There have been a number of blog posts lately pinning blame on feminists for not combatting honor killings more forcefully, the point being that this should be a feminist issue.

When religious leaders or groups step out of line, that should be an issue for churches and churchgoers. Why are there so few voices and no organized movements to combat religious extremism of the ‘you’ll go to hell for this’ kind? I mean, this is definitely a religion issue.

BBoy,

First off, I concur with kritter than Ron Paul is not a liberal but a libertarian. In fact, if you truly want to be accurate, Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian–that is, a libertarian with conservative leanings. Like many paleolibertarians, Ron Paul is strongly pro-life and anti-illegal immigration.

Secondly, I don’t think he “won” the debate, despite the online MSNBC post-debate polls showing him to be the overwhelming winner. The way I look at it is this:

Ron Paul has libertarian views that set him apart from the rest of the Republican field. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters would never vote for Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or any of the other GOP candidates. Conversely, many who support the top-tier candidates would end up supporting another candidate in the primary, even if that candidate wasn’t their first choice. What this means in that in the online MSNBC poll, the mainstream Republican vote was divided nine different ways (between the nine other Republican candidates) while the libertarian and liberal vote mostly went to Ron Paul.

Since libertarians and liberals make up an extremely small proportion of the Republican Party, his MSNBC poll success is not likely to translate into GOP support. In fact, their are a number of pro-Republican blogs (i.e. Free Republic, Pajamas Media) who based Ron Paul following the debate. Apparently a Republican who says that he is for “smaller government” and actually means it is no longer welcome in the Republican Party.

In addition to not having the lucrative campaign contributors and widespread name recognition that Giuliani, Romney, and McCain have, Ron Paul doesn’t have the best speaking skills (he’s extremely soft-spoken, and his voice wavered during some of the exchanges with Chris Matt). His views, on the other hand, do not waver, and his tendency to stand for the same principles now that he did when he first took office is what sets him apart from Giuliani, Romney, and McCain–all of whom are in danger of out Kerrying Kerry in terms of flip-flopping on social issues.

I didn’t see anything comical about his reply to the “What important decision…” question. He didn’t have a good answer prepared for this question because, as a libertarian, he believes in a minimalist role for government. He can’t brag about pieces of legislation that he has endorsed or sponsored because he has opposed virtually every piece of legislation that has come before him (they don’t call him Dr. No for nothing). In the end, he did give an answer to the question. He pointed out that when it came time to vote for the resolution to go to war in Iraq (which was perhaps the single most important issue to come before congress during the last six years), he broke ranks with his party and voted against it.

To me, that makes him more credible than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd–all of whom voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. That’s to say nothing of Giuliani, Romney, and McCain–all of whom used the GOP debate to express their unapologetic support for the ill-conceived war in Iraq.

Getting Mitt Romney in the Oval Office is like the local little league team signing Alex Rodriguez. He’ll clean up, set all kinds of records, and leave America in the best place it’s ever been. Wait – he’s Mormon? That means he believes in God and Jesus, and to love one another, and the ten commandments, and the Bible, and strong families, and all that other stuff that Mormons believe. Nevermind – I’m voting for Bhillary!!

Then he’d really be up s***creek.

But then again- I am also appalled at the slate of Republican candidates who like robots must take the stances that the fundies prefer: Anti-stem cell research, pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay marriage , etc etc. How does that offer any choice to the American voter? There’s not a moderate or a centrist among them- unless you count poor Ron Paul, who despite winning the MSNBC poll after the debate and defeating the widely congratulated Romney still gets no press. And then there’s Giuli, who does have the guts to profess to longheld socially moderate views-his candidacy is probably doomed.

Really? The same people who have given Bush a complete pass on his behavior and actions just because of his “man of faith” imagery and speaking points? These same people are going to suddenly hold that standard up to evaluate Romney?

It appears a great many “Christians” in this country have a hard time actually reading the Bible much less applying its message.