Here’s an article in The New York Observer about Mike Huckabee in
http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com posted Welcome Fox News Sunday Viewers today http://www.foxnews.com/fns/ , after Mike Huckabee was on FOX News Sunday eith Chris Wallace, this morning. For those wanting to catch up on Huckabee, a long list of recent article links is provided. Note the one that I had not yet written, from the liberal
The following and other recent articles discuss how Romney has made contradictory remarks about federal versus national legislation about abortion. He has said that he supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide. But this article talks about him assuring Nevadans that he would leave the matter to the states. Romney's answer on abortion ripples across the country
Sure looks like one thing to one population and another thing to another. Surely not! But, there is a pretty well-established pattern with Romney… He has gone both ways on the right to life, and now he offers two prescriptions in his current role as a pro-lifer.
5 comments:
I'm not a big Romney fan, but I wonder if he's just realizing what you and I already knew: that the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which may not happen for another generation or so (or later) if Hillary wins, won't have a lot of effect on abortion. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1973 and many states -- even some bright red ones -- will have fairly permissive laws. I wonder if any state will outlaw "rape, incest, and life of the mother." It's very important to get beyond sloganeering and pandering. We have some profoundly immoral officials (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich) pontificating about social issues, and they should stop before we all get ill. I talk about Mike Huckabee again in today's column. I'm still unclear what his precise position is on the sanctity of life, other than that he's for it. (So are Mark Foley and Larry Craig I presume.) It's time for conservative, pro-life candidates to stop assuming that evangelical Christians (including evangelical Catholics) are a bunch of idiots. Tell the truth -- the new watchwords.
steve
Truth in blogging: I knew Newt's first wife, a great person, fairly well when we were all in Georgia in the early 70s. Newt had a habit of "thinking" with a part of his anatomy other than his brain. I believe his "conservative social values" are mainly for the benefit of people he consider The Great Unwashed.
Mike Huckabee's official position is that he favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I consider that a statement of sentiment: i.e., he thinks abortion is wrong and unAmerican.
But Huckabee isn't ignorant. He knows very well that a constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking and process. And I gather that at this point it has less broad and fervent support than did the failed Equal Rights Amendment back in the salad days of feminist fervor.
I am unequivocally pro-life, believing that the social indifference to life is not primarily about dying babies. People always have and always wil die. That's an issue that God can handle. But, I believe that the assimilation of the disposition of indifference to life spells mortal illness for the culture involved. I think, unless rectified, it presents a sickness unto death, at least civil if not literal collapse.
What I want no part of is the supposition that a pro-constitutional amendment confession involves any sense of progress in addressing the problem. I think Huckabee knows that the most effective power he would have as president would be to appoint judges that would recognize the American principle of the sanctity of human life and discard the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. Irrespective of wat individual states would DO, Roe v. Wade should be discared because 1) it is an unconstitution Frankenstein: live policy fabricated from constitutionally dead tissue. And 2) the policy in force would be the policy of the people, not the intimidation of a popularly promulgated judicial fabrication as "law." Judges don't make "law" in the first place.
What Huckabee can also do as president is use his platform to clarify the value of human life to the people.
I actually would favor a constitutional amendment that was simply an affirmation of the American respect of human life, just like abolition affirmed the value of liberty. But, I would strongly oppose what Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus and three-time Constitution Party presidential nominee.
Howard Phillips declared that as president he would charge US Attorneys to prosecute al abortion providers, which I believe would provoke chaos.
I do believe that abortion should be criminal, but it should be an expectation of an American state to deal with it, just like they deal with an ordinary murder. Of course many, probably most states will not make it illegal. But it is both good and right that they should decide that and deal with the consequences of their decision.
Let the amendment leave the implication of what is American value, but leave the state to deal with that. I'm not encouraging a civil war, right now.
Newt Gingrich for history teacher, not for president That part of a male anatomy corrupts the processes of a brain not soberly constrained by a higher value structure. Ironically, our culture's decaying of that constraint has the same damping affect on that constraint that "legal" abortion has on those who otherwise would not pursue it.
Larry, some very good writing about the abortion issue. I don't approve of calling abortion "murder" because murder involves intention to do just that. I wish Mike would move away from talking about a constitutional amendment. As you indicate, appointing strict constructionist judges would be the most effective approach. The goal is to reduce the number of abortions, not to score political points. It is a matter for the states. There are many things we as a society (a huge community) should do to affirm life, almost all of them opposed by the Club for Growth. They are just plain evil, although, like Satan, may be unaware of that fact.
I may (or may not) write on the issue -- depending on whether I believe there would benefit from doing so. Today I wrote about Larry Craig (and others like him).
I don't like referring to abortion as "murder," either. 1) As with immigration where the problem is American law and not the immigrant, with abortion the problem is with the American law and not the one who steps through a door that we hold wide open for them. I only referred to murder to point out that America declares the right to life, but the states enforce it and sanction the violation.
I wonder (and observation seems to eforce it) if you might not be giving enough consideration to the fact that most Americans understand a curt expression of disaproval, but can't so easily digest a 2 or 3 sentence explanation. I tried to get on a ballot once to run against Sheila Jackson-Lee. But for the reason that I mention, I don't think I would be a compelling candidate. I could never even take an objective test: To a true or false question, my answer is usually, "That depends on what is meant by that or on the conditions of the specific case..."
Post a Comment