Presidential Round Table Discussion

Greg (Slate.com): If Romney gets the nomination he'll immediately start claiming that he is the one who can bring this country together.

Luke: Of course he will, he is operating under Asimov's Laws: One, a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Two, a robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Three, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Four, a robot must have amazing hair, except where such hair would conflict with the First, Second or Third Law.

Jeff: Poor Giuliani. That guy ruins campaigns quicker than he ruins marriages. Huzzah! [Duck on a rope drops down with a cigar in its mouth.]

Luke: My personal feeling is that the only way a Republican has a shot at winning the White House is if they let down their conservative mantra a little bit and move toward the middle of the spectrum. McCain versus Hillary would be a pretty close call.

Greg: A race free of religious loonies.

Ryan: Speaking of loonies, is Ron Paul still in? He'd better be. It's fun to watch the other GOP guys look around nervously whenever he speaks. In fact, it's become my new favorite drinking game. I hope that little bastard has to be dragged off the stage at the convention.

Luke: I wish Ron Paul would spend some of his money he has on a houndstooth suit and fedora. And I wish he would wear it to the next debate and speak jive the whole time. I also think he's the only person putting his nuts where his mouth is. . . you know what I mean.

Seattlest: One of the Republican knocks on McCain is that he is too secular to win the nomination, how much do you think religion is playing a part in this race?

Luke: You know what it is? For me at least, whenever someone invokes God, or says, "My values are based in my faith in Christ", or starts spouting about how America is a Christian nation . . . I immediately tune out. They might as well be talking about their faith in Zeus or Ra. They immediately sound like a loony to me. And since Conservatives can't help but pepper their platform with that "God speak", they lose my vote entirely. What is that anyway? Somebody with a religious background help me out.

Jeff: But that's your take and your philosophy. There are plenty of people who WANT their faith represented in their leadership. If someone ran on a platform of, "Americans should sit around, smoke pot, and play Call of Duty 4 all day and not have to work," I would be like, "Hells yeah-- that guy represents me and understands my philosophy on life." Now replace "love smoking pot and playing Xbox 360" with "pray to God and enact laws that support His word and the Bible" and you've got your reasoning for why someone wants a Christian candidate.

Luke: But that's NOT true. Let's just say there was a candidate with the "Xbox" platform. I wouldn't vote for him. I enjoy doing those things, but if that was what he was running on, I'm objective to enough know that it's not good for the country. My problem with the faith based agenda is that there is NO empirical evidence, NO historical evidence, NO rational argument that can sway some of these folks, evangelicals especially, from their course. If something doesn't jive with God, it's unjust . . . period. At least I'm able to weigh information and ponder other points of view. Heck, I'm even willing to admit when my thinking is wrong or when someone else has a great idea. That doesn't exist in the faith based world.

Ryan: Also, people of faith are terrified of words like "evidence", "ponder", "other points of view", and especially "jive". In their world, Faith is literally all they have to keep them together. Without it, they've been spending 10% of their incomes, before tax, every year on their pastor's flat screen, Armani suits, and trips to Sandals Jamaica.

Luke: Imagine a world where you couldn't get elected president unless you were a plumber. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, replace plumber with "Christian" and that's the world we live in.

Jeff: Not if 83% of voters identified themselves as plumbers. Huzzah! [Duck on a rope drops down with a cigar in its mouth.]

Luke: It sucks that candidates have to pander to that crowd.

Jeff: YOU wouldn't vote for him. But plenty of other people would. Having a valid platform has never been a requirement of running. Look at Bush in 2000. Wait.Your issue with faith based agenda is that instead of empirical, rational evidence, these people are relying on... faith. Hmm. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here-- but isn't that kind of assumed when an agenda is called FAITH BASED.

Luke: My problem is that the game is over once God enters the equation. There is no discourse. There is no working together. There is no compromise. The standard model for strategic behavior is "the prisoner's dilemma". But this sort of analysis doesn't exist in the faith based world. Religious zealots act with or without the interests of the group in mind not because they are trying to maximize their own, or the groups, payoff, but because of a set of moral guidelines fabricated over 2000 years ago.

Jeff: Yup. I agree with it all. But... you're arguing the wrong point. Rational or not, that's the way things are. So we need to accept it and move on.

Luke: En mass, you're supposed to reduce the risk of abnormalities becoming the plurality. But we have the opposite thing happening. I don't believe that because an idea wins the majority of the vote, that it becomes, by definition, a good idea. The popularity of faith exists because people take comfort in the fact that you can't argue against it. And because of that, it seems like there IS no argument against it. That's great and everything, but there was also a period of time when there was no argument against the fact that the earth was the center of the universe. I'm just not willing to buy off on a theory that proposes to have all the answers to life and death. Especially one that was written when the idea of a wheel would have blown people's minds.

[Jeff and Luke walk to a basketball court]

Luke: [Holding a football] People should be playing football.

Jeff: I agree. But we're on a basketball court.

Luke: Here's why basketball is dumb.

Jeff: Agreed. But, we're on a basketball court.

Luke: Here are more reasons why basketball is dumb.

Jeff: Agreed. But we're on a basketball court.

[Jeff and Luke return]

Seattlest: Let’s briefly look at the Democratic side, what impact do you feel Edwards’ departure will have?

Luke: I always vote for the best looking candidate, so I'm bummed that Edwards is out. Now I have to rely on my fallback strategy; who will do the most to get rid of the gays.

Tom: Obama is totally hotter than Edwards. AND he's black.

Luke: The day a black guy has a chance at becoming president is the day my house turns into a giant grape jelly-bean. Hold on, I'm getting a phone call….Can I stay with one of you for a couple days?

Ryan: I really will miss Edwards, he had some very good points to make, and he never stooped to mudslinging like the frontrunners. Of course, when you're that far behind, it's probably difficult to sling mud with any kind of accuracy.

Seattlest: Any final thoughts before Super Tuesday?

Ryan: Luke stole everything he said from me.

Luke: Luke stole everything he said from me.

John (The Los Angeles Times): [Panting] Sorry I'm late. SOMEBODY disconnected the brakes on my car [glares at Ryan].

Tom: [Transcends space and time].