Friday, October 5, 2007

Huckabee's Progress And Responsible Support - Reply To Maloney's Pathetic Comment

I'm a supporter of Mike Huckabee until he wins the nomination or he, himself, decides that he can better serve in another way. But, I'm sure that they are well aware of the hapless outlook that some people labor under.

Huckabee has never risen like a rocket and become a media celebrity and those two things are not coincidental. If he was a conservative heretic on some things, like the 1st Amendment (McCain, Thompson) or the sanctity of human life (Giuliani and before him, Colin Powell – Alan Keyes was a Harvard Ph.D. with a Reagan administration resume. Was the media turned on about this black Republican? Of course, not), the media would be frothing about him, he’d have a lot of money and a lot of support.

You don’t have to imagine his appeal to non-conservatives, which we’ve all seen, to know this. There are many influential conservatives who agree with him up and down the line, who are leaning elsewhere or sitting on their hands at least for now, because they harbor an element of the same delusion that Stephen Maloney does, about whether they will be invested in a “winner,” because they live in a media-created reality. I’ve been speaking against that for many years. It’s better today, than it was 10 years ago. It was better 20 years ago, than it was 10 years ago. And, it will be better (even more, with changing technology) in ten years than it is now (barring some great intervention), than it is today. I have written to others about that futile and fatal disposition.

We aren’t just supposed to prefer what we believe. We are supposed to believe that it has potential that no one, let alone polls and media, understand. Speaking of not overnight, but constantly better, Huckabee’s profile, unlike all the others’ ups and downs, has constantly risen. If that continues and some prominent conservatives take notice and/or endorse him, he will win the nomination. Notice Huckabee’s continued progress in the polls, even reflected in a new poll announcement, today:
October 05, 2007 - 09:21 AM
Huckabee Rising

And he will be the best candidate that The Republican Party can put forward for the general election. He’s the most likeable, the most consistent, and the most clear. And most of all and the main reason I’m supporting him, though I would on his record and positions, anyway, is that he not only believes in God, he makes it a point and is forthright about it, to carry the character of Jesus Christ in his disposition, toward both issues and other people. That sets him apart in politics and is something that the nation is fairly starving for.

Stephen Maloney, when I read your comment I thought, “That’s it: I don’t need this foolishness posted on my blog, all the time.” For all I can tell, you don’t even read what I write. You don’t react to it, let alone showing any agreement or even acknowledgement of it. I was thinking I’m going to have to moderate comments.

But I started replying and it got long into something I wanted to post, and I thought, “Wait a minute! Responses to this kind of foolishness are just what we need! If you want to write the truth, it will be provoked by error. So, if you want to play blocking dummy for the team, knock yourself out, and thank you!

Two things: I surely won’t be disappointed if you have an epiphany and I only have the ordinary pop-culture provocation. And secondly: think whatever you will about America and political strategy, but kindly leave my family out. That would seem obligatory and of course, you don’t even know my family. But ignorance hasn’t sopped you before, let alone kindness. You’re all hot about politically correct ideas of kindness. But personally you can be one rude son of a gun.


Stephen R. Maloney said...

There's a very good column on the extremist element of "Christian" conservatives in The Pink Flamingo (which has a link on my web site). Here are the comments posted by tw GOP activists:

A GOP activist who will remain nameless sent me an email this evening. He is discussing a conservative “Republican” who will also remain nameless.
“…My impression is that [Santorum]… has no affection for humanity, and that is a terrible failing in a politician. I have been blasting SOME Christian conservatives for quite some time. They believe the way you get a constitutional amendment is to shout at the top of your lungs that you want one. …”

Another GOP activist wrote this: “…I do not in any way feel represented by the cabal of Right Wing talkers, bloggers, TV pundits, etc. If we continue to allow Western Civ to be represented by flamethrowers and conspiracy nuts, we may lose the war. I honestly think our first order of business is to step away from the echo chamber and regroup into a party that might actually attract normal people -- meaning non-political junkies like me. I now find Rush, Ann, Laura, Sean, Bozell, et al. stale, unserious, and uninspiring in the extreme. They had their decade (the 1990s) but should have shed the old skin after 9-11-01. Instead they've become many of the things they claim to despise, and I don't want to go there with them just for old times sake….”

No matter what the short-term political cost it's essential that the Republican Party gets back to the point where it is attractive once again to "normal Americans."
If it doesn't, our time in the wilderness will be long indeed.


Larry Perrault said...

I don't identify with any of the people you mention. But, say. I often don't agree with his choice of approach, but saying Santorum "has no affection for humanity," is strange and unfair. Well, given the way you've treated so many other people, I guess it's par for the course. I really wonder what stream of Christianity you identify with. You're very judgmental and condemnatory, especially for someone who nakes a diversion of cursing people that you say are judgmetal and condemnatory.

I certainly agree that we must be attractive to normal people. But, I don't believe that that is what you perceive it as, or that that is sought out and perceived in the way you seem to go about it.

What you say, sounds to me like you would have been "flexible" in the 19th century, in order to appeal to the people who wanted to keep their slaves.