Progressive Conservativism...Part II: Who will lead, this time?

Ok, so 100 years ago, TR was President and he was shaking up the interests of Big Business.

He felt that as a "trust-buster" it was his responsibility to use his Oval Office,   initiating a legal battle against, within and among that generation's "Titans of Industry" based on "the common good". If it is true that public policy follows public opinion (and this past century's semi-recent history seems to prove the point), then who could begin the process of leading America's potential towards this new Progressive Conservativism?

Since we are a nation that seems overly-prone to Executive Office influence, my call is that we could have just such a leader in the GOP "pacts" vying for 09's Presidential swearing-in. Anyone out of the GOP Big Three? Romney, maybe...but my call may be a surprise: Mike Huckabee - the non-member of the Big Three.

Who? The former Lt. Gov/Gov of Arkansas, that's who. Check him out. He's got that "VP look" that TR had a century ago (though certainly not the San Juan Hill "thing"...unless you call painfully following the body-strewn hillside of the Clinton's as something closely akin to running up the bomb-cratered hillsides of Cuba).

Could Huckabee be that new voice? Or just a great ping pong player as NPR.org found out?

Hmmm.....

Den

PS: Part of the "philosophical/theological" calling for Progressive Conservatives may well be the attraction of absolutes found smack dab in the center of God's heart for free choice. This brief poem, called Ultimate Truth and Absolutes, was sent to me by Tami, a friend of the blog.

So clear is the evidence of absolutes
That in nature we call them laws
Scientific method has given "proof"
That these "truths" function without flaw

(Ultimate Truth & Absolutes, cont'd)

All parts of life are full of these
Cause and effect certainties
Plain as day, if we care to see
Unhindered by our choice to believe

Does a man who truly thinks he can fly
Affect the law of gravity in his sincerity?
You have to admit that he believed a lie
Witnessing him plunging to his death in finality

It is our choice to believe things or not
That doesn't negate absolute truths
Many ruined lives are built upon faulty thought
So be wise in the belief you choose

Comments

[Lee]

Jay, I don't necessarily want to discuss ID, Evolution/Darwin, or anything. I would like to see/hear more of you thoughts. Do you have postings on 43rdstateblues or somewhere else on web? I was just stating that talking about ID and Darwin doesn't cause a nuclear bomb to go off.

There are holes in both theories, imo. I find many people on both sides get very shrill and to me that is sad.

What I look forward to is more on what we all can agree on - better roads or better bike lanes or whatever, verses what we disagree on. Maybe pie in the sky or Star Trek-ish, but that is what I hope.

[Ryan Davidson]

Huckabee's a sack of statist crap. He's on record saying that he would not end the federal raids on cancer patients who use medical marijuana IN THE STATES THAT HAVE LEGALIZED IT! So I wonder what he has more contempt for: state's rights or the will of the people?

If you're not supporting Ron Paul, then you don't support the constitution or the Founding Fathers.

[Andrew R.]

I didn't know God was a religion.

In regards to Mr.Huckabee;
I believe he has a good chance compared to many other Republican contenders. Im willing to bet he will replace McCain in the top three, at least until Fred Thompson formally declares himself a candidate.

[Jay]

Lee,

you've made a good point. Europe is capitulating to the religious traditions and it will cost them in the long run. To suggest that Creationism is the least bit scientific is absolutely ridiculous and would also give a government nod to Christianity in America, where the Supreme Court has upheld that publicly funded schools cannot do that.

Europe doesn't really have that kind of legal precedent and so they can't fight it as well.

My issues with Creationism/Intelligent Design? Where does it stop? Will geologists be required to include the Great Flood in their timelines despite the acknowledgment that there is no direct evidence of such a thing happening in the last few thousand years? Will they have to stop saying that it took millions of years to carve the Grand Canyon and start saying that the Great Flood did it in a few months despite all evidence to the contrary? And when trying to teach biology how will the evidence of common ancestor amongst species be discussed if the answer is always "God did it"?

I'm sorry, but lazy shortcuts like ID disgust me to a pretty high extent. Dover was an excellent precedent and showed that the proponents of the ID/Creationism in science are religiously motivated and are not motivated by real science.

I won't even discuss ID with you, sorry. It is absolutely pointless to discuss a fake science as anything other than what it is. It is up there with astrology and the study of tea leaves and real scientists shouldn't even be giving it the time of day to dismiss.

[Lee]

Jay,
I think you are right that most candidates either pander to "the right" or to "the church" and it goes awry. As a former "righty" I am tired of the ones (political leaders) that are fake and I feel pretty sure I can point them out. I've sat and listened to many over the last 5 years and kept quiet, meaning that I talk to my wife, my God, and few others. Now I'm not going to be as quiet any longer.

As far as the theories on IntelDesign and Darwinism I appreciate the openness in Europe to both topics. I've talked to people there and it doesn't become a religious war.

I would love to share beers and here more from you. My fav hangouts are Sockeye on Cole and Ustick and all the places near 8th and Idaho and anywhere else where the beer is cold and the music not too loud. Let me know...if you're downtown and see a Red Electra HellBilly cruiser going by say hi! My friend, Christopher, would be on a Black Electra Straight 8 and wearing a kilt - truly a one of a kind!

[Jay]

Clark, would you like a dozen links to scientific evidence or two dozen? Would you like to see how proteins have been generated as well as how the newest Startdust mission recovered evidence of the missing gases needed for spontaneous generation of replicating carbon/silicon based molecules?

Stop listening to Behe, he's been discredited to the point where he's nothing more than a joke now. Stop listening to the Discovery Institute, they are only there to continue to pander to the religious and try to put Christianity into public schools.

Dennis:

I don't care if a candidate is religious, but when they go so far as to start maligning science and education then they are just trash to be discarded along with their opinions. I do care when a President claims that God spoke to him and the general American populace just nods their heads sagely as if they expected such an occurrence and have no reason to suspect that he's absolutely crazy? I do care when an occupation is termed as a new "Crusade". And I do see how this illegal occupation is becoming a new religious war, especially if the radically religious have their way. We need a more secular President that can encourage scientific advancements, encourage secular solutions to problems where religion is only creating more problems.

Hucklebee is NOT that person. We don't need another President claiming to talk to God, we don't need mandates from Heaven in order to solve the solutions of today. We need common sense and I don't see much of that coming from the radically religious. We need to get away from Daddy Dobson and his divisive tactics to control legislation.

Hucklebee would only capitulate to the extremists in the Christian community. The ones with the loudest voices and the most money.

I actually appreciate Obama for his adherence to his religion while working towards secular ends. I think he may be the only candidate that could lead our country back to a secular progressive path that would give everyone a compromise on their demands. I wouldn't be happy about some of his compromises, for sure, but I'm a pretty stiff scientific atheist.

And Clark, one more thing. You're so far out of your league that it really isn't worth debating me on the topic of evolution and the various theories of the beginning of life. It will only waste a lot of time for both of us if you continue.

[Clark]

One comment: i would contend that Evolution is also a religious belief, with the definition that religion is anything that helps us make sense of our lives, who we are, why we are here. It takes tremendous faith to believe in both spontaneous generation and macro-evolution(gradulism)-because there is no scientific data to date that proves either theory.

[Dennis Mansfield]

I've been absent from "the debate" for a few days, Jay, Lee and Clark - sorry.

Lee, how do you answer Jay's comment abut Mike H's support of intel design and his support of the "southern man" block of voters...remembering that NO GOP CANDIDATE in the 20th Century was ever elected without that "Southern Man" (ie: Sweet Home Alabama vs Neil Young's Southern Man) vote?

Jay, why do you seem you soooo unwilling to give ANY ground on the faith component in this debate...my God, even Hillary, Obama and Edwards have sought what Time recently called (on its cover story) "An Even Praying Field"? It's as if any person of faith is discarded by you as a serious candidate...BECAUSE he or she believes in God - Dem or GOP. Am I missing something?

Den

[Jay]

Lee,
Huckabee denies evolution and promotes putting Intelligent Design and Creationism in our classrooms. That right there is about the biggest mark against the man that I can think of. Spitting in the face of science and promoting pseudo-crap should have immediately sunk Huckabee's candidacy into the ocean of obliviousness. If he can't be educated on the simple science of evolution to the point where he understands that ID and creationism are so over the top religious then he has no point in being president. Science is not a debate.

As for excluding religious based organizations, I'm not sure what you want. The government can not prop up one religion over another, and it can't even acknowledge a single religion. Thats precedent and well understood by Constitutional lawyers. They can operate on their own, but they can't operate with the government's singling them out for approval.

[Lee]

Clark,

I'd have to agree with you. I am a "southern man" and know a lot of old time dixie-crat and new repubs and if Romney is the conservative choice they might just sit it out.

I am hoping it comes down to MikeH and Rudy...either way I'll feel most conservatives will have a good choice.

On the Dem side I'm still waiting for Mr. Gore to step in at the last minute... Obama and Hillary, I feel, are going to crash and burn in the coming months. I think Bill Richardson will be the choice from the Dems

Hey Dennis, we need a pool to put our dollars on who falls first, etc. on either side of the political dung heap.

[Clark]

If Huckabee can do well in Iowa again (the fact that he came in 2nd w/out busing his voters in for the straw poll is pretty impressive) he's got a shot (if his money holds out).

Romney won't/can't win in the South, period.

Fred Thompson to me is the John Edwards of the Republican party. There's no there, there.

Giuliani and Gingrich (if he gets in) will be run through the MSM Cuisinart over their past baggage.

Like many other conservatives, I'm not thrilled w what I see on the horizon.

[Lee]

Jay,

I'm not sure about the "issues with reality" you mention about MikeH. I'm not sure that MikeH is a candidate that can survive and be a true leader. Not sure I agree with Dennis on Mike, but I don't want to hang on that too much. I'd like to hear more from you on that.

I personally don't believe that compassion can only come from religious based organizations, but I do believe that we as a country have excluded them [religious based organizations] for too long. I don't want to start singing "can't we all get along" but I do think we need more cooperation in the work of compassion. I do believe that personal responsibility in our society is lacking along with a moral compass that is spinning in circles (reread the above poem by that gal, Tami) and if the religious organizations can prove themselves with verifiable results then I applaud them and will stand with them. If a secular organization can provide results then I'll stand with them. Where can we get the most "bang for our buck"? As a taxpayer for over 20 years I am interested in results! I've seen too many politicians using our money to build too many bridges to nowhere...

[Jay]

Why do you continue to sidle up to the most religiously based candidate that has issues with reality? Why do you believe that compassion can only come from religious based organizations that that secular organizations are somehow inferior?