tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post7351818178182233297..comments2023-10-17T14:31:52.102-04:00Comments on Est Quod Est: Ramble inspired by Laura's monologuePaulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17506171638613025839noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-85297502900253762812008-02-18T17:54:00.000-05:002008-02-18T17:54:00.000-05:00For what it's worth, on Valentine's Day NRO publis...For what it's worth, on Valentine's Day NRO published an article in which Kathryn Lopez <A HREF="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTg3MDNlNTUyYzg0NTlkZGQ3OTk2NzYwNGM5YTY1MGM=" REL="nofollow">responded</A> to the apparently common suggestion that she was smitten in her support of Mitt Romney.<BR/><BR/>The gushing speaks for itself.<BR/><BR/><I>"Now, I’ll be honest here, some gals get uncomfortable when they find out that Ann Romney makes her husband homemade granola every morning — and think that that is, in fact, a little “too perfect.” (I, for one, wouldn’t know how to make granola if my life depended on it.) But the occasional too-perfect detail can be overlooked for <B>a true appreciation of something wonderful in our midst.</B><BR/><BR/><B>"What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been.</B> Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes."</I> [emphasis mine]<BR/><BR/>And, entirely too predictably, the blame for the lack of passionate support for Romney was placed, not with the candidate, but with the electorate.<BR/><BR/><I>"Mitt Romney has money, smarts, support, and a loyal staff. He’ll be fine. But the rest of us will have, someday, to face up to the consequences of a culture of political cynicism."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it's only cyncisim -- and, for some, jealousy -- that can explain the lack of fire for Romney. The possibility that he had faults enough to explain his failed campaign, that cannot even be entertained.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-20350608315670225882008-02-13T18:50:00.000-05:002008-02-13T18:50:00.000-05:00If I misunderstood Kathleen, she's welcome to corr...If I misunderstood Kathleen, she's welcome to correct me. Until then, I can only go by what I read.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-69055877632418353022008-02-13T10:27:00.000-05:002008-02-13T10:27:00.000-05:00BubbaContext is everything. Before you go to the m...Bubba<BR/><BR/>Context is everything. Before you go to the mattresses, is it possible that when two lawyers are talking in the office and one says "bad faith" to the other it might not carry the weight of the official meaning? But you or I cannot answer that, only Kathleen.Cubeland Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07999692406521539442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-24298407004642628522008-02-13T08:57:00.000-05:002008-02-13T08:57:00.000-05:00Mystic, even in a legal context, "bad faith" entai...Mystic, even in a <A HREF="http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=21" REL="nofollow">legal</A> context, "bad faith" entails deliberate dishonesty. If she didn't intend it as an attack on my character, she has an odd way of showing that by invoking Dreher, but she can explain her intent herself.<BR/><BR/>Until she explains that she meant something other than the most obvious meaning of what she wrote, I'm taking her comment at face value and concluding that they really were "fighting words."Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-50521410680049020402008-02-13T02:10:00.000-05:002008-02-13T02:10:00.000-05:00bad faithBubba & Kathleen Before you close the boo...bad faith<BR/>Bubba & Kathleen <BR/>Before you close the book, perhaps consider that "bad faith" might not be fighting words in a legal context in which K is arguing with you. <BR/><BR/>Maybe it is like "absurd" in a logic context or how the word "ignorant" is often misunderstood as an insult. Something to think about.Cubeland Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07999692406521539442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-85052221057407134092008-02-11T23:50:00.000-05:002008-02-11T23:50:00.000-05:00Andy, as I said before, I don't believe the Bible ...Andy, as I said before, I don't believe the Bible offers any clear commands in either direction about whether a Christian should support a Mormon pro-lifer candidate for President. It is not that I believe "voting for a pro-life Mormon" necessarily "represents giving up on the issue of clarity of doctrine".<BR/><BR/>My point was that the issue of doctrinal clarity still matters, and I'm making that point in response to this comment:<BR/><BR/><I>As far as "gaining the world and losing our soul" goes, I would argue that America is pretty far gone down that road (both in the sense of world-gain and soul-loss)already.</I><BR/><BR/>You seem to imply here that America is too far gone for doctrinal clarity to be important, and I categorically reject that issue.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If the Mormon candidate in question is disengenous in his claim to be Christian, a true Christian can call him to task for this while still applauding him for being pro-life. What's the problem there?</I><BR/><BR/>Let me be clear: Mormonism as a religion claims to be Christian -- indeed claims to be the fullest expression of Christianity -- but its doctrine is such a radical deviation that any definition of Christianity that includes Mormonism ceases to mean anything in particular. It's not that any one Mormon is disingenuous, it's that the religion <I>itself</I> is fraudulent in portraying itself as Christian. My concern is that, by electing a Mormon president -- a feat that would require the consent of many millions of Christian -- the central Christian claims that Mormonism rejects, starting with the affirmation of monotheism itself, would be blurred.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, Kathleen, I stand by my position that no good conclusion can be drawn about Romney from his statement about religious questions enabling an unconstitutional religious test. As a sixty-year-old law school graduate who was a serious contender for the Republican nomination and who had positioned himself as a mainstream conservative, he should have known better: either his knowledge about our Constitution is incomplete or he thinks that ours is.<BR/><BR/>A coherent political philosophy he may well have presented, but there were indications that he wasn't conducting <I>even</I> his primary campaign wholly by that philosophy. <BR/><BR/>As a political philosophy, mainstream American conservatism champions federalism and the free market: it stands by the principle of a limited government, particularly a federal government that is limited to its express Constitutional duties. But when he was facing must-win primaries in Iowa and Michigan, Romney pandered and offered the promise of federal funds to corn farmers and auto workers. In doing so, he briefly abandoned the conservative philosophy.<BR/><BR/>As a political philosophy, mainstream American conservatism knows that the U.S. Constitution was created to limit the power of government, <I>not</I> to dictate the lives of the people. But knowing the political problems of his religious affiliation, Romney implausibly invoked the Constitution to argue that questions about his faith were <I>themselves</I> unconstitutional, when Article VI prohibits only government restrictions on who can run. Once again, he briefly abandoned the conservative philosophy.<BR/><BR/>What's my point? Simply that if you want to know why Romney didn't energize conservatives, the problem might not have been voters with envy issues: it might have been a candidate who never truly persuaded conservatives that he was an authentic adherent to the philosophy on which he was (usually) running.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, I've argued my position as best as I can. I think I've proven my position fairly well. There's really not much to prove: both Romney's speech and Article VI of the Constitution are matters of public record, and I think it's clear that the former's allusion to the latter was implausible. <BR/><BR/>You disagree, and that's fine. I don't find your reasons to be persuasive, or even altogether consistent with one another, but if I haven't been able to persuade you to see my point of view before now, there's not much point in trying any more after this. I have nothing more to say to you about this particular topic.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, more importantly, Kathleen, if you want to accuse me of arguing in bad faith only because I disagree with you and have not been persuaded to change my mind, well, I have nothing more to say to you, period.<BR/><BR/>I had thought that by now you would know that I am sincere both in the positions that I hold and in my attempt to argue in good faith. I try to be fair in constructing my personal philosophy and in drawing logical conclusions from that philosophy; in considering criticisms of my beliefs and analyzing the beliefs of others; in explaining why I believe what I do and in refuting the alternatives that I reject.<BR/><BR/>I don't always succeed, but I am always earnest in the attempt. I'm somewhat hurt, frankly, that you question that, but I can quickly learn to disregard your personal opinion of me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sorry to digress, Pauli.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-55648562635409649662008-02-11T20:15:00.000-05:002008-02-11T20:15:00.000-05:00Bubba, I'm not sure how voting for a pro-life Mor...Bubba, I'm not sure how voting for a pro-life Mormon represents giving up on the issue of clarity of doctrine. If the Mormon candidate in question is disengenous in his claim to be Christian, a true Christian can call him to task for this while still applauding him for being pro-life. What's the problem there?Andy Nowickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128644133382664355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-77335792139462236302008-02-11T20:06:00.000-05:002008-02-11T20:06:00.000-05:00Bubba, i'm now beginning to think Dreher had a poi...Bubba, i'm now beginning to think Dreher had a point when he said you argued in bad faith. YOU have the burden of proving that he "abandoned the Constitution" in his religious speech, and you haven't done so. I'm defending the guy against erroneous accusations, not against the argument that he is an imperfect conservative. <BR/><BR/>where did i claim that romney was "steadfast in principles"? I said he offered a more coherent theory of government than McCain. Your making inferences all over the place.kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-57316881611885254952008-02-11T14:35:00.000-05:002008-02-11T14:35:00.000-05:00Kathleen, I'm not suggesting the Constitution's pr...Kathleen, I'm not suggesting the Constitution's principles cannot be discerned. I'm pointing out how it seems that you cannot decide whether they can be discerned. In order to attack me, you act as if they are discernible (and I agree that they are), but in order to defend Romney, suddenly the world is nothing but shades of gray.<BR/><BR/>You now seem willing to admit that your position on the clarity of the Constitution is a <B>result</B> of whether that position helps Romney or hurts him.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I wasn't arguing that Romney was <I>more</I> dishonest than other politicians, only that your claim that he's steadfast in his principles seems strained. He seems willing to abandon federalism, the free market, the Constitution and limited government when doing so would help him: his position on ethanol subsidies and his speech on religion demonstrated this.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-19981245141854237452008-02-11T13:58:00.000-05:002008-02-11T13:58:00.000-05:00"This makes the third time you've appealed to the ..."This makes the third time you've appealed to the Constitution as if its principles are actually discernible."<BR/><BR/>wow! now constitutional principles are not discernible?kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-68339962394662668732008-02-11T13:56:00.001-05:002008-02-11T13:56:00.001-05:00"how can you know this? How can it possibly be tha..."how can you know this? How can it possibly be that the Constitution is clear when you invoke it and murky when I invoke it?"<BR/><BR/>because you invoke the constitution to say romney is dishonest, and i'm trying to tell you all that's going to get you is "murky", not a "clearly yeah! he's totally dishonest!". <BR/><BR/>your real problem with romney is not his purported dishonesty, it's his mormonism. why don't you just come out and say it? you have failed, utterly, to demonstrate that he's any more dishonest than any other candidate.kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-10326158475101922842008-02-11T13:56:00.000-05:002008-02-11T13:56:00.000-05:00Andy:It doesn't make sense to say, in essence, tha...Andy:<BR/><BR/><I>It doesn't make sense to say, in essence, that if you dispute America's current state of virtuousness, you might as well not even care about abortion anymore. God forbid I should ever come to that conculsion.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not my position. A better way to state my position is this:<BR/><BR/>Abortion is evil, but so are attacks on the clarity of Christian doctrine. Because the issues are of eternal importance and the stakes are therefore infinite, I believe that the question of the clarity of Christian doctrine is <I>far</I> more important than the legal status of abortion. How this shakes out in one's own life is a matter of personal reflection, but I don't see the point in this attitude: "America is so far gone morally that we should surrender on the question of the clarity of doctrine, but we should still care about abortion." That displays misplaced priorities.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-7686694114284393712008-02-11T13:44:00.000-05:002008-02-11T13:44:00.000-05:00Kathleen, I don't want "a world where someone is n...Kathleen, I don't want "a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated." I just affirm my right to criticize such citations if they are used to draw implausible and incoherent conclusions. <BR/><BR/>I don't want such a world, but you write that if I did, I wouldn't be "on board" with the Constitution. Well, how in the hell would you know that? You just got finished telling me that "law is not black and white. there are no right answers."<BR/><BR/>This makes the third time you've appealed to the Constitution as if its principles are actually discernible.<BR/><BR/>About questions regarding a candidate's religious beliefs, you wrote the following:<BR/><BR/><I>"the constitution says what it does to avoid precisely these sorts of inquiries."</I><BR/><BR/>Then, implausibly, you argue that the Constitution limits the free press.<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't believe that constitutional principles would remain intact if every newspaper in the country did an exhaustive survey of each candidates' religious beliefs for each election cycle."</I><BR/><BR/>Now, you criticize a position I don't have and argue that it's in conflict with the Constitution.<BR/><BR/><I>"if you want to create in a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated (as if that's possible) then you aren't on board with the constitution."</I><BR/><BR/>But, how can you know this? How can it possibly be that the Constitution is clear when you invoke it and murky when I invoke it?Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-75305270804286334612008-02-11T11:08:00.001-05:002008-02-11T11:08:00.001-05:00Bubba, abortion remains a great evil whether or no...Bubba, abortion remains a great evil whether or not America is still a "nation under God." <BR/><BR/>It doesn't make sense to say, in essence, that if you dispute America's current state of virtuousness, you might as well not even care about abortion anymore. God forbid I should ever come to that conculsion.Andy Nowickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128644133382664355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-47130436204232431692008-02-11T11:08:00.000-05:002008-02-11T11:08:00.000-05:00Bubba, law is not black and white. there are no r...Bubba, law is not black and white. there are no right answers. your insistence that there are is blinkered and naive. it shows your inexperience. if romney believed it was unconstitutional, or if there were case law saying it was unconstitutional he would have said it. as it is, he only "kind of said it", or implied he thinks it might be -- and guess what? THAT'S the right answer. if you want to create in a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated (as if that's possible) then you aren't on board with the constitution.<BR/><BR/>in my opinion, your thinking is dangerous, and reinforces why the founders wanted to separate church and state. i find it dismaying in the extreme that you or anyone else want to turn Romney's candidacy into a referendum on mormonism.kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-12797210369907749782008-02-11T10:02:00.000-05:002008-02-11T10:02:00.000-05:00Worked all weekend. Sorry I could not participate....Worked all weekend. Sorry I could not participate. There is a documentary on Mormons, I think tonight or tomorrow on PBS. Check your local listings.<BR/><BR/>There will be a quiz.Cubeland Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07999692406521539442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-82833428325582791712008-02-11T09:47:00.000-05:002008-02-11T09:47:00.000-05:00Kathleen, this is what Romney said:"There are some...Kathleen, this is what Romney said:<BR/><BR/>"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."<BR/><BR/>I do not think it's an unreasonable "straw man" to conclude from these two sentences that Romney asserted that his explaining his religious beliefs would be unconstitutional, because it would "enable" an unconstitutional religious test.<BR/><BR/>I don't find your assertion to the contrary to be persuasive, and honestly it seems like a whole different tune than your earlier claim that case law could actually mean that Romney could file suit and win against someone who asked him a religious question; never mind your first defense about this supposedly "brilliant" speech, that the actual contents shouldn't be examined too closely in the first place.<BR/><BR/>You've moved from arguing that it doesn't matter what Romney said, first to agreeing implicitly with my interpretation of what he said in order to argue that he has a point, now to denying my interpretation with bold certainty but without offering a reasonable alternative to explain what he meant. You give me no reason to find any of your positions persuasive.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Andy, if our nation is so far gone that it does not matter whether or not we defend and affirm Christianity's theological claims and monotheistic character, I don't see why we should make sure our elected officials oppose abortion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>About Pauli's point, I certainly agree that politics is about compromise, the art of the possible, settling for a half a loaf, etc.<BR/><BR/>But the individual has a right and a duty to refuse to compromise in deference to a higher principle. I will reiterate that I do not believe that the Bible requires the position I've taken, and that thus I believe that other faithful Christians can reach other conclusions about supporting a Mormon for high elected office.<BR/><BR/>I do not try to persuade others about the rightness of my position, only to assert that I am free to hold this position. If my admittedly imperfect relationship with God leads me to believe that I ought not to suppport a Mormon candidate like Romney, and if there is no clear Biblical command to do otherwise, why should I not be free to follow where I believe this relationship is leading me?Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-38771616507223274022008-02-09T20:02:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:02:00.000-05:00God uses imperfect people for his purposes all the...God uses imperfect people for his purposes all the time. Anyway, if a Mormon did help end abortion I doubt it would force people into the streets shouting "All hail our Mormon Christian president! He ended abortion! Yes -- now we know Mormons are Christians, just like they always claimed they were." I would welcome any president helping end abortion including Rudy Giuliani, another imperfect candidate, who might become president someday and who I would <I>still</I> vote for if he runs later on.Paulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17506171638613025839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-55747166740713236022008-02-09T18:59:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:59:00.000-05:00As far as "gaining the world and losing our soul" ...As far as "gaining the world and losing our soul" goes, I would argue that America is pretty far gone down that road (both in the sense of world-gain and soul-loss)already. Having a pro-life Mormon president certainly isn't likely to make the situation any worse.Andy Nowickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128644133382664355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-19234730447376141212008-02-09T16:12:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:12:00.000-05:00What I object to is A) basing that "buzz off" in t...What I object to is A) basing that "buzz off" in the ridiculous notion that Article VI outlaws such questions and B) that such a defense would come from a truly principled conservative.<BR/><BR/>Bubba, for that last time, that's. not. what. Romney. said. he didn't say it was "outlawed". he didn't even say it was "unconstitutional". will you finally dump this straw man please.kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-9465681477714607662008-02-09T11:19:00.000-05:002008-02-09T11:19:00.000-05:00"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the ..."For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"<BR/><BR/>If a Christian is convinced that this is an issue concerning his loyalty to God, to God's church, and to the truth that He has revealed, there is no temporal incentive that can be offered to outweigh that. A President who would advance the culture of life at the expense of the Gospel of eternal life may not be the bargain you think it is.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-40864393033708254582008-02-09T08:37:00.000-05:002008-02-09T08:37:00.000-05:00Bubba, if you were convinced that a Mormon preside...Bubba, if you were convinced that a Mormon president would, let us say, end Roe V. Wade and usher in many legislative advances against the Culture of Death, would you still not be sure about voting for him, since having a Mormon as president might give legitimacy to a heretical sect with very strange doctrines?Andy Nowickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128644133382664355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-89602050849027456192008-02-09T00:52:00.000-05:002008-02-09T00:52:00.000-05:00As I said earlier, Kathleen:Faced with such questi...As I said earlier, Kathleen:<BR/><BR/><I>Faced with such questions [about his faith], Romney is free to evade and avoid answering them.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with that fourth assertion: the candidate should be free to tell the voter to buzz off, and the voter should be free to interpret that reluctance to answer as he pleases.<BR/><BR/>What I object to is A) basing that "buzz off" in the ridiculous notion that Article VI outlaws such questions and B) that such a defense would come from a truly principled conservative.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Andy, I personally think that there's no obvious answer to the question of whether a Christian should abstain from supporting a Mormon candidate for high office. If I thought the Bible required one answer or another, I would have said so. Instead, there are a few things I believe are true and difficult to dispute:<BR/><BR/>1) The Bible is clear that Christians' primary duty is to God.<BR/><BR/>2) The Bible is also clear that Christians have a duty to protect and defend doctrinal truth; for instance, in II John 1:7, John teaches against the false doctrine that denies the humanity of Christ, that denies that Jesus came in the flesh. Doctrine mattered then; it matters now.<BR/><BR/>3) I think it is absolutely clear that Mormon doctrine is so radically different from small-o orthodoxy that it cannot be considered merely a minority view within Christianity: its theology is, in a very literal sense, heresy.<BR/><BR/>4) Mormonism is trying to present itself as another branch of Christianity -- indeed, its claims require the belief that it's the truest expression of Christianity -- and it would be very harmful to the clarity of Christian doctrine if they succeeded.<BR/><BR/>Now, from this, it doesn't <I>necessarily</I> follow that a devout Christian should have opposed Romney's candidacy, but if you couple these facts that I believe are indisputable with the concern that a Romney victory would bring new legitimacy to Mormonism, then you have something.<BR/><BR/>Even then, it's a matter of the individual Christian's relationship with God, but I have become convinced that I <I>personally</I> could not support Romney -- knowing the likely consequences to the clarity of Christian doctrine -- and do so with a clear conscience.Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257806404793138106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-16964301631635274272008-02-09T00:12:00.000-05:002008-02-09T00:12:00.000-05:00Bubba, I take your point that a Christian should b...Bubba, I take your point that a Christian should be free to vote against a Mormon for religious reasons. My question to you: OUGHT a Christian voter to do this?<BR/><BR/>I could see voting against Romney for many legitimate reasons, but the notion of abstaining from voting for him because he's a Mormon seems extremely silly. (Of course, I happen to think the whole system of democracy is extremely silly, but that's a different issue.)Andy Nowickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128644133382664355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2065164884737080821.post-734047474396494812008-02-08T23:50:00.000-05:002008-02-08T23:50:00.000-05:00you forgot one 4) the candidate is AND SHOULD BE ...you forgot one <BR/><BR/>4) the candidate is AND SHOULD BE free to tell the voter who asks for a detailed explanation of his religious beliefs to BUZZ OFF.kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760546833628880462noreply@blogger.com