Howard Dean Finds Religion, Hallelujah!

Great Debates
61

Quite. The topic of this thread is Dean’s credibility-- wrt his statements about religion as a candidate. The possibility that he has made other less-than-credible statements about other topics is definitely relavant to this thread.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we could prove beyond doubt that Bush’s Niger statement was in the same league as Dean’s 9/11 statement. What relavancy does that have to determining whether or not 1) Dean is sincere in his recent religious statements or 2) Whether a condidate needs to at leat pay lip service to religion in order to get elected?

And I’m not asking others to refrain from rebuttal. I’m saying that I am not going to go off on that particular tangent.

62

Coming back to the OP my understanding was that Dean was a mildly observant Christian not an atheist or agnostic. If this is correct I don’t see anything in the OP that is false. Certainly he is stressing an aspect of his life that he hasn’t till now but that doesn’t strike me as dishonest.

As for the broader question of whether an openly atheistic candidate could win the Presidency I think the answer is probably not. Elections are usually decided by margins of under 10% and the proportion of voters who would be put off by an openly atheistic candidate would probably be larger than that.

63

’luci:
Allow me to also add that I’m not trying to set myself up as the “No Tangential Debates Allowed” police. It’s S.O.P. for that to happen in GD. But I will admit to a severe dislike of the tendancy to turn every freakin’ political debate in GD into a debate about whether “Bush lied about WMDs”. At least permit me the option of not participating in that particular thread hijack.

64

Are you serious about any of this?

To refer to the installation in Afghanistan of a non-terrorist supporting regime as a “short-term proposition” is a statement so ludicrous as to boggle the mind. They just finished work on a new Constitution - did you notice?

To say that Libya and Iran have had no attention from Bush is even more inane. Libya has foresworn WMD, and agreed to inspections. Iran’s uranium-enrichment program has been revealed. Remember the quote about “the axis of evil” that had you Bush-bashers in an uproar? That’s the sort of attention we are talking about. Notice also that Libya has given strong indication that it was the swift success in overthrowing Iraq and capturing Saddam that brought them to heel.

The idea that the overthrow of Iraq was a failure is too stupid to debate. A regime that had thumbed its nose at world opinion for a dozen years was overthrown in a matter of weeks. And the duplicity of North Korea in violating a treaty negotiated by another weak-kneed liberal dolt in 1994 and his venal and corrupt cohort has been revealed, and NK brought to the negotiations table.

All this on the one hand. On the other, you have Dean, who did essentially nothing to further security in one of the few areas that a governor has to control, and it was only sheer dumb luck that the terrorists didn’t attack the Yankee reactor instead of the WTC.

Yet Dean wants to be President. He has done nothing at home to make us secure, and he doesn’t want to do anything abroad either.

So Dean states for the record that “my religion does not inform my public policy”. And yet here he is speechifying as if it did, and after he left a church because he disagreed with it on a matter of public policy.

Dean is another fuzzy-headed, weak-tea liberal with big talk, no experience, a fatuously ill-informed approach to world politics, and the conviction that if he could just get a hold of my paycheck, the federal government can make it all better. Fortunately, to date his chances of doing so are slim.

On preview -

In this case, they have good reason to want to avoid a discussion about Dean’s background and experience. Which is partly why every debate gets pushed hard away from such discussions.

Regards,
Shodan

65

The pointless yet inevitable hijack about national security aside: I’m a stone atheist, and if I found myself in some Bizarroworld where I had to make a serious run for high office or suffer some unspeakable punishment, you bet your sweet bippy I’d be Goddin’ it up. I’d hate myself for it, but in a country where treacly bullshit like Touched by an Angel and Joan of Arcadia get national airing while atheists get hate letters and dead pets in the mailbox, it’s completely unrealistic to expect otherwise.

66

A masterpiece, friend Shodan, truly the acme.

It is entirely true that we have installed an apparently decent fellow as the Mayor of Khabul. This, of course, after renting the loyalty of his opposition warlords with baskets of Benjamins. You are, of course, welcome to fantacize that this is the same as installing a new governance in Afghanistan. We are equally free to snicker derisively, which is more respect than this deserves.

This isn’t even post hoc ergo propter hoc, as it wasn’t even post! Libya had been making noises about its eagerness to rejoin the community of nations for months before the glorious liberation of Iraq.

Well, yes, of course, as long as you keep the definition closely under control. Was there ever any serious doubt that America’s military force would prevail? Was there ever any doubt that if we took a running start and leapt for all we were worth, we could manage to plop ourselves directly in the center of a tar pit? While you have been busy cheering our success, the bubbly glorp is now about our knees, heading north.

By golly, that’s true! Precisely the same “negotiating table” that the aforesaid “liberal dolt” brought them to in 1994. This ranks as a splendid and bold accomplishment in your eyes. Why this should be so eludes us who do not share your unique perspective.

Just so. No one did anything, to speak of. The record of this administration and the previous in this regard is dismal, one cannot say otherwise. Precisely how dismal is Dean’s record in this is open to view, the record of the Bushiviks is under investigation. We have already discussed the eagerness of the WH to further such investigation and disclosure.

Suffice to say that no one did a splendid job. But Dean failed to adequately protect Vermont. Mr. Bush’s responsibility, and hence his failure in that responsibility, far exceeds Mr. Dean’s.

A rather broad statement. Suffice to note that you offer us no evidence beyond your much esteemed expertise. Please feel free to return to this theme when you can offer actual evidence.

Isn’t that “fuzzy-thinking”? I remember many years of anti-liberal slurs, I’m pretty sure that is the formula. As to being “fatuously ill-informed” in comparison to Fearless Misleader, I simply cannot proceed, I cannot effectively type with tears of mirth clouding my sight. You are too many for me, I fold.

If we were to restrict our observations entirely to Mr. Bush’s proven capacities in these matters, I rather imagine we could demonstrate that Carrot Top was a superior choice for the office of President. Of course, Dean has no demonstrated ability in the international arena. This is an enormous advantage in comparison to a record of mendacity, ham-fisted diplomacy, and sheer, unalloyed stupidity.

67

This just in -*

Jackson, TN (AP) Speaking to an enthusiastic gathering of supporters at Mamma’s Homestyle Cafe, Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean announced that a genealogical search has turned up two long-lost cousins, one a NASCAR driver (Billy Dean) and the other a circuit-riding Baptist preacher (Bobby Dean). Both newfound Deans will be joining the Vermont Democrat at campaign stops, at least through the Southern round of primaries.
In other campaign news, Dean operatives downplayed any significance to the fact that Dean’s wife Judith Steinberg has started wearing a burkha during appearances with her husband.*

68

I wasn’t referencing Bush so much as the whole of the Nigerien uranium flak.

As I mentioned it was technically correct, so it’s not a lie.
"It turns out that it’s technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. did say that and still says that.
—Rumsfeld “Meet the Press” 07/13/2003

69

Ya know, I get royally tired of this BS about how alleged liberal weakness is going to compromise our safety.
This from supporters of a President who has actually made us less rather than more secure by attacking someone who was no threat and tying up our armed forces in a place they have no business being in at all.
My safety, and that of my family and friends, including those currently serving in the Armed Forces, has been compromised by the current squatter in the White House, and I fully intend to see him pay for it in the only way I can make him pay for it.
The divide is, the right thinks that attacking some random Arab dictator is somehow going to make us safer against the people who actually attacked us. The left would rather we actually deal with the problem at hand, and deal with it with the resources designed for the job: intelligence, police, and Special Ops forces. The military was necessary for clearing out the Taliban. That job is done. For the time being, it was the only military job that needed to be done. The rest needs to be done behind the scenes, but of course this president is incapable of doing such a thing, because then he doesn’t get to stand in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner to make it look like he’s doing something.
No mission was accomplished. No terrorist has been stopped, none deterred, as a result of the Iraq adventure. That was demonstrated the day after the alleged Dean “gaffe” about Saddam’s capture not making us any safer, when the alert level went to orange. Now we’ve got the government stopping flights almost every day.
Yep, Saddam’s capture sure made us safer. Maybe in the world inhabited by the Hobbits, it did, but not in this world.
If the choice is between a president who doesn’t know where the Book of Job is, and a president who deliberately neglects his duty to keep us secure so he can grandstand in front of the cameras, well, I know who’s getting my vote.
Dean can go to Sunday School after the inauguration.

70

These are interesting numbers that could be helpful to Dean.

71

Sad but true. An atheist doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected to public office at this point in our history. Hell, we’re not even ready for a black president or a woman president yet. One has two choices: be an atheist or get elected president. There would be no point in admitting you don’t believe in God unless you don’t want to get elected.

72

I’ve been trying to figure this one out. I’m not saying I don’t believe it, although it doesn’t make sense. Let’s say I’ve decided not to vote for you because you’re atheist. What have I just said, or meant. What reason does someone give themself when they make this decision???

73

I believe some would rationalize it by thinking that since you’re an Atheist you have no morals, etc. I think it would be quite easy for many.

74

In common with many contributors to this GD, I’m very impressed that Howard Dean displays his beliefs so publicly, unashamedly and, dare I say it, courageously.

Does no one remember, a mere few years ago, TV footage of former President, Bill Clinton, accompanied by his loving and loyal wife, Hillary, carrying a large bible to and from church services during his administration.

Does anyone here doubt that Bill and Hill were sincere?

What is the purpose of this less than Great Debate? Speaking for myself, I don’t doubt that Howie Dean is at least as sincere as Bill and Hill Clinton.

So what?

In a deeper and larger sense it makes no real difference if you cannot tell the difference between a con man and an honest man.

Once one or the other has been elected, those who have elected them have no power over them worth a damn.

75

IWLN,

Many people vote for whomever they think will best represent their own interests. An open Athiest will leave many feeling that He/She doesn’t represent an important part of their lives/beliefs.

BTW, I am a Christian, and I would vote for an athiest. I want someone who is going to best serve our country, and I am well aware that saying you are a (insert religion here) doesn’t mean you are a good leader or person.

76

If stating outright and vocally that one belongs to the largest group in America- Christians- and doing so specifically when it would bring you a political advantage- i.e., campaigning in the South- is courageous, then the standard of courage is so low that there is no point to the word any more.

77

I’ll see your poll and raise you this poll. These are interesting numbers that could be devastating to Dean and very helpful to Bush.

78

In a related story, Dean has decided to begin to emphasize the hard-scrabble nature of his upbringing.

Things were apparently tough for the young Dean. So tough, in fact, that his mother told the New York Times[

](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/4/21952.shtml) This seems to be an attempt to distance the Deans from the patrician Bushes, who apparently did treat the servants like servants. The grinding poverty of the Deans, in contrast, forced them to convert a living room into a spare bedroom for the full-time, live-in nurse they employed. And Dean’s mother engaged in heroic self-sacrifice, scraping together a nickel here, a dime there, and managing to scrape together almost a million dollars to give to her son out of her petty cash.

And the whites-only club to which Dean belonged was apparently not really racist. He describes his family as “pretty open-minded” on topics of race.

Dean supporters have been eager to condemn Bush for his avoidance of the last part of his military duties in the National Guard, from which he requested to be excused on the flimsy excuse of attending Harvard Business School. They point proudly to the important and risky duties Dean engaged in after his medical deferment for a bad back, defending the strategically vital ski slopes from possible enemy attack.

In another potentially devastating scandal, Dean supporters condemned the sliminess of a politician who would dump his bank stocks shortly before they crashed, based on an inside report provided to him by a bank regulator. When it was pointed out to them that it was Dean who did it, not Bush, they responded, “Never mind, then. But what about Halliburton, huh? What about that?”

Further bulletins as they happen.

Regards,
Shodan

79

From linkety-link.

$15,000? $15,000? [Bugs]It is to laugh![/Bugs] Thats 15 large to you and me, its money to wipe your butt with if the stall your in is out of toilet paper for BushCo. (Still in the Xmas mood, e. sings “Harken! The harold angles sing…”).

As well, his explanation makes perfect sense to me…

Be that as it may, I will be perfectly delighted to have the election depend on which candidate is more beholden to Big Money! Oh, yes, please, sir, can I have some more?

80

You might use reason when making the decision who to vote for, but I don’t think the average person does. Just look who’s Governor of California right now.:wink:

Of course it’s just my opinion that an atheist couldn’t get elected, since I’m not aware of any admitted atheists ever running for president. And as Paco pointed out, there are all kinds of rationalizations one could use for refusing to vote for an atheist. There seem to be a lot of people who are under the false impression that atheist=immoral.

Actually, I just might start a new thread about this.