Talk Of The Past Few Days And An Exchange With A Frantic Giuliani Supporter

New polls continue to come out showing Huckabee now tied with or leading Romney nationally, and leading in many state races beyond the early states. Huckabee still trails Romney, McCain, and Giuliani in New Hampshire, but is gaining there, too. Thompson has almost fallen off the map. He mad such as production of a late entrance that the big question now, is how to perform the most graceful exit. Here are a few other interesting links.

Pinkerton: Huckabee's focus: 'broken humanity' http://politicalwire.com/

Stephen Maloney came by wearing slightly new clothes, evidencing that either the old was or the new is a masquerade. But, the content of the exchange was relevant. Huckabee is now of course in a slightly different position, not to be casually patted on the head as a benign no-shotter. Guns now are a’ blazin' in the campaign in general and here as well. It vaguely reminds me of when my pastor father came under attack for political reasons in a church, facing all kinds of accusations. How do I know they weren’t true? Uh, well, I know him better than you: not just his character but his motive and his reasoning. You can see that people who incline to repeat or even believe these accusations have a predisposition to be skeptical or critical based on other factors. In Huckabee’s case, some are paranoid and cynical and others are outright deceitful and hope to manipulate.

This morning, Laura Ingraham had Huckabee on her program, asked her questions, let him go, and then brought on Michelle Malkin so they could basically disembowel him, after the fact. Ingraham asked her audience to rate on her web site whether she had been fair, too soft, or to hard on Huckabee. After listening to her discussion with Michelle Malkin, I would say that she had been too soft on Huckabee: she had not pressed him with her doubts about his answers while he was there. These two fall into the paranoid and cynical category. Their conversation plainly assumed that Huckabee had not been honest in his answers. But, I assume she didn’t press him because she “knew” that he wouldn’t be honest in a follow-up, either.

Why this cynicism? He was obviously soft on immigration because he wanted to permit the children of illegal aliens to apply for a merit scholarship even after they had gone through Arkansas high-schools and qualified academically. They “knew” that the real truth was that he disrespected American law and wanted to coddle illegal aliens. Therefore his announced and published plan to address the immigration problem is obviously a phony cynical attempt to deceive the voters about his TRUE self. He also was really a liberal because he had the temerity to SPEAK to and (gasp) actually get an endorsement from the New Hampshire NEA (these people really are planning on winning elections, right? - just not by telling the wrong people what you think, I suppose) The same pattern followed on other issues.

How do I know they are wrong? Uhhh, because I’ve been watching his record and his words for nearly a year and I not only know his character, but I agree about things like not punishing children for the crime (yes it’s a CRIME) of the parents; especially when they had worked hard to improve and legitimate themselves. Am I to assume that these cynics believe that if I were REALLY opposed to illegal immigration, I would feel other wise, like Tom Tancredo or Mitt Romney is posed? If it’s his real sentiment, Romney is the one who has flip-flopped. But so what’s new, eh?

And others suppose that they “know” that Huckabee intentionally planted a story with a New York Times Sunday magazine reporter, of all places, to plant suspicions with Christians about Romney’s Mormonism. Of the dozen Christians who read the New York Times Magazine, surely a few of them were going to vote for Romney until they suddenly heard that Mormons might have some beliefs that are different from evangelical Christians. (?) On the other hand, I imagine illiterate Christians especially don’t read The New York Times magazine. But, people who think that other people are out to get them, may have a different opinion…

There’s a lot of good information in the over 8000 words other than the 10 that were lifted to create a story. Read the article for yourself. Huckabee was interviewed for hours on Dec. 3, by the reporter, and when asked about Romney’s Mormonism, said (again) that it shouldn’t be an issue. He said he didn’t know much about it, and asked the interviewer who seemed to know some things about it, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” That’s it. That exchange during a long interview, is Huckabee’s “attack.” When it was picked up in media, Huckabee personally apologized to Romney, who unlike Hugh Hewitt, for example, accepted it, graciously.

But among many other things, the article also contains this on Huckabee’s supposed “liberalism”: “Huckabee’s affability and populist economic and social views have sometimes been misinterpreted as a moderate brand of evangelical Christianity. In fact, as he wrote in his book ‘‘Character Makes a Difference,’’ he considers liberalism to be a cancer on Christianity.” But, read the article, yourself: The Huckabee Factor - Zev Chafets, New York Time

What’s so blatant to me is that these attackers suppose not only to divine the intents of Mike Huckabee. They also suppose to know more about conservatism than I do, when I was conservative before most of them ever got on a bicycle. And throughout my life, I have read real philosophical conservatives, not just sentimental hyper-reactionaries.

Anyway, here’s the exchange with Maloney, who once only seemed to be suffering from some odd and intractable obsessions, but now appears to be blowing a gasket:

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I read the piece below (no, I didn't write it but a politically of mine did), and I thought it might be a relief from Larry's continual "Mike didn't say what he said, nor did he do what he did" dissertations. I agree with it.

It's getting a little scary out there. With about a month between now and the Iowa caucuses, Iowa GOP voters seem well on their way to losing their minds and giving Mike Huckabee the win.

Have these voters been paying any attention to the Democrats? Obama and Hillary aren't just annoying they're flat-out scary. The thought of the United States being run by the devious and despicable Hillary or the ultra-liberal, pathetically inept Obama should cause any sane Republican voter to think very, very carefully before pulling the lever for their nominee.

And yet, a large portion of Republican voters have jumped on the bandwagon of an underfunded, inexperienced, out-of-touch politician who has no chance - none - of even being competitive, much less beating, the Democratic nominee.

It's one thing to make a statement, for whatever reason, but quite another to flush your party, and your country, down the toilet to make that point. If Iowa goes on to give Huckabee the nod, then I think it's time to admit the Iowa voters are just plain stupid. The GOP should take measure to ensure that "first-in-the-nation" Iowa Idiotfest is given the relevance to future Republican primaries that it deserves - NONE. Deny them delegates, punish candidates for campaigning there, whatever it takes, make Iowa irrelevant.

Voters who would rather "make a statement" with Huckabee than elect a leader of the free world don't deserve to have their votes count more than voters in other states who are actually sane. This should have been done in 1988 after Pat Robertson came in second. Why are we still listening to these Iowa Idiots?

This election is serious business. Yes, morons like McCullough sing Huckabee's praises while claiming to speak for all Evangelical Christians, but serious Republican voters have to realize that Huckabee, aside from being a poor conservative on any assize aside from abortion, does not have what it takes to defeat the real villain - not Giuliani, but Hillary or Obama.

To argue that a tax-raising, pro-immigrant, criminal-coddling, big government-loving pro-lifer is more of a contrast to Hillary than a tax-cutting, Mafia-busting, pro-GWOT fiscal conservative whose pro-choice is ridiculous, but to push the liberal pro-lifer despite the fact he will certainly lose to Hillary is nothing short of insane.

Nothing helps restore one's sanity better than staring true terror in the face. Spend five minutes listening to Hillary or Obama. Then tell me the virtues of "making a statement" in a primary during this election year.

Time to wake up, voters. This election is not a joke.

Larry said...

"To argue that a tax-raising, pro-immigrant, criminal-coddling, big government-loving pro-lifer"

Mr. Maloney, is this politically practical smear-my-opponent talk, or are the clothes coming off of your fax posturing of earlier?

That was a stunning diatribe: "The people of Iowa are idiots." Count me in. I'm such an idiot that I'm not for unrestrained tax-raising, I do not favor or encourage illegal immigration, and I do not favor criminal coddling, but I support Huckabee enthusiastically. I've seen enough of you to know that I am more conservative than you are in every respect: fiscal, defense/foreign policy, and socially. To get a lecture on those things from YOU is the height of irony.

If you really believe what you just wrote, you were misrepresenting yourself a few months ago. If you DO believe those things, then you haven't done your homework: you are swallowing the pre-digested baby-food that someone else has tossed out, hoping to deceive the dumb masses.

Social conservatives are the largest identifiable interest group in the country, of either party, and since Reagan they have done the lion's share of the campaign work for The Republican Party. Even Robert Novak admitted that social conservatives sprung The Republican Party from several decades of shuffling in the minority in America.

Rudolf Giuliani has NO chance - NONE - of beating anyone that the Democrats put up, unless you think they might nominate Kucinich or Gravel. I predicted a few months ago that Giuliani would have no choice but to begin to talk down Iowa. Now, he's wavering on whether that is a good idea. Admittedly, he is counting on Huckabee to knock Romney off-stride. But, you clearly are into talking down Iowa with both feet.

Dick Morris said that Romney doesn't have a prayer in hell of beating Hillary.

You can see a few posts down, that I raised the question of whether establishment Republicans would, in fact, rally around and support Huckabee if he were nominated, like they have always asked social conservatives to do. They may not.

So, it is THEY, not social conservatives who would be ready to watch Democrats take control. The truth is that the established money people are not the ones who will be hurt by the expansion of socialism. The established corporate interests are rewarded with the constriction of markets. The direction of the investment of the Warren Buffets of the world will be made easier: go with the pre-established market winners. The ones who will be the middle and lower class aspirants who will be denied entry into markets unavailable to those not extraordinarily wealthy.

I don't know what drives you, but it is plainly not an understanding of basic classical economic principle. But, THIS is the great irony: if Giuliani or Romney is nominated, they will be defeated by DEMOCRATS. If Huckabee is nominated and loses, he will have been destroyed by establishment Republicans. Huckabee beat the Clinton machine in Arkansas FOUR TIMES. Establishment Republicans have beaten the Clinton machine...NEVER!