I assumed Liberal was being facetious.
So you were comfortable with the alleged continuing erosion between church and state until you read Liberal’s tearful adulation of Jesus?
[In an upcoming article in the New York Times](Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?), Huckabee poisons Mitt Romney’s well:
But he’s such a nice, likeable fellow!
Yes, of course that’s what I meant. Just like anyone who declares “This far and no further” is comfortable with whatever they are drawing their line in the sand about at that point. I’m impressed that you were able to suss out the true meaning of my statement, where most people would have understood it differently. You are clearly a person of high intellect.
OK, so nice, likeable, albeit ruthless.
I want to actually see that article, but I’m afraid Huck actually may have said that.
BUT the LDS answer is- Yes, Jesus is Father’s Elder Son, and is the Elder Brother to us all, including our other brother Lucifer.
Your link looks like this:
http://republican%20presidential%20hopeful%20mike%20huckabee,%20an%20ordained%20southern%20baptist%20minister,%20asks%20in%20an%20upcoming%20article,%20%22don’t%20mormons%20believe%20that%20jesus%20and%20the%20devil%20are%20brothers/?"
Do a Google news search on huckabee jesus devil and you’ll find lots of articles on the statement
I’m sorry, but I just lack the motivation I guess. Presidential candidate says/does/implies something stupid/mean/outrageous. Leaked by opposition party hack, or dug up by journalist seeking noteriety/riches/advancement. I don’t understand why any of this is remarkable. What happens to people every four years that they completely forget the previous umpteen election cycles? I think that’s why Moto’s comment about bad people on all sides is important. Huckabee is being skewered here because he is a Republican. No one has skewered Clinton for his 1993 speech. Meanwhile, on right-leaning boards, the Democrats are being skewered. It’s just noise. There’s precious little light in politics. It’s almost like a chess game where the winner is the person who makes the next to last mistake.
In all likelihood, this was dug up by an opposing Republican campaign. I’d guess Romney’s, frankly.
In this, it is also instructive to recall past campaigns - after all, the infamous Massachusetts prison furlough program wasn’t brought up by George Bush first, but by Dukakis’ Democratic opponents in the primary, notably Al Gore. Dukakis also was the one responsible for leaking the Biden plagiarism tape - two of his staffers fell on their sword over that one.
Everything old is new again.
This gets bandied about a lot, but I’ve never seen any documented proof that it was Gore. Do you have some?
I did the search, but didn’t find any. At least not on the first page.
Here is the link I was referencing:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmsEReXFe-Cyo095NpBCTPFTwJCwD8TFL9B81
This was in April, 1988. I don’t believe Bush attacked the furlough issue until at least May, and the Willie Horton ads showed up in June.
It isn’t as if Gore seized on an unknown issue - the Pulitzer Prize for general reporting was given to the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune in 1988 for their series documenting the massive flaws in the furlough program. This series, and the public outcry over the issue, eventually got Dukakis to drop his opposition to reforms of the system that he had previously vetoed.
It is true that Willie Horton was mentioned by name first by Bush, but the furlough issue was mentioned first by Gore.
Ah yes. But Bush wasn’t criticized for bringing up the furlough program. It was for the alleged racialization of the issue with that picture of Willy Horton that was the controversy. I’ve never seen any evidence that Gore used Wily Horton’s name, much less that infamous picture. It’s not the same thing at all.
I didn’t claim that it was - I claimed that Gore brought the issue up first.
But Bush wasn’t criticized for bringing up the issue, so it’s meaningless to say that Gore brought it up first. You’re trying to set up some kind of equivalency that just doesn’t exist.
Well, the point I was making was about how opponents in nomination battles try to go after each other, so the Gore attack and the Dukakis attack on Biden were noteworthy in their own right.
I was comparing these not to later Bush attacks but to these attacks on Huckabee that probably come from fellow Republicans. So in that respect they are perfectly valid comparisons.
Due respect, John, but why are you talking about what he’s trying to say when what he actually said is in plain view? The only equivalency he set up was that of intra-party dirt digging, which was in response to my comment about inter-party dirt digging.
If you weren’t comparing them to later Bush attacks, why did you say this:
Of course you were comparing these to later Bush attacks. You may have also been comparing them to what’s going on now, but the comparison to Bush is inescapable. And the fact is, the comparison is not a valid one.