I suspect I'm not the only one who was furious about Mitt Romney's attack adds. I think his attacks against Huckabee were, if not for the most part fraudulent, at least extreme spin.
But at this point, considering Romney has suspended his campaign, I think it best that we consider his previous attacks "water under the bridge." Let's give Romney the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he made those attacks because he sincerely thought he was the best person to serve as president; Just as Mike Huckabee sincerely believes he is the best person to serve. Let's choose to believe Mitt was just fighting for that chance to serve the best way he knew, rather than out of any animus for Mike Huckabee.
Looking at the declared platforms of Romney and Huckabee, they have a lot in common. Solid national security (including border security), lower taxes, smaller government, energy independence for America, preserving family values, etc. That's why I would have much rather seen the final race come down to Romney vs Huckabee, rather than either against McCain; but that too is water under the bridge.
With all the similarity, and the fact that Romney's campaign and pundits were speculating that Romney and Huckabee were "splitting the conservative vote", it seems clear what Romney's likely tactic was. Try to convince voters Huckabee was a "tax and spend liberal", and thus siphon off conservatives to himself; while splitting some liberals/"moderates" from McCain to Huckabee.
Again, although I can't say I approve of such methods, I'm trying to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on the matter of his motives. If his motives had been of a hostile nature, he'd probably still be in the race.
I think one of the things that motivated him to withdraw, was reading the results of many exit polls. These polls indicated two extremely relevant points. First, that although McCain's support came more from liberals/moderates and Romney's and from conservatives; Huckabee's support came not from moderates to any noticeable degree, but from conservatives; and that those identifying themselves as extremely conservative mainly supported Mike Huckabee.
The second relevant point from the exit polls was that Huckabee voters were likely to have McCain as second choice (rather than Romney) and vice versa. Since the base support of McCain and Huckabee were at opposite ends of the spectrum; it should be obvious that it was not similarity of positions that made the second choice, but a dislike for the Romney attacks. Again, now water under the bridge.
I even suspect there were some conservatives who voted for McCain, but really liked Huckabee; and did so because, as an unintended result of the interaction of multiple instances of pundit spin, they had been convinced that "a vote for Huckabee a vote for [Romney]".
That brings us now to a point where we have a race between a barely Republican front runner John McCain and tenacious underdog Mike Huckabee as the defender of a platform mostly shared by everyone from Mitt Romney to Fred Thompson to Duncan Hunter and others with at least a serious claim to conservatism.
Now pundits say a McCain nomination is inevitable. I want to know; is this is more or less inevitable than the Hillary Clinton nomination was before Obama started getting all those delegates?
Yes, I saw Karl Rove lay it out mathematically on the FoxNews channel. He said Huckabee would need about 83% of the remaining delegates in play, to win a majority before the convention. It does seem that would take a major miracle. But Mike Huckabee has been counted out so many times and been the brunt of so many attacks from pundits supporting other candidates that the fact he's still standing is in itself a miracle.
Rove then pointed out that McCain only needed 40% of the remaining delegates for majority. But the obvious converse of that is that Huckabee (with a small % assist from enthusiastic gadfly Ron Paul) only needs 60% to stop McCain from getting a majority and force a "brokered convention." Considering which states are left in the rest of the primary season, if conservative would simply be willing to consider past campaigning "water under the bridge" and honestly examine Huckabee's real achievements and positions unfiltered by past preferences; then achieving that 60% chance of stopping McCain's liberal express becomes a fairly minor miracle after all.
Now while I really want to see Huckabee get that 83% and be the presidential nominee; and while I'm positive Mike is fighting for that nomination rather than VP; I'd settle for getting to a brokered convention where Huckabee could end up in either the top or second slot, but where we could get both filled by at least a 90% conservative. When it comes to the highest office in the land, I'm sorry Senator McCain, but a supposed 83% rating from one group just isn't enough.
To sum up a probably much too long article: There may have been a lot of water under the bridge; but I'm convinced there's still enough water upstream to sail a conservative ship of state; especially if we have a skipper like Mike Huckabee, and potential shipmates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and their compatriots and supporters.
Related Posts:
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
"Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates" - 2008.01.15
"Will McCain-Feingold be the Elephant in the GOP Room?" - 2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism" - 2007.12.14
"Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech!" - 2007.12.07
"A Candidate with Moral Clarity" - 2007.11.20
"No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion" - 2007.11.17
"Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong... (but it's 'alright') " - 2007.11.05
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Friday, February 8, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Mitt Romney vs Sun Tzu
Some in the Romney camp seem to be crying either "foul" or "see, I told you so"; after McCain supporters in West Virginia switched their support to Mike Huckabee. What they should be doing is going back to re-read "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu ;probably the greatest military and political tactician of ancient China.
Apparently, the first vote tally in the Feb 5 WV Republican convention showed Romney was ahead, but the final tally showed Huckabee 52%, Romney 47% and McCain nowhere to be found. A number of pundits have also questioned why Huckabee often has stinging words for Romney; but remains civil, and simply points out his own superior experience and positions, when asked about McCain.
While those pundits and Romneyites may think both these indicate some sort of "back-room deal", what they need to remember is the full principle of alliances recorded by Sun Tzu in 6th century China.
I think it obvious that the nature of the political contest rules out the first part. The struggle for nomination makes all those involved in the race opposing combatants. While this doesn't of necessity indicate personal hostility between candidates; for the purpose of applying the principles found in "The Art of War", they are all "enemies."
I think it's clear that by Romney's early use of attack ads, against both John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he made himself more of an enemy to both than either was to each other. Thus the relevant principle becomes; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Now that doesn't by any means indicate that Huckabee or McCain have veered from their individual goals of becoming President themselves. It's ridiculous to suppose that Mike Huckabee is putting all this effort into becoming the VP on a McCain ticket.
It's doubly foolish when one realizes (as nearly all real conservatives do) that a McCain nomination would be doomed in the general election; where McCain's "independents" and "moderates" would mostly desert the mostly liberal McCain for the always liberal Clinton or Obama. Why would Huckabee conspire to be at the bottom of a doomed ticket? Clearly he wouldn't.
Romney supporters and pundits alike simply need to realize that Huckabee and McCain are simply holding some of their fire for now, though you can be sure they have ammunition stored against each other for the final contest. They should also not fool themselves into thinking Romney's higher "enemy" status is a result of being a better candidate. Rather the venomous snake at one's ankle is a greater enemy than the archer across the field. Hopefully when Huckabee and McCain do train their volley more directly at each other, they will be more civil and less venomous than Romney's attacks.
I also have to wonder whether Romney understands that the deceitfulness of his attacks against Huckabee have undermined even his truthful accusations against John McCain. You can be sure that when McCain decides to start actively attacking Huckabee, we will also remember the Arizona Senator's lack of integrity concerning a Romney "time-table" for pulling out of Iraq.
I tend to think Huckabee has studied Sun Tzu, although I also think venomous personal attacks are simply not his way. It's gratifying to see that although Huckabee will readily point out position differences between himself and other candidates, he hasn't sunk to the level of personal attacks and deception. His steadfast honesty and integrity should help to at least somewhat shield him against the deceitful attacks of others.
Perhaps Mitt Romney could have at least listened to the advise of W.C. Fields, before he became the source of so many untruth's about Mike Huckabee. To quote Fields from the 1939 movie where one of his most famous quotes was also the film's title; "You can't cheat an honest man."
Apparently, the first vote tally in the Feb 5 WV Republican convention showed Romney was ahead, but the final tally showed Huckabee 52%, Romney 47% and McCain nowhere to be found. A number of pundits have also questioned why Huckabee often has stinging words for Romney; but remains civil, and simply points out his own superior experience and positions, when asked about McCain.
While those pundits and Romneyites may think both these indicate some sort of "back-room deal", what they need to remember is the full principle of alliances recorded by Sun Tzu in 6th century China.
"The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Sun TzuThis of course begs the question of which part of this principle is more likely to apply in this situation.
I think it obvious that the nature of the political contest rules out the first part. The struggle for nomination makes all those involved in the race opposing combatants. While this doesn't of necessity indicate personal hostility between candidates; for the purpose of applying the principles found in "The Art of War", they are all "enemies."
I think it's clear that by Romney's early use of attack ads, against both John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he made himself more of an enemy to both than either was to each other. Thus the relevant principle becomes; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Now that doesn't by any means indicate that Huckabee or McCain have veered from their individual goals of becoming President themselves. It's ridiculous to suppose that Mike Huckabee is putting all this effort into becoming the VP on a McCain ticket.
It's doubly foolish when one realizes (as nearly all real conservatives do) that a McCain nomination would be doomed in the general election; where McCain's "independents" and "moderates" would mostly desert the mostly liberal McCain for the always liberal Clinton or Obama. Why would Huckabee conspire to be at the bottom of a doomed ticket? Clearly he wouldn't.
Romney supporters and pundits alike simply need to realize that Huckabee and McCain are simply holding some of their fire for now, though you can be sure they have ammunition stored against each other for the final contest. They should also not fool themselves into thinking Romney's higher "enemy" status is a result of being a better candidate. Rather the venomous snake at one's ankle is a greater enemy than the archer across the field. Hopefully when Huckabee and McCain do train their volley more directly at each other, they will be more civil and less venomous than Romney's attacks.
I also have to wonder whether Romney understands that the deceitfulness of his attacks against Huckabee have undermined even his truthful accusations against John McCain. You can be sure that when McCain decides to start actively attacking Huckabee, we will also remember the Arizona Senator's lack of integrity concerning a Romney "time-table" for pulling out of Iraq.
I tend to think Huckabee has studied Sun Tzu, although I also think venomous personal attacks are simply not his way. It's gratifying to see that although Huckabee will readily point out position differences between himself and other candidates, he hasn't sunk to the level of personal attacks and deception. His steadfast honesty and integrity should help to at least somewhat shield him against the deceitful attacks of others.
Perhaps Mitt Romney could have at least listened to the advise of W.C. Fields, before he became the source of so many untruth's about Mike Huckabee. To quote Fields from the 1939 movie where one of his most famous quotes was also the film's title; "You can't cheat an honest man."
Friday, February 1, 2008
A Liberal, a Liar, or a Leader?
I've heard a number of media pundits suggest the Mike Huckabee is just splitting the Conservative vote, and should get out of the race so Mitt Romney has a better chance of beating John McCain. Nothing could be further from the truth, except perhaps Romney himself.
Mitt Romney and his campaign, are of course responsible for a massive onslaught of attack adds against Mike Huckabee that were a chain of misrepresentations and outright lies about Huckabee's record and positions. What rational person would move from the camp of an honest and courageous leader like Mike Huckabee to the camp of a liar and flip-flopper like Mitt Romney?
Yes, anyone paying attention knowns John McCain is at least to the left of Joe Lieberman, and has sometimes been to the left of (or at least in line with) Hillary Clinton. His Campaign Finance reform law (that is a violation of the First Amendment), his McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, and his new McCain-Lieberman "cap and trade" economic suppression bills are all unforgivable legislative sins. But no matter how liberal (and at least recently dishonest) John McCain is, that doesn't negate Mitt Romney's dishonesty or change Romney's (at least partially) liberal history on social issues.
If anything, Mitt Romney should drop out of the race in favor of the more conservative Mike Huckabee; but of course that's not going to happen. So why do these taking heads think Huckabee should, or would, for a moment entertain the idea that he should (or could) deliver voters up to a liar like Mitt Romney. Surely they know Romney's attacks on Huckabee's record are lies, because the majority of them are finally recognizing Huckabee as a real conservative.
Am I really suggesting that Romney should bow out? No, though I actually think McCain should, as should Ron Paul. Neither of them is by any means a reasonable representation of the core of the Republican party.
So what we're currently faced with is a choice between a liberal, a liar and a leader (and if you include Ron Paul, a near lunatic). Maybe the self-serving Fi-Cons (Fiscal-only Conservatives) would like our choices reduced to the lesser of two great evils. But how does one decide whether a liberal (who now lies) or a liar (who is somewhat liberal) is the lesser evil?
Fortunately, Mike Huckabee too much of an honest conservative leader to leave us to such a fate. As Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, Huckabee has the most government leadership experience of any candidate; and he continues to lead by his continued principled positions, his powerful motivating oration, and his refusal to cave-in or "fight in the gutter" in this campaign.
So being a Georgia voter; on February 5th, I'll by-pass the liberal and the liar. I'm choosing the leader; Mike Huckabee!
Related Posts:
"Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge" - 2008.01.30
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
Mitt Romney and his campaign, are of course responsible for a massive onslaught of attack adds against Mike Huckabee that were a chain of misrepresentations and outright lies about Huckabee's record and positions. What rational person would move from the camp of an honest and courageous leader like Mike Huckabee to the camp of a liar and flip-flopper like Mitt Romney?
Yes, anyone paying attention knowns John McCain is at least to the left of Joe Lieberman, and has sometimes been to the left of (or at least in line with) Hillary Clinton. His Campaign Finance reform law (that is a violation of the First Amendment), his McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, and his new McCain-Lieberman "cap and trade" economic suppression bills are all unforgivable legislative sins. But no matter how liberal (and at least recently dishonest) John McCain is, that doesn't negate Mitt Romney's dishonesty or change Romney's (at least partially) liberal history on social issues.
If anything, Mitt Romney should drop out of the race in favor of the more conservative Mike Huckabee; but of course that's not going to happen. So why do these taking heads think Huckabee should, or would, for a moment entertain the idea that he should (or could) deliver voters up to a liar like Mitt Romney. Surely they know Romney's attacks on Huckabee's record are lies, because the majority of them are finally recognizing Huckabee as a real conservative.
Am I really suggesting that Romney should bow out? No, though I actually think McCain should, as should Ron Paul. Neither of them is by any means a reasonable representation of the core of the Republican party.
So what we're currently faced with is a choice between a liberal, a liar and a leader (and if you include Ron Paul, a near lunatic). Maybe the self-serving Fi-Cons (Fiscal-only Conservatives) would like our choices reduced to the lesser of two great evils. But how does one decide whether a liberal (who now lies) or a liar (who is somewhat liberal) is the lesser evil?
Fortunately, Mike Huckabee too much of an honest conservative leader to leave us to such a fate. As Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, Huckabee has the most government leadership experience of any candidate; and he continues to lead by his continued principled positions, his powerful motivating oration, and his refusal to cave-in or "fight in the gutter" in this campaign.
So being a Georgia voter; on February 5th, I'll by-pass the liberal and the liar. I'm choosing the leader; Mike Huckabee!
Related Posts:
"Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge" - 2008.01.30
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge
Truth be told, I'm getting a little tired of mentioning Rush Limbaugh; but I think he's had a bigger impact on the Republican campaign than some of the Presidential candidates.
Rush has been discussing commentary to the effect that McCain "beat Limbaugh" in South Carolina, and supposes that a McCain win in Florida would result in more pundits claiming McCain "beat" him there. I think rather it is a result of Rush "beating-up on" Mike Huckabee.
Rush is framing these discussions of his influence in the race in the context of other pundits acting as if Rush himself is a candidate. Rush reminds people that he is "not on the ballot", but I (like some actually well known journalists and pundits) contend that he definitely is in the campaign. Rush has been acting as surrogate for Fiscal-First Conservatives Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. (Let's try shortening that to Fi-Cons)
It may be debatable whether Rush has been promoting a single individual. I think an overall analysis of his commentary quite clearly shows his preferences were:
Rush Limbaugh's primary method of attacking Huckabee has been to repeat spin, misdirection and outright lies that originated mainly from the Mitt Romney campaign and the open-borders, anti US-sovereignty group "Club for Growth." I contend that Rush's all-out assault on Huckabee caused legions of less than committed likely Huckabee voters to look for another candidate. These southern, mostly middle-class, voters were not about to get on board with obvious "blue-blood country club republican" Mitt Romney or Mr New York,Rudy Giuliani.
Rush's barbs (along with the fact that Fred finally "woke up" in the SC debate) did move some to Fred Thompson, which primarily helped McCain only by hurting Huckabee. Analysis of the "conservative" vote in SC showed Huckabee got much more of it than McCain, and adding any significant part of Thompson's vote to Huckabee would have put him in first place. But having a conservative focused on social and moral issues is the last thing Rush wanted. His statement's on possibly sitting out the election if a candidate not to his liking is nominated shows his dedication to the Fi-Con agenda.
Although Rush did spend some time pointing out McCain's lack of conservatism, he spent much less time hitting McCain than bashing Huckabee. he may have thought it so obvious that McCain was out in left-field that he didn't waste the time on him that he did repeating the anti-Huckabee Romney-isms. So along with legions of "independents"(too impatient to wait for the Democrat primary the following week), Rush had provided the final part of the perfect storm for a McCain surge.
While Limbaugh has usually been "friendly" to causes important to social/moral conservatives, it's become clear in recent months that Rush doesn't really see Reagan Conservatism as a "three-legged stool". He seems to treat the triumvirate of conservative causes more like a motorcycle with a side-car. Using that analogy, "Fiscal" and "Defense" would be the wheels of the motorcycle, while "Social" would be the wheel of the side-car; useful in providing balance and additional carrying capacity, but never seen as providing either driving force or guidance.
While I completely understand and agree with Rush's stated reasons for not wanting a McCain presidency, I question not only his conclusions but his motive when it comes to Mike Huckabee. If Rush were to spend any serious amount of time researching Huckabee's positions and history, he would quickly find the Romney/Club for Growth spin to be the pack of lies that they are.
I just don't think Rush can conceive of the possibility that one who believes Social/Moral Conservatism is more than the wheel of a side-car as a serious contender. He apparently believes that, beneath it all, the "blue blood country club" republicans are either still really in control of the Republican party, or they should be.
Now that Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided to drop out, a number of pundits are saying the Republican nomination is down to a two-man race. I suspect that, on the whole, they are following Rush's lead in now discounting Huckabee.
Unlike Rush, some of them have at least begun to recognize Mike Huckabee as a real conservative, supposing that Huckabee staying in the race is good for McCain. Their rationale is that McCain will have the "moderate" (meaning liberal) vote, while Romney and Huckabee will split the conservative vote.
Some are even making veiled suggestions that Huckabee should drop out to level the playing field and help prevent a RINO (Republican In Name Only, i.e. McCain) from getting the nomination. If anyone should think about heeding the suggestion to drop-out to help beat McCain it's Romney; who if truth be told doesn't have nearly as consistently conservative a record as does Mike Huckabee.
Rush, and many of the other pundits, keep expressing fears that Mike Huckabee would make too easy a target for the liberals as the "Christian" candidate; supposing wackos on the far-left could raise fears among Americans in general that Huckabee would bring some type of theocratic rule. Anyone listening to Huckabee can clearly tell this is nonsense. He upholds the true position of Christianity in this area, which is precisely how America's Founding Fathers saw it. He will neither back down from his Faith, nor impose it on anyone else by means of force in any form or fashion. And i have more faith in American voters than to think they would fall for this kind of humanistic fear-mongering.
What Rush and his ilk fail to understand is that we are more in danger of falling prey to the class-warfare of the left. Romney would be much easier prey for liberals, as an obvious target of their hatred for the multi-millionaire elite, than Huckabee could ever be painted as some sort of religious fanatic. Not only that, but Romney has a vast array of problems with the rank-and-file among Republican voters.
So when Rush and his legions continually pound voters with the twin lies of "Huckabee is a tax and spend liberal" and "Huckabee doesn't have a chance" in hopes that they head for Romney; voters (who fall for their spin) instead go past the obvious "country-clubber" Romney, for McCain. What too many voters don't seem to realize is that McCain, though not as obviously as Romney, is also a part of the "blue blood country club elite". Not to mention that he seems to have never met a tax cut he actually liked; at least when time to vote for it.
Hopefully voters will be able to see past the Rush/Romney spin, and through the McCain obfuscation to the real history of Mike Huckabee, and the experience and hope his candidacy brings. The real truth about Huckabee is that both his history and his current positions show a man who stands for:
As for Rush and his legions, they may not realize it; but I still contend that by dishonestly attacking Mike Huckabee, it is they who are responsible for the rising popularity of John "the RINO" McCain.
Rush has been discussing commentary to the effect that McCain "beat Limbaugh" in South Carolina, and supposes that a McCain win in Florida would result in more pundits claiming McCain "beat" him there. I think rather it is a result of Rush "beating-up on" Mike Huckabee.
Rush is framing these discussions of his influence in the race in the context of other pundits acting as if Rush himself is a candidate. Rush reminds people that he is "not on the ballot", but I (like some actually well known journalists and pundits) contend that he definitely is in the campaign. Rush has been acting as surrogate for Fiscal-First Conservatives Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. (Let's try shortening that to Fi-Cons)
It may be debatable whether Rush has been promoting a single individual. I think an overall analysis of his commentary quite clearly shows his preferences were:
- Fred Thompson
- Mitt Romney
- Rudy Giuliani
Rush Limbaugh's primary method of attacking Huckabee has been to repeat spin, misdirection and outright lies that originated mainly from the Mitt Romney campaign and the open-borders, anti US-sovereignty group "Club for Growth." I contend that Rush's all-out assault on Huckabee caused legions of less than committed likely Huckabee voters to look for another candidate. These southern, mostly middle-class, voters were not about to get on board with obvious "blue-blood country club republican" Mitt Romney or Mr New York,Rudy Giuliani.
Rush's barbs (along with the fact that Fred finally "woke up" in the SC debate) did move some to Fred Thompson, which primarily helped McCain only by hurting Huckabee. Analysis of the "conservative" vote in SC showed Huckabee got much more of it than McCain, and adding any significant part of Thompson's vote to Huckabee would have put him in first place. But having a conservative focused on social and moral issues is the last thing Rush wanted. His statement's on possibly sitting out the election if a candidate not to his liking is nominated shows his dedication to the Fi-Con agenda.
Although Rush did spend some time pointing out McCain's lack of conservatism, he spent much less time hitting McCain than bashing Huckabee. he may have thought it so obvious that McCain was out in left-field that he didn't waste the time on him that he did repeating the anti-Huckabee Romney-isms. So along with legions of "independents"(too impatient to wait for the Democrat primary the following week), Rush had provided the final part of the perfect storm for a McCain surge.
While Limbaugh has usually been "friendly" to causes important to social/moral conservatives, it's become clear in recent months that Rush doesn't really see Reagan Conservatism as a "three-legged stool". He seems to treat the triumvirate of conservative causes more like a motorcycle with a side-car. Using that analogy, "Fiscal" and "Defense" would be the wheels of the motorcycle, while "Social" would be the wheel of the side-car; useful in providing balance and additional carrying capacity, but never seen as providing either driving force or guidance.
While I completely understand and agree with Rush's stated reasons for not wanting a McCain presidency, I question not only his conclusions but his motive when it comes to Mike Huckabee. If Rush were to spend any serious amount of time researching Huckabee's positions and history, he would quickly find the Romney/Club for Growth spin to be the pack of lies that they are.
I just don't think Rush can conceive of the possibility that one who believes Social/Moral Conservatism is more than the wheel of a side-car as a serious contender. He apparently believes that, beneath it all, the "blue blood country club" republicans are either still really in control of the Republican party, or they should be.
Now that Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided to drop out, a number of pundits are saying the Republican nomination is down to a two-man race. I suspect that, on the whole, they are following Rush's lead in now discounting Huckabee.
Unlike Rush, some of them have at least begun to recognize Mike Huckabee as a real conservative, supposing that Huckabee staying in the race is good for McCain. Their rationale is that McCain will have the "moderate" (meaning liberal) vote, while Romney and Huckabee will split the conservative vote.
Some are even making veiled suggestions that Huckabee should drop out to level the playing field and help prevent a RINO (Republican In Name Only, i.e. McCain) from getting the nomination. If anyone should think about heeding the suggestion to drop-out to help beat McCain it's Romney; who if truth be told doesn't have nearly as consistently conservative a record as does Mike Huckabee.
Rush, and many of the other pundits, keep expressing fears that Mike Huckabee would make too easy a target for the liberals as the "Christian" candidate; supposing wackos on the far-left could raise fears among Americans in general that Huckabee would bring some type of theocratic rule. Anyone listening to Huckabee can clearly tell this is nonsense. He upholds the true position of Christianity in this area, which is precisely how America's Founding Fathers saw it. He will neither back down from his Faith, nor impose it on anyone else by means of force in any form or fashion. And i have more faith in American voters than to think they would fall for this kind of humanistic fear-mongering.
What Rush and his ilk fail to understand is that we are more in danger of falling prey to the class-warfare of the left. Romney would be much easier prey for liberals, as an obvious target of their hatred for the multi-millionaire elite, than Huckabee could ever be painted as some sort of religious fanatic. Not only that, but Romney has a vast array of problems with the rank-and-file among Republican voters.
- To the elderly, when Romney bangs the drum on "ending entitlements" (without providing specifics), they wonder whether he means to cut off or cut-back the social security which they have been promised, and into which they paid all their working lives.
- To Social Conservatives, Romney has paper-thin credentials on the issues of Abortion and Government sanctions of homosexual practices. (not to mention gun-control etc) Is it possible to be on three sides of an issue?
- To Middle-Income voters, Romney simply (to paraphrase Mike Huckabee) reminds them more of the guy who laid them off than the guy they work with.
So when Rush and his legions continually pound voters with the twin lies of "Huckabee is a tax and spend liberal" and "Huckabee doesn't have a chance" in hopes that they head for Romney; voters (who fall for their spin) instead go past the obvious "country-clubber" Romney, for McCain. What too many voters don't seem to realize is that McCain, though not as obviously as Romney, is also a part of the "blue blood country club elite". Not to mention that he seems to have never met a tax cut he actually liked; at least when time to vote for it.
Hopefully voters will be able to see past the Rush/Romney spin, and through the McCain obfuscation to the real history of Mike Huckabee, and the experience and hope his candidacy brings. The real truth about Huckabee is that both his history and his current positions show a man who stands for:
- Pro-Life advocacy and real progress for recognizing the sanctity of every life as demonstrated by real reform in Arkansas
- Pro-Family Values and real progress demonstrated by Marriage amendments in Arkansas
- Tax restraint and economic growth, as demonstrated by lowering overall tax-rates in Arkansas; to the extent that the per-capita income in that state rose so much that it resulted in an increase in revenues, allowing further tax cuts at the end of Huckabee's final term as Governor
- Smaller Government, as demonstrated by the Arkansas budget having been cut by 11% under Huckabee
- Enforcing Border Security and a real No-Amnesty policy, as seen in Huckabee's "Secure America Plan" a 9-point plan for immigration enforcement and Border Security.
- Rational Health-care, controlled by the consumer through common sense and market forces (Huckabee proposed); rather than rationed health-care, controlled by either the government (Democrat proposed) or an employer-mandated insurance company (the common current system).
- Energy Independence, beginning with more domestic drilling/refining, and then providing incentives for developing new energy sources. Huckabee proposes we can reach this goal of energy independence within ten years.
As for Rush and his legions, they may not realize it; but I still contend that by dishonestly attacking Mike Huckabee, it is they who are responsible for the rising popularity of John "the RINO" McCain.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates
The "Talking-Heads" of both talk radio and cable news are at it again. Spurred on by a Mitt Romney talking-point; they are accusing Mike Huckabee of "a net [tax] increase of half a billion dollars," during his time as Governor of Arkansas. This includes some of the most vocal political analysts and commentators from Rush Limbaugh on down.
They base this conclusion on the fact that, even though Huckabee presided over more tax-reductions than tax-increases, there was an increase in taxes collected. Let's remember one of those economic principles that Reagan's opponents called "voodoo-economics", but which have proved to be true. An overall decrease in tax rates boosts general prosperity, which in turn results in an increase in tax revenues.
Yes, when the government takes a thinner slice of the pie, the pie gets bigger; and as a result, even the government ends up with a bigger piece of pie.
I searched Rush Limbaugh's website , and found this specific instance of how the self-proclaimed "Doctor of Democracy" explains the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.
Likewise, those who confuse (or ignore the difference between) tax revenues and tax rates to tar Mike Huckabee as presiding over "a net increase" in taxes can only be called one of three things; Absurd, Mistaken, or outright lying! Even Rush Limbaugh should admit that either he now thinks Reagan's tax principles are "voodoo-economics"; or that Mike Huckabee really did lower overall tax rates as Governor of Arkansas.
Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14
They base this conclusion on the fact that, even though Huckabee presided over more tax-reductions than tax-increases, there was an increase in taxes collected. Let's remember one of those economic principles that Reagan's opponents called "voodoo-economics", but which have proved to be true. An overall decrease in tax rates boosts general prosperity, which in turn results in an increase in tax revenues.
Yes, when the government takes a thinner slice of the pie, the pie gets bigger; and as a result, even the government ends up with a bigger piece of pie.
I searched Rush Limbaugh's website , and found this specific instance of how the self-proclaimed "Doctor of Democracy" explains the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.
"You know, they keep calling the Bush tax cuts, 'tax cuts.' They weren't. They were tax increases! The amount of money that roared into the treasury increased after the tax cuts. We had tax rate reductions, but tax revenue increased. You could actually more accurately say that the Bush tax cuts were tax increases. They were just happened by virtue of rate reductions." - Rush Limbaugh: 2007.12.19 "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits page", article #12 (emphasis mine)Rush is fond of "illustrating absurdity by being absurd," and it's pretty obvious that he's doing just that in the quote above. Who would be so absurd as to actually call the "Bush tax cuts"; "tax increases".
Likewise, those who confuse (or ignore the difference between) tax revenues and tax rates to tar Mike Huckabee as presiding over "a net increase" in taxes can only be called one of three things; Absurd, Mistaken, or outright lying! Even Rush Limbaugh should admit that either he now thinks Reagan's tax principles are "voodoo-economics"; or that Mike Huckabee really did lower overall tax rates as Governor of Arkansas.
Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14
Monday, December 31, 2007
Huckabee Shows Real Guts on Immigration
I was just watching a YouTube replay of Mike Huckabee on "Meet the Press" , and am grateful that the web often makes it unnecessary to remember how to program the timed-record on the old VCR. At one point, Tim Russert set up a real "gotcha" on illegal immigration.
Russert first played a clip of Huckabee from a debate, in which Huckabee said; "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." Then Russert showed a quote from Huckabee's "Secure America Plan", that gives a 120 day window for illegals to register and return back to their country of origin, otherwise be barred from re-entry for 10 years.
After quoting both statements out of context to set it up, Russert executed his seemingly perfect "gotcha".
Russert even continued trying to make it look like Huckabee's answer resulted in punishing the child, in contradiction to his previous position statement. When he found that didn't work, he started another "gotcha" setup, about how sending home all those illegals might hurt our economy, which Huckabee quickly countered before letting the host complete his new setup.
Huckabee stood firm, his primary position being that we absolutely must secure the border. His not directly stated, but clearly suggested, idea being that if we discover negative secondary effect after securing the border; we can certainly find solutions that work. But first and foremost, we must secure the border.
Even those who, like me, think children born of illegals shouldn't be citizens have to give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He showed a great deal of courage in giving such an honest answer. I'm sure a lot of liberals will see Huckabee as an outright villain for daring to say the children should be expected to leave with their parents, and I'm sure he knows it.
But it still allows for those children to re-enter the country later, as citizens; thus, not punishing the children for the crime of the parents. And it still stays firm on securing the border and enforcing Huckabee's Secure America Plan.
I'm sure there will be times and issues where changing conditions or new information will result in Huckabee changing his mind. But it seems pretty clear that he's a man of integrity, and he's no flip-flopper.
Russert first played a clip of Huckabee from a debate, in which Huckabee said; "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." Then Russert showed a quote from Huckabee's "Secure America Plan", that gives a 120 day window for illegals to register and return back to their country of origin, otherwise be barred from re-entry for 10 years.
After quoting both statements out of context to set it up, Russert executed his seemingly perfect "gotcha".
- Russert-"Children born here are American citizens..."
- Huckabee-"Mmm Hmm"(agreement)
- Russert-"..and you were saying that, don't punish those kids. A week later, you said no, no, no send the parents home. And what happens to the kids?"
- Russert-"But they're American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?"
- Huckabee-"Because they're...they're first; before they're American citizens, they're the children of their parents."
Russert even continued trying to make it look like Huckabee's answer resulted in punishing the child, in contradiction to his previous position statement. When he found that didn't work, he started another "gotcha" setup, about how sending home all those illegals might hurt our economy, which Huckabee quickly countered before letting the host complete his new setup.
Huckabee stood firm, his primary position being that we absolutely must secure the border. His not directly stated, but clearly suggested, idea being that if we discover negative secondary effect after securing the border; we can certainly find solutions that work. But first and foremost, we must secure the border.
Even those who, like me, think children born of illegals shouldn't be citizens have to give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He showed a great deal of courage in giving such an honest answer. I'm sure a lot of liberals will see Huckabee as an outright villain for daring to say the children should be expected to leave with their parents, and I'm sure he knows it.
But it still allows for those children to re-enter the country later, as citizens; thus, not punishing the children for the crime of the parents. And it still stays firm on securing the border and enforcing Huckabee's Secure America Plan.
I'm sure there will be times and issues where changing conditions or new information will result in Huckabee changing his mind. But it seems pretty clear that he's a man of integrity, and he's no flip-flopper.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech
Just because he's not my choice for President, doesn't mean I can't recognize the positive contribution Mitt Romney made with his speech on Faith. Some are saying he was wrong not to specifically include atheists in his speech.
Wait a minute... "wrong"? Yes, even atheists have things they consider "right" and "wrong". From where I sit, any belief that includes a moral code is a religion. The only distinction is that in atheism and humanism, it is man (whether individual or plural) who is seen as the source of the moral code, rather than God. So by including all "religions", Romney did include atheists and humanists.
Because some have attributed the timing of Romney's speech to the rapid rise of Mike Huckabee (also a former Baptist minister) in the polls, I want to mention two things. First, that Mike Huckabee strongly denounced an Iowa push-pole that brought up the question of Romney's religious beliefs. Second, that Huckabee himself has also been the target of repeated attacks on his religion; primarily over the fact that he was a minister and his strong belief in Divine Creation.
Like the upset of these atheists over Romney's speech, I think the attacks against both men are probably grounded in a disdain for anyone who actually believes the basis for "right and wrong" comes from a Divine source, and is not subject to our human whims.
also see:
No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion
Huckabee accused of believing in God
A Candidate with Moral Clarity
Wait a minute... "wrong"? Yes, even atheists have things they consider "right" and "wrong". From where I sit, any belief that includes a moral code is a religion. The only distinction is that in atheism and humanism, it is man (whether individual or plural) who is seen as the source of the moral code, rather than God. So by including all "religions", Romney did include atheists and humanists.
Because some have attributed the timing of Romney's speech to the rapid rise of Mike Huckabee (also a former Baptist minister) in the polls, I want to mention two things. First, that Mike Huckabee strongly denounced an Iowa push-pole that brought up the question of Romney's religious beliefs. Second, that Huckabee himself has also been the target of repeated attacks on his religion; primarily over the fact that he was a minister and his strong belief in Divine Creation.
Like the upset of these atheists over Romney's speech, I think the attacks against both men are probably grounded in a disdain for anyone who actually believes the basis for "right and wrong" comes from a Divine source, and is not subject to our human whims.
also see:
No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion
Huckabee accused of believing in God
A Candidate with Moral Clarity
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Romney Scores On Rudy but Misses Huckabee with Immigration Attacks
In last night's CNN YouTube debate, Mitt Romney continued his false characterization of Mike Huckabee's history on the children of illegal aliens. Of course to attack Huckabee, Romney had to mis-state what he actually supported as Governor of Arkansas. Especially since what Huckabee actually supported was practically indistinguishable from what Romney had said was legally required in educating the children of illegals, in just having traded salvos with Rudy Giuliani over giving sanctuary to illegals.
Romney said New York was a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants under Giuliani. Rudy retorted that Romney at one time had illegals working at his "sanctuary mansion". Romney offered clarification that the illegals were brought in by a contractor he hired (supposedly without his knowledge). He then rightfully continued his declaration that Rudy should not have given any sanctuary to illegals, except emergency medical care, and education of their children as required by law. (not an exact quote but I'm sure the meaning is intact)
Later in the debate, Romney claimed that Huckabee wanted to give special treatment to illegal aliens regarding scholarships. What he actually supported, though it was never passed, was basically treating children of illegals the same as known citizens; providing they had attended school in Arkansas all the way from first grade through high school. (There were also other requirements that can be found on Huckabee's website) Under those conditions, the children were too young to have had any choice in crossing the border, and may in fact have been born here; which under current law would make them citizens.
While Romney tried to say Mike Huckabee's explanation sounded like a liberal excuse, to me it sounds like a logical part of the "sanctuary" for children of illegals (not the illegals themselves); which Romney says is already required by law. As for me, I would much rather change both any law that requires educating children of illegals, and that makes all children born here (even those of parents here illegally) citizens. Philosophically, I do hesitate to "punish the children". But the reality is that we currently benefit the children for the crimes of the parents; and a significant benefit to their children is powerful motivation for the parents to commit the crime.
But while I personally disagree with providing any government funded services for illegals (beyond emergency medical care), Huckabee's stance against the illegal invasion in general and for preserving the sovereignty of the United States seem as solid as Plymouth Rock. Sure, I'd like to find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But as Huckabee pointed out in the debate, Jesus was too smart to run for political office*.
*(not to mention born in Bethlehem and therefore not qualified to run for President of the USA, even though Divine)
Romney said New York was a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants under Giuliani. Rudy retorted that Romney at one time had illegals working at his "sanctuary mansion". Romney offered clarification that the illegals were brought in by a contractor he hired (supposedly without his knowledge). He then rightfully continued his declaration that Rudy should not have given any sanctuary to illegals, except emergency medical care, and education of their children as required by law. (not an exact quote but I'm sure the meaning is intact)
Later in the debate, Romney claimed that Huckabee wanted to give special treatment to illegal aliens regarding scholarships. What he actually supported, though it was never passed, was basically treating children of illegals the same as known citizens; providing they had attended school in Arkansas all the way from first grade through high school. (There were also other requirements that can be found on Huckabee's website) Under those conditions, the children were too young to have had any choice in crossing the border, and may in fact have been born here; which under current law would make them citizens.
While Romney tried to say Mike Huckabee's explanation sounded like a liberal excuse, to me it sounds like a logical part of the "sanctuary" for children of illegals (not the illegals themselves); which Romney says is already required by law. As for me, I would much rather change both any law that requires educating children of illegals, and that makes all children born here (even those of parents here illegally) citizens. Philosophically, I do hesitate to "punish the children". But the reality is that we currently benefit the children for the crimes of the parents; and a significant benefit to their children is powerful motivation for the parents to commit the crime.
But while I personally disagree with providing any government funded services for illegals (beyond emergency medical care), Huckabee's stance against the illegal invasion in general and for preserving the sovereignty of the United States seem as solid as Plymouth Rock. Sure, I'd like to find a candidate who is perfect in every way. But as Huckabee pointed out in the debate, Jesus was too smart to run for political office*.
*(not to mention born in Bethlehem and therefore not qualified to run for President of the USA, even though Divine)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
When You "Cry Wolf", Mean It!
I think I finally figured out how to define the frustration I feel with Washington Republicans, and possibly why they lost both houses of Congress. The Republicans have been treating Social conservatives like the Democrats treat "minorities". (I put "minorities" in quotes because we're all Americans. The Democrats just seem bent on dividing us in their attempts to conquer.)
{{Warning! You are about to enter an unrestrained (but still G-rated) "Free Speech" zone! Names have been withheld to protect the innocent, the guilty, and those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about.*}}
Democrats engage in fear-mongering among "minorities"; usually accusing Republicans of things like not "caring" about them, and wanting to return to "Jim Crow" laws. Likewise, Republicans bang the drum on saving us from the Democrat agenda of abortion-as-birth-control, government endorsed gay-unions, and generally promise to preserve the traditional American way of life. The only difference between the two is that "minorities" really have nothing to fear from Republicans, and can do much better than the "daily fish" the Democrats dangle. Both have "cried wolf" far too many times, without showing enough concern about "the wolf" to actually get rid of it. (To make it clear, lest I be accused of promoting something totally irrational; I'm talking about taking care of the issues, not getting rid of the other party.)
The Democrats, are still peddling the same old Johnson-era failed social programs; designed to try and make citizens dependent rather than self-sufficient. They focus first on those whose ancestors were victims of rampant bigotry, and try to convince them that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, rather than taking action that helps to actually raise those who might still be considered to have some starting disadvantage (such as broken homes created by the very social programs the Democrats instituted); they only act to lower those who have achieved by shackling them with crippling taxes and irrational levels of controls on free enterprise.
The Democrat's ultimate end, of course, is to make us all into a dependent class. How else could one possibly explain the recent illogical attempt to expand the S-CHIP program to include 24 year olds making three-times the "poverty level" in income; but as a head-start on enslaving us all to government run, socialized medicine. Anyone who disagrees with the President's recent veto of the S-CHIP travesty needs to pay more attention! (That doesn't include closet socialists, who should either become enlightened as to the virtues of mildly-monitored capitalism under a representative republic; or move to Canada and get it over with!)
As for the GOP, they perpetually point out the existing tendency of Democrats to expand government to the point of being an all-controlling socialistic "Big-Brother" on fiscal issues, and being unrestrained libertines on social issues. Meanwhile the Republican leadership takes no serious action to actually slow abortions, take a stand against sexual degradation (including the false idea that pornography is protected "free speech"), or to get serious about protecting our borders. Like most Democrats, most Republicans seem to think that if they actually solve the problems they speak about (real or inflated), they won't have enough fears left to lure their respective voters to the polls.
Now we have a field of Republican presidential candidates, of whom only one has done more than pay lip service to the issues most dear to Christian Conservatives; and I'm not positive even he is quite as firm on the issue of illegal invaders as I'd prefer) Meanwhile a few big-name supposed "Christian leaders" are joining internationalist country-club libertarian-republicans to assault that lone voice of moral reason.
As one of those "Christian Conservatives" who have been the life raft of the Republican party; I'm getting sick and tired of keeping them afloat while most of their supposed "front-runners" snicker up their collective sleeves at the very values that give us buoyancy.
THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!
{{sound of an enormous sigh}}
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...beeeep...
*{PS:Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about should try listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while!}
{PPS: Reading David Limbaugh's book "Persecution" wouldn't hurt either.}
{{Warning! You are about to enter an unrestrained (but still G-rated) "Free Speech" zone! Names have been withheld to protect the innocent, the guilty, and those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about.*}}
Democrats engage in fear-mongering among "minorities"; usually accusing Republicans of things like not "caring" about them, and wanting to return to "Jim Crow" laws. Likewise, Republicans bang the drum on saving us from the Democrat agenda of abortion-as-birth-control, government endorsed gay-unions, and generally promise to preserve the traditional American way of life. The only difference between the two is that "minorities" really have nothing to fear from Republicans, and can do much better than the "daily fish" the Democrats dangle. Both have "cried wolf" far too many times, without showing enough concern about "the wolf" to actually get rid of it. (To make it clear, lest I be accused of promoting something totally irrational; I'm talking about taking care of the issues, not getting rid of the other party.)
The Democrats, are still peddling the same old Johnson-era failed social programs; designed to try and make citizens dependent rather than self-sufficient. They focus first on those whose ancestors were victims of rampant bigotry, and try to convince them that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, rather than taking action that helps to actually raise those who might still be considered to have some starting disadvantage (such as broken homes created by the very social programs the Democrats instituted); they only act to lower those who have achieved by shackling them with crippling taxes and irrational levels of controls on free enterprise.
The Democrat's ultimate end, of course, is to make us all into a dependent class. How else could one possibly explain the recent illogical attempt to expand the S-CHIP program to include 24 year olds making three-times the "poverty level" in income; but as a head-start on enslaving us all to government run, socialized medicine. Anyone who disagrees with the President's recent veto of the S-CHIP travesty needs to pay more attention! (That doesn't include closet socialists, who should either become enlightened as to the virtues of mildly-monitored capitalism under a representative republic; or move to Canada and get it over with!)
As for the GOP, they perpetually point out the existing tendency of Democrats to expand government to the point of being an all-controlling socialistic "Big-Brother" on fiscal issues, and being unrestrained libertines on social issues. Meanwhile the Republican leadership takes no serious action to actually slow abortions, take a stand against sexual degradation (including the false idea that pornography is protected "free speech"), or to get serious about protecting our borders. Like most Democrats, most Republicans seem to think that if they actually solve the problems they speak about (real or inflated), they won't have enough fears left to lure their respective voters to the polls.
Now we have a field of Republican presidential candidates, of whom only one has done more than pay lip service to the issues most dear to Christian Conservatives; and I'm not positive even he is quite as firm on the issue of illegal invaders as I'd prefer) Meanwhile a few big-name supposed "Christian leaders" are joining internationalist country-club libertarian-republicans to assault that lone voice of moral reason.
As one of those "Christian Conservatives" who have been the life raft of the Republican party; I'm getting sick and tired of keeping them afloat while most of their supposed "front-runners" snicker up their collective sleeves at the very values that give us buoyancy.
THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!
{{sound of an enormous sigh}}
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...beeeep...
*{PS:Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about should try listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while!}
{PPS: Reading David Limbaugh's book "Persecution" wouldn't hurt either.}
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Does Limbaugh Like Mike?
In response to a caller who asked Rush Limbaugh why he doesn't promote Duncan Hunter, Rush answers that it's the job of the candidates to promote themselves; and that he avoids picking a candidate in the primaries. (link to guest transcript)
Part of Rush's description of what candidates should do sounds quite a bit like Mike Huckabee to me. This included the tip that to "get out of the bottom tier" a candidate would need "a really humongous debate performance". I took this as a veiled reference to Huckabee, especially when coupled with a comment Rush made about "going against somebody that's going to benefit from all the conventional wisdom, the media and others."
Just a few days earlier Rush commented about how a Huckabee was poised to "throw all the conventional wisdom out the window" with a win in Iowa. To read those comments, click here for Rush's "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits" page; then go down to "Story #6: On the Cutting Edge:Huckabee Surges in Iowa".
Rush also took a small swipe at the conservatism of some candidates, saying that journalists from Washington and New York; "are willing to overlook, in some cases, the lack of genuine conservatism in some candidates because they're from the northeast." Can I be the only one to whom this sounds like it at least includes Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani? Click on this LINK to the transcript at RushLimbaugh.com.
True to his word, Rush Limbaugh continues to play it close to the vest. I don't claim that Huckabee is the only candidate he views favorably. But with comments like, "I just sit and watch until one of them surfaces", in context of the above; it doesn't require much reading between the lines to conclude Rush likes Mike.
Also read my previous post: Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary
Use the above Limbaugh links soon, while still available to guests; or subscribe to Rush 24/7 for full access. It's money well spent, that I recommend almost as much as contributing to the Mike Huckabee Campaign!
Part of Rush's description of what candidates should do sounds quite a bit like Mike Huckabee to me. This included the tip that to "get out of the bottom tier" a candidate would need "a really humongous debate performance". I took this as a veiled reference to Huckabee, especially when coupled with a comment Rush made about "going against somebody that's going to benefit from all the conventional wisdom, the media and others."
Just a few days earlier Rush commented about how a Huckabee was poised to "throw all the conventional wisdom out the window" with a win in Iowa. To read those comments, click here for Rush's "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits" page; then go down to "Story #6: On the Cutting Edge:Huckabee Surges in Iowa".
Rush also took a small swipe at the conservatism of some candidates, saying that journalists from Washington and New York; "are willing to overlook, in some cases, the lack of genuine conservatism in some candidates because they're from the northeast." Can I be the only one to whom this sounds like it at least includes Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani? Click on this LINK to the transcript at RushLimbaugh.com.
True to his word, Rush Limbaugh continues to play it close to the vest. I don't claim that Huckabee is the only candidate he views favorably. But with comments like, "I just sit and watch until one of them surfaces", in context of the above; it doesn't require much reading between the lines to conclude Rush likes Mike.
Also read my previous post: Rush Credits Huckabee with Best debate statement on Hillary
Use the above Limbaugh links soon, while still available to guests; or subscribe to Rush 24/7 for full access. It's money well spent, that I recommend almost as much as contributing to the Mike Huckabee Campaign!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion
I've seen a few express concern over the religious affiliation or connection of one or more of the Republican Presidential candidates. These have mainly focused on Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, or the fact that Mike Huckabee was a Baptist minister, before he became Governor of Arkansas.
One example is the recent "push poll" that apparently seeks to make voters uneasy about Romney on the basis of particular beliefs, apparently held by the Mormon church. While I think it not only more appropriate, but a better strategy, to question the sincerity of Romney's recently reacquired pro-life stance, I find it absolutely despicable to attempt what the First Amendment was expressly crafted to avoid. That is in using differences between particular "establishment[s] of religion" to fight for political control along "sectarian" lines.
A more rational example is an apparently genuine question of concern by Robert Roach; which he entered as a comment on one of the "What Leadership Looks Like" Blog post at www.MikeHuckabee.com. Part of Robert's comment was; "I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. To that effect, I am somewhat offended by the level of 'religious' comments on the Huckabee site. I would like to believe that as "Americans" the majority of you support the Governor, not as 'Christians.' "
In an attempt to assuage the concerns of those who might share Robert's concerns, I offer the following:
I understand your concern and I share your concern over the intermingling of government and religion. The phrase you quote; "separation of church and state"; while actually part of a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than part of the Constitution, is often used to describe this concern.
You may be surprised to learn that much of the "Christian" enthusiasm you see here is a result of sharing your concern rather than a desire for a "national church" of some kind. In my case, at least, it comes from a real desire to return to a Constitutional relationship between religion and government, which has the government looking favorably upon religious speech and practice in general, but never selecting or promoting a specific religious faction.
Too often in recent times, has the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" been misconstrued to mean the government should be disrespectful toward religion and religious expression. In the words of Joseph Story (an early supreme court Justice) from his multi-volume commentary on the US Constitution, in his section on the Bill of Rights:
"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."
A full reading of Justice Story's section on the First Amendment explains that the same wording that prevents a specific Christian sect from becoming an arm of the National Government, also ensures citizens are free to follow non-Christian religions, or no religion; without governmental interference and with equal protection under the law. (this would of course not apply to supposedly religious practice involving things like "honor-killing", polygamy, "child-marriage", etc)
The first amendment has all to do with preventing the government from running a church, and nothing to do with preventing religiously minded citizens from using the moral values grounded in Christianity (or any other religion) from becoming active participants in the political process.
I only ask to be allowed to work for laws that recognize values such as the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage (as per traditional definition), without being silenced by a militantly-secular court; on the false grounds that since those values are part of Christianity, such laws are an establishment of religion; And further that I that must be silent about my faith or be found guilty of a hate crime, simply for speaking peacefully.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, thats all most of the very vocal "Christians" want too. Sure, I'd like to peacefully persuade others to believe as I do; but only by sharing the Bible with those willing to listen and NEVER by the force of government. Not only would that not be American, it wouldn't be Christian! Furthermore, and no disrespect intended, I'm certainly NOT supporting Mike Huckabee for national preacher. But I do share the pro-life, and pro-family positions he says are rooted in his faith, and which are are rooted in mine.
Though there are many other planks of the Huckabee platform that would already make him my favorite choice as President, I'll readily admit that it's these common views on "faith based issues" that make him my only choice for President. Again, it's not because we are of the same Christian "sect" (to those who focus on religious divisions, we would definitely not be seen as such). It's because we share the same goals on issues.
Please also see my earlier post:
Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong (but it's "Alright")
One example is the recent "push poll" that apparently seeks to make voters uneasy about Romney on the basis of particular beliefs, apparently held by the Mormon church. While I think it not only more appropriate, but a better strategy, to question the sincerity of Romney's recently reacquired pro-life stance, I find it absolutely despicable to attempt what the First Amendment was expressly crafted to avoid. That is in using differences between particular "establishment[s] of religion" to fight for political control along "sectarian" lines.
A more rational example is an apparently genuine question of concern by Robert Roach; which he entered as a comment on one of the "What Leadership Looks Like" Blog post at www.MikeHuckabee.com. Part of Robert's comment was; "I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. To that effect, I am somewhat offended by the level of 'religious' comments on the Huckabee site. I would like to believe that as "Americans" the majority of you support the Governor, not as 'Christians.' "
In an attempt to assuage the concerns of those who might share Robert's concerns, I offer the following:
I understand your concern and I share your concern over the intermingling of government and religion. The phrase you quote; "separation of church and state"; while actually part of a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists rather than part of the Constitution, is often used to describe this concern.
You may be surprised to learn that much of the "Christian" enthusiasm you see here is a result of sharing your concern rather than a desire for a "national church" of some kind. In my case, at least, it comes from a real desire to return to a Constitutional relationship between religion and government, which has the government looking favorably upon religious speech and practice in general, but never selecting or promoting a specific religious faction.
Too often in recent times, has the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" been misconstrued to mean the government should be disrespectful toward religion and religious expression. In the words of Joseph Story (an early supreme court Justice) from his multi-volume commentary on the US Constitution, in his section on the Bill of Rights:
"§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."
A full reading of Justice Story's section on the First Amendment explains that the same wording that prevents a specific Christian sect from becoming an arm of the National Government, also ensures citizens are free to follow non-Christian religions, or no religion; without governmental interference and with equal protection under the law. (this would of course not apply to supposedly religious practice involving things like "honor-killing", polygamy, "child-marriage", etc)
The first amendment has all to do with preventing the government from running a church, and nothing to do with preventing religiously minded citizens from using the moral values grounded in Christianity (or any other religion) from becoming active participants in the political process.
I only ask to be allowed to work for laws that recognize values such as the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage (as per traditional definition), without being silenced by a militantly-secular court; on the false grounds that since those values are part of Christianity, such laws are an establishment of religion; And further that I that must be silent about my faith or be found guilty of a hate crime, simply for speaking peacefully.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, thats all most of the very vocal "Christians" want too. Sure, I'd like to peacefully persuade others to believe as I do; but only by sharing the Bible with those willing to listen and NEVER by the force of government. Not only would that not be American, it wouldn't be Christian! Furthermore, and no disrespect intended, I'm certainly NOT supporting Mike Huckabee for national preacher. But I do share the pro-life, and pro-family positions he says are rooted in his faith, and which are are rooted in mine.
Though there are many other planks of the Huckabee platform that would already make him my favorite choice as President, I'll readily admit that it's these common views on "faith based issues" that make him my only choice for President. Again, it's not because we are of the same Christian "sect" (to those who focus on religious divisions, we would definitely not be seen as such). It's because we share the same goals on issues.
Please also see my earlier post:
Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong (but it's "Alright")
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Faith First!
I was reading a recent blog post on www.MikeHuckabee.com, when I came across the comments of a Romneyite acting in a way that obviously marked him as what Rush Limbaugh would label a "seminar caller". (i.e. "I really agree with you but in this case you should change your mind")
To begin with, I found it amusing, that someone would try such an obvious tactic as wait until next election for Huckabee and support Romney now; But as I entered my own comment on why I found his suggestion unacceptable, I grew more passionate in my response. Part of this probably came from my feelings about recent unfathomable announcements by supposed religious/moral leaders who chose to endorse candidates that either are or have been supporters of abortion-on-demand and/or government sanction of homosexual-unions. Although probably not the most eloquent writing (even by my poor standards), I thought it worth copying here as a post:
WOW, Romney and/or his supporters must be worried to try and distract us with comments like those of "AZ, RHR".
To me it's simple. The two issues that are most import right now are Sanctity of Life and stemming the tide of Homosexual-mainstreaming.
I only trust 3 candidates on these two issues; Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I will not vote for a ticket with anyone but one of these three at the top. Period, that's it.
I've come to the point in my absolute revulsion with the moral direction our country has been drifting that, if the Republicans nominate a candidate soft on moral issues, I'll take it as a sign we need to "hit bottom".
No insult intended to the other two candidates, but I think Mike Huckabee has the most passion on those two subjects. It doesn't hurt that I also really like his take on FairTax, National Sovereignty, Energy Independence, etc. So he's my first choice.
I don't agree at all with RHR's claim that Romney is "more fiscally conservative". The accusation about Huckabee's supposed "big government" spending seem to be all infrastructure issues. Hate to tell you, but that IS a function of government! The challenge in those areas is not elimination, but managing them in a responsible way, which Huckabee has done.
Again to my bottom line: try reading Matt 6:24-34, about making God or money your main concern. To quote verse 33; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
I would rather live in a tent in a nation that upholds Godly principles and honors God, than a mansion in a nation that holds life cheep and holds perverse sexual practices in the same light as the marriage of one man and one woman. I am also absolutely confident that seeking God first, including voting for candidates upholding Godly values, will make it less likely that we suffer financial ruin than if we neglected God to focus on chasing money. (Let me make clear, I'm not talking about choosing God to get money, but the idea that blindly choosing money over God will eventually lead us to ruin; including financial ruin.)
Now can anyone tell me how I could possible in good faith accept Romney, McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani; or why I would conceivably choose any other candidate above Mike Huckabee?!?
To begin with, I found it amusing, that someone would try such an obvious tactic as wait until next election for Huckabee and support Romney now; But as I entered my own comment on why I found his suggestion unacceptable, I grew more passionate in my response. Part of this probably came from my feelings about recent unfathomable announcements by supposed religious/moral leaders who chose to endorse candidates that either are or have been supporters of abortion-on-demand and/or government sanction of homosexual-unions. Although probably not the most eloquent writing (even by my poor standards), I thought it worth copying here as a post:
WOW, Romney and/or his supporters must be worried to try and distract us with comments like those of "AZ, RHR".
To me it's simple. The two issues that are most import right now are Sanctity of Life and stemming the tide of Homosexual-mainstreaming.
I only trust 3 candidates on these two issues; Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I will not vote for a ticket with anyone but one of these three at the top. Period, that's it.
I've come to the point in my absolute revulsion with the moral direction our country has been drifting that, if the Republicans nominate a candidate soft on moral issues, I'll take it as a sign we need to "hit bottom".
No insult intended to the other two candidates, but I think Mike Huckabee has the most passion on those two subjects. It doesn't hurt that I also really like his take on FairTax, National Sovereignty, Energy Independence, etc. So he's my first choice.
I don't agree at all with RHR's claim that Romney is "more fiscally conservative". The accusation about Huckabee's supposed "big government" spending seem to be all infrastructure issues. Hate to tell you, but that IS a function of government! The challenge in those areas is not elimination, but managing them in a responsible way, which Huckabee has done.
Again to my bottom line: try reading Matt 6:24-34, about making God or money your main concern. To quote verse 33; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
I would rather live in a tent in a nation that upholds Godly principles and honors God, than a mansion in a nation that holds life cheep and holds perverse sexual practices in the same light as the marriage of one man and one woman. I am also absolutely confident that seeking God first, including voting for candidates upholding Godly values, will make it less likely that we suffer financial ruin than if we neglected God to focus on chasing money. (Let me make clear, I'm not talking about choosing God to get money, but the idea that blindly choosing money over God will eventually lead us to ruin; including financial ruin.)
Now can anyone tell me how I could possible in good faith accept Romney, McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani; or why I would conceivably choose any other candidate above Mike Huckabee?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)