Was there any question about that anyway? I doubt Hitchens would vote for his son if said son were to convert to evangelical Christianity. Hitch would burn an effigy of him no doubt. That would be perfectly reasonable. To Hitchens, anything involving large quantities of alcohol would be reasonable, but Huckabee and Romney had better ask for others to vote for them...

huckster is a liar; he said that most of the signers of the Decl. of Independence were clergyman. no true, huck, -only about 10% were.

just another example of the lying liars of the sanctimonious religious right.

imagine huckabee winning; after the fiasco of a religious-driven Bush, we'd have another guy who gets direct communication from the diety, perhaps telling him to invade other countries.

one thing i will say about that other religious nut, Romney: if he is elected we can all have multiple wives.

and by the way, in the Mormon faith it is true that JC and Satan are brothers; so huckster did not lie about that. ask Romney sometime about that chapter in the mormon historical books. yea, that mormon history sounds a bit like Scientology to me. but even crazier.

sure america, go ahead and vote for these anti-science jerks, and see the USA fall behind the rest of the world in terms of research, stem cell advances, etc.

inedal,

So Mike Huckabee is liar because he didn't have completely accurate, well-researched facts available at his fingertips when speaking in front of the media? I'm glad you clearly defined the word "liar" as such. At least then we know that the term is meaningless.

Newsflash: Everyone is a liar! Perhaps we could stop pretending that the office of President of the United States of America is some kind of hallowed, sacred office. The president is a guy who wears a suit to work. Just like the guy who posts your paycheck into your account down at the bank. I get a kick out of our cultural idiocy. Human beings become President, not the demi-gods of greek mythology...

... I agree, but there is something rather disturbing about a presidential candidate making such a claim without having any basis in fact -- seems to me he was either just making up shit or was repeating something he was once told without bothering to question it. Neither is exactly the sort of thing I want to see in someone vying for the White House -- got that already!

FBH:

I doubt Hitchens would vote for his son if said son were to convert to evangelical Christianity.

Yet Hitchens was able to support Bush in 2004 despite Bush talking to God.

Just as many people feel they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils in an election year, I'm pretty sure Hitchens wasn't voting for Bush out of admiration of his faith. While anyone can make a judgment on a candidate considering their religious beliefs, it's also true he can ignore them if he perceives there to be a larger issue at stake.

The office of President of the United States is a hallowed, sacred office. It should eb occupied by the absolute bestw e have to offer. Now, I realize you may have to go back to FDR to find the last instance where that actually happened, but the ideal is still a good one.

That said, Hitchens is right. For example, if a Scientologist was running for public office, under no condition would I vote for them. This is because their belief in Scientology makes me think they have incredibly poor judgment, and judgment is certainly an important skill to ahve when creating laws and such. That being likely the most extreme case, I would also seriously question the judgment of any believer who took a very literal interpretation of their chosen holy book, as these people likely have a mind that is closed to science and possibilities that somehow "threaten" their faith.

Third, I find it interesting that Huckabee worded his slogan "Faith, Family, Freedom". This is horribly out of order, and makes me question whether he puts his faith above his country (I could care less where he holds his family).

And finally, the faithful complaining about a "religious test" are being quite foolish, because any atheist running for office would have it much more difficult than they do.

Any voter can choose whatever criteria they wish when voting. No one has to justify his or her vote. It is strictly a multiple choice question. No supporting essay is required, and you do not have to show your work, like a math exam. You can vote based on careful research of all the candidates positions on issues, or you can vote because of the way they wear their hair (Romney and Edwards prefers this method). You can vote for them based on gender, skin color, national origin, what state their from, party affiliation, religious or lack of religious affiliation, or if they claim to have seen UFO's (Kucinich supporters). If you are an American you can use whatever reason you like to vote for someone, if you bother to vote at all.

Myself, I will be reserving judgement until I find out all of their favorite beers. I'm not holding out much hope for Mitt.

Mitt's an O'Doul's man.

ClaimsAdjuster:

FBH:

I doubt Hitchens would vote for his son if said son were to convert to evangelical Christianity.

Yet Hitchens was able to support Bush in 2004 despite Bush talking to God.

yeah, thus the continuing struggle in reading Hitchens

To DaveS,

You are, well, just wrong. There is nothing sacred about any governmental leadership office or office-holder. Your view that the office of President is somehow "hallowed" reminds me of the Roman Empire and the view of Caesar as a 'god'. He wasn't, Bush/Clinton/JFK/FDR/Washingto­n/Lincoln and anyone else in that position never has been.

Part of my cynicism about our critical attitude of local, state and federal government leadership is that we accept your position way too often. Human beings are limited, mostly unwise, and far too full of themselves. We are barely able to manage our own 24 hour days, much less the "good of society." That you expect a President, Congress, and the judicial branch to operate in such a manner is humorous at best. Cynicism about government is the ONLY reasonable approach...

To FBH-

You missed my point, or I originally missed yours. Regardless, what I was saying is that this acceptance of mediocrity and ineptness from elected officials does not solve anything. The president should be held to a much higher standard of competence and judgment than "the guy who cashes your check at the bank", and the office should be respected as such.

However, it is not the president who is hallowed and sacred, but the office which he holds. By maintaining and promoting the sanctity of the presidency, we establish that no individual president is above the office they hold and are merely stewards of the title. As such, we can judge them based on their stewardship. For example, the current administration has a horrible record of expansion of powers and non-disclosure. It is entirely possible that they have forever changed the face of the presidency for the worse, and history will judge them as poor stewards of the office. If the office of the presidency is just another job, then what exactly stops anyone elected from changing it as they see fit?

DaveS,

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I don't know. But I definitely understand you. You honestly believe in the office of President, and correspondingly believe in a sort of sacredness there-attached. I once did. Then Bill Clinton happened.

Now I see every elected office as better than a dictatorship. But that's about all. I think blanketly living as a cynic is preferable to believing in the Presidency. The system has flaws big enough to drive trucks through. As with any political system.

So I'm not angry with the President. It's just that I don't believe as you do. Sacredness, holiness, hallowed ground or whatever baggage people want to belong to the Presidency simply does not belong there. We elect a President for four to eight years, then we do it again. The intervening years involve pettiness and disagreement on the level of five year old children, and very little progress happens. So forgive me if I remain cynical. I fully intend to do just that...

FBH:

DaveS,

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I don't know. But I definitely understand you. You honestly believe in the office of President, and correspondingly believe in a sort of sacredness there-attached. I once did. Then Bill Clinton happened.

Now I see every elected office as better than a dictatorship. But that's about all. I think blanketly living as a cynic is preferable to believing in the Presidency. The system has flaws big enough to drive trucks through. As with any political system.

So I'm not angry with the President. It's just that I don't believe as you do. Sacredness, holiness, hallowed ground or whatever baggage people want to belong to the Presidency simply does not belong there. We elect a President for four to eight years, then we do it again. The intervening years involve pettiness and disagreement on the level of five year old children, and very little progress happens. So forgive me if I remain cynical. I fully intend to do just that...

So Bill Clinton was president before Nixon?