Remember This In Florida And On Feb. 5

Of course, Thursday, Jan. 24th at 9 Eastern, 8 Central is the Florida Republican Debate on MSNBC. Watch Huckabee and believe what he says. There will be just Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and maybe Ron Paul intermissions. They all may support one or two of them but, Huckabee is the only one that pays mind to The Constitution, supports the Republican platform on the right to life, and recognizes the threat of Islamofascism.

Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee, today. Hunter’s views are very similar to Huckabee’s , minus the sense of humor and the expressed empathy for Main Street America

A Florida blog posted Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters by Georgia’s Rep. John Linder. I wish everyone in Florida could read this!

Also, go to http://www.hucksarmy.com/ (also linked at left)

Click on the videos tab at Huck’s Army, and view any videos you like, but specifically, look at that 5 Glenn Beck videos of an hour long video, which covered a range of issues and I think revealed the man. Huckabee is not weak on immigration, American sovereignty, or the nature and urgency of the conflict with “Islamofascism.” There are also videos at the campaign web site: http://mikehuckabee.com

What is the source of these ideas?
Well first and most simply, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson were competitors and it’s about votes. They were not principled conservatives and their criticisms were pure pragmatism.

Secondly, Big money managers (I mean big: the kind where single trades affect projects and jobs and corporate fortunes) and traders don’t like The Fair Tax. All luxuries now written off as business expenses, shifting the tax burden downward, will be taxed under The Fair Tax though savings and investments won’t. That’s why they call it “fair”: taxes are based on consumption, not production. If you buy, you pay. If you save or invest, you don’t.

Thirdly, conservatives who are sentimental more than intellectual, are traumatized by merely speech that is sympathetic, or to groups traditionally dominated by Democrats, like minorities, labor unions…etc. Again, human equality (not preference) is really a conservative issue, and conservative policy is really the best for working people (many labor unions are 40% Republicans).

And frankly, most establishment Republicans don’t fancy the idea of evangelicals at the head of the table. For them, “low church” means LOOOOOW church, as in to be looked down on. Actually talking about your beliefs is in poor form.

http://www.hucksarmy.com/

Quick Post-New Hampshire Thoughts

Just a quick post without even an external editor. My predictions for Iowa were pretty accurate, with Huckabee doing even better than I had hoped: I predicted 30% and he got 34%. Ron Paul also got 10% when I had predicted 8%. Especially in the case of Paul, I had predicted that he would exceed his polling, based on the entirely on the uncommon intensity among his supporters. As it happened, Huckabee also drew new voters to the caucuses. He wasn't the overwhelming favorite of the seasoned political observers.

For the same considerations of intensity, I predicted that Paul would reach the low teens and Huckabee 15 to 18 percent in New Hampshire, and he pulled 11: still third. There was much talk over the last month of a possible surprise showing by Paul. And, I predicted that evangelicals (20% or less of the NH Republican electorate) and Fair Taxers would show up in above average numbers.

So, what happened? Well, they did say that the turnout was large. Maybe the media clamor over the Cain-Romney match drew a crowd that overwhelmed what otherwise would have been larger percentages for Huckabee and Paul.

Anyway, if New Hampshire wasn't dictated to bu Iowa, I doubt South Carolina will be dictated to by New Hampshire. In the last Gallup national poll, Huckabee lead Giuliani 25% to 20%, with McCain a little behind Giuliani. If McCain got a bump, OK. But, Giuliani sure didn't: he was behind Huckabee and closer to Paul. Huckabee lead in South Carolina lat week, by DOUBLE DIGITS! He's lead or been a close second to Giuliani in the last few Florida polls.

Between now and those primaries, here is Michigan: which most people see as a must-win for the dogged and moneyed Romney, who grew up there and his father was governor.. He might be a sure favorite in a one-on-one match-up. But against McCain AND Huckabee, who both have natural constituencies, it doesn't loo, pollk quite so promising. And Huckabee and McCain can take any result in Michigan. Romney probably can't. He's lost where he spent ten million dollars in marketing and in his next-door state where he has a summer home. If he can't win in his childhod home where his father was governor, where will he win: not in SC and Florida, where he's just pulled his ads. He has to plan for February 5th and hope spending another 25 million will have a different result" Good luck, but most of us hate to watch those millions flushed that we could put to good use.

McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Paul, Huckabee

Dennis Prager’s thoughts about John McCain are accurate. He believes in restraining imprudent spending and a strong America with resolve against terrorism. And, he is a noble and sincere man, who generally follows his heart. But, his heart is not constrained by a lucid ideal about the proprieties and capacities of the federal government. Perhaps that relative ambiguity has permitted him to acclimate to the misguided culture of Washington, which tends to see itself as master of everything. And, it results in incongruities such as Prager mentions.

I think that Mitt Romney is obviously a competent man and probably a good man, with an obviously good and loyal family. But, I suspect that both his ambition and his great wealth incline him to be pliant in his assertions and intolerant of potential disappointment. To me, this has created a desperate and misleading candidate. Maybe he could have done better, but he hasn’t.

Personally, I LIKE Rudy Giuliani and would recommend him for many jobs. But, one of them is NOT chief executive of The United States, charged with protecting and defending The Constitution, which to me he seems plainly not to understand. I AM a conservative who believes that a culture is in decline that is loosing its respect for human life, especially its own offspring. I believe that a culture that does that can express selfishness and incivility in every area of human commerce. It is striking to me that no political party will generally affront a core constituency. Democrats for example, would understandably never nominate someone who had breathed a word to drive away any homosexual, even though that relatively small constituency is not uniform. Republicans would not nominate someone who called for expanding federal power and taxation, or for the collection of private firearms.

Interestingly though, I think because of pop-culture, put forward early and many lined up behind, a man who does not embrace a defining confession of the largest constituency in America in either party. Is this because they became accustomed to delivering a nominee and watching social conservatives line up to support him, and finally decided to go for broke? Hey, it worked for Pat Robertson, who obviously is not a shepherd, at least any more. But, the brazenness is very striking. I mentioned pop-culture: if media did not largely endorse and promote treating human life as a matter of personal expedience, no politician would endorse that; not even Democrats, I don’t think. “Pro-choicers” would be a smaller constituency than Ron Paul’s.

Speaking of whom, I think Ron Paul WILL make a showing in New Hampshire, competing with Huckabee and Giuliani for third. But, I think that will be his high-water mark. Paul is smart and he is philosophically clear. Unfortunately, his philosophy entails severe moral and security blind spots. Ron Paul has a floor to his support: an intense group will always support him. But, he also has a definite ceiling: He will never gather even 10-15% of Republican support, nationally.

I want to understand your misgivings about Mike Huckabee. Full disclosure: I am an ardent and longtime Huckabee supporter. You played an expression of his firmness about terrorist aggression. Taxes? Just look at the facts not the scuttlebutt, available on the web. As a governor, he had to balance budgets and make state government work, renewing inadequate road and education systems and improving public parks. Yes, in ten and a half years, taxes increased in Arkansas by 500 million dollars. But, the percentage of tax burden increased at half the rate of the average state, over that time. And, the improvements were measurable in all cases. And, Huckabee understand and often cites the difference between the province of state and feral government defined in the 10th Amendment.

I spoke with you a couple of months ago about the smoking ban clamor, saying that he approved a workplace regulation, in response to a Chris Matthews question, and, that he would not target private smoking accommodations. Again, just look at the record: a ban was passed in Arkansas, exempting businesses that catered only to adults or with three or fewer employees. I also cite the black and white fact that the federal government has in fact, assumed a HUGE liability for future medical costs. Discouraging unhealthy behavior is bare humane and fiscal prudence. The hostility some have toward Huckabee is not justified, certainly by facts cited. And, frankly, I am WAY more conservative philosophically than Dennis Prager or any of the vocal Huckabee critics, and my history shows it. Prager once described himself as a having been a Kennedy Democrat. Not me. Economically, George Will once said, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” No, we’re not

Thinking About The Perpetually-Heating Criticism Of Huckabee

I got an email from a friend today:

Huck has been getting hammered on liberal behavior when it comes to illegals and taxes based on what he has said and done. What do you say to that.

Of course, the criticisms get worse and probably will continue to until Huckabee wins or loses. Why might that be? Lacking a crystal ball, here are my speculations.

-----------------------------------------------

I have written about the fact that this criticism comes not from liberals, but from conservatives. Of course, I understand it coming from Republican competitors and their supporters. But, what is bothersome is when it comes from ostensibly conservative sources. The fact that it comes from acknowledged smart people highlights to me that it is frantic grasping at everything but the kitchen sink by people who otherwise would know better than what they are saying. So, why are they so agitated?

I’ve only come up with a few possible factors, which I’ll list and qualify. But first, anyone who knows me might ask why I would support such a supposed conservative infidel? I wrote about this in my last post: If I thought these accusations were valid, I wound not support him. But, I don’t think they are true or totally sincere. Some of these conservatives say that once Republicans get informed about what Huckabee is really about, his support will fall. But, the fact is that 99.9% or more of even the active and engaged Republicans are not as informed about Huckabee, his competitors, and even conservatism in general, as I am. Am I just stupid? Well, I guess people will decide for themselves. If so, I have read a lot on all sides of many questions, for nothing.

Let me emphasize that a lot of this criticism comes from people who are certainly smart enough and should be informed enough, not to throw out the things that they are. So, I would ask anyone who says or repeats these things what, specifically, they are referring to relative to immigration and taxes; and I hope we can dismiss the nakedly politically motivated assertions of Romney and Thompson. Speaking of that, consider this: why do I not support Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, or McCain? In the simplest terms: because they are not conservative. They have some propensities in a conservative direction. But, they have no clear view of the proper role of government at its various levels and about human nature, in general. That is clear with respect to every one of those I mentioned. I’m not mad at them, personally. You aren’t mad at someone for their incapacities. I am not near in the position that I can determine intentions. But, I can say that there is a problem either with intentions or perceptions and the facilities to form them. As I have said before, if they are serious, I don’t want these incompetents as chief executive charged with defending American principle, anymore than I would hire an honest carpenter to perform surgery.

So, set aside the politicians. What about the conservative writers? They are saying things that literate people (and some of them are very literate) are plenty able to find invalidating information about. If you know what you are talking about, you know that the charges are inaccurate and/or unfair. And again, the suggestion of insincerity is underscored by the fact that many of these are vested in other candidates, all of whom as I said, are eminently vulnerable to criticism on conservative grounds. So, what might be an unspoken motivation for these criticisms?

First, I’ll mention the most nakedly visceral possibility: There are a few public observers who simply have a sentimental reaction to the fact that they do not see enough fury from Huckabee about things that they are themselves all in knots about. That’s why it’s easy to fall for the immigration criticism. If you look at Huckabee’s immigration plan (at his website), I see nothing to object to: immigrants should leave the country within 4 months and get in line for legal entry, if they want to come back.

But!: the process for legal entry should be streamlined for people who plainly want to be law-abiding and work. And in Arkansas, he supported a failed proposal to allow children of illegal immigrants who have attended Arkansas public schools for years, to apply for a merit scholarship program IF they are drug-free and apply to become citizens. Huckabee said 1) that we shouldn’t punish children for the crime of a parent, and 2) we should want them to become productive tax-paying citizens rather than being long-term low-wage potential tax-takers.

I entirely agree with that. But for some people whose anger is not just with the legal chaos that government has allowed, but extends to people who like ordinary human beings have exploited chaos to provide for themselves and their families. And, that does extend to the children of illegal immigrants. And, they often don’t want them in the country, under any circumstances: Tom Tancredo proposed a moratorium on legal immigration, which is basically to redefine America. All you can do is state what you believe. Mike Huckabee says, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” There are some people who could say, “I’m a conservative, and I’m mad as hell at a whole lot of people!” (and I’m not gonna take it, anymore!)

Ann Coulter for instance, though she is bright and her books are usually well-documented (never mind the snide and provocative comments) has blistered Huckabee about even accommodating statements toward people who disagree, previously criticizing Huckabee’s comments about immigration, among other things. Last night she took another tack: like Alan Keyes the night before, she credited Huckabee on things like abortion. But then, flipping the liberal criticism about not believing in evolution, she suggested he was “backing down” because when pressed in a debate, Huckabee said, “I don’t know how God did it…I wasn’t there. But, I believe that God did create.” Coulter’s last book heavily criticized the lack of evidence of the case for evolution, and I agree with her. But, I think Huckabee is absolutely right that that argument is only a distraction and has nothing to do with the business of being President of The United States. Ann Coulter likes Duncan Hunter: a serious and decent guy, last polled at 1% in Iowa and between that and nil, elsewhere.

Now, let’s consider these other people like Robert Novak, George Will (who attacked again, today), Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes and others. For one thing, I think a lot of wealthy people don’t like The Fair Tax that Huckabee is proposing. They are doing fine with accountants writing off most of the luxuries in their life, thank you very much. Under The Fair Tax, they will pay for everything new that they or their businesses purchase, from paper clips to vehicles for road, water, or air or for real estate and developments. The net effect of all of those tax write-offs is to shift the tax burden toward less wealthy Americans: people accustomed to being special, may not be happy about a system being “fair.”

But larger than that, and this is admittedly speculation encouraged by what seems to be hollow and unnecessary criticism, I think a lot of establishment people are just ill-at-ease with someone at the head of their party who is an undaunted evangelical Christian: “EEEuuuww!” To quote Frank Costanza: “This guy…he’s not my kinda guy!” They’d prefer a flip-flopping and posturing plastic man like Romney, a social liberal Mario-Cuomo-endorsing cosmopolitan who doesn’t understand bedrock American principle like Giuliani, or a muddled-headed infidel to constitutional principle like McCain or Thompson. “Evangelical Christians are great for delivering us votes, but not for sitting at the head of our tables: Ick!”

This noise gets ever more frantic, the longer Huckabee sits at the top of the polls. On the blogs of course, particularly the viscerally conservative ones, you read al the people who in their zeal have picked up and run with these charges about Huckabee’s supposed fiscal liberalism and illegal immigration friendliness. I ask as a lifelong conservative and intense observer of the process, “Never mind what you’ve HEARD. Can you tell me what you have heard Mike Huckabee SAY that tells you that he favors illegal immigration, or even amnesty or sanctuary? Or why would you think that he just loves to spend government money without constraint and would do so as an American President?”

Mike Huckabee has opposed amnesty and sanctuaries all along. He opposed the “comprehensive” immigration bill that would have defined a path to citizenship for illegal aliens (amnesty with a slap on the wrist) and which gave John McCain’s campaign a huge blow earlier this year. And on taxes, Mike Huckabee governed a state with a Democrat legislature and a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. At one budget shortfall, he consented to the legislature’s choice of tax hikes to balance the budget AFTER the legislature had rejected spending cuts. The Club for Growth’s mercenary attack-Huckabee campaign made an ad of this special balance-the-budget session of the legislature, splicing together Huckabee’s listing of the tax options left available, to make it appear that Huckabee was inviting taxes.

Huckabee signed on early to the no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. He correctly says the federal government doesn’t need more money. And unlike his relative dullard competitors for the Republican nomination, Huckabee perfectly well understands and respects the 10^th Amendment distinction of federal and state jurisdiction and power, and cites it, frequently. That’s why I suspect that there is underlying motivation: many of these critics are not so silly and incompetent as to not understand these facts. I think their words are a way to try to spook conservatives from a cultural interloper.

Here’s what Huckabee is “guilty” of. He doesn’t let differences of opinion drive him to either scorn or to neglect of a problem because he can’t unilaterally impose the solution. And yes, he would use the bully pulpit of the president to verbally admonish Americans to strive for morally prudent behavior in their commercial operations (from this is derived criticism of his supposed disrespect of free markets), and he would ask foreign imports to meet basic American standards of safety (from this arises criticisms of his supposed disrespect of free trade) If you prefer spite and dysfunction, then yes, perhaps he isn’t the candidate for you.

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?

Larry

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 3^rd 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.

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!

See This Short Video: What We Need/We Just Need To Do The Right Thing

This video was posted at the campaign blog, today: What We Need

One of the friends that I sent it to responded…” Thank you Larry, I agree completely! I truly hope he wins....I will forward this to friends...”

I answered with these comments about what forces were at work:

Thanks. I honestly think that the battle is in the early states. In Iowa, conservative Christians like Huckabee. In a vacuum, he would win, especially after he has aired some television ads. What’s working against Huckabee is ironically, the people that should be for him. The old guard social conservatives like him, but they are so tuned to the conventional media that they don’t have confidence in the work that Huckabee has done and what he has accomplished in the early states. How much will their neglect persuade people who like Huckabee to not vote for him? Prominent talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has been declaring that it’s really a two-man race and any social conservative who votes for Huckabee or Thompson is taking a vote from Romney and in effect voting for Giuliani. He even went so far as to say that supporters of McCain and Giuliani are working for Huckabee and Thompson to derail Giuliani.

That’s an interesting thought, but it has crossed over into delusion when he says he thinks that’s what Giuliani and McCain did at the Ames Straw Poll in August to give Huckabee a strong showing. Giuliani and McCain passed on competing in the Ames Straw Poll and snubbed Iowa Republicans, obviously because they knew that they couldn’t win by trying. And, EVERONE knows that that didn’t sit too well with Iowa voters. Huckabee’s success at that straw poll was simple straight-up face-to-face engagement and persuasion.

Voters just need to ignore what they always thought were their “leaders,” which is now an especially inapt word because the “leaders” are really followers. And they aren’t even following their constituents but the faithless winds of the popular culture. People can now do all of their own investigation and should. You can access information in any form on the Internet and weight it and see what you like for yourself.

Anyway, if Huckabee does well in the early states, I’m sure he’ll do just fine in Texas.

Larry

STUNNED: Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani

My mother went to work with Pat Robertson when he was setting up The 700 Club in Detroit, over 35 years ago. I was already pretty politically observant as a boy. Pat Robertson has obviously taken a posture on political matters in The United States, as I believe is appropriate in a nation where the people are the designated and accountable sovereign. He even declared his own candidacy for President in one cycle. And, many people have relied on him as a source of counsel for Christians who are not so keenly tuned to the process.

The news this morning is that Pat Robertson will endorse Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy for the nomination of The Republican Party for President of The United States. CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani «

I am most sorry for the Christians in this country who will still rely on Pat Robertson as affirming the legitimacy of a destructive and cowardly decision to cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani in their state’s primary or caucus. I can only assume that such a calculation is made on the basis of who can win the general election and/or the hope of holding some influence in a possible Giuliani administration. I believe that the prior calculation is misguided and false: even setting principle aside, Giuliani does not offer the best prospect of a Republican victory. And, the latter interest of having influence is a forlorn one.

This action is especially misguided when Giuliani’s positions on the issues are least consonant of all the candidates with what Robertson must know is a noble disposition for the nation. And, it is especially so when one of those candidates is one who defines his objectives and actions according to the character of Jesus Christ: Mike Huckabee. I have supported Huckabee all year because he is bound by what is not only proper but vital principle. But even more so because whether I agree with a prescription or not, his model is the character of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps Pat Robertson has buried his head too deeply in the conventional so-called “pragmatism” of American politics to cast his lot with such an ideal. But, whatever the perception, I will trust in the model of Christ’s character in addition to the most fundamental principles of human propriety and American principle, both of which Giuliani plainly misunderstands. I will not support a Republican candidate who cannot decipher the most basic principles of The Republican Party and the founding of The United States Of America. To paraphrase Michael Corleone: “It’s not personal. It’s strictly Christian American business.”

Personally, I long ago assumed the responsibility to respect such principles and make up my own mind. I would at this point say to Pat Robertson: “Thank you for your service, but Christian Americans should now consider your political counsel irrelevant.”

Giuliani At N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch, 2001

Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor

Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch

The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001

As Delivered

---

Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.

As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.

So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.

I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.

[Applause]

In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.Giuliani, abortion, pro-choice,

NARAL: Giuliani Victory 'Would Help' Pro-Choice

NewsMax published the below bulletin, today. NARAL isn’t about to publish an actual endorsement of Giuliani. We “wicked anti-choice” types could only dream of that.

The pro-Giuliani Republicans are either tragically deluded or secretly pulling for Hillary (incidentally, you do recall that Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki, don’t you? Check it out! YouTube - Rudy Giuliani -- Fiscal Conservative?) And Pataki didn’t even differ with Giuliani on abortion. Pataki was “pro-choice," too. So OK, if you’re pro-life, you differ with Giuliani on abortion (for me, this is not just a difference, but an incapacity to understand American principle – and he wants to be a Republican president!?).

But plainly, there is more going on than just social liberalism with Giuliani’s endorsement of the liberal icon, Cuomo. The trumpeted justification for backing Giuliani is that “he can win.” But, the opposite is true: Giuliani can’t win. Social conservatives put a lot of the phone-bank-envelope-stuffing-pushcard-passing into Republican campaigns, in addition to getting out and voting. With all of that gone, Republicans can kiss the election goodbye.

To me, Rudy Giuliani is a fun guy. But, he’s bad for the Republican Party and bad for American principle. And even if he could make it, he would be a bad American President. In one of the debates, Giuliani was asked about the similarity of today’s defiance of the respect of life to the defiance of liberty 150 years ago, with slavery. I don’t know how many listeners accepted Giuliani’s response: “I can’t imagine anyone defending slavery…” But, that was a perfectly horrible response to the question from the perspective of debating a proposition. At the time, there was a very live and bitter debate about slavery. We should overcome this American atrocity, just as we overcame that one. I’ll never vote for an American president who can’t even understand the problem, much less engage the question.

1. NARAL: Giuliani Victory ‘Would Help’ Pro-Choice

The pro-choice political action organization NARAL believes a win by Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race would be a boon to pro-choice forces.

Giuliani’s stance on abortion rights has alienated many social conservatives and evangelical Republicans. But NARAL’s political director Elizabeth Shipp told the Huffington Post that a Giuliani victory “would help” the pro-choice movement by showing it is possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

“The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life,” she said.

“It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the wicked mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement.”

But Shipp stopped short of saying that NARAL would support Giuliani’s candidacy, although she acknowledged that he is the only GOP candidate in the field who could conceivably win the group’s backing.

NARAL — formed in 1968 as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — has endorsed only one Republican presidential candidate in the history of its political action committee, the Huffington Post notes.

In 1980, the group made a donation to Rep. John Anderson around the time he was leaving the GOP to launch an independent White House bid against Ronald Reagan.

Giuliani had a pro-choice record as mayor of New York City. He said in Republican debates in May that “it would be okay” to repeal Roe v. Wade, but added that he “would respect a woman’s right to make a different choice.”

Some Christian conservative leaders have threatened to bolt the GOP and support a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, and a number are urging Republicans to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy as a way of heading off a Giuliani win.

The Republican To Unite And Win

Rudolf Giuliani can only win the Republican nomination if social conservative leaders remain divided and enough other candidates stay in the contest. He wins a plurality in polling among 8 candidates, but he will never win a majority among 2 or 3. Giuliani wants…Giuliani needs to have a lot of other candidates in the race. He relies on a profile of media celebrity and division of the great part of the vote that is not his. Plainly, social conservatives don’t want Giuliani to be the nominee. And, I am one that you can count on not to participate in The Republican Party’s abandonment of America’s first and most fundamental principle: the inalienable right to life. The most nefarious crime is not the abortion perpetrators. It is a society that assimilates the idea that any notion of personal convenience trumps the respect of human life, even our own offspring! That is a civilization in certain demise.

Mitt Romney has invested a considerable fortune into the campaign already, and he will invest more, more quickly even than he will tack on his issues positions, including a fierce attack on anyone other than himself whom social conservatives unite behind. So, if they unite behind someone else, they’d better be certain that person has enough money to defend himself against those inevitable attacks. I don’t believe social conservatives want to see a Romney nomination, either.

Fred Thompson is a lawyer and a lobbyist. He is not a dim man. But, he is not in possession of a clear blueprint of what is moral and proper for American government. If he lacks passion it’s because he lacks the clarity of conviction to drive assert it. He is unpredictable because he has no clear philosophy. Like McCain, he was a big booster for the so-called “campaign finance reform that has made a hash of The Republican campaign, today. Thompson and McCain meant well. They just didn’t have a clear picture of what had to be defended. Thompson and Romney are the vague conservatives that are embraced not out of conviction and passion, but out of a spirit of fear.

2 Timothy 1:7 (New King James Version)

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

John McCain is out of money and in the wilderness in Iowa, not to mention the ambiguity of principle that he shares with Thompson and which repeatedly rears its head with him. He doesn’t understand the full implications of the 1^st Amendment, and like Bush before him, despite his pro-life confession, he would accomplish nothing either in policy or rhetoric to restore the American respect for the sanctity of life. It’s not his fault! Yes, of course he’s a hero and I love the resolve with which he says, “I’d rather lose a war than a campaign…” But relative to American principle and The Constitution, he doesn’t get it! That’s not particularly unique, these days: after so many years in Washington, perhaps he’s gone native. He has a good heart and has run his course loyally. It’s time to put him out to pasture.

I’ll mention Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. They are good men who haven’t a broad enough focus or an appealing enough style. Sam Brownback finally ended his campaign. They will, too and, for the sake of essential American principle and the integrity of The Republican nominee, the sooner, the better.

Ron Paul isn’t going anywhere and neither is his 5-10% of followers…forward or backward.

Mike Huckabee is closing on Mitt Romney in Iowa and has always been on a rising curve in national polling. He’s clear on American values. He’s clear on the 10^th Amendment separation and propriety of powers. He’s clear that defense and security are the first responsibility of the federal government and the president. And, he’s clear on and attentive to the legitimate concerns of most American citizens. He may well be the target of that inevitable Romney attack…and be certain that he has the money to defend himself!

Thoughtful Social Conservatism

A visitor commented on Wednesday’s post, relative to compromises on the sanctity of life. It and my reply represent an importantant conversation that is rarely undertaken even among social conservatives. Pondering the question made me think that there are many questions that we do not fully enough flesh out. “Thoughtful Social Conservatism” would be a suitable title for a discussion of these questions, though such discussion is not well-suited to the sound bites of a political campaign.

Here is the comment and response:

Notes below posted to "Greatest story never told":

Land’s “Greater Good v. Greater Evil” argument has been the GOP left’s argument for as long as I can remember. You may remember Hannity shilling for Schwartzenegger in the California runoff that made him the “Governator”? Now it’s illegal to use harmful words like, “parents,” “mommy,” “daddy,” etc. in classrooms in the Golden State because they "discriminate" against homosexuals.

We have come to a major decision point in this country. One in which we need to risk eight years of Hillary at the helm in order to forge a new pro-family coalition.

Ethically, the best choice should be the only choice. If all voters operated this way, Hillary at the helm would not be risky because she would not win in a race where people of conscience voted their conscience. With Rudy or Mitt as her opponent, the eventual victor wouldn’t matter since their views are so similar to hers. In other words, we should rally around a true social conservative and let the electoral chips fall where they will.

Short version: We can all support candidates like Huckabee because it won't matter whether they can beat Hillary.... but I believe Huckabee can win anyway.

I couldn’t find either your profile or the post you referred to. But of course you're right, that the social left of The Republican Party has long given us "Land’s 'Greater Good v. Greater Evil' argument." But, we must be certain to note that Richard Land, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer are not of the social liberal left of the GOP.

So, theirs is not an animus of antipathy to social conservatism. Theirs is what at bottom, may be the more ignoble animus of a spirit of fear, rather than a positive spirit of exalting the standard of a clear an unambiguous ideal of the sanctity of human life.

The problem is not a Narcissistic one of whether we tarnish our own integrity with respect to our values. No, the big problem is the sacrifice of what war laid down as a foundational should be an American standard and which, in fact, one major political party in The United States has unapologetically abandoned.

If The Republican Party puts that most basic of principles on the negotiating table:

1) Republican strategists need never consider it, again. Its advocates can be taken for granted.

2) We are affirming as Republicans, a chief executive of The United States who is lost on the ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC of founding American principles. That's the individual you want charged with protecting and defending The Constitution.

By the way, this is hardly a unique example of Giuliani's oblivion to American principle. Such ineptitude at comprehension of principle is a dangerous condition that will repeatedly reappear, and it has.

3) If American society assimilates and becomes passive to the denial of this most basic principle, self-centered incivility will become an acceptable and standard disposition. I believe that civility in America will be well down the path of dissolution.

By the way, one may look at my posture and assume that I am a reflexive follower of whatever position that most social conservatives and their perceived leaders espouse or embrace. Anyone is free to believe that, of course. But that assumption has the incomparable flaw of being untrue.

It is true that this blog has been generally devoted to the cause of nominating a social conservative as the Republican candidate for President of the United States in 2008. But, though we largely agree, the most important basis for my support is Mike Huckabee’s positive character, more than a perfect correspondence between our inclinations on policy questions. The latter are negotiable. The former is not.

I can point to many examples and in a book, I might. But right here on this very fundamental issue of respect for the sanctity of human life, we are presented with a good example:

Many will consider me an inflexible, unreasonable, and detrimental ideologue because I am intransigent about the morality and essential Americanism of respect for the sanctity of human life. However, I do not advocate for an amendment to The US Constitution, banning abortion, which puts me at odds with almost every social conservative that I can think of, including Mike Huckabee.

Understand, if I were president (which is a most slightly greater likelihood than that of hell freezing over), I would be glad of it. But, 1) presidents have no part in the process of constitutional amendment. Such must be at first proposed by ²/₃ of the US Senate AND the US House of Representatives and then ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. In short, as things stand, it ain’t gonna happen. Heck, a majority of a Senate CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS couldn’t even convict a Democratic president of high crimes and misdemeanors, who had repeatedly and brazenly perjured himself before a federal grand jury!

So in the first place, talk of such an amendment as of today is just a sentimental expression that abortion is wrong and/or Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional fabrication. I believe both of those things, but mere talk does nothing practical to rectify the really tragic problem.

Secondly, if such a process became a realistic possibility, we will have already progressed considerably in the necessary direction of public understanding that there is something very fundamentally amiss in American society. At this point, states and localities should reassert themselves in regulating or rejecting the practice of abortion. This process would of course, be greatly assisted by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which seems now a more attainable ambition, but I think states should challenge their captivity to this grotesquely unconstitutional ruling, regardless.

Also, the process of public and state assertion would also be greatly eased by the election of an assertive and articulate president of principle and character. And, so we return to Mike Huckabee...