bow tie and cummerbund.
. . . on the Democratic side, at least, the race appears over. Hillary Clinton has locked up the nomination. Short of catastrophe, she can’t be overtaken in the primaries. Which means (as near as I can tell, a year out from the election) that she will roll like a juggernaut into November 2008 and lose. Just lose. Hillary Clinton is not electable, and any Republican short of Ron Paul should be able to beat her.By the way, for those who think that Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton, I began to compile a list of events that are much more likely:
1. John MacArthur prophesying in tongues.
2. Mark Dever baptizing babies.
3. John Piper laughing uncontrollably at one of his own jokes during a sermon.
4. Mark Driscoll wearing a tuxedo with a pink bow tie and cummerbund.
posted by JT at Thursday, October 11, 2007
31 Comments:
Tim Keller proposing that all Christians withdraw from the cities and live in the woods until "Jesus comes".
Al Gore telling everyone he made all that climate stuff up.
Justin, I am interested in your thoughts/evidence on why Ron Paul could not beat Hillary. Those comparisons are funny, but they don't help me.
Ron Paul seems like long-haul pro-lifer that evangelicals can support and an old-school fiscal conservative that the fiscal-conservatives can support.
What makes him so un-electable against Hillary in a way that Guiliani or Romney is?
Could you post your reasons?
Whether Senator Clinton can run a successful campaign against the flip-floppers and clowns contending for the Republican presidential nomination remains to be seen. The leading Republican candidate is a serial adulterer and fornicator and is every bit as much pro-choice as Senator Clinton. Former Senator Thompson is a dud and Romney can't be trusted. I'll take Hilary over these guys any day!
After several people carefully and intelligently explained why Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat Hillary earlier this week, you completely write him off--and give no reasons except to make fun of him?
Justin, I expected better of you. I'll be glad to read a carefully thought out explanation to support your position. By laughing off Ron Paul, you have become a laughingstock. Unless you provide the reasoning behind your attack, I will assume you have none.
Some people on here need to lighten up and stop making fools of themselves.
Interesting that you even bother to waste your time attacking Ron Paul. Granted, he doesn't have much of a chance. But that's because people are generally addicted to voting for the lesser of two evils, regardless of what they feel is right. That's the main argument I hear against Paul and that's what I'm hearing from you: "Well he won't win." To me, I feel he is the only candidate that truly understands what America is about and what the Constitution is. We're talking about a pro-life fiscal conservative who respects the rule of law, is one of the few honest politicians in Washington, and has a grasp on what America's place in the world should be. Others agree but they won't vote for him because it's a popularity contest. I urge everyone to do what they think is right in November 2008. Whether that be Paul, Obama, Thompson or whoever. Remember, if you spend a lifetime voting for the lesser of two evils, all you will have ever voted for will be evil.
What happens if all of the candidates are unelectable?
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Ron Paul?
I like Ron Paul... but he is only at 2% in the polls.
Is JT making fun of him, or just exaggerating the truth.
I don't know why Ron Paul is so far out of it...? I haven't watched all the debates, but I suppose it may be because no one has heard of him?
Anon, not sure if you're joking or not but in case not, go to www.ronpaul2008.com and click on the "About" tab.
Not interested in voting for some who is "electable". I plan on voting my conscience, so Ron Paul is the only possible candidate I can vote for.
Alex said...
"Anon, not sure if you're joking or not but in case not, go to www.ronpaul2008.com and click on the "About" tab."
Thanks for the info, Alex - and no, I am not joking - until I came across this blog, I had never heard of Ron Paul.
I will check it out.
Justin,
I enjoy a good discussion between brothers and so I appreciate you responding to my question about why you don't think Ron Paul is worth mentioning.
Along with Josh Crews, I am also curious as to what your reasons are for thinking that Ron Paul has no chance of winning over Hillary. Your joke made me laugh, but now that I am done laughing I am ready to discuss the actual issues involved.
The article by Joseph Bottum was helpful and I am persuaded for the reasons that he cites that Guliani could defeat Hillary. So I would change what I commented earlier to: "Ron Paul is not the only candidate that could defeat Hillary, but he is the candidate with the best chance of doing so"
Bottum, like you, does not cite any reasons for regarding Ron Paul as an impossibility. For this reason I do not find his article persuasive in this matter.
I agree with his view that the war "is the United States’ major political problem" but with his belief that "the great open secret of this campaign is that Iraq doesn’t really make all that big a difference" I am more skeptical. Historically war has always played center stage in elections and in comparing the views of most GOP candidates with those of Hillary, there are significant difference that do make a difference in how the American public will view the candidates side by side. With the polls saying that 70% of Americans want the US out of Iraq I simply find it very unlikely that any GOP candidate towing the standard war party line has any chance in the general election.
I asked Ed Groover this question and Justin I will ask you this same question,
If you had to pick between Ron Paul and Hillary in the general election, would you choose Hillary over Paul? Is his "radical" constitutionalism a worse thing in your mind than being radically Pro-choice and appointing pro-choice judges?
I wonder if anyone else on this forum would vote for Clinton over Ron Paul?
It seems to me that if Paul won the primary, in the general election he would win the votes of:
-Most economic conservatives
-The pro-life evangelicals
-The young idealists disillusioned by our present system (See Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.).
-Republicans who are tired of the war.
-Democrats and liberals who are won over by Paul's principled and consistent record and his resistance to corruption's in the government and in the Federal Reserve system (See the YouTube videos of Ron Paul on Bill Maher and Jon Stewart for examples of a positive liberal response to Ron Paul)
Justin, I am a pastor and not a political scientist. If I am totally off base in my support of Ron Paul, please give me reasons to believe otherwise. I am open to learn and change, especially from a man as respectable as you are.
Justin, I am very curious to hear your response to "ahshkosh"'s humble and well reasoned comment. Please respond....Thank you!
I'll wager that Ron Paul gets less than 5% of the IW, NH or SC primaries, which makes him irrelevent.
At this point Rudy is a likely winner since he's the only pro-abort candidate. The pro-life vote is split between: Paul, Huckabee, Thompson and even Romney.
If it were only between Rudy and McCain, I'd wager McCain would be seen as the best pro-life, pro-defense candidate. And he's win the general.
I think Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate in the whole bunch that would make me consider voting for Hillary, not voting, or finding a third-party candidate (although I doubt there's one I'd prefer).
He's more extreme than any of the Democrats on Iraq, except perhaps Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, but I suspect he's even more extreme than those two. He wants to dismantle most of the U.S. government, regardless of the consequences. His extreme isolationism and opposition to pretty much everything in the Patriot Act would be disastrous in age of militant Islamic terrorism. He wants to get out of NATO. He wants to pass a law (not an amendment) to make it illegal to count someone as a citizen merely because they're born in the U.S. (even though the Constitution guarantees such a right). He wants to remove the federal income tax and replace it with nothing. He opposes drug enforcement. This is someone who sued President Clinton for going to war against Kosovo, only to have a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit without ever bringing it to court.
I'd probably vote for him if it came down to him vs. Mike Gravel, but it would be hard for me to vote for him even against most of the Democratic candidates.
Does John Piper tell jokes in his sermons? ;-)
jeremy pierce just demonstrated the fearful protectionist sentiment which presents the strongest argument against the plausibility of a Ron Paul candidacy.
Most Americans are just as ignorant of economic principles, are equally selfish for undeserved privileges, are as fearful of other cultures, and have as much faith in the pagan institution of the state as he does.
On the other hand, maybe not all Americans fit that description.
Polling 2% in phone polls is really meaningless. The reality is that a lot of Ron's support base don't even have land-line phones anymore, which is the only thing that gets called.
Second, they are calling a segment of "likely republican voters" which means people who have recently supported the republican candidates consistently in elections. A lot of Ron's support comes from the disenfranchised people who have not been voting, or if they have, probably not consistently republican. Especially in presidential races.
Think back and consider the abysmal number of people who actually voted in the last couple presidential elections. Barely 50% of our population. A lot of those people are out in force to support Ron. We in the grassroots campaign have actually had to have our people sign up to be deputized to receive voter registration cards, because of the need to be able to get the supporters we recruit registered to vote conveniently.
Note that when I say supporter, I don't mean "said they'd vote for him" I mean, "came to help with his campaign, show up at events, etc". So these phone polls do not accurately reflect Ron's chances.
I know people like to poo-poo internet polls, and call-in polls, because they're unscientific and potentially hackable. I agree. THey have a much wider margin of error. HOwever, they are also interesting because they demonstrate something about each candidate's supporters, and their willingness to go out and do something to support their candidate. To support their candidate right now in these polls the supporters just need to pick up a phone and dial or sit at their computer and click. THey don't even have to leave their house, and yet Ron is the only one who wins these polls.
Further, when the candidates show up for debates, who draws the largest crowd? Ron Paul. WHen they have speaking engagements, who draws the crowds? Ron Paul. Who is raising money from middle America, and not just big spenders? Ron Paul. One of the most common statements I hear is "I've never donated to a campaign before in my life." But they actually believe in Ron, and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
These are people who believe in an ideal and a message. Not fat-cats looking to buy influence.
You've made an open assertion against Ron and his capabilities apparently without bothering to even do a basic amount of research into what is happening in his campaign. My guess is that you listened to the mainstream press and accepted their word as gospel. I, like others in this thread, am disappointed in you for that. If you don't agree with Ron fine, but I would expect some substance from you in your argument, not naked assertions.
"John MacArthur prophesying in tongues"
Uh, Justin, the Bible doesn't mention ANYONE prophesying in tongues. :)
I'm sorry, but the thought that Hillary will be defeated because conservatives will just vote for the lesser of two evils is fairly insulting to me as a conservative.
It implies I don't have the strength of my convictions.
As long as the Republicans run a moderate (which is every candidate but Ron Paul) Hillary will win in a landside. Anyone who fails to understand this lacks some serious historical knowledge.
Conservatives only hope is Ron Paul.
I am 37 years old, a reformed/conservative pastor and a father of 4 and have never made a contribution to a political candidate or political cause in my entire life...until last week when I made a significant contribution to Congressman Ron Paul for his bid for the Republican nomination.
I'm not supporting the man but his ideas. His ideas are radical in that he wants to go back and stand on the basic principles of our constitution!
I am supporting him to win but more than that, to get his ideas out there in the public forum.
No candidate (even Ronald Reagan) has so enlarged my vision of the greatness of our country and how much greater it can be.
Go Ron Paul!
This post has been removed by the author.
Jeremy,
Thank you for being the first person to step out with your reasons for disliking Ron Paul. I did a little research into the reasons that you have cited and I have to say, while some of them I can respect as your personal views on American politics, other reasons that you cited were simply not true or caricatured. Its like you were building a “theology” of Ron Paul with a bunch of verses out of context from bad translations.
Every candidate deserves to be portrayed honestly and accurately, and so for anyone who actually wants to get context and not just proof-texts, I have provided links and a few short quotes or comments on each of Jeremy’s reasons why he would probably vote for Hillary over Ron Paul
"He's more extreme than any of the Democrats on Iraq"
(Or he really is series about ending the war and securing our borders at home)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/62/the-price-of-delaying-the-inevitable-in-iraq/
"He wants to dismantle most of the U.S. government, regardless of the consequences."
(Or maybe he has really thought through the consequences and is convinced (with many others including the Founding Fathers) that small government really is better.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/160/political-power-and-the-rule-of-law/
"His extreme isolationism"
(His view is: trade with all, make entangling alliance with no one)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
"and opposition to pretty much everything in the Patriot Act...”
(Because the Patriot Act is opposed to much of everything in the US Constitution)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/116/reconsidering-the-patriot-act/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/114/the-patriot-act-four-years-later/
"would be disastrous in age of militant Islamic terrorism."
(Or maybe the 9/11 Commission is right when it says that Muslim Fundamentalist attack us because of our aggressive foreign policy and our posting of troops in their countries. Maybe leaving the Middle East and defending America is what is most needed in protecting ourselves.)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/155/surrender-should-not-be-an-option/
"He wants to get out of NATO."
(And maybe that’s not so bad a thing…)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
"He wants to pass a law (not an amendment) to make it illegal to count someone as a citizen merely because they're born in the U.S. (even though the Constitution guarantees such a right)."
(Sorry, this is incorrect)
“I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined."
"Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/130/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/135/the-immigration-question/
"He wants to remove the federal income tax and replace it with nothing."
(Praise God!)
"Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/107/the-case-against-the-income-tax/
"He opposes drug enforcement."
(Not quite. He is against the war on drugs and the way that we presently enforce it)
"For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved. This war has been behind most big government policy powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/123/war-on-terror-its-as-bad-as-war-on-drugs/
"This is someone who sued President Clinton for going to war against Kosovo, only to have a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit without ever bringing it to court."
(Hmmm, this is definitely quoted out of context.)
WASHINGTON, DC -- A bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), filed a lawsuit on Friday, April 30, 1999, in federal court against President Bill Clinton for violating both the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to Yugoslavia.
Rep. Paul has led Congress in the opposing the unconstitutional military action, introducing the first legislation to stop the measure early in this Congress, and speaking against it last year.
"This president has violated the law and he must be taken to task," said Rep. Paul. "It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the president from this destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent upon us to resort to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States."
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm
Let's use good hermeneutics, whether we are talking about biblical exegesis or political exegesis...
On the point of birthright citizenship, if you do a little research on the 14th amendment and the writers of it you'll find that what we consider the meaning of the 14th amendment today is NOT what they took it to mean.
Among other things, note this critical clause: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is not the case with the worst abusers of birthright citizenship. Those who fly in, have their baby here, then go home, with their child an american citizen. This is hardly the intent.
Again, not electable - but yet, he wins most straw polls. Funny, where people might actually have to get off their rear and go vote, and maybe even PAY to vote, he wins there too. I'm sure those are rigged though right?
This probably was too right? I mean, granted, Ron wasn't even there, and Romney and Hunter were both SPEAKERS at the event, but I'm sure it doesn't mean anything about how electable he is.
The reality is that a lot of Ron's support base don't even have land-line phones anymore, which is the only thing that gets called.
people pay for phones that only work in their houses?
His extreme isolationism and opposition to pretty much everything in the Patriot Act would be disastrous in age of militant Islamic terrorism.
a point proven by the many terrorist attacks on switzerland. also, despite what you may have heard on the radio, he isn't an "isolationist."
one reason paul might be able to beat clinton is that, for reasons touched on by alex, austin and ahshkosh, he is the only repub candidate people such as myself, a 2000 bush supporter (back when bush ran on what is apparently considered by some here to be an "isolationist" foreign policy) will vote for.
people pay for phones that only work in their houses?
Not sure what you mean by this. I mean that there are a lot of people who only have VoIP or cell phones, and don't bother with land-lines.
i know some are confused by this post to whether or not its suppose to be funny...I'm not sure if it's because some don't know those evangelicals or that Justin needs to work on his material.
jeremy pierce just demonstrated the fearful protectionist sentiment which presents the strongest argument against the plausibility of a Ron Paul candidacy.
I oppose protectionism. Please demonstrate how anything I said remotely resembles protectionism.
Most Americans are just as ignorant of economic principles, are equally selfish for undeserved privileges, are as fearful of other cultures, and have as much faith in the pagan institution of the state as he does.
Again, I have no idea how you're getting any of this out of what I said. I'm quite familiar with economic principles, but you haven't pointed out any specific one that you think I've misunderstood. I'm not exactly fearful of other cultures the way most Ron Paul supporters seem to be in their isolationism, and I have little faith in the institution of the state (not that I'd call it pagan; it's secular, but it doesn't require worship of false gods). I do think we have a moral obligation to do what's in our power to pursue good, and God has placed us in a nation where we have influence over the government. How is it placing faith in a pagan institution to do what you can to make things better when God has given you the ability to have such a role?
Ashkosh, almost nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You've explained why he wants to do what I've said he wants to do, but the reality is that he would get us out of Iraq at least as quickly and irresponsibly as any of the Democrats. He is indeed an isolationist when it comes to military matters. He cites Robert Taft as his foreign policy hero. That ignores our moral responsibility that comes with being given much ability to do good in the world, and it's a thoroughly unChristian view.
His view on what sort of small government would be required is very extreme, and even if it's opposed to increases that the founders would have been horrified at, it's insane to think that we need to abide by strict literalism in constitutional interpretation no matter how serious the consequences are. The only reason to follow the Constitution is because rule of law is good. But it would be terrible to preserve absolutely perfect rule of law for its own sake when the consequences are awful. Sometimes moral principles are more important than mere law for its own sake. It's moral principles that justify following the law to begin with, and if the law requires someone to do something morally despicable we have the notion of civil disobedience. Those who want the status quo changed to work back toward simpler government have a nice ideal, but you can't just remove something millions of people have been depending on for decades overnight without replacing it with a real alternative. It's cruel.
He vastly underestimates the reasons for radical Muslim opposition to the U.S. The reason they hate us is because they associate Christianity with pornography and degradation. The most Christian country in the world, as they see it, is responsible for high abortion rates, pornography, and such things. Our foreign policy, particularly as it's misrepresented in the non-U.S. media, may have aggravated things a little, but the opposition was there long before that, and the key foreign policy issue had nothing to do with Iraq initially, since that happened after 9-11. It was our favorable attitude toward Israel over decades that's really driving this for many.
On the amendment thing, I was misremembering. It was Tom Tancredo who wanted to do it without an amendment. At least Ron Paul realizes it would take amending the Constitution to do such a stupid thing.
I don't see how anything else I've said is a misinterpretation. It's just that you think there are arguments for these insane views, and I think the views are nuts. That's not bad hermeneutics. It's disagreement about the arguments.
Shamgar, I've addressed your argument about the 14th Amendment here. I don't think your interpretation is plausible.
Jeremy,
Good discussion!
Justin,
Although I would love to hear your thoughts about this, I don't really expect you to respond. If you responded to every blog comment you would never finish that ESV Study Bible, and the Lord knows how much we are all looking forward to it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home