Helping Obama be Successful

OK, so the two big questions here are these:
How does one measures success?
Do we want success?

There has been much discussion over whether those who oppose out new President's collectivist ideology should wish him success. I strongly oppose the collectivist and immoral ideologies to which Barack Obama has attached himself, from his pro-abortion stance to the radical agenda of forcing mainstream acceptance of homosexual practices to his obvious socialist collectivist agenda.

However, I want to see him be extremely successful. But instead of success at achieving his personal agenda, I want him to be successful in fulfilling his oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. - United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

Basically, by taking this oath of office, President Barack Obama has formally stated that, for the next four years, his success will be measured by how well he faithfully executes the Office of President of the United States, including being absolutely committed to the preservation, protection and defence of the Constitution of the United States. Those well versed in the Constitution should immediately realize this Oath puts Obama (the President) very much at odds with Obama the collectivist and promoter of a practice that takes from unborn children the very life that the Declaration of Independence says is an inalienable right given by the Creator.

According to the Oath President Obama took to assume his office; to be successful, he must act in accordance with the Constitution and against the goals of nearly every one of his supporters who helped him get elected. I wish him much success in that endeavor, and first of all success in realizing what being "successful" now requires of him.

I call on all Americans to help our President succeed, through respectfully encouraging him to follow the Constitution, through politely offering suggestion to him and to all our elected officials, and by offering Prayer to Almighty God that he and all of our leaders be granted the wisdom to see how they truly should lead this "One Nation Under God", and the courage to do so; that our nation not perish, as nations are prone to do when they decide to turn their backs on their duty and push aside the hand of Divine Providence.

I personally have three main areas in which I would like to see our new President be successful:

1. To realize that the unborn are human beings, whose life is a gift of God that no-one can justly rip away as a matter of convenience; and on that basis to end the nightmare of abortion-on-demand that has so savaged and degraded our Nation.
2. To realize that homosexual practices are a stain on our culture and that they should be discouraged, rather than forcing acceptance. I would also suggest we need to not stop there in seeking to rebuild strong families, but to reverse our casual attitudes about sex and marriage in general.
3. From an economic standpoint, I believe the best thing we could do right now is enact the FairTax. I also believe President Obama is in a unique position to convince both those Americans previously uninformed about this marvelous plan to unfetter economic productivity, and to convince those in Congress (some of whom will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting this plan that would eliminate the vast majority of the symbiotic relationships between paid lobbyists and lawmakers) that they had better get to some real change and get rid of the IRS!
   

Rush Limbaugh Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool

Many credit Ronald Reagan (and I think rightly so) with building the "3-legged stool" that is the modern conservative movement. The three legs being Defense Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Social Conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh needs to realize his own marginalizing of moral and social issues (at the root of his attacks on Mike Huckabee) is in danger of cutting off the Social Conservative leg. A leg that the leaders of the Republican party have been doing little beyond rhetoric to shore up in recent years.

I think there are two basic reasons Rush is attacking Mike Huckabee. Number 2 is that Huckabee does, admittedly, often lead with a populist sounding attention getter up front and one often has to sift for his solutions; which ARE CONSERVATIVE.

The Number 1 Reason is the one area where RUSH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Rush strikes me as having become too much of a hedonist (or at least giving a wink to hedonism) to be able to support anyone who takes issues like fighting homosexual mainstreaming seriously. As one who has listened to Rush for years, it's obvious that he thinks homosexual mainstreaming is no big deal. For me, it's the biggest.

We can recover from a temporary tragic bout of liberalism in fiscal areas. All but the most extreme far-left liberal loons become "Defense Conservatives" when our nation is obviously threatened. But a governmental sanction of homosexual practice would shatter our basic culture to such a degree that we would never recover.

Huckabee needs to put his conservative solutions more up-front in his speeches and answers. This would help put those at ease who, after hearing Rush's false charges that Huckabee is liberal in the Defense and Fiscal areas; and may not look deep enough into his record and statements to see Huckabee's firm support for all three legs.

Although it's apparent that Rush does believe in God as the Creator (see his "Undeniable Truths of Life" #s 20&23); he seems to worship at the altar of the "Almighty Dollar" first and foremost, and seems incredulous that any candidate mentions any subject more often than money.

Rush has enough staff and history of deep research that he either knows his charges are false, or he is predisposed to believing the worst about a candidate who is dedicated to supporting the Conservative stool by three firm legs even if he has carve a replacement for the fragile Social/Moral leg himself from a tree of basically Biblical values. I have enough reason not to doubt Rush's honesty that I believe it's the latter, and therefore he simply hasn't bothered to get all the facts about Huckabee.

In either case, it seems to indicate Rush believes more in a stool supported by two legs and a broom-straw, than the 3-legged stool of Ronald Reagan. [note (2008-01-03): My opinion of Rush's intention have changed after a statement Rush made the night of the Iowa caucus. I now think he believes Huckabee would be very likely defeated by the Democrats, and his loss would marginalize "the Christian right." Look for a more in-depth post on that subject later today.]

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.