Author Archives: michael

I missed the Dems, but did hear some choice bits on NPR. A reader on Andrew Sullivan’s blog wonders why the media is going through the dog-and-pony show of having every single candidate up there, but really only focusing on three or four. From what I’ve heard of the Dem debate, it looks like it is Hillary/Edwards/Obama. I think folks have thought that for a while, and I really wouldn’t be surprised.

Republicans, however, are up in the air. You have some of the big names (Rudy, McCain, Romney), but I don’t think they are firin’ up the base — which is why people will continue to speculate about Thompson and Newt. It wouldn’t surprise me if Thompson or Newt wound up with the nomination.

Bringing Sullivan up again. His post on the evolution question really irked me. First, he seems to dismiss that some of those guys can really be genuine, conservative, evangelical Christians. He claims that its part of the “Rove strategy”. Well, what Gov/Rev Huckabee said, wasn’t Rove strategy. He spoke like a real Baptist. Brownback articulates a true, Christian vision of sanctity of Life. Romney is a Mormon. I don’t think there are any ‘cultural’ Mormons or ‘nominal’ Mormons. I think Rudy is a Catholic like Kerry was, but respects the Bishops (he is Italian) and isn’t as arrogant.

Second, Sullivan is out-of-step with the ‘problem’ of the early chapters of Genesis in the evangelical world. It isn’t like Leviticus or other portions of the Bible. Faithful readers of the Bible who would subscribe to an errant, God-breathed interpretation of the bible, allow themselves to fundamentally disagree on the particulars of Genesis. We allow for Old Earth / New Earth and literal 6-Day vs. Day/Age. Sullivan doesn’t get that and is off-base if he considers Huckabee’s wavering as politicizing.

Right now, I have absolutely no idea. Democrat or Republican. Nothing.

I did find out (via Wikipedia) that Huckabee was named one of the Top 5 governors by Time magazine, so perhaps I should lend more weight to his executive experience. Though, as much as they seem to be great guys, I can’t see Huckabee or Brownback in the oval office.

McCain surprised me and didn’t look as old as I expected.

Ron Paul made a few good points. I think he was marginalized a bit, but he wasn’t the rubble-rouser like in the last debate. That honor goes to Tom Tancredo from Colorado who outdid everyone by claiming that he wouldn’t allow any immigrants to enter the country, except for families and asylum. He also wanted to see immigrants drop their cultural and familial ties, and completely assimilate to an American lifestyle.

Okay, that’s enough for tonight. I’m tired and bummed that I recorded the debate and didn’t get the commentary afterwards. :0/

McCain: Depends on his running mate ’cause he’s looking a lot more frail than in 2000.

Paul: I love to listen to this guy. He may very well be an example of ‘book smarts’ vs. ‘street wise’ that my Dad always lectured me on, but I do like to listen.

Thompson: I think I’d pay to watch him campaign against Hillary/Obama/Edwards. If he’d treat them like he did Michael Moore, it’d be a pay-per-view event. He reminds me of a smart, savvy, witty John Wayne.

Rudy: I like that he actually has executive leadership. Yes, yes. Kristen brought up Huckebee (or whomever), but, really, I think it takes more leadership to run NYC than it does to run Arkansas. Would Houston Nutt be treated like than in NYC. I doubt it.

In all seriousness, I’ve been ready Rudy’s book on leadership (aptly titled, Leadership). The principles are rather run-of-the-mill, but I love the insight into running NYC, all the stories, especially how they relate to 9/11.

Your thoughts? BTW, this is Michael, Kristen’s husband.