Campaign Volunteers Growing: Volunteer
This article notes the fading profile and infatuation with Fred Thompson and the constantly rising one of Mike Huckabee. It is positive in acknowledging these phenomena, though passingly mentions that Huckabee “supports teaching creationism,” and “Conservatives may be a little weary of his fiscal record and his lax views on immigration.” These are not valid concerns upon close scrutiny. Huckabee believes in government that is no larger than necessary. But especially at the state level (he’s scrupulous about The 10th Amendment), that hardly extends to dereliction on legitimate responsibilities, for which revenues were enhanced because the budget was otherwise tight. Discretionary spending grew notably slowly over his 10+ years and Huckabee left the state with a large surplus; only knee-jerk anxiety could call that fiscally irresponsible. And, Huckabee is clear that the border must be sealed and controlled, though he sees the problem more as American government that most aspiring immigrants and I agree.
Newt Gingrich has remarked: “I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight,” Gingrich said. “He’s probably the best performer in terms of giving speeches and being appealing…” Gingrich, who announced Saturday that he would not seek the presidency in 2008, heaped more praise on Huckabee, the former governor of
Ann Coulter appeared on Michael Medved’s radio program on Wednesday. Medved likes Huckabee and noted that his prediction that Huckabee could be the real conservative option seems like it may be happening. He asked Coulter what she thought of Huckabee. She answered that she like that he truly believed in God, but said that she didn’t like his disposition on immigration (more of the shallow awareness that I mentioned above) , and is always talking about America improving its health.
This reminds me of the wasp-swarming I got on a conservative blog site, resenting public intervention into private sphere, in that case, Huckabee’s approval of smoke-free workplaces. But in the first place, approval doesn’t necessarily translate into blunt coercion. And secondly, it should not me a newsflash to conservatives (including me) who have bemoaned that process, but the feral government has already assumed a massive liability for health care costs in
6 comments:
That was a doozy of a first call Medved took on his show, though. I hardly ever hear him get spoofed like that.
I can't remember the call. I listen, every day. How am I doing on the sanity scale? When I looked at my post, this morning, I wondered if I was insane to keep repeating "Huckabee," instead of just putting "Huckabee news:" or something at the beginning.
If you read down, you would have seen that I won't be a Rudy guy: The amazing flexible Romney and 1st Amendment heretics McCain and Thompson are pretty distasteful, for that matter.
Great Post Larry! Things are really looking up and are progressing at a good pace. The call for volunteers is exciting, finally we all can help out in an organized way!
Larry, Larry, Larry: Mike Huckabee's fund-raising for the 3d quarter is a major disappointment. Without a lot of money, he can't compete in the states after New Hampshire, and he shows no signs of getting enough money to compete. In the national polls, Mike is barely ahead of Ron Paul (who has a lot more money).
He need to re-think the whole idea of a presidential campaign. He need to think about endorsing one of the candidates who has a realistic chance of winning the nomination -- and, beyond that, the presidency.
Evangelicals are very strong when it comes to charitable contributions (especially to their churches) but they are extremely weak when it comes to making political contributions.
The vast majority of evangelicals will not waste their votes (or their money) on a third party candidate, one vetted by people like Dr. Dobson and Ted Haggard, so the issue becomes: which Republican candidate is the most likely to win the race against Mrs. Clinton? Morever, which candidate for president is most likely to have a positive effect on the vote totals of conservative candidates? The race now boils down to Rudy Giuliani vs. Mitt Romney (who is pouring 10s of millions of dollars from his own vast fortune into the race). In politics, the only sound approach is to vote for the best possible candidate. Otherwise, we end up the worst possible candidate.
steve maloney
P.S. Mike Huckabee has "fought the good fight," and now is the time for him to move on to the next phase of his life.
The critical issues for evangelicals are these: (1) There is absolutely no chance of amendment outlawing abortion to get a majority vote in either House of Congress, let alone to get the two-thirds majority needed; (2) The issue is to determine which candidate will work the hardest to reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions -- and not only the adoptions of cute little Caucasian babies, but children of all ages. That was one of things candidate Huckabee meant when he said that "life doesn't end at birth."
People who don't recognize these rather cruel realities are part of what I've called "Pro-Life, Inc.," people who are pro-life primarily because it makes them feel good about being "pro-life." Principle has nothing to do with it.
People like Larry and his mentor, America-hater Laurence White, are charter members of Pro-Life, Inc.
The last proposal to overturn Roe v. Wade by congressional vote took place in 1983 (the Hatch-Eagleton proposal). The next one might occur in 2083 -- or never. The 1983 proposal required 67 votes, and it got 49. It would not get anything like 49 today.
Surveys show that 80% of the American people support the availablity of abortions to pregnant women in the first trimester (prior to the embryo's "quickening"). That doesn't sound like good news for those who dream about a constitutional amendment, including candidate Huckabee.
There is significant public support for outlawing second-trimester and third-trimester aboritions, but "Pro-Life, Inc." doesn't have any interest in that. It would interfere with their capacity to feel superior to those who disagree with them.
The reason I'm supporting Giuliani, as the vast majority of Republicans will, is that he recognizes the reality of points one and two and is prepared to take whatever practical steps are available to reduce abortions and increase adoptions. The candidates who promise more are merely blowing smoke.
I am more than half-convinced that you also know as I do that the Giuliani reduced abortion bit is blather. It makes no sense and an honest look at the record shows that it isn't exactly accurate in Giuliani's New York. Along with that "strict constructionist" thing which also doesn't make sense, it's the best line line that Giuliani can take, this side of doing a giga flip flop that would make Romneys' look modest.
Clearly, you don't understand American and civil principle. Again, why did some hold fast for the abolition of slavery? It wasn't to make them feel good. It was because it was WRONG and a frightful social and civil illness. At this point, if you understood what I'm talking about, I would be surprised because to date, you can't comprehemd the logic of an alternative perspective. You only see wickedness in any perspective but your own, which again is a great irony while narrow-mindedness is your favored charge against everyone else. Actually, I can understand Giuliani's logic. I just think it springs from false and malign premises and thereby reaches a terrible conclusion.
Post a Comment