Hey, where's the Lost thread?

Charlotte Staples Lewis!

"I'll vote for him in the general election

Assuming he makes it that far ;)


The Huck is still around, Shrodiferous.

I will say that I agree that his speech was probably the best I've seen. I think there may be something to the pressure being gone bringing out a likeability. Maybe there's something to how we see them differently, too.

Al Gore also was boring during his campaign, but lightened up a lot afterwards. (It took an inconvenient truth to stiffen him up again)

If for the moment we assume, as Phil is, that McCain will be the nominee (no sure thing--he has a plurality of votes, but not a majority; Romney and Huckabee together have outpolled him so far), then what this election has done for the long term is set up Romney and Huckabee as potential candidates for 2012 and beyond. Huckabee obviously would need to work on building credibility on national-security issues, on convincing people of his economic conservatism, and generally on building a base outside the South. Romney can't exactly work on not being Mormon, though I guess he can work on making that matter less, but he can try to make himself a better candidate--do things to convince people he's not an android, I guess, or something. Anyway, the point is that going forward, the Republicans should have something they haven't had for a while: strong future candidates who've earned name recognition and have the chance to build on that.

I think he set himself up well for his next run. Kind of like Reagan from 76 to 80. He couldn't quite get there in 76, but demolished the competition in 80. Romney will be back and I'm willing to bet that he will be President one day.

This analysis over on Hugh Hewitt's blog is interesting, and I think sheds some real light on Romney's failure to capture the nomination.

Limbaugh made the same point, Phil, saying all the best speeches in this election cycle seem to come from the men dropping out.

What about the congress? Are there 50 people dropping out this time around? Are we looking at a solidly Democrat congress and White House?

I believe we are Raindream. All the indicators show Dems picking up a couple of seats in the Senate and possibly a more impressive Democratic majority in the House.

Romney has made an impression in the minds of Americans. I think his mission these next four years (or 8 years if McCain wins and runs for a 2nd term) will be to speak and work for the principles he believes in. People will not look at Romney through jaundiced eyes or rose-colored glasses, and they will come to know the substance of the man. He could have been one of the richest men in america if he had taken Bain public, and he could return to business, but I think he'll spend the last coins of his life in public service.

Anybody who really knows Romney and his intentions can't help but like and admire him.

Anybody who really knows Romney and his intentions can't help but like and admire him.

Which is very clear from the comments of people like Hugh Hewitt. Personally, I hope Romney spends the next four years (or eight years) building on what he did in Massachusetts, and working to better project himself so that those who don't really know him have the same reaction.

Just because Hugh Hewitt, a believer, likes Romney, doesn't mean that woeful deception by Morman herecy isn't destructive.

I listen to Hugh Hewitt and respect him, but I really disagree with him on this. Moral deception (Mormanism) is far more damaging than licencious deception (Universalism for example) IMHO.

I have found Romney to be a woefully wanting candidate from a character perspective - BECAUSE of the Mormon faith. Even over and against the thrice married Guilianni - who was the best candidate - very clearly. Is it just me, or do Mormons come across, in general, as majorly phony?......hello?

I hope that we never see him viable again - he is precisely what we don't need.

"Is it just me, or do Mormons come across, in general, as majorly phony?......hello?"

This seems like an ungracious generalization.

While I disagree profoundly with Mormon theology, I've found that most Mormons seem to be genuinely nice people. And we Christians need to make sure our own moral and authenticity houses are in order before throwing stones at them, in my opinion.

Comment in which I am fair and balanced - Read this whole comment to get both sides.

Defending those who don't like Romney

Joseph,
Dude, I said I like Romney now. (And I do. I'll even concedd that I respect him. I'm not quite up to admire yet, but I'm close.)

But I'm kind of a nerd, so my logical fallacy radar went up when you said:
Anybody who really knows Romney and his intentions can't help but like and admire him.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Just because someone "really knows Romney and his intentions" doesn't mean they will like and admire him. There are probably lots of liberals that would just hate him even more if they knew him and his intentions.

(And it would be fallacious to say that the only reason nhe doesn't like Romney is because nhe doesn't really know Romney and his intentions.)

I'm not sure what logical fallacy you committed. But if even one person really knows Romney and his intentions and doesn't like him, then your statement is wrong. Or to put it another way, just because someone doesn't like and admire Romney does not necessairly mean that they don't sufficiently know him and his intentions.

It's just not a fair statement. It kind of reminds me of the common fallacious argument: "Everyone with a half a brain agrees with me." So in other words anyone who disagrees with the speaker there is automatically stupid?

I don't think you were saying that, but like I said, I spotted a fallacy, so I'm letting you know.

Does anyone know the name of the fallacy committed here? Is it ad-hominem? Is it just a deductive fallacy?

Here's some links for my fellow geeks:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

http://www.geekpress.com/2006/09/excellent-list-of-logical-fallaciesad.html

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm

So Joseph, you probably didn't mean for your statement to be all overanalyzed like that. Sorry. It's just that I'm picky about stuff like that. I don't think you would do it, but some people would follow-up a statement like that to anyone who didn't like Romney and say, "See, that means you just don't know him" and that's not a fair statement.

Defending Romney and Mormonism
nhe wrote:
Just because Hugh Hewitt, a believer, likes Romney, doesn't mean that woeful deception by Morman herecy isn't destructive.

Destructive in what way? Destructive to Christian orthodoxy? Yep. But to society? I wouldn't agree with that.

Or maybe you see the idea of someone like Romney giving Mormonism more "legitimacy" in the eyes of the public as destructive. And as far as it might convince more people to become mormons, maybe. But this is a logical fallacy too. The theological problems with Mormonism have nothing to the kind of president Romney would be, in my opinion.

I don't expect the president to be my pastor or spiritual leader. If I was having heart surgery I'd pick the atheist who graduated at the top of his class over the fellow believer who graduated at the bottom.

I don't think that the President's religious views are relevant, except for as much as they may inform his principles, positions and policies.

I listen to Hugh Hewitt and respect him, but I really disagree with him on this. Moral deception (Mormonism) is far more damaging than licencious deception (Universalism for example) IMHO.

I don't understand your terms. Could you explain the difference between a "moral deception" and a "licencious deception"?

Would you vote against a candidate because they were Jewish, or Roman Catholic or Unitarian Universalist?

I have found Romney to be a woefully wanting candidate from a character perspective - BECAUSE of the Mormon faith. Even over and against the thrice married Guilianni - who was the best candidate - very clearly.

It wasn't clear to me. I thought that Thompson was the best candidate...very clearly. (But I was in the minority. ;-)

I'm not getting this either bro. I think someone of a different faith can certainly be a moral person. And if you are concerned about faith and character, how can you say that Guiliani (pro-abortion) was the best candidate?

Is it just me, or do Mormons come across, in general, as majorly phony?......hello?

And I agree with Bill. Being wrong on theology is not the same thing as being phony. What logical fallacies did that statement commit? :)

I hope that we never see him viable again - he is precisely what we don't need.

I disagree. I think he may very well make a fine president. Go listen or watch his final speech. He makes some wonderful statements about values and morals.

And by the way, I think he'll be back, just like Reagan was after he lost in '76. If Thompson wasn't 65, I'd say the same about him...but that's my sad song... :)

nhe,
I think we can cooperate with others at varying levels. Do you agree?

For example, we can cooperate with people of other faiths who share the same moral and political goals - such as joining with those who are pro-life or with those who want to feed the poor.

But we can't cooperate with them in religious goals such as evangelism. We can only cooperate who believe in sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura. But we can join together with fellow evangelicals for that goal. (e.g. Billy Graham crusades)

But we can't cooperate with those same people in our regular worship, because of different beliefs about baptism, Lord's supper, ecclesiastical gov't. etc...

Does that make sense? I put people of other faiths in the first category when it comes to politics as well.

"I don't expect the president to be my pastor or spiritual leader. If I was having heart surgery I'd pick the atheist who graduated at the top of his class over the fellow believer who graduated at the bottom."

I know the presidency isn't exactly heart surgery, but I read today that McCain graduated fifth from the bottom in his class at the Naval Academy. I suppose that won't really change anyone's view of him, considering that happened fifty years ago.

OK, Quaid! Touche! (That's hilarious. :) How did you know that?

Actually that might be relevant, but I also think that one's accomplishments after school can outweigh such things. (Einstein, anyone?) Plus if there were 10 people in his class, 5th from the bottom isn't so bad. :)

Oh and btw, I like the nickname,shrodiferous. And I liked the reminder that came with it. Oh, and like the pretty girl at the ball, who likes getting wooed, I will tell you that I haven't decided who to vote for yet in the Texas primary. :) But you know so far, Stallone and Schwarzanegger outweigh Chuck Norris. :) What other aging action stars will jump in I wonder? Who is Seagall endorsing? And if Bruce Lee were still alive who would he vote for?

Open call to Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis: It's time for you guys to step up and endorse someone so we know who to vote for!

I don't know that I would call Selleck an action star. Just because your name is magnum doesn't mean you can actually kick butt. Willis is probably waiting on until the general election . . .

Stop leading me on with your I don't know who I'm voting for schtick. Don't dissappoint me here. I suppose if you had pointed questions about why I support Mike in a certain area, I could help you out, but I won't launch into why McCain wouldn't be good. I'd rather just talk about why I think Huckabee is da bomb (90's slang meaning "good," for the unitiated).

I can give basics:
-I think Huck is more conservative (which suits my personal taste)
-I think Huck communicates better which is something this country is desperate for, after these past four years (no offense, W)
-I think Huck will have a better position to take against either Hillary or Obama in a general election and be the best shot at Republican victory
-I just like the guy

If you would like specifics on these points, I'd be happy to elaborate . . . (Or you could just email me and spare the rest of the world more of my Huckagushing)


as far as the McCain thing, I'll spend a little time to see if I can find it again - I just surf around and read stuff each morning. I have no idea where I saw it originally.

Well, that didn't take me as longs as I thought it might. It's from the NYT:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/mccain-plays-nice-with-huckabee/

In bringing his campaign to Annapolis before the Potomac primaries on Tuesday – Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia – Mr. McCain was returning to the site of one his bad-boy periods as a brash midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. Mr. McCain, who went on to graduate fifth from the bottom of his class, now has a son at Annapolis.

“I’m not sure that the taxpayers got a complete return for their investment here with my conduct and scholastic record, but I hope that I can compensate,’’ Mr. McCain said at the news conference.

Then he added, apparently referring to his fondness for the local bars, “I did help out the local economy on many occasions.’’

Phillip, You caught me using rhetoric again. I agree, pathos and ethos aren't logos, but they sure help win elections.

Speaking of Pathos, I sure got a chuckle out of nhe.

And the difference between McCain and Einstein was that Einstein was writing his thesis about the electromagnetic effect which won him the nobel prize. McCain, unfortunately was using his study time to carouse, drink, and fight (i.e. learn how to be a sailor). I guess he's learned a little since then though.

Philip, JDW is guilty of no logical fallacy whatsoever, because he wasn't making a logical argument, he was making a factual observation. The way to invalidate it (if invalid it is) is not to prove it logically fallacious, but rather to prove it factually incorrect.

But if even one person really knows Romney and his intentions and doesn't like him, then your statement is wrong.

True, because then it would be counterfactual; but that doesn't make it fallacious, just false.

Or to put it another way, just because someone doesn't like and admire Romney does not necessairly mean that they don't sufficiently know him and his intentions.

Here it's actually you who have departed the straight and narrow way of logical argument, by misrepresenting JDW's contention. To wit: he didn't say that. That would be a possible but not necessary corollary of his statement, but he didn't make it.

And FWIW, while my acquaintance with big high mucky-mucks is extremely limited, the anecdotal evidence seems to be that those who know the Romneys personally like them both quite well.

One last note: I think it was Luther who said he would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish saint, though I believe Augustine said something similar (no surprise, since Luther was an Augustinian); along the same lines, I believe it was Hewitt who first reminded American evangelicals (wrt Romney) that we're voting for a Commander-in-Chief, not a Theologian-in-Chief.

I think it was Luther who said he would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish saint, though I believe Augustine said something similar (no surprise, since Luther was an Augustinian).

True Ancient Mariner, and with the risk of reductio ad absurdum, I would say that not voting for a person because of non-essential characteristics would be foolish; it would put one on the 'slippery slope' of having to deny assistance of any kind from a person of so-called 'moral deception' even to the point of self-destruction. If nhe were overboard with none but the 'morally deceived' to save with just the throw of a lifeline, would nhe grab hold of such lifeline? Will the 'Mormon' be the albatross around the neck of evangleicals--the true test of their Christian Charity?

And I had done an hellish thing,
And it would work 'em woe :
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow.
Ah wretch ! said they, the bird to slay,
That made the breeze to blow !

Tis the fools gold and a booby prize to place sectarian pride before the common good.