Mitt Romney for President?

I have a bet with IDS that Hillary Clinton will be America's next and first woman President.  A combination of her ability to raise money and her celebrity status will, I fear, see her win through.  If she wins Iain has to buy me dinner at a top London restaurant.  If she loses I take him out for dinner and I would be happy to do so... it would be a celebration event. 

If Hillary is the clear favourite to be the Democrats' nominee the Republicans are struggling to find the right candidate.  Jeb Bush would probably stroll to the nomination if he wanted it but he has been categorical in saying that he does not want to run.  The highly-strung John McCain (so strong on Iraq and who recently praised David Cameron) is unpopular with the base of the party because of his support for Kyoto and for the way he attacked Christian conservatives in 2000.  Guiliani - the hero of 9/11 - is probably too liberal on abortion and gay rights.  Many fear that Senator George Allen  lacks charisma.  Mitt Romney is the candidate that some observers are beginning to take very seriously...

Romney is a conservative Republican and has been elected Governor of the very blue state of Massachusetts.  He is a fiscal conservative at a time when George W Bush has lost control of public spending.  He is a cultural conservative who opposes gay marriage and who believes that Roe Vs Wade was wrongly decided.  He is a hawkish conservative who supports George W Bush's approach to the war on terror.  And, as I learnt last night, he is a very articulate conservative.  I was at a dinner for 100 or so conservative Christians who were very impressed with this Mormon's grasp of policy and his speechmaking skills.  He might be my best hope for ensuring I buy Iain dinner in the second week of November 2008...

Comments

[Guido Fawkes]

Tim,

It's going to be President McCain.

Sorry, but if you think that a wacko mormon could be the next POTUS than you are one letter short of being his co-religionist.

:)

[Ed R]

Why are the Republicans so blind that they can't see Rudy Giuliani sitting right in front of them? I could go for McCain though. I'd find it hard to feel good about any Republican candidate who opposed gay marriage and abortion full stop.

Don't think Hillary will get it.

[Sam Coates]

Wasn't there a recent poll showing only a third of voters would be inclined to vote for Hillary? Her support amongst women was almost twice as high as with men I recall.

[Ted]

The issues with Giuliani that Christan conservatives have would pale into insignifigance if he was up against Hilary. IMHO a conservative Mormon candidate would be a step too far for many middle of the road republicans - and he's from New England.

The Christan right tip the balance in many states - Bush's version of dog whistle politics brought them out in numbers last time - but they are not the majority and selecting a candidate from that wing would be Barry Goldwater all over again.

On the basis that nearly all US Presidents have British surnames (Van Buren, Eisenhower, the Roosevelts aside) most likely winning candidate is McCain.... though Rice is an English word after all :-)

[James Hellyer]

In opinion polls, Senator Clinton is shown losing to just about any candidate other than Jeb Bush, with Rudi Guiliani proving particularly popular.

[malcolm]

I agree with you Sam and I'm sure I saw the same poll.Hillary is a very polarising character unlikely to be acceptable to the mid west.Hillary has none of Bills skill as a speechmaker, if I was a republican I would welcome her candicacy.
An interesting theory Ted.It's true the some Americans have magnificent names.When I worked for the BMA I once had to write to Dr Frik Monster and Dr Randy Handwarmer!Do you fancy their chances of a career in politics?

[Tom Greeves]

Do not rule out Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina.

He is massively popular among fiscal conservatives, and has shown himself eminently able to raise funds. On the social side, he is solidly conservative, but has an easy Southern charm and film star good looks, which would likely help him win lots of swing votes.

Being from a small Southern state was no bar for one Bill Clinton, and South Carolina is one of the major primaries.

Sanford is very clever, reformist (he would be a welcome antidote to President Bush's excessive spending), decent and electable. If he decides to throw his hat into the ring, I can see him winning through the GOP field, and then being a very appealing alternative to Hilary.

You heard it here first.

[Jacob Traff]

I think Mitt Romney has something going for him... he certainly Conservative and a Mormon, but he also managed to get himself elected Governor of the most liberal state in America. That shows that he can reach out to moderate voters. Still, if Hillary runs she will be very hard to beat. Maybe Condi is the only one who can beat her!

[Gareth]

Ed,

You have a very strange idea of events that merit celebration. The election of a religious fundamentalist who supports institutionalised discrimination against gay people and women is not, in my books, a cause for celebration.

[Coffee Monster]

Do not rule out Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina.

Sanford has already ruled himself out. Even if he did run, he's famous for 2 things in the GOP: Being a McCain supporter and being a vocal opponent of pork-barrel spending (like McCain). McCain is running, so why would people vote for one of his supporters when they can get the real deal? Same goes for Sen. Chuck Hagel.

[John Hustings]

"The election of a religious fundamentalist who supports institutionalised discrimination against gay people and women is not, in my books, a cause for celebration. "

Oh please...

This is the bigotry of the left. They don't even accept that there's an *issue* in which *different opinions are allowed*. They want to ban all opinions which conflict with their their own.

Well, I'm sorry, but you may be in favour of abortion and gay marriage, but it is entirely legitimate to oppose those things. And it doesn't make one a "religious fundamentalist".

[Ted]

malcolm
the name theory is a bit like the baldness one i.e. the hairy candidate wins out against the bald one. In US politics you can add the taller one beats the shorter.
If you look at list of US presidents the only non-British surnames are Van Buren, Eisenhower & Roosevelts and those are still germanic. There are an amazing number of John and James.

So in a country with a huge number of immigrants and inventive approach to first names it's probably still a 6 foot something, John Smith, with a healthy head of hair who would win out

[John Hustings]

"If you look at list of US presidents the only non-British surnames are Van Buren, Eisenhower & Roosevelts and those are still germanic."

What about Kennedy?

[Gareth]

The un-lovely Mr Romney also tried (and mercifully failed) to restore the death penalty.

John - how about, he is a religious fundamentalist and supports institutionalised discrmination against gay people and women. Is that better?

Do you oppose the rights recently given to same sex partners in this country, which explicitly is not 'marriage'?

[John Hustings]

"John - how about, he is a religious fundamentalist and supports institutionalised discrmination against gay people and women. Is that better?"

No it isn't.

I don't consider opposing abortion "discrimination against women". I don't consider defending the sanctity of marriage to be "discrimination against gay people".

"Do you oppose the rights recently given to same sex partners in this country, which explicitly is not 'marriage'?"

No.

[Sean Fear]

Abortion and discrimination against women are completely separate issues. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the same thing.

[Gareth]

I've resolved the intellectual amiguity in my earlier post by stating that I consider him to be a religious fundamentalist AND etc. etc.

You may not agree but, the possibility of an ambiguous 'because' has been replaced by 'and', so that's the end of that little gripe.

Whether the 2 issues amount to 'discrimination' against gay people or women is, of course, open to debate. We disagree.

Why do you support civil partnerships but oppose 'gay marriage'?

Does your wish to defend what you term the 'sanctity' of marriage mean you oppose divorce?

[John Hustings]

By the same logic, a pro-lifer could claim Gareth supports "discrimination against children".

I don't think it helps debate to muddy the waters by name-calling in such a way.

[Gareth]

In your view they're not the same thing Sean. Not in mine.

[John Hustings]

"Why do you support civil partnerships but oppose 'gay marriage'?"

I'm going to give the traditional defence:

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

I don't think it's the position of any government to come along and change that definition. The government *is* is a position, however, to recognise gay couples in terms of legal rights.

"Does your wish to defend what you term the 'sanctity' of marriage mean you oppose divorce?"

No I don't, although I do believe divorce to have been made too easy.

[Sean Fear]

Well, the only issue at stake is whether or not you consider that an unborn child has a right to life. Whether or not you agree with that viewpoint, it has nothing to do with discrimination, which is all about using the law to treat people in an unequal manner.

[John Hustings]

"In your view they're not the same thing Sean. Not in mine."

Gareth, if you go around telling people "Mitt Romney favours discrimination against women", rather than "Mitt Romney opposes abortion", you are attempting to give a false impression to your listeners about what Mitt Romney stands for.

That *is* intellectually dishonest.

[Ted]

John

Should have been more explicit - British Isles surnames so Kennedy is included in that. Even Clinton (took his step fathers name) & Ford (adopted)had original names of British Isles origin.

On religious fundamentalism I'm not sure you can put a Mormon in the same box as Southern Baptist born again fundamentalists (diferent holy books for one) - I agree with you that anyone has a right to argue their moral approach but in practical politcs don't think a conservative Mormon would win.

I prefer a separation of Church & State - recognise that its difficult to separate the religious moral rules from the non religious. As an example I'm against abortion on religious/moral grounds but I'm not sure I should have right to impose that view on others, though would be pleased if the views of the majority aligned with mine and made it rarer and eventually socially wrong.

[Gareth]

So your only objection to gay marriage is the word 'marriage'?

[Gareth]

Sean,

Discrimination can include the removal of fundamental rights from an individual or group. It's meaningless to talk of equality when discussing abortion since, clearly, men do not need to have the right to an abortion.

[Rob Largan]

On this whole issue of names. It didnt stop Newt Gingrich, by having one of the strangest first names ever.A few others who had strange strange names but still achieved some success, Strom Thurmond. Lets not forget other Americans with unique names. Phyllis Schlafly, Grover Norquist are two of my favourite names.

[John Hustings]

"Discrimination can include the removal of fundamental rights from an individual or group. It's meaningless to talk of equality when discussing abortion since, clearly, men do not need to have the right to an abortion. "

How is killing a baby a "fundamental right"?

[Sean Fear]

Well, it all depends whether you regard abortion as a fundamental right. And that all depends what status you give to the unborn child.

Personally, I'd regard it as no more of a fundamental right than a woman's right to infanticide.

[Martin Smith]

"A marriage is between a man and a woman. "

Says who? Says only establishment, tradition, and conjecture. I would say it's matter of individual opinion.

"I don't think it's the position of any government to come along and change that definition."

Or rather, not the business of a government to tell people who can marry and who cannot, or to define marriage as exclusively belonging to heterosexuals. If 2 grown-ups of whatever persuasion want to marry, in a free society they should be free to do so.

"No I don't, although I do believe divorce to have been made too easy."

Too easy? So if a marriage is not working and this is recognised by the individuals involved in it, it should be difficult to end it? And it should be the government's job to make it difficult?

[Sean Fear]

"If 2 grown-ups of whatever persuasion want to marry, in a free society they should be free to do so."

Including siblings?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I have a bet with IDS that Hillary Clinton will be America's next and first woman President."

"Mitt Romney is the [Republican] candidate that some observers are beginning to take very seriously..."

I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out that Condoleezza Rice could prove you wrong on both counts.

[John Hustings]

Martin Smith,

"Says who? Says only establishment, tradition, and conjecture. I would say it's matter of individual opinion."

There speaks a true relativist.

I don't dismiss "tradition" as glibly as you do. I happen to believe that marriage is an institution that merits protection, and that it has survived the ages in almost all cultures for a reason. You obviously don't; but there we go.

"Or rather, not the business of a government to tell people who can marry and who cannot, or to define marriage as exclusively belonging to heterosexuals."

Then government should not be able to tell people they cannot marry animals? Where does this stop in the name of "rights"?

Why do we always have to view marriage in terms of the gay agenda? I don't see how it "discriminates" against gay people to privilege marriage as an institution. Gay people should cherish it as much as anyone else because of the benefits it confers on children, and therefore society.

And if you are not convinced of the benefits of marriage in the upbringing of children then you should study some statistics on the matter.

"Too easy? So if a marriage is not working and this is recognised by the individuals involved in it, it should be difficult to end it?"

In the interests of children, yes. Marriage is by far the best environment to bring up children. I prioritise the interests of children above the "rights" of adults.

"And it should be the government's job to make it difficult?"

Well, now the government has made it easy, it seems a difficult thing to reverse. But in an ideal world, yes.

[Matt J]

"A marriage is between a man and a woman. "

Says who? Says only establishment, tradition, and conjecture. I would say it's matter of individual opinion.

says God, that's who!

[Gareth]

John,

Not exacly elevating the debate by referring to 'killing a child'. Needless to say, I do not regard abortion as child killing.

[Ed R]

Nobody elected God.

[Matt J]

"I do not regard abortion as child killing"

that may be your opinion, but it doesnt mean it isnt child killing. in fact, abortion is child killing. not meaning to put anyone of their lunch, but did you know that they sometimes cut up the baby into pieces while its still alive. how would pro-choice people like doctors to come and do that to them?

[John Hustings]

"Not exacly elevating the debate by referring to 'killing a child'. Needless to say, I do not regard abortion as child killing. "

And I don't regard abortion as "discrimination".

But there we go.

[Rob Largan]

Surely on abortion, as Sean says "And that all depends what status you give to the unborn child." However what gives the state a monopoly right to choose that status? Surely it should be upon the conscious of individuals own morality. Many Pro-lifers get carried away with the issue and forget the basic fact, that with or without legality, abortion will go on. When illegal, abortions will become extremely dangerous for women. As Bill Clinton made clear "I want abortion to be legal, safe and rare".

[Gareth]

John,

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you have no problem with civil partnerships, which confer identical rights upon gay people as marriage, but object to 'gay marriage'. as I asked earlier, is your objection only to use of the word 'marriage' and if so, why?

I'm also puzzled as to why marriage is some how 'devalued' by being open to same sex couples. Can you explain what you mean?

[Matt J]

"Nobody elected God."

nope, but they did elect Hitler!

[Matt J]

As Bill Clinton made clear "I want abortion to be legal, safe and rare".

is that so, well, abortion is now legal but it aint rare (in UK 6 million have been murdered) and as for safe, what about the safety of the baby? what about the human rights of the baby to live?

[Rob Largan]

"nope, but they did elect Hitler!"

Only through PR electoral system with intense electoral fraud and intimidation.

[John Hustings]

"Surely on abortion, as Sean says "And that all depends what status you give to the unborn child." However what gives the state a monopoly right to choose that status? Surely it should be upon the conscious of individuals own morality. Many Pro-lifers get carried away with the issue and forget the basic fact, that with or without legality, abortion will go on."

Personally, I am not looking to make abortion completely illegal. I would just make it much more difficult (reduce the time of termination) and insist that the woman pay for it herself. We currently have 180,000 abortions every year. That is a disgrace.

[Gareth]

Matt J,

Merely because you assert that something is the case, doesn't necessarily make it so. You really will have to do better than "in fact, abortion is child killing."

And yes, I'm perfectly familiar with the various medical procedures used in abortions.

[Matt J]

"Personally, I am not looking to make abortion completely illegal. I would just make it much more difficult (reduce the time of termination) and insist that the woman pay for it herself. We currently have 180,000 abortions every year. That is a disgrace."

i agree john, though making it completely illegal would be better in my opinion. anyway, how about just taking abortion of the NHS. that would dramatically reduce the amount of abortion's.

[Sean Fear]

"However what gives the state a monopoly right to choose that status? Surely it should be upon the conscious of individuals own morality"

Well, that's an argument, but it's a bit like saying that if I want to rob a shop, the State has absolutely no right to prevent me if I decide it's morally right to rob that shop.

[Matt J]

Gareth, we're never gonna agree. it all comes down to belief i suppose. if you beleive in God, you dont agree with child-killing. if you dont, (though not for everyone), you do beleive in child killing.

[Mark Fulford]

"What about the human rights of the baby to live?"

As ever, the abortion debate boils down to 'when does a collection of cells become human?'

[John Hustings]

"I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you have no problem with civil partnerships"

If I'm being honest, I am uncomfortable with the civil partnerships, for various reasons. Mainly I am worried about the damage it will do to marriage.

What damage might it do?

Well, we are already hearing that civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexuals, say, two sisters who live together etc. If this is confounded with marriage as civil partnerships, then the whole notion of a privileged institution for the rearing of children is lost.

Why do I, with reservation, accept civil partnerships then?

Because all it does is confer legal entitlements. It doesn't stop us privileging married couples for the benefit of raising children.

"as I asked earlier, is your objection only to use of the word 'marriage' and if so, why?"

You're the one trying to reduce it to a matter of semantics. I'm not. I regard marriage as more than a legal document. It is you that seems to view it as a mere legal agreement.

"I'm also puzzled as to why marriage is some how 'devalued' by being open to same sex couples. Can you explain what you mean? "

I've explained it a little bit above.

[Sean Fear]

Actually Matt, I can't see any logical reason why the argument for or against abortion should be advanced by belief, or lack of belief, in God.

[Mark Fulford]

"if you dont [believe in God], (though not for everyone), you do beleive in child killing."

What sort of twisted logic is this? If this is the level of your argument, we don't have to take it very seriously.

[Matt J]

"Well, that's an argument, but it's a bit like saying that if I want to rob a shop, the State has absolutely no right to prevent me if I decide it's morally right to rob that shop. "

i agree sean. if everyone was left to do what they thought was right, we'd have anarchy. there must be a set of ABSOLUTE moral laws for people to follow. and murder fo children is one on which we need such laws.

and on the issue of gay marriage. civil parnerships e.t.c are wrong because any promotion of homosexuality is wrong!

[Gareth]

"I agree john, though making it completely illegal would be better in my opinion. anyway, how about just taking abortion of the NHS. that would dramatically reduce the amount of abortion's"

And use the money saved used to teach basic grammar?

[John Hustings]

I don't think that religious belief is relevant to this debate. Religious believers might be *more likely* to take a socially conservative line, but that is all.

[Gareth]

"and on the issue of gay marriage. civil parnerships e.t.c are wrong because any promotion of homosexuality is wrong!"

Once again, the oracle speaks.

Ever heard the word 'Why' Matt J.? You'll finds it makes debate much more interesting.

[Matt J]

"if you dont [believe in God], (though not for everyone), you do beleive in child killing"

sean i did say its not everyone that doesnt believe in God who beleives in it, but i want to point out that belief in God is a major reason for opposing abortion. thats because belief in God gives people an absolute moral code to live by, and a reason to support the sanctity of life. if we're just the result of some evolutionary struggle of the survival of the fittest, then there is no reason to oppose abortion, because we're just killing off (especailly in the case of disabled) the weaker of our race so we can survive. that is darwinian evolution's natural conclusion.

[Ted]

What I don't know is how Romney separates his membership of the LDS with his role in a secular government. The Latter Day Saints have strong views on the role of women, gays, alcohol & drugs. The question is whether he accepts this separation - the same question JFK had as regards Catholicism.

If he is a devout mormon and takes his politics from those beliefs then IMHO yes I or Gareth can say that we consider him someone who discriminates against women and gays - just as I would view Iqbal Socranie as discriinatory.

Mormon position on the role of a woman is that her primary place is in the home, to rear the children and take leadership and counsel from her husband. They do not say a woman must stay at home but in many ways their approach is close to the 19th century views that were current when Joseph Smith started the faith.

In the last days of freedom of religious expression I must say I'm surprised that the LDS would be viewed as Christian by other Christian Churches. They are to Christianity what the Druze are to Islam or Christians are to Judaism - sharing some beliefs but believing thay are the truth that supercedes the other.

[Sean Fear]

Interestingly, women take a markedly more conservative position on this issue than men do.

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/obs060110.shtml

[Gareth]

Thanks for your explanatory post John.

It seems to boil down to what you call the 'privileged' status of marriage, in the sense that extending this 'privilege' to others, devalues it.

I honestly find that concept very odd, unless you think those upon whom the privilege is being conferred are less deserving of it.

I'm not reducing the debate to semantics. I've pointed out that civil partnerhips confer *exactly* the same legal rights on couples as marriage does. In those circumstances what extra privilege is there other than the word 'marriage'?

[Mark Fulford]

" i did say its not everyone that doesnt believe in God who beleives in it..."

I'm pretty good at deciphering garbage, but this is beyond me. Help.

BTW, my name is Mark, not Sean.

[John Hustings]

The LDS are Christians in the sense of believing in Jesus aren't they?

[John Hustings]

"It seems to boil down to what you call the 'privileged' status of marriage, in the sense that extending this 'privilege' to others, devalues it.

I honestly find that concept very odd, unless you think those upon whom the privilege is being conferred are less deserving of it."

Well put it this way. You can't over tax breaks for both married couples and single people, and have a situation where there is an incentive to be married. I want the tax system to be biased in favour of children, and that means being biased in favour of marriage.

"I'm not reducing the debate to semantics. I've pointed out that civil partnerhips confer *exactly* the same legal rights on couples as marriage does. In those circumstances what extra privilege is there other than the word 'marriage'?"

If that's the case then you should not be upset with my position. Gay people are not discriminated against by privileging marriage.

[John Hustings]

offer not over*

[Matt J]

no, LDS aren't christians, they're a cult.

"I'm pretty good at deciphering garbage, but this is beyond me. Help"

right, this is what i meant. i said that basically not everyone who is an unbeliever agrees with abortion. that good enough?

[Matt J]

however, i still maintain that it is illogical to disagree with abortion if you beleive in darwinian evolution. whereas if you beleive in god its logical to oppose abortion.

[Rob Largan]

"any promotion of homosexuality is wrong!"

Just a quick question, why? What's your beef with homosexuality?

[Sean Fear]

Well, I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see how it follows that I should support abortion.

[Matt J]

"any promotion of homosexuality is wrong!"

Just a quick question, why? What's your beef with homosexuality?

rite, i think homosexual practice and promotion is wrong because the bible says it is and i believe the bible. it is unnatural. however, that doesnt mean that people who are gay are bad however, just that their actions are.

[John Hustings]

"Well, I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see how it follows that I should support abortion"

Ditto.

[Rob Largan]

"rite, i think homosexual practice and promotion is wrong because the bible says it is and i believe the bible"

Indeed you might believe that. But should the state enforce your moral beliefs upon everyone? Sounds like a nanny state to me!

[Rob Largan]

"Well, I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see how it follows that I should support abortion"

Same here

[Gareth]

John,

You're quite right, in the context of your support for civil partnerships, your position on 'gay marriage' is not discriminatory. Your position though, is wholly at odds with Mr Romney's.

Your position on the privileged position of marriage is therefore about prospective rights you wish to confer upon it, namely (exclusively?) to offer tax advantages to married people with children. Ought the same right to be extended to civil partnership couples with children? By that I don't necessarily mean those rather narcissistic same sex couples who adopt children, but rather those same sex couples with children from earlier heterosexual relationships.

[Matt J]

sean. darwin said it was all about survival of the fittest. in the case of disabled people, darwin would say it was only right to abort them because otherwise it ruins the gene pool of the rest of us and therefore reduces the chance of our species surviving. its all about me surviving and if that means others must die so be it. i need to be the strongest to survive.

it also undermines any belief in morality. if there is no absolute creator, then there is no absolute moral code. there is no right and wrong. so its all about what is gonna help me survive. thats the only morality.

hence, abortion is consistent with evolution, but not God.

[Matt J]

"Indeed you might believe that. But should the state enforce your moral beliefs upon everyone? Sounds like a nanny state to me!"

well, rob, the state always enforces someone's moral beliefs on us all. that's it's job. its called manking laws.

[Matt J]

sorry that should say "making laws"

[Rob Largan]

There is a difference between morality and religion! There is no difference between a Communist dictatorship enforcing atheism and a government that enforces Christianity on its people. I do not want to take that road to serfdom.

[John Hustings]

"Ought the same right to be extended to civil partnership couples with children? By that I don't necessarily mean those rather narcissistic same sex couples who adopt children, but rather those same sex couples with children from earlier heterosexual relationships. "

I don't believe so, no.

[True Blue]

Reading this set of posts makes me very glad that that the civil partnership bill is now law, and will never be repealed and that abortion is not currently a party political issue.

The definitions of words change all the time - just look at "gay". In ten years' time almost everyone will be talking about gay marriage rather than gay civil partnership. All the arguments against civil partnership devolve down to religious ones in the end, and the issues of children are just a red herring.

If you believe the only marriage God sanctions is between a man and woman, then you really don't need to worry what the law says. Just let people get on with it - it doesn't affect you. I'm sure God will sort it all out when we are dead. Worrying yourself about where other people stick their penises is very silly.

The whole abortion issue is in shades of gray from conception (why don't the Catholic church give funerals to miscarried embryos?)through to birth (if it's a baby ten seconds after it's born, why isn't it ten seconds before?)

Extreme positions simply don't get us anywhere on this issue. The bible gives no firm guidance other than the injuring a pregnant women so that she miscarries is not murder - hence, at least in the old testament, the foetus does not have the same status as a born human being. The current compromise seems to work very well. Solutions which favour the wealthy (those who can pay for their abortions or fly abroad if necessary) are manifestly unfair. The number of late abortions is extraordinarily rare, and the woman having them are in extremis.

An extremist on this issue elected as President would be a very bad thing. And looking at his record, he's got no hope of being elected. I fancy Condi for President. She would knock Clinton into a cocked hat.

[Sean Fear]

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with aborting the disabled. The expression (which originates with Herbert Spencer, not Darwin) simply means that those members of a species which are best adapted to their environment are those which are most likely to survive and to reproduce themselves. Hence a species can evolve over time, as those members of it which are not best adapted to their environment are less likely to survive.

Herbert Spencer did seek to use evolutionary theories to support his particular political viewpoints (social Darwinism) and may very well have favoured killing the disabled - but most supporters of evolutionary theories would argue that evolution tells you nothing about human beings *ought* to behave.

[Gareth]

No one has answered the old "homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is" nonsense, better than the greatest President the US never had, President Josiah Bartlett,

"President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits."

Priceless.

[Matt J]

"a government that enforces Christianity on its people."

i never said we should force christianity on people. im not saying we should force everyone to go to church either. im just saying we should enforce christian principles and morality. thats what we did until 60 years ago, then we stopped, and now look at the state our society is in. plus, you cant enforce christianity on people, it has to be something people choose to follow, otherwise they arent really Chrisians.

[John Hustings]

Matt J,

I don't believe that accepting the science of evolution necessarily translates into believing in Social Darwinism (as you seem to think). Indeed, I believe that the phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by the Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer, and not by Darwin himself.

Furthermore, I think it is perfectly consistent to believe in Christianity and evolution.

[John Hustings]

I see Sean Fear beat me to it on the Herbert Spencer thing. Damn.

[Matt J]

"I think it is perfectly consistent to believe in Christianity and evolution."

im afraid that thats not true. you see the bible clearly teaches that before man first sinned the world was perfect, there was no death or disease. therefore before mankind, there was no dying out, extinction, diseases and no need for survival of the fittest. and its only by accepting the idea of man's sin that believing in Jesus and his death makes sense.

[Matt J]

"I see Sean Fear beat me to it on the Herbert Spencer thing."

so if you guys dont believe in survival of the fittest, what do you believe?

[Rob Largan]

"im just saying we should enforce christian principles and morality"

Which is the exact same thing. No Religion has a monopoly on morality. If you want to go on a crusade, preaching to homosexuals to save their souls and convert to hetrosexuality, feel free. But using state aparatus to curtail people's freedom because of something written in a book called the bible is, in my opinion immoral. The duty of government is to protect and enhance individual freedom. Not persecute individuals because they both consent to something that the bible says is bad. Just no.

"and now look at the state our society is in"

Is that because of those 'damn gays'? Or because of increased state intervention and its inevitable failure?

[Mark Fulford]

Matt, I'm trying to work out if you're playing games. Are you deliberately making your viewpoint look ridiculous in order to get people to think the other way?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Goldie fingered MattJ as a troll last night. Having given him the benefit of the doubt at first, my suspicions are now well and truly aroused.

[Matt J]

"Which is the exact same thing. No Religion has a monopoly on morality."

it is not the same thing. if the state told people they all had to attend church every sunday or wear a turban or bow down to a statue, that is enforcement of religion.

when the state makes laws banning abortion, murder, adultery, theft e.t.c. it is enforcing religious morality and codes, not enforcing religion. there is a difference.

and the state's job is not to maximise individual freedom, it's job is to keep law and order and defend the country. maximising individual freedom is spelt A.N.A.R.C.H.Y. there must be some kind of moral code enforced for society to survive.

[John Hustings]

"Matt, I'm trying to work out if you're playing games. Are you deliberately making your viewpoint look ridiculous in order to get people to think the other way?"

It's quite possible.

I think there are much better arguments against abortion and gay marriage than, "because my God says so".

It might well be the reason that you *personally* oppose those things, but it doesn't mean much in political discourse.

[Gareth]

I hope he is a troll. He needs therapy if not. He seems to think we lived in a theocracy until 1946. Anyone know why?

[Rob Largan]

"and the state's job is not to maximise individual freedom, it's job is to keep law and order and defend the country."

Hence my point about protecting individual freedom. Its certainly not the states job to persectue individuals taking part in activities that hurt nobody, just because your 'god' says so.

[Matt J]

"He needs therapy if not. He seems to think we lived in a theocracy until 1946."

so now being a christian means i need therapy does it?

and no i dont think we were living in a theocracy, i just said the state supported christianity and legislated according to biblical morality. how many times do i have to say that its about enforcing a code not a religion.

[Tom Greeves]

Coffee Monster:

I think McCain would / will struggle to win the GOP primary. And I don't think Mark Sanford is so big on him these days, so he might be persuaded to run against him.

Certainly Governor Sanford and John McCain are not two of a kind. McCain has an absurd obsession with campaign finance, is liberal, and does not have Mark Sanford's zeal to reduce government waste.

I know he's ruled himself out, but we all know that such rulings are not unbreakable!

[John Hustings]

Matt J, do you believe homosexuality should be illegal?

[Rob Largan]

"how many times do i have to say that its about enforcing a code not a religion."

And how many times do I have to say that religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

[Matt J]

"Matt J, do you believe homosexuality should be illegal?"

no i dont. i dont think it could be enforced. i just think the promotion of it e.g. section 28 should be illegal.

personally i feel sorry for people who have homosexual feelings and i think it may be a mental problem so the state should help them to get back to normal.

[Matt J]

"And how many times do I have to say that religion does not have a monopoly on morality."

ok, name another place we can get one to use.

[John Hustings]

"no i dont. i dont think it could be enforced. i just think the promotion of it e.g. section 28 should be illegal. "

Okay, fine.

In that case, I don't think Matt J is imposing his views on anyone. He accepts the rights of others he disagrees with.

[Rob Largan]

"personally i feel sorry for people who have homosexual feelings and i think it may be a mental problem so the state should help them to get back to normal."

Seriously, are you for real? 'those poor damn gays, not only are they to blame for the collapse of society and have that on their consciouses, but they are also mentally disturbed!' Good god! I seriously wonder sometimes.