Friday, December 21, 2007

Rush is Wrong about Huckabee Supporters

Rush is rarely wrong, but he is absolutely dead wrong on his perception of the reason for the Huckabee surge. He claims it's a result of "identity politics"; that is voting for someone because they are a member of a particular group.

Rush says Christian Conservatives are supporting Huckabee because he is a Christian and is a former Baptist minister. In this, Limbaugh is absolutely, completely and infuriatingly wrong!

I have been trying for 3 weeks to get through to enlighten Mr Limbaugh as to the reason at least I am supporting Huckabee; and I don't think I'm alone in my reasons. It has a lot more to do with my goals as a Christian in America than with Huckabee himself being a Christian. And I think Limbaugh is basically insulting us and Huckabee for actually sticking to our core values.

I am sick and tired of the Republican party talking the talk on moral issues, and not walking the walk. Does Limbaugh actually fall into the Liberal trap of thinking the GOP lost the House and Senate because of the war? Anyone who believes that needs to open their eyes to the moral questions being raised during the last election and especially as relates to the issue of homosexual activity and turning a blind eye to it.

As much as I'm with Limbaugh on a number of conservative issues, I'm much more concerned about the moral degradation in this country. To quote Mike Huckabee; "What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?"

Limbaugh has repeatedly brought up the issue that Democrats somehow keep getting the support of black voters by playing to their concerns; even though they never really do anything to resolve the issues. He verbally wonders when they will get wise to the Democrats and start looking for real solutions over rhetoric.

In the same way that a growing number of "African Americans" are reportedly starting to look to more conservative solutions, we "values voters" are done with having Republicans talk about "our" issues and then do nothing legislatively. We're also appalled at seeing their lives filled with just as much hedonism and elitism as the furthest left-leaning Democrats.

To sum it up in a single phrase that even those who seem to put economic policy above all, such as Limbaugh, can understand; It's Ethics and Morality Stupid! And if you can't understand that it's not dependent on someone "being" a certain religion or of a specific sectarian persuasion; then you're in the same boat as those Bible-hating ACLU lawyers who argue for suppression of religion in the name of a mis-interpretation of "the establishment clause" of the first amendment.

While Rush may be the bastion of conservatism on fiscal and security issues, he's too busy joking about having "mistresses" in various states to entertain the notion that our support is due to the fact there are ways in which Mike Huckabee is more conservative than Ronald Reagan!

For one thing, Mike Huckabee has remained in a faithful marriage to his first and only wife, which is something that not Ronald Reagan, nor Newt Gingrich, nor Rudy Giuliani, nor a host of other Republican "icons" have managed to do. When he talks about the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, you know he not only means it but he lives it.

Mike Huckabee helped pass a constitutional amendment in Arkansas that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and helped pass an "Unborn Child Amendment". If such had been done nationally by Ronald Reagan or during any of the subsequent Republican administrations, I'm convinced that not only would congress would still be in Republican control, but we would be well on our way to solving some of our worst social problems.

Rush and other conservative commentators have revealed amazement at how disconnected politicians seem to be from the concern of most Americans over illegal immigration. Well I'm flabbergasted at how disconnected and blind Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and a host of others seem to be on the issue of homosexual-mainstreaming. So called "gay-marriage" is a big part of it, but that's not the whole issue.

Now I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is somehow "the biggest sin". However, societal acceptance of homosexual practice is a good barometer of the general moral condition of that society. The marginalization of marriage has already been a huge problem in this country, and that needs to be reversed.

Instead of working to strengthen the family unit, we have Liberals wanting to put a governmental stamp of approval on the practice, whether as "gay-marriage" or "civil-unions". Meanwhile, many supposed conservatives are content to sit idly by or even gladly accept governmental endorsement of homosexual practice as just an "alternate lifestyle", as long as it's not called "marriage".

It makes my blood boil when I hear Rush talk about Liberals accusing Republicans of being "Racist, bigot, sexist, homo-phobes". Rush seems to be suggesting that Republicans who stand against acceptance of homosexuality deserve the ire of those who rail against us; the same as if we were racists, bigots, and sexists.

Furthermore, a phobia is a fear of something that there is no reason to fear. In case Mr Limbaugh hasn't noticed, there is a real movement to force acceptance of homosexuality as part of the American (and world) culture. How can one conceivably be considered a conservative, if one is willing to make something part of the American mainstream which would fundamentally and change the basic fabric of American society forever rather than conserve it?

I'm full to bursting on the subject of "conservatives" who scoff at social conservatism, but I'm trying to stay on topic of things either said directly by or quoted (without contradiction) by Rush Limbaugh; and specifically those things that allow for his view of "identity politics" as the only reason he sees that we support Mike Huckabee.
  • You say Mike Huckabee went along with raising some taxes as Governor of Arkansas? Well Ronald Reagan went along with raising taxes as governor of California. (Plus Huckabee lowered taxes many more times than raising them)
  • You say Mike Huckabee is soft on illegal immigration because he was in favor of allowing scholarships for the children of illegals in Arkansas, even though he now proposes a Border Security First plan? Well Ronald Reagan gave us an Amnesty for illegal aliens themselves, in advance of a promised border security that never happened.
  • You say Mike Huckabee is taking the Democrats side on Iraq, because he said Bush showed an "arrogant bunker mentality". Well Ronald Reagan was accused of condoning the Holocaust, for placing a wreath on a grave at the Bitburg military cemetery in Germany, in 1985. Both accusations were false. Reagan was simply trying to ensure solid relations with Germany (as an ally against the Soviet Union), 40 years after WWII; and Huckabee said the battle in Iraq should have been supported with more strength, not less. So he was actually taking a position opposite the Democrat view that our troops were either too aggressive or shouldn't have been there at all.
I'll admit that in some areas, I'd like a candidate more conservative than even Ronald Regan ever was. But I don't see that Huckabee is noticeably less conservative than Reagan was prior to the White House; and Huckabee certainly isn't less conservative than Romney, McCain, Thompson, or (God-forbid) Giuliani.

I'm not abandoning my conservative principles to follow someone who happens to be called a "Christian." I suggest rather that Rush, along with the majority of "conservative" pundits and Republican legislators, is simply continuing the tradition of which he accuses Liberals; looking at Christian Conservatives as "a bunch of rube, hayseed hicks".

Are they so obsessed with worshiping at the alter of "Fiscal Conservatism" that they feel threatened or confused by the idea that we actually take other areas of conservative thought just as seriously? Why is it so hard for them to realize that we can have conservative social issues as our highest priority, without abandoning other conservative issues or blindly following some religious label. Yes our social views are in line with religious convictions. But as the Declaration of Independence says, our inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, not by Wall Street.

Rush rages against Liberals when they accuse his listeners of being "mind-numbed robots" who agree with anything he says; when we're really agreeing with him when he says what we already believe. Now Rush Limbaugh has basically accused us of supporting Huckabee like mind-numbed robots because he's a "Christian"; when in fact we're supporting Huckabee for demonstrating he can get the results in which we already believe.

In spite of what Rush has been saying recently, I want to credit him for influencing me to choose Mike Huckabee as my candidate for President. It's largely at his urging over the years and in investigating things Rush has said (and others have said about him) that I've learned to investigate the whole matter and whole record in politics; rather than taking the most repeated or harshest statements at face value.

It's not a shared religious label, as Rush Limbaugh supposes, but a result of my personal search for the facts that is at the root of my support for Mike Huckabee.


Gary said...

"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Based on his statements I find it impossible to believe he is not playing identity politics. He says he was just asking the reporter because he wanted to know. BS.

He flew to Salt Lake City in 1998 to speak at an anti-mormon convention, and was the keynote speaker. He knew exactly what he was doing.

He asked the question to identify Romney as a cult member and himself as a "Christian Leader"

Right or wrong that's called identity politics.

Anonymous said...

Rush no more controls my opinion as a Conservative than Oprah, and neither Rush, Hannity, Coulter or any endorsing figure will cast my vote for me. Since you focus on Rush, I think his family life and other troubles have shown that he is not a poster boy social conservative by any means (Mike Huckabee is). I do agree with a lot of Rush's views and material, but at the end of the day, he is an entertainer who captures audience for advertisement profits. What has he really sacrificed or done for this country?
Mike Huckabee has served over a decade as a Governor, and continues to fight the good fight.
I just hope most American voters are smart enough to look into the facts and choose a candidate for themselves, because your implied concern that some will be led astray by these loud voices is a real threat.

Joseph said...

Rush is nothing more than an extreme right wing blow-hard. I have always thought his views were just as "out of step" with the mainstream Americans as the far left liberals. He thrives on controversy and hate which is totally opposite of a true conservative, in my opinion.

Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, and Michelle Malkin are close on Rush's heels to becoming the right wing equivalent of And I believe they want Romney as their leader of this little clique.

As for who supports Huckabee and why? I am as big a supporter as they come and I have not been to church at all in more than 5 years. I appreciate Mike being a Christian but it isn't why I support him. The reason I support Mike Huckabee is listed in my endorsement of him on his site. You can read my long, rambling reasons by clicking on the state of KY and looking for Joseph. Or, you can visit my MySpace page and click on my blog at

SteveLee said...

Rush is pulling for Romney. How ironic. He(Rush) went on the war path and attacked John Carey for being a "flip-flopper" from Mass. and here we have another liberal from Mass. that changes his stance depending on the job that he's applied for.
According to Rush Limbaugh today, Mitt Carey only has 2 problems with conservatives. Anyone able to count can find more than 2 problems with the liberal from Mass. (no not John Carey, Mitt Romney). 1: Using the police power of government to FORCE people to buy a product (health insurance).2: abortion. I guess he was against abortion, before he was for abortion, before he was against it.3: gay marriage nuff said. 4:Gun Control and the NRA. Yep that's right. Here's a quote Romney "I don't line up with the NRA."
Boston Globe, January 14, 2007
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.
Rush has became a disappointment to say the least. Now he's calling Huckabee supporters a cult. Jeeze, what's next? A cult?

The Values Voter (TVV) said...

The GOP Establishment totally misses why people like Huckabee. It is obvious that the establishment choices for leadership of the party have failed. Huckabee represents not just the Christian community but of a fresh way of communicating a number of conservative ideas.

They need to be careful here. Earlier this year, there was talk about Evangelicals supporting a third party candidate should Giuliani win the nomination. Now that his candidacy is in trouble and Romney is now the choice of the East Coast Rockefeller Republicans, the same thing sort of holds true. If they unduly attack Huckabee, they will face similar problems getting Christians out to the polls as the Democrats will have with blacks if they mishandle Obama. Huckabee has run the best campaign and has done it with far fewer resources than any of his competitors and actually is a conservative. I do not trust the establishment to tell me who to vote for because they have gotten us into the current state that the party is in.

Anonymous said...

Rush is absolutely wrong about Huckabee's conservatism. But I believe he is pretty much right about many if not most of Huckabee's supporters - they are wrapped up in identity politics and this is a weakness that Huckabee needs to overcome. We absolutely need the evangelical/social con vote ~ but an awful lot of the enthusiasm surrounding Huckabee at the grassroots level is purely based on christian identity based emotionalism (on the surface it looks a lot like zealotry) and this is what turns off many less religious conservatives who otherwise would probably like Mike based on his experience and stated stance on the issues.