Sunday, December 16, 2007

More Curses From The Damned And A Christmas Look At The Rebublican Presidential Candidates

Mike Huckabee appeared on CNN's Late Edition on Sunday, discussing the latest in the endless string of desperate accusations. The indefatigable Mr. Maloney screeches on, ever more shrill and clawing as his candidate sinks over the horizon. Giuliani started with just a media profile, and whatever profile they preserve for him is about all he has left. But, he raises an opportunity to discuss the Candidates for President of the United States, with Christmas just over a week away and the primary season less than 3 weeks away.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

It's true that I think Larry Perrault is a model of verbosity and dishonesty. If you cut through the endless layers of crap that he dispenses, you find an adult mimicking a two-year-old. Larry's point since the beginning has been: "My way or the highway," that is, if Mike Huckabee doesn't get the nomination, then I sit home with my pacifier and blanket. But at the same time he believes traditional Republicans, a group three times the size of the evangelical group has some sort of obligation to support Huckabee if he gets the nomination. Well, Larry, this is politics (imperfect as it is) rather than the theological absolutism you prefer. If Huckabee gets the nomination, he will perform about as well as Goldwater in the 1964 election, when Barry carried five states and got roughly 34% of the vote. Mike Huckabee seems to be a decent guy, but he is clueless about foreign policy and military affairs, which is rather an important limitation. In short, he's no Giuliani and no McCain.

Some of the people endorsing Huckabee, such as Dr. Laurence White of
Houston and blogger Larry Perrault, are America-haters who have no comprehension of what it means to live in a diverse and free society. Basically, they're theocrats who would be more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.
As this becomes clear to people, the support for Huckabee will sink like a rock. Who would be a better President of the
U.S., Mike Huckabee or Hillary Clinton? My frank view is that Mrs. Clinton would be far superior. That's a problem for Mike because I've never voted for a Democrat for President, and in all modesty, I believe I speak for a lot of people. I do predict, however, that Huckabee would carry Mississippi, although not Arkansas, New York, California, or Illinois. As the Rev. Rudes (and trust me, he is no along) and Larry Whites surface, Mike might have to start worrying about carrying Mississippi. Meanwhile, I wait for Larry Perrault to denounce his favorite pastor (and Mike's?), Dr. White, and his garbage-laden piece in "God and Caesar." If Mike agrees even in part with Dr. White, then what is he doing running for President of this country? To Larry in Houston, I ask: have you ever considered Venezuela?


Mr. Maloney, who showed up months ago as a nice guy, has gone all ugly now that his money (or whatever it is) horse has fallen from his perch even in his erstwhile "firewall" of Florida. Call me wrong, but if anything, I’m honestly wrong. I’m also not the slightest bit tempted to “correction” by Stephen Maloney. Man, you’re too old to act that way! Don’t meet God in a bitter snit! Oh, and though I haven’t seen him in a couple of years, Laurence White is always smiling and pleasant to speak with. But, this conversation raises the opportunity to take a look at the Republican presidential field, as it stands.

Maybe you want to take a look at Mitt Romney, Steve, who at this point still holds forth in New Hampshire, though he's flailing in Iowa, where he should get 2nd, but if he doesn't win Iowa, he WON"T win South Carolina or Florida or probably not even his papa's stomping grounds in Michigan. But, he looks better than Giuliani. And btw, I might vote for Romney if he wins, though it's looking like I won't have to face that awful choice. It's bad enough that he is just a political opportunist who uses polls as a tuning fork for his rhetoric. But, the really awful prospect is that he poses another eight years of relative inaction on restoring the American spirit: he has more than adequately demonstrated his incompetence in that regard. Romney would be another establishment Republican administrator. George H.W. Bush confessed that he wasn’t much on “the vision thing.” But even he had the substance of more integrity and resolve than Romney. But, Dick Morris said that Romney “doesn’t have a prayer in Hell of beating Hillary.” Maybe he could beat Barrack on resume and plain o’ life experience.

But, it’s correct that I WON”T be voting for Rudolph Giuliani for a job for which he is definitionally unqualified, but for which he looks unlikely to even attain an opportunity to contest a Democrat for. John McCain is also demonstrably philosophically opaque and unsuited to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution. But, it’s conceivable that he could finish strong in New Hampshire and the public forgive him and turn back to a known quantity after rejecting everyone else: in some ways, he looks more likely than Giuliani or Romney. But, I think he’s a good man and an honorable patriot and would be happy for Huckabee to give him a suitable post in an administration, which doesn’t seem unlikely. Fred Thompson is also philosophically ambiguous and one might raise the same question about whether he should be in an administration but…WHY and WHERE? Anyway, if he doesn’t gain a respectable 3rd in Iowa, he can probably start looking for acting jobs, again.

??What is Rudy Giuliani's experience in foreign policy? I ask not because it’s such a sober question: it isn't. America has, in fact, elected mostly governors as president. Governors don't have the kind of "experience in foreign policy" that Maloney is talking about. It doesn't take this vague idea of "experience in foreign policy," which surely people have who are all over the map in terms of ideology and wisdom. It takes principle and resolve. In fact, probably the two 20th century presidents with the most resolute and successful accomplishments had none of this prior "foreign policy experience": FDR and Reagan. Neither did G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Though Giuliani’s “foreign policy (in)experience” doesn’t dazzle me, he would rely on military strategists and thinkers like Norman Podhoretz, like any defense-responsible president would. (Come to think of it, Thompson might first need to hire someone to assemble a cabinet) Do you seriously think President Huckabee would leave the world untended and America undefended? In addition to McCain, he’s lean on people like Duncan Hunter and Frank Gaffney and others.

There are still 3 weeks for Romney, Giuliani, and McCain to smear Mike Huckabee with something that the public perceives as terrible and they will surely mightily try, so I won’t count them out, yet. At least it would be interesting to watch the Republican voters return to sniffing around the reject pile. Thompson looks like the longest shot, but his best chance might be if he’s the only remaining candidate that the voters can stomach. Hunter and Tom Tancredo I like some things about. But, they definitely lack a leadership quality for uplifting America that Mike Huckabee plainly has. Have you really not looked at the Democrat blogs and seen the expressions of either electoral fear or personal admiration, or are you just too proud to admit it? I have conversed with such people on the ‘net and in person. Huckabee definitely weakens one of the strongest sentimental motivations that Democrats have on their side: that Republicans are rich guys only looking out for rich guys. Never mind how true that sentiment is or isn’t. The perception is an indisputable reality. And, it is plainly untrue of Huckabee.

Oh, and what about Ron Paul? He has the money and the intensity (his own and his followers”), so that I don’t think he’s going away. But, I don’t see him getting less than 5% or more than 15%. Look for a melee from his followers at The Republican National Convention

I hope Huckabee faces Clinton, who has unprecedented negatives. There are a LOT of Democrats who wince at the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton. Oh, well: at least she might have YOU. Hillary’s brightest potential is that her gender might draw out voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote. Otherwise she’d probably need a third-party or a great population of stay at home Republicans protesting social conservatism “stealing OUR party!”

Any Republican nominee would ride the youth and inexperience angle against Barack Obama, and appropriately so. Give him credit for belting out syntactically correct sentences. He needs them, because substantively, there isn’t a lot there.


Anonymous said...

I bet Paul will do far better than your suggested 5% - 15% and he could win. Read, President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?

Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul. is a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.

Lee said...

It is interesting that Mr. Maloney mentioned Goldwater and the 1964 election. The way this one is shaping up, I think that is pretty much what it will look like, regardless of who the Republican Party nominates.

Head to head, Huckabee, surprisingly, does better than the rest of the Republican field, and appears to be more electable than any of the others. So if his prospects are no better than Goldwater's, then the prospects of Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and the other Republican candidates must be worse.

Larry said...


There literally is no point in arguing about Ron Paul's prospects except to say that 1) I can't SEE how it's possible, barring an intervening calamity in America, for Paul to be nominated, let alone elected. The first thing that comes to mind in that regard is another successful terrorist attack, and I certainly don't think THAT would help him. Other utterly unknown possibilities of course, can't be positively ruled out (which is a great part of why I cal them "unknown")

And 2) He has a lot of money. But, money is great for getting a message out. I don't think a billion dollars worth of marketing would SELL Ron Paul's message.

I should say this: I'm sure I couldn't vote for Giuliani. I doubt I could vote for McCain or Thompson. I don't hate or even dislike any of these men. They are just manifestly unqualified for the very basic definition of the job of US President. Yes, almost any Democrat who is or has recently been elected president would be unqualified. But, to support Republican abandonment of vital foundational American principle (all of these have postures/histories that would horrify America's founders) is to loose a doctrinal depravity in America without an established political institution to defend it.

All of that said: I believe I understand Ron Paul's identification with the American founders' advice to "avoid foreign entanglements" and his suspicion of military expansionism which, of course carries the same malignant propensities as any government enterprise.

However, 2007 is practically quite a different matter from 1800. Technological progress has exposed us to unprecedented 1) security vulnerability. And 2) moral obligation to other human suffering and oppression.

Still, in what appears to me as the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY (I think I'll win the lottery first, and I DON'T EVEN BUY TICKETS!)event that Paul were nominated, I very well might vote for him: I think he's serious (more serious than the strutting Democrats) about his non-interventionism and intentions to get out of Iraq and other places, which I think is gravely mistaken.

BUT!, I also think he's a serious patriot and would act resolutely in response to an attack on America. I also think he would soberly consider all of the military and intelligence data that would be put before him as president. But all of that is a completely abstract thought experiment: it's not gonna happen; not in this time and dimension.

And also, he would act to begin the utter dismantling of the intrusive and destructive government structures that have been implemented in the past century. That's why I think Paul would lose in a tide that made Goldwater's loss look like a squeaker: Republicans would reject him on foreign policy grounds and Democrats would reject him on domestic policy grounds.

Well, that was fun. But, I have things to do back on planet Earth.

Larry said...

Lee: You have thought that all year. I think believing in the message is a matter of faith. Truth is not just another equal brand for salesman. It is worthy to be carried, however we shortsightedly gage the prospects for sale. It isn't for us to first consider the immediate results, but to consider the potential of and obligation to the message. If you work with all your might to deliver it and it is rejected...shake the dust off your feet and go to the next house.

Family Mentors said...

Boy, I didn't get to see Mr. Maloney's whole post (Blogger seems to have deleted Larry Perrault's link), but he sounds like a pretty angry and hateful person.

Too bad. When Larry began sending me links to his blog months ago, I was quite skeptical. I'm willing to admit I was wrong about Huckabee's chances, though still concerned about his economic populism and liberal approach to immigration. Overall, he's shown willingness to consider the facts at hand -- and what it means to be president versus governor and adjust his positions accordingly. Unlike a flip-flop who changes his positions according to every prevailing wind.

To his credit, Mr. Perrault has not wavered in his support and has not blinded himself to press releases and campaign hype: he supports his candidate warts and all and more importantly, he supports the principles of this country as clearly as any of us do. To call him an "America Hater" is like calling Hillary Clinton a classical patriot.

smokey said...

family mentors:

Mr. Maloney wasn't so agitated and hot before Rudy Giuliani started to slip into question-land. I just read as blog that aasked if Giuliani still had a path to the nomination. He figured to lose the first three states, maybe doing well in Michigan and Nevada, and revving it up om Florida before the Super Primary on Feb. 5. But, he now looks like at best 3rd in all the early states and worse in ome, trails Huckabee in Mich, Romney in Nev, and both in FL. What now, a standing broad jump on Feb 5th? Huckabee has even caught him nationally and even tied him in the large Feb 5th state of Illinois. He's going to clean up on that day after a month-long run of being crushed? David Petraeus has reduced the Iraq/terrorism issue to a smolder and Hillary is dousing the anti-Hillary fears with her precarious campaign.

Maloney was once only wrong and not-so-ugly. Who is the real guy?

"though still concerned about his economic populism and liberal approach to immigration."

he is not proposing federal regulation of wealth and the economy. He's just recognizing the concerns of millions of Americans. That's a good thing and unhinges a big Democratic cudgel.

Check out Huckabee's immigration plan at . It calls for a return home for ilegal immigrants, getting in the back of the line, and streamlining and expediting the process of certifying safe and legal immigration. But, I guarantee you that he hasn't back-tracked on whether the children of illegal immigrants who have applied themselves for productive citizenship, should be punished for the crime of their parents.

Larry said...

Oops, I mean Larry...

Lee said...

One of the attractions of Mike Huckabee, at least for me, is the combination of committment to Christian social issues, particularly a firm stand on eliminating abortion on demand, among other things, and his "economic populism." From my perspective, as a member of the middle, working class, I've seen far too much of my hard earned money go to benefit the corporate wealthy in this country, through a completely unfair tax burden and through the simple lack of regulation which has allowed most corporate business in this country to go crazy with their little ways and means of legally stealing money right out of our pockets. Insurance, prescription medication, and utilities come to mind, along with the profits being pocketed in unimaginable amounts by big oil, and blamed on Hugo Chavez and OPEC. All of that is draining our pockets, and it is time for an economic populist to come along and bust some business in the chops. The working and middle classes in this country paid for the construction, and continue to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure that allows corporations to profit without having to bear anywhere close to their fair share of the cost. Why should my income be taxed at a high rate, and my savings drained at low interest to help Halliburton make millions tax free in Iraq? Why should my wife and I pay $12,000 annually to help an insurance company pay dividends to investors, and then still have to cough up $5,000 more for co-pays and minimums for basic minimal medical services?

Of course, no candidate is perfect, and if Huckabee could be brought around to see that his immigration policy needs to involve sending back everyone caught here illegally, closing the borders, and enforcing our existing immigration laws, he'd be the absolutely perfect candidate.

The bottom line is that I believe he's honest, and I trust him. He will get my vote, both in the primary and in the general election if he wins the nomination. I could care less if the Republican establishment will not support him, if that's the case then they deserve what their lack of support will get them.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I think it's critical for Larry's readers to recognize that he is a single-issue candidate -- and that his single-issue is abortion. His endless disquisitions on how Mike is really not a tax-and-spend liberal and how Mike is not really an ignoramus on foreign and military affairs aren't really about the subjects supposedly being discussed. Instead, they are rationalizations about how the American people need to elect Mike because he has the "right" stand on abortion. I've written at length on how this country can reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions. For some reason, Larry -- and his favorite candidate -- aren't interested in policies that would enhance the sanctity of life. Therefore, I've concluded that Larry, like his favorite theocrat, Laurence White, and his favorite candidte, Mike, are not interested in taking practical steps to deal with abortion. They are in fact charter members of "Pro-Life, Inc.," a political movement whose main goal is feeling superior about their philosophy. I know Larry and America-Hater Dr. Laurence White talk a lot about "values voters," but their own values seem to reflect narcissism rather than any sort of moral framework. I urge everyone who visits Larry's site to read White's "God and Ceasar." It will tell you all you need to know about White -- and, unfortunately, about Larry. I've written a couple of pieces lately about Huckabee and other candidates. It's fine for people to disagree, but they should have at least some facts and logic on their side.

steve maloney

Larry said...


Well, I've been through a long round of exasperation with the feckless Republican stablishment, and was ready to come back through the Huckabee door, earlier this year. But, the frantic resistance to Huckabee and distortion following of the past few months has renewed and heightened my exasperation.

I think the attacks on "big oil" are overblown. Trying to maximize profit? Of course: that's what companies are for; especially publicly traded corporations that are trying to reward and lure investors.

There has been some consolidation, but oil is still a competitive market. Look at gas stations across the street from each other and you will find prices within a penny or two per gallon. And if you listen to the "record profits" resentment, remember that it costs many billions of dollars for international oil companies just to operate: research, exploration, operations, labor, etc. Bill O'Reilly for example, though he's an aggressive and confrontative interviewer, plainly has no idea how basic economics work when he talks about oil companies "gouging" the American public.

All of that said, are many businesses more profligate than frugal in their operations? Yes, of course. Welcome to America! I worked for an International corporation. The American arm of our company stayed in modest hotels, but we spared no expense on "entertainment" with clients and "encouraging" salespeople. That's the way business is done.

To inject a measure of prudence and sparing into the system, the prescription is The Fair Tax. Under The Fair Tax, there is no income tax and its preparation, or capital gains tax on investment. And prices will come down because those HUGE costs will be removed from the spreadsheets that calculate them, and there IS competition. But, expenses will MATTER. THAT wil be taxed. That's one reason why the high-rollers don't like it. If it isn't a "write off," some calculation will go into operation expenses.

And PLEEEASE don't traffic in the liberal epithet, "Haliburton." Haliburton is just anothe4r corporation. I see all kinds of throwing around of words like "neoconservative" by people who clearly don't even know what a neoconservative is: it had just become a profanity to add an emotional punch to a sentence.

But, I strongly agree with Huckabee's identification with the concerns of average Americans. I decided years ago that The Republican Party was derelict in this regard, probably because of the reflexive identity of such expression with intrusive and expansive government. That, of course, has been the reaction (sometimes sincere, sometimes not) of many conservatives against Huckabee.

Will the religious angle be a primary mode of Democratic attack against Huckabee by Democrats, if he is nominated. I should think SO. The old, "he's just a rich guy catering to his rich friends" line of attack will be a tough sell, to say the least.

The GOOD NEWS is that Huckabee IS the perfect candidate for you. Go to his campaign web site and look at his plan for immigration, Secure the border and give illegal immigrants 4 months to return home and get at the back of the line to apply for citizenship, else stand at risk of deportation. He just thinks we should streamline and expedite the process of certifying the legitimacy of those applications.

I think the next thing I want to write is about my support of Huckabee as a true conservative in all senses of the term: economic, social, and defense.

Larry Perrault said...


There's really no point of discussion with someone who says you are dishonest. What's to say?

Maybe it's a betyter angle of approach for you, because everything I have read from you says that you are over your head when it comes to "facts and logic." By the way, "yes," I am a Christian and honesty and fidelity to reason (which I am relatively practiced at)are moral obligations which, in the history of your writing appear to be rather "flexible" commodities.