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.
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html
Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record
I get reports from Life News, which published this. In fact, I have had several exchanges with Steven Ertelt, who reports Hentoff’s article at his http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html . Barack Obama’s extreme “pro-choice” record includes opposing a partial-birth abortion ban and twice opposing the Infant Born Alive (after a botched abortion) Protection Act in Illinois, which called on forbidding setting aside a live baby to die.
Hentoff’s actual article can be read at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff042408.php3
But, thanks to Stephen Maloney for alerting me to the article.
Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record
I get reports from Life News, which published this. In fact, I have had several exchanges with Steven Ertelt, who reports Hentoff’s article at his http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html . Barack Obama’s extreme “pro-choice” record includes opposing a partial-birth abortion ban and twice opposing the Infant Born Alive (after a botched abortion) Protection Act in Illinois, which called on forbidding setting aside a live baby to die.
Hentoff’s actual article can be read at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff042408.php3
But, thanks to Stephen Maloney for alerting me to the article.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
Friday, February 15, 2008
If McCain Supposedly Has It Locked Up, Why Not Vote For Huckabee? - Wisconsin Tuesday, Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
Supporters got an email message from Governor Huckabee with basically the same information as the web notice, below, and an appeal for contributions: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ .
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A Vote For Romney Is A Vote For McCain
Thanks to The Thomas Report for posting this: A HUGE LIE: VOTE FOR HUCKABEE, A VOTE FOR MCCAIN??
Contrary to Romney apologists’ reports that “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain,” this blog points to a FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll (below) that suggests quite the opposite.
I pulled these numbers from the actual report. Note that with all three in the race, Republicans polled chose McCain by 48%, with Romney and Huckabee in a statistical tie at 20% and 19%, while if Huckabee is removed from the question, McCain’s polling among Republicans soars to 62% while Romney’s rises only to 29%. McCain rises 14 points while Romney rises only 9. And in fact in Rasmussen polling, Huckabee leads Romney in GA, AL, and MO and is competitive with him in all of the southern states that both need. So plainly, a vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
This in essence suggests that Romney is wasting more money with his latest multi-million dollar buy. He spent millions in Iowa to trash Huckabee and lost to Huckabee. He spent millions in New Hampshire, less than an hour from MA, where he was governor) to trash McCain and lost to McCain. He won in Michigan where he was born and his father was governor, playing the socialist “conservative” by pledging over 15 billion dollars for research to the auto industry: Promise made in Michigan could backfire on Romney . (by the way, that promise was YOUR money, not his) Then, after putting millions into South Carolina and foreseeing failure, he pulled out (finally finishing 4th) to go directly to spending in Florida, where McCain beat him 36% to 31%.
What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and looking for different results? Anyway, Huckabee supporters can actually thank Romney for shoveling out more millions to savage McCain. What a swell guy! Basically, Romney seems to be a good man with a nice family, and has been a successful business man. He obviously can do as he wishes with his millions of dollars. But based on the record, I wouldn’t invest a hundred bucks in such a sorry candidacy. Poor guy! At least, he should get a plaque for the effort! But, Huckabee has gotten a lot more return on a lot fewer dollars. If you agree with Romney that McCain was wrong on McCain-Feingold and stem cell research, vote Mike Huckabee.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
1 February 08
#6. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would
you vote if the candidates were: (RANDOMIZE)
-- Rep --
30-31
Jan 08
John McCain 48%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Ron Paul 5%
(Other) -
(Don’t know) 5%
(Would not vote in GOP primary) 2%
#7. If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the
Republican primary, how would you vote? 30-31 Jan 08
McCain Romney (Don’t know) (Would not vote)
Republicans 62% 29% 6% 3%
Independents 60% 21% 11% 8%
Contrary to Romney apologists’ reports that “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain,” this blog points to a FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll (below) that suggests quite the opposite.
I pulled these numbers from the actual report. Note that with all three in the race, Republicans polled chose McCain by 48%, with Romney and Huckabee in a statistical tie at 20% and 19%, while if Huckabee is removed from the question, McCain’s polling among Republicans soars to 62% while Romney’s rises only to 29%. McCain rises 14 points while Romney rises only 9. And in fact in Rasmussen polling, Huckabee leads Romney in GA, AL, and MO and is competitive with him in all of the southern states that both need. So plainly, a vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
This in essence suggests that Romney is wasting more money with his latest multi-million dollar buy. He spent millions in Iowa to trash Huckabee and lost to Huckabee. He spent millions in New Hampshire, less than an hour from MA, where he was governor) to trash McCain and lost to McCain. He won in Michigan where he was born and his father was governor, playing the socialist “conservative” by pledging over 15 billion dollars for research to the auto industry: Promise made in Michigan could backfire on Romney . (by the way, that promise was YOUR money, not his) Then, after putting millions into South Carolina and foreseeing failure, he pulled out (finally finishing 4th) to go directly to spending in Florida, where McCain beat him 36% to 31%.
What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and looking for different results? Anyway, Huckabee supporters can actually thank Romney for shoveling out more millions to savage McCain. What a swell guy! Basically, Romney seems to be a good man with a nice family, and has been a successful business man. He obviously can do as he wishes with his millions of dollars. But based on the record, I wouldn’t invest a hundred bucks in such a sorry candidacy. Poor guy! At least, he should get a plaque for the effort! But, Huckabee has gotten a lot more return on a lot fewer dollars. If you agree with Romney that McCain was wrong on McCain-Feingold and stem cell research, vote Mike Huckabee.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
1 February 08
#6. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would
you vote if the candidates were: (RANDOMIZE)
-- Rep --
30-31
Jan 08
John McCain 48%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Ron Paul 5%
(Other) -
(Don’t know) 5%
(Would not vote in GOP primary) 2%
#7. If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the
Republican primary, how would you vote? 30-31 Jan 08
McCain Romney (Don’t know) (Would not vote)
Republicans 62% 29% 6% 3%
Independents 60% 21% 11% 8%
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/
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
STUNNED: Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani
My mother went to work with Pat Robertson when he was setting up The 700 Club in
The news this morning is that Pat Robertson will endorse Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy for the nomination of The Republican Party for President of The United States. CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani «
I am most sorry for the Christians in this country who will still rely on Pat Robertson as affirming the legitimacy of a destructive and cowardly decision to cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani in their state’s primary or caucus. I can only assume that such a calculation is made on the basis of who can win the general election and/or the hope of holding some influence in a possible Giuliani administration. I believe that the prior calculation is misguided and false: even setting principle aside, Giuliani does not offer the best prospect of a Republican victory. And, the latter interest of having influence is a forlorn one.
This action is especially misguided when Giuliani’s positions on the issues are least consonant of all the candidates with what Robertson must know is a noble disposition for the nation. And, it is especially so when one of those candidates is one who defines his objectives and actions according to the character of Jesus Christ: Mike Huckabee. I have supported Huckabee all year because he is bound by what is not only proper but vital principle. But even more so because whether I agree with a prescription or not, his model is the character of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps Pat Robertson has buried his head too deeply in the conventional so-called “pragmatism” of American politics to cast his lot with such an ideal. But, whatever the perception, I will trust in the model of Christ’s character in addition to the most fundamental principles of human propriety and American principle, both of which Giuliani plainly misunderstands. I will not support a Republican candidate who cannot decipher the most basic principles of The Republican Party and the founding of The United States Of America. To paraphrase Michael Corleone: “It’s not personal. It’s strictly Christian American business.”
Personally, I long ago assumed the responsibility to respect such principles and make up my own mind. I would at this point say to Pat Robertson: “Thank you for your service, but Christian Americans should now consider your political counsel irrelevant.”
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Giuliani At N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch, 2001
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor
Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch
The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.Giuliani, abortion, pro-choice,
Friday, October 26, 2007
Fiscal Conservative Challenge And Responses
A prominent social conservative in
The Huckabee campaign blog has posted this link in response. Former Arkansas journalist Lucas Roebuck writes about the vicious and misleading attacks on Governor Mike Huckabee's record.
Click here to read the story.
I questioned Sam Brownback’s commitment to life for remaining and dividing the clear and consistent pro-life contingent. Even if you grant Huckabee’s fiscal conservative heterodoxy, which I don’t (It’s called “conservatism” not myopic avarice), If Eagle Forum is going to oppose Huckabee, I might be tempted to question their priorities as well. Maybe they should rethink their opposition to terrorism and join Ron Paul or The Constitution Party?...I didn’t think so.
This is how I responded to the message:
-----------------------------------------
Thank you… The progress hasn’t been rocket-like. But it’s been relentless. The pace is picking up in the past few weeks and days. If it continues without incident, I think things look very good. But, I think there will be a big incident. Romney will attack Huckabee, fiercely. In fact, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson should cooperate (I don’t think McCain would want to be seen as part of that).
You recall that I met you at a Constitution Party state convention in 2000. I left the CP by ’94, though I still voted for their presidential candidate. I think most of them are very good people, but there are now some pretty stark differences in objective, outlook, and approach. I’m pretty certain that they wouldn’t think much of Huckabee. I probably would have been tepid about him myself, a few years ago.
I actually have some differences from him, in the way I would approach and explain a few issues. But even if I had a platform, I couldn’t win any significant fraction of the vote. I usually agree with Huckabee. But, the MOST important thing is his positive Christian spirit, which I think
Obviously, the support of your organization would be a great help. I imagine that if we prevail, you will be there. I know Phyllis Schlafly is still holding her tongue on the presidential contest, and obviously much of that is because the so-called “leading” candidates present more than a little odium. I would guess that she’s waiting on what ultimately washes out between Thompson and Huckabee.
Unless Thompson has some tricks up his sleeve that he’s shown no evidence of, I don’t think he can make it. And of course, his record is fairly spotty, too, which I find to be no surprise because I think he has at best, sentiment inclinations and no lucid philosophy. He clearly wasn’t repulsed enough to turn down political advocacy for a pro-abortion group when they flashed a check. He may have progressed since then, but his advocacy of McCain-Feingold told me that he had no constitutional perspective and touchstone.
Perhaps, there is concern among the Eagle Forum crowd about Huckabee’s language relative to immigration and spending. I assure you; Huckabee is straightforward and clear about the importance of securing and regulating the border and opposes an amnesty that does not penalize lawbreaking. However, he is always careful to specify that he doesn’t oppose people who want to come here to work, but rather our government that has made a hash of immigration regulation. In Arkansas, Huckabee declined to restrict the CHILDREN of illegal immigrants who had passed through the school system from applying for college scholarships, saying that it’s one thing to punish a law-breaker, but another to penalize their children who had done all of the necessary work.
And, on fiscal questions, of course you know that I am conservative, to say the least, about government activism. But, I would refer you to http://SaveTalkRadio.com ‘s posting of Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative and yesterday’s posting by three bloggers: Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds), Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost) and Matthew Anderson (Mere Orthodoxy) jointly endorsed Governor Huckabee. Read their endorsement here.
With respect to the SCHIP program, what Huckabee said was that he wasn’t certain that it would play well, politically. I wouldn’t have said that. But again, he's a politician and I’m not. It seems like he’s leaving open the question of whether this expansion could cost us next year’s election, and would it be worth it? In that case, more and worse would certainly be passed, next year.
And Huckabee never confronts the anthropocentric global warming (which frankly, I think is hogwash) issue head on. Instead, he diverts the discussion to stewardship of God’s creation, which he also ties to advancing toward energy independence, which I think are both worthy objectives. Is the Independent going to support this guy who is positive about the integrity of the environment and reducing largely foreign-based fossil fuel dependence or the “hogwash” guy?
Huckabee is also unequivocal and forceful about the atrocity and unconstitutionality of The Law Of The Sea Treaty and any subversion of American sovereignty.
I’m just listening to Hugh Hewitt with Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke, all of them saying that Huckabee (the fiscal “moderate” nonsense), Thompson (not making anything happen) and McCain (no money) can’t make it, and it’s a two man race between Romney and Giuliani. I’ll leave that in God’s hands. But Hewitt and Barnes are satisfied to ask social conservatives, the largest single interest group in the country, to hold their noses and trudge out to vote for a Republican nominee who not only doesn’t excite, but repels them.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thoughtful Social Conservatism
A visitor commented on Wednesday’s post, relative to compromises on the sanctity of life. It and my reply represent an importantant conversation that is rarely undertaken even among social conservatives. Pondering the question made me think that there are many questions that we do not fully enough flesh out. “Thoughtful Social Conservatism” would be a suitable title for a discussion of these questions, though such discussion is not well-suited to the sound bites of a political campaign.
Here is the comment and response:
Notes below posted to "Greatest story never told":
Land’s “Greater Good v. Greater Evil” argument has been the GOP left’s argument for as long as I can remember. You may remember Hannity shilling for Schwartzenegger in the
We have come to a major decision point in this country. One in which we need to risk eight years of Hillary at the helm in order to forge a new pro-family coalition.
Ethically, the best choice should be the only choice. If all voters operated this way, Hillary at the helm would not be risky because she would not win in a race where people of conscience voted their conscience. With Rudy or Mitt as her opponent, the eventual victor wouldn’t matter since their views are so similar to hers. In other words, we should rally around a true social conservative and let the electoral chips fall where they will.
Short version: We can all support candidates like Huckabee because it won't matter whether they can beat Hillary.... but I believe Huckabee can win anyway.
I couldn’t find either your profile or the post you referred to. But of course you're right, that the social left of The Republican Party has long given us "Land’s 'Greater Good v. Greater Evil' argument." But, we must be certain to note that Richard Land, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer are not of the social liberal left of the GOP.
So, theirs is not an animus of antipathy to social conservatism. Theirs is what at bottom, may be the more ignoble animus of a spirit of fear, rather than a positive spirit of exalting the standard of a clear an unambiguous ideal of the sanctity of human life.
The problem is not a Narcissistic one of whether we tarnish our own integrity with respect to our values. No, the big problem is the sacrifice of what war laid down as a foundational should be an American standard and which, in fact, one major political party in The United States has unapologetically abandoned.
If The Republican Party puts that most basic of principles on the negotiating table:
1) Republican strategists need never consider it, again. Its advocates can be taken for granted.
2) We are affirming as Republicans, a chief executive of The United States who is lost on the ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC of founding American principles. That's the individual you want charged with protecting and defending The Constitution.
By the way, this is hardly a unique example of Giuliani's oblivion to American principle. Such ineptitude at comprehension of principle is a dangerous condition that will repeatedly reappear, and it has.
3) If American society assimilates and becomes passive to the denial of this most basic principle, self-centered incivility will become an acceptable and standard disposition. I believe that civility in
By the way, one may look at my posture and assume that I am a reflexive follower of whatever position that most social conservatives and their perceived leaders espouse or embrace. Anyone is free to believe that, of course. But that assumption has the incomparable flaw of being untrue.
It is true that this blog has been generally devoted to the cause of nominating a social conservative as the Republican candidate for President of the
I can point to many examples and in a book, I might. But right here on this very fundamental issue of respect for the sanctity of human life, we are presented with a good example:
Many will consider me an inflexible, unreasonable, and detrimental ideologue because I am intransigent about the morality and essential Americanism of respect for the sanctity of human life. However, I do not advocate for an amendment to The US Constitution, banning abortion, which puts me at odds with almost every social conservative that I can think of, including Mike Huckabee.
Understand, if I were president (which is a most slightly greater likelihood than that of hell freezing over), I would be glad of it. But, 1) presidents have no part in the process of constitutional amendment. Such must be at first proposed by 2/3 of the US Senate AND the US House of Representatives and then ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. In short, as things stand, it ain’t gonna happen. Heck, a majority of a Senate CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS couldn’t even convict a Democratic president of high crimes and misdemeanors, who had repeatedly and brazenly perjured himself before a federal grand jury!
So in the first place, talk of such an amendment as of today is just a sentimental expression that abortion is wrong and/or Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional fabrication. I believe both of those things, but mere talk does nothing practical to rectify the really tragic problem.
Secondly, if such a process became a realistic possibility, we will have already progressed considerably in the necessary direction of public understanding that there is something very fundamentally amiss in American society. At this point, states and localities should reassert themselves in regulating or rejecting the practice of abortion. This process would of course, be greatly assisted by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which seems now a more attainable ambition, but I think states should challenge their captivity to this grotesquely unconstitutional ruling, regardless.
Also, the process of public and state assertion would also be greatly eased by the election of an assertive and articulate president of principle and character. And, so we return to Mike Huckabee...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)