I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'
The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.
Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.
Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Palin 2012 Correspondence
The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party
Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late
I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.
I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.
But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.
A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.
All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.
Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:
Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.
Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com
Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late
I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.
I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.
But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.
A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.
All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.
Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:
Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.
Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Gullible Nation Should Get Serious
I listened to my favorite thoughtful and gracious conservative talk show hosts, today. I fear they were more than a bit more sanguine than I feel. Bill Riggs also has put a resigned and constructive-going-forward semi-smile on it.
The depth of my discomfort is not specifically with the threat of Barack Obama personally, especially when surely Republicans will mount a filibuster against most extreme liberal measures, such as card-check, The Fairness Doctrine, and even huge tax increases.
But what is most sobering is that a majority of Americans were incapable of what ought to be the most common-sense understandings: that Barack Obama manipulated his audiences as necessary, changing his punch lines when moving from circumstance to circumstance and audience to audience. Perhaps there is an audience for the contemporary equivalent of the old medicine-show (booze-spiked) tonic peddlers. I’m not saying that Republicans and conservatives (not always coincident) should not approach Barack Obama with genuine positiveness about what we truly believe will help America.
But it’s true in fact for example, that large companies are marketing "green" products to "help the environment" and forestall global warming. Hey, I agreed with Huckabee's steering of the issue to the simple call to be stewards of the environment. Surely we know from our own history and the local legacies of reckless Soviet industry, that we can scar and tarnish the land with careless human commerce. However as to anthropogenic global warming, I see only frantic and cynical posturing on the part of a few to mobilize the many: a lynch mob on steroids.
On that subject I say, "Don't listen to me. Don't listen to any organization or individual, conservative or liberal or ostensibly otherwise. Go directly to the historical and scientific data. Not anyone's presentation of it: the historical facts, the numbers, and the graphs. I have. There was for a relatively long time a very slow global warming trend, as there have been warming and cooling trends through history, mostly evidently owing to solar activity. In fact, for the past few years, average temperatures have actually fallen. But the idea that carbon dioxide (a not only common but ubiquitous and essential element) in the atmosphere poses an imminent threat to life itself simply is not in the data. Human caused global warming is a secularist sin account and a proposed consequent of global calamity is a secular apocalypse.
But back to the point: Is this vulnerability to the simplest manipulation the result of or even related to an increasingly federally-dominated education system (in which G.W. Bush played a greatly facilitating role, by the way)? Are we becoming a nation of dupes? Our primary preoccupation not with the sober essentials of life but with amusements such as television, music, I-pods, and video games (not bad things; just not primary) hasn’t helped. You may not want to listen to a curmudgeon like me. But if you can spare a few minutes, aside from reflecting on what we curmudgeons are talking about with regard to essential principles like life, liberty and property, you should also consider that Europe is awash and near drowning in an Islamic influx and growing domination. Do a little study of Geert Wilders’ description of this European problem and the Islamic aggression that is only fainter in US due to relative distance, which may only offer us a little more time. You can fin Geert Wilders and his short movie, “Fitna,” on the web. He is a lead character in a coming December meeting to discuss opposition to “Islamicization.” It will convene in Israel, which Wilders describes as not the unique target but only the leading edge Of Islamic aggression against Western Democratic Judeo-Christian values. On the other hand, you could just turn the music up louder.
The depth of my discomfort is not specifically with the threat of Barack Obama personally, especially when surely Republicans will mount a filibuster against most extreme liberal measures, such as card-check, The Fairness Doctrine, and even huge tax increases.
But what is most sobering is that a majority of Americans were incapable of what ought to be the most common-sense understandings: that Barack Obama manipulated his audiences as necessary, changing his punch lines when moving from circumstance to circumstance and audience to audience. Perhaps there is an audience for the contemporary equivalent of the old medicine-show (booze-spiked) tonic peddlers. I’m not saying that Republicans and conservatives (not always coincident) should not approach Barack Obama with genuine positiveness about what we truly believe will help America.
But it’s true in fact for example, that large companies are marketing "green" products to "help the environment" and forestall global warming. Hey, I agreed with Huckabee's steering of the issue to the simple call to be stewards of the environment. Surely we know from our own history and the local legacies of reckless Soviet industry, that we can scar and tarnish the land with careless human commerce. However as to anthropogenic global warming, I see only frantic and cynical posturing on the part of a few to mobilize the many: a lynch mob on steroids.
On that subject I say, "Don't listen to me. Don't listen to any organization or individual, conservative or liberal or ostensibly otherwise. Go directly to the historical and scientific data. Not anyone's presentation of it: the historical facts, the numbers, and the graphs. I have. There was for a relatively long time a very slow global warming trend, as there have been warming and cooling trends through history, mostly evidently owing to solar activity. In fact, for the past few years, average temperatures have actually fallen. But the idea that carbon dioxide (a not only common but ubiquitous and essential element) in the atmosphere poses an imminent threat to life itself simply is not in the data. Human caused global warming is a secularist sin account and a proposed consequent of global calamity is a secular apocalypse.
But back to the point: Is this vulnerability to the simplest manipulation the result of or even related to an increasingly federally-dominated education system (in which G.W. Bush played a greatly facilitating role, by the way)? Are we becoming a nation of dupes? Our primary preoccupation not with the sober essentials of life but with amusements such as television, music, I-pods, and video games (not bad things; just not primary) hasn’t helped. You may not want to listen to a curmudgeon like me. But if you can spare a few minutes, aside from reflecting on what we curmudgeons are talking about with regard to essential principles like life, liberty and property, you should also consider that Europe is awash and near drowning in an Islamic influx and growing domination. Do a little study of Geert Wilders’ description of this European problem and the Islamic aggression that is only fainter in US due to relative distance, which may only offer us a little more time. You can fin Geert Wilders and his short movie, “Fitna,” on the web. He is a lead character in a coming December meeting to discuss opposition to “Islamicization.” It will convene in Israel, which Wilders describes as not the unique target but only the leading edge Of Islamic aggression against Western Democratic Judeo-Christian values. On the other hand, you could just turn the music up louder.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Monday, October 6, 2008
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain's VP Pick: Romney, Huckabee...?
The Politico has reported a planned meeting with McCain in Missouri of Huckabee and Romney just before the convention and after NcCain’s projected announcement of a running-mate. Actually, I’m pretty weary of all the speculation and supposed eagerness about McCain’s VP pick. Obviously, I’m a big Huckabee fan and would personally think the country would be better off with him poised as an advisor and presumptive heir. And, I also think Huckabee would animate what is as large and vital constituency as either party has: not only for voting themselves but for providing essential campaign elbow grease.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
On Huckabee And Conservatives, Dennis Prager And The Fair Tax, And John McCain's Economy Comments
I still have not been posting regularly, though I have been cruising other Blogs. There is much on my mind that I want to get into. But alas, current considerations come to the front.
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
Monday, March 31, 2008
Changes And Supporting McCain
I unsurprisingly got a comment about my writing and expressing surprise at my support for McCain. As I’ve said before, over the last several years, my ideology hasn’t changed much. But, my disposition has shifted and the conditions we face have changed dramatically. Here is my response:
Cindy:
I'm sure it was on Kerry's One Mom Blog that I saw a comment of yours. I still look in on a handful of Blogs that I watched for months. I've hardly watched my own, in March. Is this mental decompression? There are still things going on in my head. I think I'll turn to a more personal focus on my perspective on life as a person with MS who spends a lot of time analyzing socio-philosophical questions. I don't have the popular platform of a public office or a media program. I don't even have an academic title to flaunt as credentials. I went to graduate school and finished my coursework in the early 80's, but I started working before I finished my essay. In case anyone asks, you can make money as a salesman that you can't make as a student or even as a teacher unless you get a Ph.D. and a good university position. I was at Western Kentucky, not Harvard or Stanford. (Speaking of marketing credentials) :-)
But plainly, I do have a unique position as a philosophically oriented person with multiple sclerosis. It has been interesting watching what has happened in my body and my subjective experience, as well as looking at society from a perspective not largely occupied with labor or an office. There are a lot of people with MS who don't get enough input about the physical and social effects that one might face, and most people have a friend or family member with MS. That's a fairly large potential audience, and their attention might (hardly incidentally) be directed to some social questions.
Speaking of that, I believe I mentioned that I was a MAJOR McCain critic. In the 2000 election cycle, of 14 original Republican candidates, McCain was my LEAST favorite. I called him "philosophically incoherent."
But as I said, I've come to recognize his unique virtues and our unique situation. Especially given that those unique virtues include a gracious and well-meaning disposition, when it comes to those philosophical questions, we should befriend and encourage him, not scorn and repel him. If he disappoints conservatives, that should be all his doing, not ours.
But, the other virtues include a thoroughgoing patriotism relative to foreign policy. And also critically important TODAY is his record and resolve against extravagant government spending. This is no longer a future concern: the entitlements tidal wave hits over the next ten years. For instance, S.S. disability is getting difficult to be approved, because bureaucrats see that there is no money. The plain truth is that there are very few politicians with the resolve McCain will have about controlling spending. That's why Tom Coburn supports McCain. In the statewide constituency pork barrel-prone Senate, Coburn is the closest thing you will see to a "Dr. No."
Just yesterday for instance, McCain said that it isn't the federal government's job to bail out businesses that made bad loans. He's right. This is just the umpteenth manifestation of the endemic pathology of the federal government that subsidizes failure and penalizes success. Of course, this invites more failure and less success. We need to support McCain for these literal VITAL reasons, and encourage and counsel him where we disagree. I think I'll post THIS.
Cindy:
I'm sure it was on Kerry's One Mom Blog that I saw a comment of yours. I still look in on a handful of Blogs that I watched for months. I've hardly watched my own, in March. Is this mental decompression? There are still things going on in my head. I think I'll turn to a more personal focus on my perspective on life as a person with MS who spends a lot of time analyzing socio-philosophical questions. I don't have the popular platform of a public office or a media program. I don't even have an academic title to flaunt as credentials. I went to graduate school and finished my coursework in the early 80's, but I started working before I finished my essay. In case anyone asks, you can make money as a salesman that you can't make as a student or even as a teacher unless you get a Ph.D. and a good university position. I was at Western Kentucky, not Harvard or Stanford. (Speaking of marketing credentials) :-)
But plainly, I do have a unique position as a philosophically oriented person with multiple sclerosis. It has been interesting watching what has happened in my body and my subjective experience, as well as looking at society from a perspective not largely occupied with labor or an office. There are a lot of people with MS who don't get enough input about the physical and social effects that one might face, and most people have a friend or family member with MS. That's a fairly large potential audience, and their attention might (hardly incidentally) be directed to some social questions.
Speaking of that, I believe I mentioned that I was a MAJOR McCain critic. In the 2000 election cycle, of 14 original Republican candidates, McCain was my LEAST favorite. I called him "philosophically incoherent."
But as I said, I've come to recognize his unique virtues and our unique situation. Especially given that those unique virtues include a gracious and well-meaning disposition, when it comes to those philosophical questions, we should befriend and encourage him, not scorn and repel him. If he disappoints conservatives, that should be all his doing, not ours.
But, the other virtues include a thoroughgoing patriotism relative to foreign policy. And also critically important TODAY is his record and resolve against extravagant government spending. This is no longer a future concern: the entitlements tidal wave hits over the next ten years. For instance, S.S. disability is getting difficult to be approved, because bureaucrats see that there is no money. The plain truth is that there are very few politicians with the resolve McCain will have about controlling spending. That's why Tom Coburn supports McCain. In the statewide constituency pork barrel-prone Senate, Coburn is the closest thing you will see to a "Dr. No."
Just yesterday for instance, McCain said that it isn't the federal government's job to bail out businesses that made bad loans. He's right. This is just the umpteenth manifestation of the endemic pathology of the federal government that subsidizes failure and penalizes success. Of course, this invites more failure and less success. We need to support McCain for these literal VITAL reasons, and encourage and counsel him where we disagree. I think I'll post THIS.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Pros And Cons Of John McCain
I’m anxious to hang it up for today, but I wanted to say at least a little about John McCain. Understand: Tuesday is the Texas primary, I already voted early for Mike Huckabee, and will promote Huckabee and his ideas in the Texas convention process. Today, I was cited polls supposedly showing a poll margin of twenty or more percentage points for John McCain over Mike Huckabee. But, that will not happen. One direction or another, I think the difference will be single digits. I have a number of reasons to say that, but time will soon tell. As an example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed John McCain. And depending on turnout, that should prove a net (additional) negative for John McCain. A large turnout of relatively casual observers may favor McCain. But, the greater percentage of the vote that is more activist Republicans, the better it will bode for Mike Huckabee. Though it is March in Texas, I wish it would snow.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain, Huckabee, Conservatism and Audacious Integrity/Dear Dr. Dobson
Rett Hatcher posted a comment on James Dobson’s statement that he cannot vote for McCain: Dobson Puzzle
My comment was extended it enough that I needed to post and reference it, discussing McCain and Huckabee…
Rett:
Listen, I went to my state Republican convention in 1998 with a stack of flyers detailing the problems with a few Republican figures, most notably John McCain. In 2000, and 2004 I voted third-party, in fact leaving the Republican Party and joining The Constitution Party. I'm in Texas and I knew that George W. Bush was philosophically skeletally structured. When he was elected I said, "Leviathan gets a night manager," and I was exactly right. The fact is that the Republican Congress never would have let Al Gore do things like double the federal Department of Education and greatly expand Medicare entitlements, for example: that required the affirmation of an "R" president.
I'm not angry at Bush and in fact hugely appreciate his resolve in opposing violent Islam and defending America and humanity, which is just one reason why I left The Constitution Party, the spokespeople and probably the majority of which have a foreign policy disposition closer to Ron Paul's. I wish Bush had had the same resolve about the social vitality of America. But, I always knew that that facility was not there.
Generally, I think McCain is similar and probably worse, in terms of philosophical ambiguity, because he has plainly shown a vulnerability to usually misguided pop-ethics. I think Bush has a helpful combination of sound counsel and political pragmatism, and McCain may be less amenable to countering advice. McCain's extraordinary resolve can be bad as well as good. A man who has never supported a tax increase, can go into Iowa as a candidate and oppose ethanol subsidies, oppose Bush's tax reductions out of conviction about spending, oppose Bush's expansion of Medicare, support resolve in Iraq at the lowest ebb of that position's popularity several months ago...there's plenty more, but I hope you get the idea...is strikingly loyal to the convictions that he HAS in today's political world.
I'm aware of the paradox in what I'm saying: McCain is philosophically deficient, but faithful to his sentiments. For me, that makes him preferable by legions to the picture that Mitt Romney's history presents to me. Provide him with surrounding counsel that is equally decent and philosophically more lucid.
I think Romney should get out. He can only compete in a few Western states. But, it amounts to a demonstrable waste of money. In the contests he needed, he lost to BOTH McCAIN AND HUCKABEE! Huckabee can very possibly win in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and strongly compete in Ohio (very pro-life Catholic), South Dakota, and possibly Kansas. But Romney can do as he likes with his money. I just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone with it and doesn’t try, and I don’t think he will…anymore.
Huckabee can take a substantial stack of delegates. If he becomes the nominee, McCain NEEDS badly to animate the social conservatives in the South and Midwest, as is so starkly illustrated in James Dobson's comment that you cite. I don't know if there's possible path to that other than Huckabee on the ticket, who also balances McCain's age, appeals to women and youth. And believe it or not you aggravated conservatives; Huckabee also is the answer to that inclination to philosophical dysfunction, where he is clear and articulate. The only problem a McCain-Huckabee ticket can possibly have is if some conservatives continue to make a stink about it. I’m glad Hugh Hewitt has relented and is being positive about the fall Republican ticket. I’m waiting to hear about Rush’s or Ann coulter’s foolishness.
In truth, where Huckabee is distinguished from this rabid population is in his lack of animosity and his realism, which is another source of my separation from The Constitution Party. I am a Christian, as are most all of the CP, mostly good and thoughtful and dedicated people. But, the model of Christ engages reality, not just an abstract and practically irrelevant ideal. Jesus had the Spirit of God...IN a FALLEN world. The whole point of the divine incarnation is that Jesus LOVED SINNERS, which incidentally includes ALL of us. We don't require grace any less than anyone else. Our duty as grace's recipients is to be the expression of God's grace to a world as flawed as we are.
Constitutionalists will insist that government has nothing to do with that. As an example that I have written about in the past, many months ago now, I visited a web site organized by a constitutionalist guru after they misunderstood the issue that had arisen about Huckabee and a smoking ban. In the first place, Huckabee’s position was misconstrued and the question hadn’t arisen as it had been portrayed. But, I raised another question about the extremity of health care costs and the need for their containment. I was immediately swarmed as though I had shaken a stick in a beehive: “…no constitutional authority!" they scorned, which was correct: there is none. But a little reality check is in order and urgently in need. The federal government is fairly drowning in medical liabilities that it has accrued, never mind the high and rapidly escalating personal costs that the system, including govt. regulations. Constitutionality is irrelevant: the costs and liabilities are an intractable FACT. What is a meticulous constitutionalist going to do about that? It seems like they are going to pretend it isn’t there.
But, all of that is part of the exile into abstraction, which I suspect animates much of the hostility against Huckabee, who commits the audacious apostasy of even expressing concern for the concerns of ordinary Americans, including populations that have to a great extent favored Democrats: minorities, laborers, or simply as he says, “Main Street” Americans. If we can’t even talk like that, such populations will stay largely Democrat strongholds. Conservatives need to work on and explicate conservative responses to those concerns. Reality is that the utter disjunction of government from moral concerns is a battle long lost. If you don’t want to play, you may as well leave the field. But to some conservatives, empathy only translates to the love of unconstrained taxing and spending and “open borders.”
That root problem of Huckabee’s empathetic expression runs through most of the so-called “conservative” complaints about him. As a state government must do, taxes were raised (though modestly) to address state essentials. States must provide education, build roads, and maintain parks, which was the great bulk of tax increases. Under Governor Huckabee, Arkansas also (gasp) gave very poor children access to Medicare coverage. Scandalous! And all of this was in a state with an 80% Democrat representation, by the way. But, Huckabee cut taxes at every opportunity, including a broad-based income tax reduction, and all of them were unprecedented in Arkansas. The tax attacks were politically and/or personally motivated, and drastically deceptive.
Likewise, he did not scorn and spurn illegal aliens. But in 2007, he opposed the immigration bill that didn’t secure the border first, and later outlined the most rigorous immigration enforcement bill, which offered incentives rather than proposing (ultimately probably empty) threats, to return home and pursue an orderly legalization via a hopefully expedited process. And the Fair Tax idea that Huckabee endorses and advocates for is the most economically liberating and stimulating idea to have appeared in our lifetimes.
I support Huckabee because he’s a remarkable combination of philosophical clarity, empathetic realism, sound character, and engaging leadership. Today, I heard Bill Krystol doubting Huckabee’s potential as a VP option, saying McCain would need someone of “more stature,” and mentioning Jeb Bush, though acknowledging the last name is a problem.
What does one have to do to achieve “stature?” Huckabee was Arkansas governor longer than Bill Clinton and longer than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. I’ll acknowledge that Florida is larger and more electorally critical than Arkansas. But, I may be accused of mere “identity” defensiveness as an evangelical Christian, but I can’t help but think that Huckabee wouldn’t meet the “stature” standard, even if he had served his 101/2 years (14 as Governor and Lt. Governor) in Florida, precisely because he is an evangelical Christian, which can be condescended to, even if subconsciously, by the political establishment. That’s an irony when so many establishment Republicans endorsed Romney, whom I assume has no “stature” problem, even though he was Massachusetts governor for only 4 years.. But, Romney might have gotten similar treatment if, in addition to affirming his Mormonism and the role of “faith” in America., he said things like, “My faith not only informs me, it defines me.” That is laudable in terms of integrity and consistency. But, in terms of pop-culture, it’s “politically incorrect.”
My comment was extended it enough that I needed to post and reference it, discussing McCain and Huckabee…
Rett:
Listen, I went to my state Republican convention in 1998 with a stack of flyers detailing the problems with a few Republican figures, most notably John McCain. In 2000, and 2004 I voted third-party, in fact leaving the Republican Party and joining The Constitution Party. I'm in Texas and I knew that George W. Bush was philosophically skeletally structured. When he was elected I said, "Leviathan gets a night manager," and I was exactly right. The fact is that the Republican Congress never would have let Al Gore do things like double the federal Department of Education and greatly expand Medicare entitlements, for example: that required the affirmation of an "R" president.
I'm not angry at Bush and in fact hugely appreciate his resolve in opposing violent Islam and defending America and humanity, which is just one reason why I left The Constitution Party, the spokespeople and probably the majority of which have a foreign policy disposition closer to Ron Paul's. I wish Bush had had the same resolve about the social vitality of America. But, I always knew that that facility was not there.
Generally, I think McCain is similar and probably worse, in terms of philosophical ambiguity, because he has plainly shown a vulnerability to usually misguided pop-ethics. I think Bush has a helpful combination of sound counsel and political pragmatism, and McCain may be less amenable to countering advice. McCain's extraordinary resolve can be bad as well as good. A man who has never supported a tax increase, can go into Iowa as a candidate and oppose ethanol subsidies, oppose Bush's tax reductions out of conviction about spending, oppose Bush's expansion of Medicare, support resolve in Iraq at the lowest ebb of that position's popularity several months ago...there's plenty more, but I hope you get the idea...is strikingly loyal to the convictions that he HAS in today's political world.
I'm aware of the paradox in what I'm saying: McCain is philosophically deficient, but faithful to his sentiments. For me, that makes him preferable by legions to the picture that Mitt Romney's history presents to me. Provide him with surrounding counsel that is equally decent and philosophically more lucid.
I think Romney should get out. He can only compete in a few Western states. But, it amounts to a demonstrable waste of money. In the contests he needed, he lost to BOTH McCAIN AND HUCKABEE! Huckabee can very possibly win in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and strongly compete in Ohio (very pro-life Catholic), South Dakota, and possibly Kansas. But Romney can do as he likes with his money. I just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone with it and doesn’t try, and I don’t think he will…anymore.
Huckabee can take a substantial stack of delegates. If he becomes the nominee, McCain NEEDS badly to animate the social conservatives in the South and Midwest, as is so starkly illustrated in James Dobson's comment that you cite. I don't know if there's possible path to that other than Huckabee on the ticket, who also balances McCain's age, appeals to women and youth. And believe it or not you aggravated conservatives; Huckabee also is the answer to that inclination to philosophical dysfunction, where he is clear and articulate. The only problem a McCain-Huckabee ticket can possibly have is if some conservatives continue to make a stink about it. I’m glad Hugh Hewitt has relented and is being positive about the fall Republican ticket. I’m waiting to hear about Rush’s or Ann coulter’s foolishness.
In truth, where Huckabee is distinguished from this rabid population is in his lack of animosity and his realism, which is another source of my separation from The Constitution Party. I am a Christian, as are most all of the CP, mostly good and thoughtful and dedicated people. But, the model of Christ engages reality, not just an abstract and practically irrelevant ideal. Jesus had the Spirit of God...IN a FALLEN world. The whole point of the divine incarnation is that Jesus LOVED SINNERS, which incidentally includes ALL of us. We don't require grace any less than anyone else. Our duty as grace's recipients is to be the expression of God's grace to a world as flawed as we are.
Constitutionalists will insist that government has nothing to do with that. As an example that I have written about in the past, many months ago now, I visited a web site organized by a constitutionalist guru after they misunderstood the issue that had arisen about Huckabee and a smoking ban. In the first place, Huckabee’s position was misconstrued and the question hadn’t arisen as it had been portrayed. But, I raised another question about the extremity of health care costs and the need for their containment. I was immediately swarmed as though I had shaken a stick in a beehive: “…no constitutional authority!" they scorned, which was correct: there is none. But a little reality check is in order and urgently in need. The federal government is fairly drowning in medical liabilities that it has accrued, never mind the high and rapidly escalating personal costs that the system, including govt. regulations. Constitutionality is irrelevant: the costs and liabilities are an intractable FACT. What is a meticulous constitutionalist going to do about that? It seems like they are going to pretend it isn’t there.
But, all of that is part of the exile into abstraction, which I suspect animates much of the hostility against Huckabee, who commits the audacious apostasy of even expressing concern for the concerns of ordinary Americans, including populations that have to a great extent favored Democrats: minorities, laborers, or simply as he says, “Main Street” Americans. If we can’t even talk like that, such populations will stay largely Democrat strongholds. Conservatives need to work on and explicate conservative responses to those concerns. Reality is that the utter disjunction of government from moral concerns is a battle long lost. If you don’t want to play, you may as well leave the field. But to some conservatives, empathy only translates to the love of unconstrained taxing and spending and “open borders.”
That root problem of Huckabee’s empathetic expression runs through most of the so-called “conservative” complaints about him. As a state government must do, taxes were raised (though modestly) to address state essentials. States must provide education, build roads, and maintain parks, which was the great bulk of tax increases. Under Governor Huckabee, Arkansas also (gasp) gave very poor children access to Medicare coverage. Scandalous! And all of this was in a state with an 80% Democrat representation, by the way. But, Huckabee cut taxes at every opportunity, including a broad-based income tax reduction, and all of them were unprecedented in Arkansas. The tax attacks were politically and/or personally motivated, and drastically deceptive.
Likewise, he did not scorn and spurn illegal aliens. But in 2007, he opposed the immigration bill that didn’t secure the border first, and later outlined the most rigorous immigration enforcement bill, which offered incentives rather than proposing (ultimately probably empty) threats, to return home and pursue an orderly legalization via a hopefully expedited process. And the Fair Tax idea that Huckabee endorses and advocates for is the most economically liberating and stimulating idea to have appeared in our lifetimes.
I support Huckabee because he’s a remarkable combination of philosophical clarity, empathetic realism, sound character, and engaging leadership. Today, I heard Bill Krystol doubting Huckabee’s potential as a VP option, saying McCain would need someone of “more stature,” and mentioning Jeb Bush, though acknowledging the last name is a problem.
What does one have to do to achieve “stature?” Huckabee was Arkansas governor longer than Bill Clinton and longer than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. I’ll acknowledge that Florida is larger and more electorally critical than Arkansas. But, I may be accused of mere “identity” defensiveness as an evangelical Christian, but I can’t help but think that Huckabee wouldn’t meet the “stature” standard, even if he had served his 101/2 years (14 as Governor and Lt. Governor) in Florida, precisely because he is an evangelical Christian, which can be condescended to, even if subconsciously, by the political establishment. That’s an irony when so many establishment Republicans endorsed Romney, whom I assume has no “stature” problem, even though he was Massachusetts governor for only 4 years.. But, Romney might have gotten similar treatment if, in addition to affirming his Mormonism and the role of “faith” in America., he said things like, “My faith not only informs me, it defines me.” That is laudable in terms of integrity and consistency. But, in terms of pop-culture, it’s “politically incorrect.”
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain About America, Romney About Romney, Huckabee Better Than Both, and Consider This/Super Tuesday Republican Run-Down
Before summarizing the remaining candidates, I just want to say two brief things: 1) I would vote for Mike Huckabee next month even if he averaged less than 10% tomorrow (which he won’t) and he has pulled out of the competition by then, IF HIS NAME IS STILL ON THE BALLOT, simply because he is the best presidential candidate of my 50-year life. And, he’s easily the most clear-headed conservative mind that America has seen in the past few years. And 2) I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.
That said, It has been a remarkable year. While there were once 9 Republican candidates for president, heading into tomorrow, Feb. 5, when 22 states will vote on delegates to the Republican National Convention, there are four remaining. The front-loading and compression of the process, has certainly made a dramatic difference in how it has played out, which is mostly regrettable, I think. There was a lot of speculation early on, about how that situation would play out. Mostly, it asked whether the early states be more or less important? It would seem to have been the latter. Certainly in previous presidential campaign seasons, the sorting out would have been farther along or over after the South Carolina primary, with only 1 or 2 left standing.
Perhaps the “frontrunner” perception has not had enough time to settle in between contests. The notion is a strange one to me. But, it’s no great surprise if I’m not typical. Someone I spoke with doubted the force of the tendency, but it seems undeniable that many fall in line behind what or whom they perceive a “winning.” Indeed, that is the whole idea of “momentum,” a sort of psychological centrifugal force. As I said, I have no sense of that. I’ve been voting for 32 years, and I’ve never moved my vote for a “winner” vs. whom I thought was the best candidate. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the only winner I ever voted for in a primary, and I had supported him from the start. The herd followed my sentiments, not vice-versa. In fact, I had voted for Reagan in a 1976 primary, when he was not the eventual winner, though he came close.
All of that said, I’ll say that I’m a supporter of Huckabee (whom the political chatterers also say will not be a winner) But Consider This: Huckabee has said that he’s in it until a candidate has the delegates to secure the nomination. That cannot even mathematically happen, tomorrow.Mitt Romney will likely watch more millions be flushes away, and tomorrow ning, find himself hopelessly far behind and not especially liked. If he finally decides that 100 million dollars, over 35 of it his own, is enough and drops out, what do the McCain haters do now, especially since many also hate Huckabee? They are the only ones left. That’s kind of amusing.
I’ll discuss the remaining 4 candidates, in order of unacceptability: how they stand, and how they’ve gone through the process:
Ron Paul is a very interesting character. He is not a “nut” or any other similar description that many throw at him. Ron Paul is a plenty smart man. He is very exceptional, in that he discusses in detail many things that the others don’t discuss at all like, very notably, the integrity of money and the primacy of private not government effort in shaping the economy. That kind of talk is not at all apart from why he is called names decrying him as strange. He is strange in the sense of standing apart from a perspective constrained by conventional popular culture, which is fraught with foolish assumptions. Generally speaking, I hardly consider that a fault of any sort.
However, there is an element of that unique ideal that I can’t go along with. And, unlike the many differences I have with John McCain, for instance. This is one that I can’t pass off for the sake of any sort of greater good. It seems to me that the same sort of philosophical resolve that tethers Ron Paul to the virtue of sound currency and free and private commerce, has him philosophically blinkered with a foreign policy for America that amounts to a dereliction of duty relative to security and basic humanity. Of course, what he calls a “non-interventionist” foreign policy has nothing to do with the sort of Smithian Natural Law about the inherent principles of human commerce and wealth production and maintenance.
But, I fully understand his shyness about military adventurism and the temptation of military power and expansion. And, I understand the counsel of the American Founders to “avoid foreign entanglements,” and the paleo-conservative tradition of modest foreign policy. But, the very obvious problem to the non-philosophically blinkered who must make moral and prudent judgments about the real world, is that the evolution of technology has run full out from under a world where travel, transport, and communications across the ocean required a ship’s voyage of months or years. Today, men travel the world in a day and sound and video images are transmitted around the world in practically real time. As today’s threats of terrorism have vividly demonstrated, it is no longer a sufficient defense posture to wait and respond when cannonballs are lobbed onto a populated shore. Technology is such that a very few can pose a frightful danger to American life hatched on distant continents and delivered quickly and surreptitiously.
While I believe he is sincere and resolved as he is about other things, given today’s technology of travel, communications, and destructive force, Paul’s sort of non-interventionist prescription presents two HUGE problems:
1) it is an imprudent security risk. Paul frets military engagement with peoples’ who present no armies or navies to threaten American military power. So, what? None are required to impose great destruction. And
2) Yes, America has great power. Paul may insist that policing the world from tyrants is not American government’s business. But, no private agency has the power to do so. And a power held is a moral responsibility. It is a real question to ask when we are “intruding” (or building empire, as Paul likes to say) and when it is a moral responsibility to intervene against inhumanity. As I often ask, given today’s world, at what point does ignoring human abuse become something on the order of watching a sidewalk attack out your window and declining to get involved.
The first problem is an ostrich-head-in-the-sand question to an extreme degree. And, the second problem is an extreme degree of humanitarian responsibility. How close are we to treading into stark cowardice?
For these reasons, though Paul has all year been the philosophically clearest and most resolute candidate, what I see as his anachronistic human misjudgments are too severe, besides the fact that he is not especially skilled at personal engagement and encouragement with the public. So, though I think he is exceptionally clear and consistent, and should be an advisor in many areas, Ron Paul is the LAST Republican candidate that I want to see with presidential power.
Mitt Romney has constructed a black and white confession on definable issues, that I agree with over 90% of the time. But, I don’t feel that I have any sense of his heart and wonder if I possibly could. People accuse him of “flip-flopping” on issues of serious concern. Even if his changes were genuine, I am unimpressed with a potential leader who was ambiguous on grave issies well into his fifties. He’s obviously a smart man, which suggests not ambiguity but spectacular pliability. I believe conservatives need to “sell” conservative principle to traditionally ambiguous or antagonistic populations. If Romney was to any extent demonstrating that with his election in Massachusetts, he has disavowed all of that, now. Pliability, again?
Many conservatives are irrationally frantic about the possibility of John McCain as the Republican nominee. I just repeat what I said at the beginning: “I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” Check these links: http://www.trueromney.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc I really would hate for my arm to be twisted to choose Romney over a Democrat.
As I have also said, John McCain has a philosophical disability. But, he’s a genuine man and American patriot, with plenty of conservative sentiments about spending and jusicial activism, for instance. He als favors tax reduction and reform. He undetrstands that the public has insisted on securing the border before, not after, anything else. And, he has supported restrained not activist judges. A good VP might nudge him away from sentimental errors. Again, “…right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” He wouldn’t be my first choice. But especially given the options, he is far from my last.
Mike Huckabee is a clear-headed and constitutional conservative who is prepared to effectively deal with 20th century realities. He won Iowa with months of face-to-face engagement of Iowa voters, which has not been possible in subsequent contests, though he nearly won again, in South Carolina. I will pick his name on any ballot in which he is a candidate. He has a sober and diligent heart, and offers real solutions to move America from problems that it has gotten itself into. Based on the evidence so far, I will be surprised if I see as good a candidate as he is, again. Hopefully, he has established a model.
That said, It has been a remarkable year. While there were once 9 Republican candidates for president, heading into tomorrow, Feb. 5, when 22 states will vote on delegates to the Republican National Convention, there are four remaining. The front-loading and compression of the process, has certainly made a dramatic difference in how it has played out, which is mostly regrettable, I think. There was a lot of speculation early on, about how that situation would play out. Mostly, it asked whether the early states be more or less important? It would seem to have been the latter. Certainly in previous presidential campaign seasons, the sorting out would have been farther along or over after the South Carolina primary, with only 1 or 2 left standing.
Perhaps the “frontrunner” perception has not had enough time to settle in between contests. The notion is a strange one to me. But, it’s no great surprise if I’m not typical. Someone I spoke with doubted the force of the tendency, but it seems undeniable that many fall in line behind what or whom they perceive a “winning.” Indeed, that is the whole idea of “momentum,” a sort of psychological centrifugal force. As I said, I have no sense of that. I’ve been voting for 32 years, and I’ve never moved my vote for a “winner” vs. whom I thought was the best candidate. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the only winner I ever voted for in a primary, and I had supported him from the start. The herd followed my sentiments, not vice-versa. In fact, I had voted for Reagan in a 1976 primary, when he was not the eventual winner, though he came close.
All of that said, I’ll say that I’m a supporter of Huckabee (whom the political chatterers also say will not be a winner) But Consider This: Huckabee has said that he’s in it until a candidate has the delegates to secure the nomination. That cannot even mathematically happen, tomorrow.Mitt Romney will likely watch more millions be flushes away, and tomorrow ning, find himself hopelessly far behind and not especially liked. If he finally decides that 100 million dollars, over 35 of it his own, is enough and drops out, what do the McCain haters do now, especially since many also hate Huckabee? They are the only ones left. That’s kind of amusing.
I’ll discuss the remaining 4 candidates, in order of unacceptability: how they stand, and how they’ve gone through the process:
Ron Paul is a very interesting character. He is not a “nut” or any other similar description that many throw at him. Ron Paul is a plenty smart man. He is very exceptional, in that he discusses in detail many things that the others don’t discuss at all like, very notably, the integrity of money and the primacy of private not government effort in shaping the economy. That kind of talk is not at all apart from why he is called names decrying him as strange. He is strange in the sense of standing apart from a perspective constrained by conventional popular culture, which is fraught with foolish assumptions. Generally speaking, I hardly consider that a fault of any sort.
However, there is an element of that unique ideal that I can’t go along with. And, unlike the many differences I have with John McCain, for instance. This is one that I can’t pass off for the sake of any sort of greater good. It seems to me that the same sort of philosophical resolve that tethers Ron Paul to the virtue of sound currency and free and private commerce, has him philosophically blinkered with a foreign policy for America that amounts to a dereliction of duty relative to security and basic humanity. Of course, what he calls a “non-interventionist” foreign policy has nothing to do with the sort of Smithian Natural Law about the inherent principles of human commerce and wealth production and maintenance.
But, I fully understand his shyness about military adventurism and the temptation of military power and expansion. And, I understand the counsel of the American Founders to “avoid foreign entanglements,” and the paleo-conservative tradition of modest foreign policy. But, the very obvious problem to the non-philosophically blinkered who must make moral and prudent judgments about the real world, is that the evolution of technology has run full out from under a world where travel, transport, and communications across the ocean required a ship’s voyage of months or years. Today, men travel the world in a day and sound and video images are transmitted around the world in practically real time. As today’s threats of terrorism have vividly demonstrated, it is no longer a sufficient defense posture to wait and respond when cannonballs are lobbed onto a populated shore. Technology is such that a very few can pose a frightful danger to American life hatched on distant continents and delivered quickly and surreptitiously.
While I believe he is sincere and resolved as he is about other things, given today’s technology of travel, communications, and destructive force, Paul’s sort of non-interventionist prescription presents two HUGE problems:
1) it is an imprudent security risk. Paul frets military engagement with peoples’ who present no armies or navies to threaten American military power. So, what? None are required to impose great destruction. And
2) Yes, America has great power. Paul may insist that policing the world from tyrants is not American government’s business. But, no private agency has the power to do so. And a power held is a moral responsibility. It is a real question to ask when we are “intruding” (or building empire, as Paul likes to say) and when it is a moral responsibility to intervene against inhumanity. As I often ask, given today’s world, at what point does ignoring human abuse become something on the order of watching a sidewalk attack out your window and declining to get involved.
The first problem is an ostrich-head-in-the-sand question to an extreme degree. And, the second problem is an extreme degree of humanitarian responsibility. How close are we to treading into stark cowardice?
For these reasons, though Paul has all year been the philosophically clearest and most resolute candidate, what I see as his anachronistic human misjudgments are too severe, besides the fact that he is not especially skilled at personal engagement and encouragement with the public. So, though I think he is exceptionally clear and consistent, and should be an advisor in many areas, Ron Paul is the LAST Republican candidate that I want to see with presidential power.
Mitt Romney has constructed a black and white confession on definable issues, that I agree with over 90% of the time. But, I don’t feel that I have any sense of his heart and wonder if I possibly could. People accuse him of “flip-flopping” on issues of serious concern. Even if his changes were genuine, I am unimpressed with a potential leader who was ambiguous on grave issies well into his fifties. He’s obviously a smart man, which suggests not ambiguity but spectacular pliability. I believe conservatives need to “sell” conservative principle to traditionally ambiguous or antagonistic populations. If Romney was to any extent demonstrating that with his election in Massachusetts, he has disavowed all of that, now. Pliability, again?
Many conservatives are irrationally frantic about the possibility of John McCain as the Republican nominee. I just repeat what I said at the beginning: “I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” Check these links: http://www.trueromney.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc I really would hate for my arm to be twisted to choose Romney over a Democrat.
As I have also said, John McCain has a philosophical disability. But, he’s a genuine man and American patriot, with plenty of conservative sentiments about spending and jusicial activism, for instance. He als favors tax reduction and reform. He undetrstands that the public has insisted on securing the border before, not after, anything else. And, he has supported restrained not activist judges. A good VP might nudge him away from sentimental errors. Again, “…right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” He wouldn’t be my first choice. But especially given the options, he is far from my last.
Mike Huckabee is a clear-headed and constitutional conservative who is prepared to effectively deal with 20th century realities. He won Iowa with months of face-to-face engagement of Iowa voters, which has not been possible in subsequent contests, though he nearly won again, in South Carolina. I will pick his name on any ballot in which he is a candidate. He has a sober and diligent heart, and offers real solutions to move America from problems that it has gotten itself into. Based on the evidence so far, I will be surprised if I see as good a candidate as he is, again. Hopefully, he has established a model.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Political Facts As Things Stand
I think it’s useful for you and I and others who care about the integrity of American policies like the respect of life, the respect of privacy, the respect of free people and free markets, etc, to acknowledge the facts of how the public behaves, which is not like you and I. I believe strongly that Huckabee brings and delivers the clearest and most urgent message for the good of American culture.
And, as to great extent illustrated in Iowa, when he has plenty of time to deliver that message to personally deliver that message to the American people, it is well-received by a substantial number of Americans. I also believe as I am sure you do that unforseen things can and do happen, as we have seen in this very unique presidential election cycle.
As long as he’s on the ballot, I wil vote for Huckabee. And in fact in Texas where he led in recent polls, he could win on March 4th if he’s still in the mix, and I expect he will if he is a strong presence. But the fact is that the vast majority of people do not vote on any sort of careful consideration: not in the manner that you and I do, nor in the aggravated visceral way that is so often exhibited on the blogs, across the political spectrum. Consider these things:
Only a couple of months ago, John McCain was considered politically dead. Many of the conservative blog bugs wish he still was. Mitt Romney was objectionable to many people, for reasons ranging from his religion to his posturing and pandering to his simple status among many conservatives as a governor of liberal Massachusetts.
Consider also that, as I have said elsewhere, in his last electoral faceoff only ten days ago, Huckabee drew 30% of the electorate, a majority of Republicans (McCain’s 33% included many Independents, who aren’ voting today and in most coming primaries), and almost surely would have won without Fred Thompson in the race and misleading people about both their records – he knew the conflicting truth).
Nevertheless, media and polls (chicken and egg?) today make Huckabee an also-ran in Florida and McCain and Romney the primary competitors. I think that we are in a much superior position today than we were ten years ago, but in terms of being mostly distracted by other things and politically lead around by the nose by media (even including the media, posts on which also largely reflect he promulgated pop-culture reality, there is still a substantial reality. I always strangely paid an extraordinary amount of attention to the political process. But even my perspective has been greatly exaggerated by a personal situation that has narrowed the focus of my life.
I don’t have to look far to see relative normalcy: my own friends and family are quite typically influenced by the popular culture prism. And, while I wish people paid a little closer attention, the bare fact is that most people, even beyond the bemusements of American life, are hard about what are, certainly in the near-term, much more critical activities without which essential concerns would not be met, including governmental ones. These are concerns like…oh, FOOD, clothing, housing, and every manner of industry.
Given those primary diversions yes, like it or not: most people will make their judgments on the pop-perception of the facts: do I prefer Romney or McCain, or later on, one of these or a Democrat? Are there objectionable things about Romney and McCain? Is Huckabee a better candidate? In both cases, I think, “Yes.” And in practical terms, it’s irrelevant. A sliver of the electorate that pays just a little attention with still very incomplete information, will determine two people from hundreds of millions of Americans, who will comprise Americans’ ultimate “choices.” I think that if that is going to change, it won’t be because of but in spite of Americans’ wisdom or lack thereof.
I think America needs dramatic change in its structure and perspective, and I think Huckabee is the only one who poses it: for example with his insistence on the sanctity of human life and his advocacy of The Fair Tax. But from the others, I don’t think we’ll get that change. In sum, I don’t trust McCain’s judgment and I don’t trust Romney’s character. But, I prefer a judgment defect to a character defect. And if McCain’s judgment is sometimes unfortunate, his sentiments are decidedly conservative in terms of spending and even in general.
I’d support a ticket McCain’s heart and and Huckabee’s judgment enthusiastically. I don’t think Romney will win in November and if he did, he would bring remarkable change: more business-as-usual.
And, as to great extent illustrated in Iowa, when he has plenty of time to deliver that message to personally deliver that message to the American people, it is well-received by a substantial number of Americans. I also believe as I am sure you do that unforseen things can and do happen, as we have seen in this very unique presidential election cycle.
As long as he’s on the ballot, I wil vote for Huckabee. And in fact in Texas where he led in recent polls, he could win on March 4th if he’s still in the mix, and I expect he will if he is a strong presence. But the fact is that the vast majority of people do not vote on any sort of careful consideration: not in the manner that you and I do, nor in the aggravated visceral way that is so often exhibited on the blogs, across the political spectrum. Consider these things:
Only a couple of months ago, John McCain was considered politically dead. Many of the conservative blog bugs wish he still was. Mitt Romney was objectionable to many people, for reasons ranging from his religion to his posturing and pandering to his simple status among many conservatives as a governor of liberal Massachusetts.
Consider also that, as I have said elsewhere, in his last electoral faceoff only ten days ago, Huckabee drew 30% of the electorate, a majority of Republicans (McCain’s 33% included many Independents, who aren’ voting today and in most coming primaries), and almost surely would have won without Fred Thompson in the race and misleading people about both their records – he knew the conflicting truth).
Nevertheless, media and polls (chicken and egg?) today make Huckabee an also-ran in Florida and McCain and Romney the primary competitors. I think that we are in a much superior position today than we were ten years ago, but in terms of being mostly distracted by other things and politically lead around by the nose by media (even including the media, posts on which also largely reflect he promulgated pop-culture reality, there is still a substantial reality. I always strangely paid an extraordinary amount of attention to the political process. But even my perspective has been greatly exaggerated by a personal situation that has narrowed the focus of my life.
I don’t have to look far to see relative normalcy: my own friends and family are quite typically influenced by the popular culture prism. And, while I wish people paid a little closer attention, the bare fact is that most people, even beyond the bemusements of American life, are hard about what are, certainly in the near-term, much more critical activities without which essential concerns would not be met, including governmental ones. These are concerns like…oh, FOOD, clothing, housing, and every manner of industry.
Given those primary diversions yes, like it or not: most people will make their judgments on the pop-perception of the facts: do I prefer Romney or McCain, or later on, one of these or a Democrat? Are there objectionable things about Romney and McCain? Is Huckabee a better candidate? In both cases, I think, “Yes.” And in practical terms, it’s irrelevant. A sliver of the electorate that pays just a little attention with still very incomplete information, will determine two people from hundreds of millions of Americans, who will comprise Americans’ ultimate “choices.” I think that if that is going to change, it won’t be because of but in spite of Americans’ wisdom or lack thereof.
I think America needs dramatic change in its structure and perspective, and I think Huckabee is the only one who poses it: for example with his insistence on the sanctity of human life and his advocacy of The Fair Tax. But from the others, I don’t think we’ll get that change. In sum, I don’t trust McCain’s judgment and I don’t trust Romney’s character. But, I prefer a judgment defect to a character defect. And if McCain’s judgment is sometimes unfortunate, his sentiments are decidedly conservative in terms of spending and even in general.
I’d support a ticket McCain’s heart and and Huckabee’s judgment enthusiastically. I don’t think Romney will win in November and if he did, he would bring remarkable change: more business-as-usual.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Why Florida Should Support Huckabee
For those in Florida concerned about the Republican options:
I just want to remind Florida to view videos at http://mikehuckabee.com , http://hucksarmy.com , and elsewhere on the web. They are easy to ingest and also give you a sense of the man, of whom I think there is more than of his competitors.
The sentimental right's favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president after getting to know him on the campaign trail. This stunned and shocked the Piranha right which can't reconcile Huckabee's support for border order and integrity with his lack of spite for immigrants. Both things are true. But, that's a contradiction in terms for coyote conservatives.
Also, John Steinberger of Florida State University and the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, as I posted below: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee.
Huckabee is also the clearest and most consistent on the right-to-life and the 2nd Amendment. He's questioned the prudence and effectiveness of McCain-Feingold, calling it "campaign finance DEform. And, Huckabee sincerely appeals to populations that have been historically dominated by Democrats. Republican victory is almost guaranteed by modest inroads among minorities and unions, may of which are available if Republicans will just TALK TO THEM.
I just want to remind Florida to view videos at http://mikehuckabee.com , http://hucksarmy.com , and elsewhere on the web. They are easy to ingest and also give you a sense of the man, of whom I think there is more than of his competitors.
The sentimental right's favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president after getting to know him on the campaign trail. This stunned and shocked the Piranha right which can't reconcile Huckabee's support for border order and integrity with his lack of spite for immigrants. Both things are true. But, that's a contradiction in terms for coyote conservatives.
Also, John Steinberger of Florida State University and the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, as I posted below: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee.
Huckabee is also the clearest and most consistent on the right-to-life and the 2nd Amendment. He's questioned the prudence and effectiveness of McCain-Feingold, calling it "campaign finance DEform. And, Huckabee sincerely appeals to populations that have been historically dominated by Democrats. Republican victory is almost guaranteed by modest inroads among minorities and unions, may of which are available if Republicans will just TALK TO THEM.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
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/
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/
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What Crime Has He Committed? "Crucify Him!"
Below is a comment on my last post, which complained about my exasperation with “conservative” critics of Huckabee, and my response.
Some of these “conservatives,” I think may be serious, though misguided. But, some are certainly driven by anti-social conservative, anti-Fair Tax, or anti-humane motives. I say "anti-humane" because I feel some of these critics though probably a relatively small minority, are simply reactive to Mike Huckabee’s expressions of concern for people other than Wall Street and investment professionals. I say “reactive” because Huckabee has no record or intention of the kind of expansive and wasteful government that some conservatives instantly fear because they hear a certain tone of concern for the common man. And, he doesn’t have such a record or intention, not because the concern isn’t genuine. He just knows that this kind of activity is socially destructive: he’s conservative not in being dispassionate, but in principle.
And here is the great irony: Mike Huckabee believes that conservative approaches to governance really are the most productive way to help not just upper, but middle and lower income people as well. He just has the temerity to actually TELL people that he would like to help them that way, which jolts some conservatives to apoplexy. Not Fred Thompson, by the way. Heck, Fred Thompson is WAY more liberal than Mike Huckabee is. For example, unlike Thompson who advocated and supported it, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t have touched the 1st Amendment shattering McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill with a ten foot pole. Huckabee has said that contributions should be unlimited, with full and prompt disclosure on the Internet, which I have thought for years. No, Fred Thompson is no conservative or constitutional idealist. He’s just waving a red flag at those conservatives I was speaking of, who can be agitated. None of these critics are as philosophically conservative as I am.
And, speaking of the constitutional oblivion of McCain-Feingold, that’s just one of McCain’s many demonstrations of that disability. I have watched John McCain for a long time: I think he’s a decent and noble patriot. He just has no sense of what the federal government can and can’t do; either constitutionally or practically. Maybe he’s been swimming in the Washington water for so long that he’s gone native enough to really believe that they can do anything.
Anyway, Huckabee obviously can’t and shouldn’t back off on his expressions of concern for the middle and lower classes. Besides that being morally derelict, Huckabee is exactly right that Republicans can expect to lose a lot of elections if they don’t even want to speak to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. And, that is something that sunk in with me a few years ago. Certainly I was at one point, one of those conservatives motivated primarily by annoyance at what runaway government had done to America. I still don’t like it. But, do we want to sit on the tack and whine or do we want to steer the country in a positive direction? Do we want America to improve or do we want to perpetually scream while it gets worse? If we choose the latter, we will be doing a lot of screaming, because it only will get worse. The model of aggressive combat doesn’t work. I decided that I’d rather discuss what is right with people with whom I disagreed, than work with people on either side who didn’t care what was right, but only cared about power or short-sighted benefit.
Then, last January, I saw a man who had served as a Republican governor in a Democrat state, who said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” And, as a governor, he worked to actually improve the lives of the people in his state, more than to make political points. And, he did it as a conservative in a prudent and restrained way. Sure, Mike Huckabee is unhappy with the consequence of liberal government, but he isn’t angry at people. A long time ago, a man came to an evil-scarred world and mourned what men did, but he didn’t hate them. He came to serve a broken world, and in fact, they killed him. But, he still didn’t hate them. That’s the model: We should ask how we can serve our neighbors and society, speaking for what is right, but working with and for people who aren’t always right. Similar to how it was the religious people who hated Jesus and turned him over to be killed, it’s his fellow conservatives who hate Mike Huckabee and want his candidacy dead. And, if they succeed, we’ll all have to work not to hate them. But, though I’m a conservative too, I won’t see them as infinitely superior to Democrats.
Here’s a response to my irritation with the anti-Huckabee diatribes of Rush Limbaugh who is nether the neither first nor will he likely be the last to scorn in this way. Tonight I heard Mark Levin misguidedly snarling about Huckabee’s anti-conservatism. Huckabee is the punching bag to be knocked down going into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Fred Thompson’s been at smearing Huckabee for days, and Romney will join him is he remains determined to play in South Carolina. I don’t know what McCain will do. He may stay decent. But, if he goes after Huckabee as not conservative, it would be being called unfaithful by a practiced heretic. Anyway, the short comment is followed by my short response.
Family Mentors said...
Larry,
I would encourage as many people as possible to engage Rush and the NeoLib Commentocrats, issue-by-issue.
First, today he went out of his way to endorse a threatened boycott of the general election if one of his guys doesn't win (saying the GOP will be destroyed if McCain or Huck wins). Funny how the NeoLibs always tell social conservatives they'll hurt the party if they sit out like they did in 2006.
We may have to be willing to suffer through four years of HillBillary or Oprahbama in order to be heard. I hope not, but the NeoLibs are hell bent on preventing any social conservative from succeeding. Their opposition to McCain will evaporate if Rudy continues to fade. Flag this post and flog me if I'm wrong ;-)
Blessings,
Quiverdaddy
Larry:
I have remarked on the irony of the possibility of others being asked to suck it up and support a social conservative. I don’t know, in fact I tend to doubt, that that is the ground of Rush’s problem. Maybe he’s just a sentimental conservative who has inhaled the scuttlebutt and failed to do his homework. Anyway, I do think it’s true that social conservatives have to be prepared to watch Democrats win. If they watch a social conservative actively destroyed and turn in their votes, the message will be that it really doesn’t matter to them. Their leverage (and respect) in the party will be destroyed; and with it, much of the potential to heal American society. Believe me: I was an activist in the Republican Party and I’ve been saying that for years, and suffering scorn for it.
Some of these “conservatives,” I think may be serious, though misguided. But, some are certainly driven by anti-social conservative, anti-Fair Tax, or anti-humane motives. I say "anti-humane" because I feel some of these critics though probably a relatively small minority, are simply reactive to Mike Huckabee’s expressions of concern for people other than Wall Street and investment professionals. I say “reactive” because Huckabee has no record or intention of the kind of expansive and wasteful government that some conservatives instantly fear because they hear a certain tone of concern for the common man. And, he doesn’t have such a record or intention, not because the concern isn’t genuine. He just knows that this kind of activity is socially destructive: he’s conservative not in being dispassionate, but in principle.
And here is the great irony: Mike Huckabee believes that conservative approaches to governance really are the most productive way to help not just upper, but middle and lower income people as well. He just has the temerity to actually TELL people that he would like to help them that way, which jolts some conservatives to apoplexy. Not Fred Thompson, by the way. Heck, Fred Thompson is WAY more liberal than Mike Huckabee is. For example, unlike Thompson who advocated and supported it, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t have touched the 1st Amendment shattering McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill with a ten foot pole. Huckabee has said that contributions should be unlimited, with full and prompt disclosure on the Internet, which I have thought for years. No, Fred Thompson is no conservative or constitutional idealist. He’s just waving a red flag at those conservatives I was speaking of, who can be agitated. None of these critics are as philosophically conservative as I am.
And, speaking of the constitutional oblivion of McCain-Feingold, that’s just one of McCain’s many demonstrations of that disability. I have watched John McCain for a long time: I think he’s a decent and noble patriot. He just has no sense of what the federal government can and can’t do; either constitutionally or practically. Maybe he’s been swimming in the Washington water for so long that he’s gone native enough to really believe that they can do anything.
Anyway, Huckabee obviously can’t and shouldn’t back off on his expressions of concern for the middle and lower classes. Besides that being morally derelict, Huckabee is exactly right that Republicans can expect to lose a lot of elections if they don’t even want to speak to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. And, that is something that sunk in with me a few years ago. Certainly I was at one point, one of those conservatives motivated primarily by annoyance at what runaway government had done to America. I still don’t like it. But, do we want to sit on the tack and whine or do we want to steer the country in a positive direction? Do we want America to improve or do we want to perpetually scream while it gets worse? If we choose the latter, we will be doing a lot of screaming, because it only will get worse. The model of aggressive combat doesn’t work. I decided that I’d rather discuss what is right with people with whom I disagreed, than work with people on either side who didn’t care what was right, but only cared about power or short-sighted benefit.
Then, last January, I saw a man who had served as a Republican governor in a Democrat state, who said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” And, as a governor, he worked to actually improve the lives of the people in his state, more than to make political points. And, he did it as a conservative in a prudent and restrained way. Sure, Mike Huckabee is unhappy with the consequence of liberal government, but he isn’t angry at people. A long time ago, a man came to an evil-scarred world and mourned what men did, but he didn’t hate them. He came to serve a broken world, and in fact, they killed him. But, he still didn’t hate them. That’s the model: We should ask how we can serve our neighbors and society, speaking for what is right, but working with and for people who aren’t always right. Similar to how it was the religious people who hated Jesus and turned him over to be killed, it’s his fellow conservatives who hate Mike Huckabee and want his candidacy dead. And, if they succeed, we’ll all have to work not to hate them. But, though I’m a conservative too, I won’t see them as infinitely superior to Democrats.
Here’s a response to my irritation with the anti-Huckabee diatribes of Rush Limbaugh who is nether the neither first nor will he likely be the last to scorn in this way. Tonight I heard Mark Levin misguidedly snarling about Huckabee’s anti-conservatism. Huckabee is the punching bag to be knocked down going into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Fred Thompson’s been at smearing Huckabee for days, and Romney will join him is he remains determined to play in South Carolina. I don’t know what McCain will do. He may stay decent. But, if he goes after Huckabee as not conservative, it would be being called unfaithful by a practiced heretic. Anyway, the short comment is followed by my short response.
Family Mentors said...
Larry,
I would encourage as many people as possible to engage Rush and the NeoLib Commentocrats, issue-by-issue.
First, today he went out of his way to endorse a threatened boycott of the general election if one of his guys doesn't win (saying the GOP will be destroyed if McCain or Huck wins). Funny how the NeoLibs always tell social conservatives they'll hurt the party if they sit out like they did in 2006.
We may have to be willing to suffer through four years of HillBillary or Oprahbama in order to be heard. I hope not, but the NeoLibs are hell bent on preventing any social conservative from succeeding. Their opposition to McCain will evaporate if Rudy continues to fade. Flag this post and flog me if I'm wrong ;-)
Blessings,
Quiverdaddy
Larry:
I have remarked on the irony of the possibility of others being asked to suck it up and support a social conservative. I don’t know, in fact I tend to doubt, that that is the ground of Rush’s problem. Maybe he’s just a sentimental conservative who has inhaled the scuttlebutt and failed to do his homework. Anyway, I do think it’s true that social conservatives have to be prepared to watch Democrats win. If they watch a social conservative actively destroyed and turn in their votes, the message will be that it really doesn’t matter to them. Their leverage (and respect) in the party will be destroyed; and with it, much of the potential to heal American society. Believe me: I was an activist in the Republican Party and I’ve been saying that for years, and suffering scorn for it.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Huckabee At South Carolina Debate Video
I hope you saw the South Carolina debate, last night. But, there are clips of Huckabee's response to the usual Baptist/religious question and more importantly, his dicussion afterward with Hannity & Comes, in which he talks about some of the deceitful attacks that came his way in the debate, as is now typical. Massachusetss for Huckabee has posted these videos at Video And Thoughts About The Fox News Debate
And, be sure to read my thoughts about the debate, below.
And, be sure to read my thoughts about the debate, below.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)