Huckabee’s Snark Can’t Rain on CPAC’s Parade
You have to wonder if, in fact, Huckabee did not attend in order to comply with the call for a boycott of CPAC by Liberty Counsel and other Christian extremists. Huckabee strongly disagrees with GOProud’s views on homosexuality, which was made obvious in his confrontation with John Stewart.
There was a clearly a more tolerant feel to the whole event. It was more of a gathering of like-minded folks who differ on some issues but ultimately want fiscal conservatism. Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, constitutionalists, Republicans, and independents all rubbed shoulders, inspiring each other.
Rather than “sucking the air out of the room” as Huckabee has claimed, the newly engaged tea party movement people gave the event the inspiration it needed.
Instead of attending CPAC, Huckabee attended a FairTax Rally in D.C. The FairTax people have been quite irked by the fact the Tea Party Patriots effort at developing an agenda – the Contract from America – has not included specific language calling for the so-called “fair tax.” Governor Huckabee is a strong supporter of the fair tax initiative and has been since his failed presidential run.
There are those who think Huckabee’s rant against CPAC was caused by the fact he fared so poorly in the infamous straw poll that saw Ron Paul win by a wide margin. Huckabee could not even best Palin in the vote. The former Alaska governor has never run for president and also blew off CPAC. It should be noted that only 2,400 people out of the 10,000 that attended voted in the poll, and of those only around 800 (or 33%) voted for Paul (with far fewer for Huckabee). He and his supporters were probably not happy about the fact attendees were less concerned about stopping gay marriage and “promoting traditional values” than they were with fiscal issues.
Ultimately, CPAC this year was not a “social conservative only” zone as Huckabee might have wanted it to be and it has been in the past. The tea party movement has focused the event’s collective mind on the fiscal issues that face us all and that need to be addressed.
That said, Huckabee’s CPAC remarks have not endeared him to many people who did attend the conference. In short, he felt the need to criticize something of which he knew little for the sake of a good sound bite.
Record numbers and the enthusiasm of the attendees will assuredly make it clear to the CPAC organizers that the current formula is the right one for success.
“Christian extremistts?” Excuse me, I thought that I was reading Pajamas Media; I must have accidentally typed in the web address for the Daily Kos.
If there is a threat to social conservatism in this country (and there is) it is not coming from the political left. It’s coming from the political right, who consistently tell social conservatives to just shut up and vote republican. We’ll think about possibly not listening to your concerns at some point in the future. I can only hope that the Tea Party movement, if successful, will njot only inspire small government conservatives, but also social conservative, and remind them that they’ve been played and need to speak out if we;re going to stop thhis runaway train of a culture from derailing.
A candidate (huckabee) that runs on social conservative issues will lose in 2012.
A candidate that runs on fiscal restraint and a return to Constitutional principles can win.
If Huckabee is the nominee, Obama is re-elected.
Huckabee’s an oleaginous and smarmer who can’t even control his own appetite. Maybe he’ll get another stomach clamp put in so he can pig out without gettting so fat.
Such fruitcakes shouldn’t be on FOX let alone participating in serious policy debate.
Ditto the natty little Russian pretend Puerto Rican Giraldo.
Fiscal and social conservatism are two sides of the same limited/proper role government small coin.
Social conservatives are not threatening to use government to impose their views on society. They are resisting the use of government by social liberals to impose their views.
The exclusion of social conservatives from the corridors of power is a Canadian phenomenon. Americans will resist it being pushed on the United States by Canadians like Frum and Dodge.
An example in Canada of of social liberals using government to impose their views on society is funding for abortions. In Canada social liberals have forced social conservatives to pay for abortions by designating it as a funded medicare procedure.
Jones #3 +1
Let’s see, the socialists want to tell everyone how to live their lives, and the social conservatives want to. . . tell everyone how to live their lives. Yea, big difference.
IT’S ABOUT LIBERTY AND PERSOANL RESPONSIBIILITY FOLKS, NOT UTOPIA.
@1. Hughes: – you really don’t think there are such people as Christian extremists? I know a few. Personally, I tend to think of such people as self-deluded extremists who use a novel definition of Christianity to shore up their delusions. Then again, maybe my definition of Christianity is novel, inasmuch as it relies solely on Christ’s suggestions, recommendations and admonitions, as related in the NT. Either way, extremists do exist, and not just among Christians.
.
@2. Michael: – If there is a threat to social conservatism in this country (and there is) it is not coming from the political left. It’s coming from the political right, who consistently tell social conservatives to just shut up and vote republican.
Good observation, IMHO. And I’d go further to note that it’s hard to think of these people as “the political right” anymore. Their authoritarian manner puts them more in the Big Government, State-as-parent camp, which is decidedly left, ideologically, despite whatever their position on wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage may be (distractions, IMHO). RINOs pretty much fit that description, thinking the Republican brand continues to give them cover for the self-serving, relentless compromise with socialists they insist on pursuing. A certain RNC chairman springs to mind here. The Tea Party movement is disabusing them of that erroneous notion.
Huckabee, perhaps aptly named, is another animal altogether, though. To me he comes off as disingenuous, cheerfully conniving and, well… if you’ll pardon… hucksterish. I can’t bring myself to trust very much of what he says. He comes off just a little too slick. A bit like a carny mindreader.
Ultimately, Huckabee’s petty little tirade is not much different from the temper tantrum Mark Levin (and others) threw the other day, chastising Glen Beck for trying to hijack the conservative movement… as if Beck does anything other than provide one more much needed voice for that movement. Both Huckabee and Levin appear to crave attention and popularity. When they’re out of the limelight, their ego gets in the way of their ideology. Levin’s not running for office, but considering someone like Huckabee for any public office – someone who clearly suffers from Me First syndrome, just like BHO – would not be wise IMHO.
CPAC’s straw poll results aren’t all that surprising to me. I’ve always liked Ron Paul, which means I’ve always lamented his unfortunate missteps – and the manner in which they’ve been wildly exaggerated by all sides – with respect to Truthers, et al. But if we look back at 2008 and note that McCain, Romney and Huckabee were the three top contenders for the GOP nomination, we immediately see how far the GOP has to go to seek out and find credible, constitutional conservative leadership.
I won’t go so far as to claim that Paul fits that description, exactly – although personally I don’t think he’s the whack-o so many people make him out to be – but the fact that he placed 4th in 2008 may indicate where CPAC’s thinking is heading in 2010. Huckabee may be right about that point – it’s headed further right, that is, MORE libertarian (i.e., less government) than the current crop of RINOs and media whores in the GOP would like. If so, it doesn’t bother me one bit. So, of the people represented by that poll, they rejected RINOs like McCain and Romney and apparently they don’t trust Huckabee any more than I do, leaving Paul in the so-called ‘lead’ because Sarah Palin still suffers from relentless Left Wing Media demonization, which would make an election with her as a candidate all about her (and whatever new lies the left can dream up) and not about the issues.
Back in 1998-99, when the Internet was still pretty much a novelty, a widely respected on-line straw poll had Alan Keyes as the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination… right up until GWB got it. Looking back, I would have MUCH preferred that poll had turned out to be right. I just hope we can find a viable candidate for 2012 such that we don’t look back 4 years later and decide we would have been better off with Ron Paul.
Like it or not, liberal or conservative, cultural issues must be addressed from the ground up; not from the top down. Change the movies, TV shows, grade-school and college curriculum, places of worship, charities and you change the culture. Liberals know that and have taken the culture over.
The form of government and financial issues of State must be more broad. Top down and bottom up. This is what government is for on all levels. And the cultural issues will mean diddly if we loose the constitutional Republic and Free Market system. That is what CPAC was about this year. It is what we all need to be about Nationally until that is fixed.
When you are up to your neck in alligators it is hard to remember that your original purpose was to drain the swamp. (a little bayou humor)We are up to our neck in alligators, folks.
I don’t know a whole lot about Huckabee. Guess it’s because I can’t stand to watch him for more than a few seconds. I’m the same way with Obama, McCain, and 99% of all politicians – Dems and Reps. About the only one that I can watch and listen to is John Kasich, who’s currently running for Gov in Ohio.
Is it too soon to say “Kasich for Prez in 2012?”
“the social conservatives want to. . . tell everyone how to live their lives.”
False. I, as a social conservative, want the state to leave me alone. In what way does anything supported by mainstream social conservatives impinge on your right to live as you please?
Abortion? Sorry…we are on the life and liberty side here. Some college chick regretting what she did on Spring Break is not a good reason to legalize the killing of her child. What’s more vital to liberty than life?
Marriage? Marriage remaining defined as one man and one woman as it has been for, I don’t know, the entire history of Western civilized culture does not infringe on anyone’s right to live as they please. However, surrendering to the demands of the microscopic demographic that is agitating to arbitrarily begin calling two dudes “married” carries great consequences for liberties explicitly and implicitly protected by the First Amendment (I assume you value the First Amendment, JustAl). Just ask Chai Feldblum, who admits that state-enforcement of new sexual norms necessarily undermines free expression, religious liberty and right of conscience. In fact, Feldblum has written that the state must not tolerate even private thoughts that conflict with the homosexual agenda, once adopted and enforced by the state.
On both points, social conservatives are on the side of life and liberty. So what’s your point again?
So Dodge thinks that CPAC is doing a good job.
Since these are the same people that produced the election results of ’04 and ’08, we know what Mr. Dodge’s motives are.
If you are not a social conservative, you are not a conservative.
PERIOD.
The technical term for a fiscal conservative, social liberal is “Clinton Democrat”. The Republican party is full of them, which is why the teabaggers are getting traction.
The 4th world ( Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, the Left, etc.) has put up a finger and discovered which way the wind is blowing.
So like 4th worlders everywhere, they are trying to switch their coats and hide from the voter’s wrath. In this case, Mr. Dodge thinks that turning Republicans into democrats, or hiding the fact that most Republican are RINO’s, will allow the voters to assuage their wrath while maintaining power. It will only work if conservative allow it to.
The 4th world wants Mitt for the Republican candidate in ’12. That is no matter which side gets the most EV’s. they will win. I don’t think the teabaggers will let the 4th worlders get away with that again.
Oh, by the way, as a Christian social conservative, I despise Mike Hukabee.
He is no friend of the free market and has never met an expansion/intrusion of government he couldn’t justify.
He engages in Sharpon-esque identity politics (no, Mike, I won’t vote for the “Christian candidate” because he floats a cross behind himself in a cheese-ball Christmas video).
Oh, and I was at CPAC. The Paul vote was a sham.
GoProud is NOT a “conservative” group. Just because one says “I’m conservative” doesn’t make you one. Just look at their website. They are firstly and lastly concerned with imposing the homosexual agenda on the rest of us through state power. Their nods to conservative ideas are window dressing.
I don’t think Huckabee was attacking CPAC in any way – he was merely pointing out why it wasn’t beneficial for him to attend. Based on the straw poll at CPAC, which gave the win to Ron Paul by a large margin, the Conference was full of Libertarians, who aren’t exactly supportive of Gov. Huckabee. Therefore, his decision not to attend was a perfectly logical one, in my opinion.
I would like to see a party that is inclusive not exclusive.
Huckabee bothers me in particular . I think he would bring his faith into the fray more than any other candidate we have seen. He reminds me of bible thumpin preachers that I grew up around. he has a “holier than thou” attitude that I do not appreciate.
#2 , I believe is correct.
Fiscal and social conservatism are two sides of the same limited/proper role government small coin.
Then where are all these solib fiscons coming from?
Traditional conservatism has consisted of three parts – social, fiscal, and supporters of a strong defense – working together as one movement. Conservatism has only been successful when the three have worked together. I am a social conservative but I did not support Huckabee when he ran for the Republican nomination because appeared weak on fiscal conservative issues. I do not support him now. However, he does make a valid point about the rise of libertarians in the conservative movement and nothing Mr. Dodge said disputed that point. (More on Mr. Dodge’s rant later.)
Libertarians are not conservative. Personal liberty – as they define it – is not the greatest objective known to man. Our Founding Fathers defined liberty as the freedom to do what is right not as the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do. They called the unbridled and undiscipled pursuit of personal freedom, licentiousness. And they recogonized that licentiousness ultimately led to slavery and tyranny. The modern libertarian movement will do the same.
What do libertarians conserve? If they are conservative then they must conserve something so what is it? Their definition of liberty (licentiousness) is not the same as the Founding Fathers so they cannot be attempting to conserve it.
What do supporters of the homosexual agenda hope to conserve? Their goal is to destroy marriage and the family through redefinition. They seek to destroy the very building block of civilization. How are they conservative? A government that can redefine the oldest social institution known to man is not a limited government.
If CPAC has shifted toward toward those who hold libertarian views or support the homosexual agenda, then it is no longer conservative. If the conservative movement wishes to drive out its social conservative element then it will become less conservative and will increasingly become a radicalized faction. Most social conservatives are 100% conservative in that they support all three legs of the traditional conservative movement.
As to Mr. Dodge: It appears to me that he is the one ranting about the evils of social conservatives. He has annointed Mr. Huckabee as our leader, which he is not, and has taken some rather tame quotes from him as the basis for his screed. He then called social conservatives “Christian radicals.” Now, who exactly is the unhinged ranter?
I challenge Mr. Dodge to address Mr. Huckabee’s main point about the growth of the libertarian sentiment at CPAC and within the conservative movement. I also challenge him to address the questions I raised. So, Mr. Dodge, put up or shut up and stop Dodging the issue.
The founders realized Christian morals and values were paramount to success of their new nation, and thus included belief in, and submission to, God as a cornerstone of the Republic. To dismiss God and His Word is to repel the power, character and compassion that made America great and brought forth great men to lead us. And to concentrate on accumulation of wealth but not the Creator who bestowed such upon us is futile. One needs look no further than our White House and Congress to observe what rejection of God has wrought.
#10 Vincent
“On both points, social conservatives are on the side of life and liberty. So what’s your point again?”
You prove my point quiet well, to paraphrase, ‘we’ve always done marriage this way so that is just the way it is and someone else has no right to do it another way’
Also, I’m sure you realize the Life, Liberty reference is to the Declaration of Independence which is, essentially a letter to King George III and does not carry the weight of law, that would be the Constitution which does not contain the phrase.
The Constitution specifically outlines what the federal government should and should not be involved in, abortion existed at the time of the framing and yet was not mentioned, therefore by virtue of the 10th amendment, this is a state, not federal issue. And those who do not hold your view have as much right to express their views as you do. That, I believe, is coming down on the “Liberty” side.
The social conservatives have given us the wonderful “war on drugs” which has driven up the profit margin and therefore the violence of that trade as well as enriched the trial lawyers and therefore the socialist democrats. Do you really think the framers (who knew about drug and alcohol abuse but said nothing about either in the Constitution(back to article 10))would be in favor of families loosing homes, savings, vehicles etc. if one of their kids gets caught with a pound of dried deciduous plant?
The social conservatives want more government, more police state tactics and never, ever want fewer laws (please point to an instance to correct me here!).
The future is Libertarian or Totalitarian. . . choose.
The problem with marriage is the states involvement in it at all. The government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a purely private, religious institution with no government oversight or involvement whatsoever. If people want to join together outside of religion, whether gay or straight, they can get civil unions. One cannot force a religion to accept a practice they feel violates their faith at the very core, but at the same time one cannot use the government to deny two people the ability to join in union of they are so inclined. The only real answer is to remove the state from the equation of marriage altogether.
It is a noble thing to take mothers away from babies. It is good for boys to grow up without fathers. This is what gay marriage advocates would have you believe. They won’t phrase it that way, and in fact will tell you that you’re being “hateful” to point out the obvious.
When marriage revolves around the desires of adults, and children are asked to sacrifice for the sake of adult desire, children have clearly become secondary. A culture so oriented has a dim future. No amount of propaganda will alter this.
Response to Anonymous @18: “The future is Libertarian or Totalitarian…choose.” It is a false choice as the two are one and the same. The Founding Fathers preached “ordered liberty” not unbridled licentiousness. The unbridled licentiousness of the libertarians will take us to totaliarianism as surely as Mr. Obama. We will just go by another path.
What is it that you wish to conserve? From your post, it appears to me that all you want is the freedom to do whatever you want. There is nothing conservative about that.
“He and his supporters were probably not happy about the fact attendees were less concerned about stopping gay marriage and “promoting traditional values” than they were with fiscal issues.”
What ever you think about gays they are not about to turn the country into Argentina. It is fiscal issues that is giving us heart attacks and reuniting the right.
I’m a social conservative, like the idea of a tea party though I’ve never attended, and think Mike Huckabee is wrong not because of his moral stances which I agree, but the fact he never saw a government program that he didn’t approve.
Like I said the other day to all the Libertarians. I’ll meet you half way. We all want smaller government. You give me SCOTUS out of the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito and you can be a flaming drag queen in private for all I care. But let’s invoke the don’t ask, don’t tell. However, you aren’t going to discount my stances about what is moral and what is not in the public square either like this schmuck of an author is tacitly attempting. You do that, and I’ll guarantee right here on this board you’ll become the irrelevant minor 3rd party over night. Without each other, we lose. But you will share in the loss. Your choice.
So, the choices the Republicans are offering are Huckabee or Ron Paul? Maybe it’s time to register as “Decline to State.”
NOT “Teabaggers”!!! You would think people would learn, for cryin’out loud! Tea Party! Why do you fools keep spreading this Leftist slur? No wonder the dumb Repub. party is losing ground in a spectacular fasion. And it’s deeply divided.<p. This CPAC thing was a parade, of diverse groups who were not conservative & some who were just shit-disturbers. Keene the Muslim-pacifying RINO engineered this display of stupidity to call attention to his buddy Mitt Romney–hasn't anyone noticed all the news items about Flip-flop in the past week or so, during CPAC's caper? With the sanctions of the RINO Beltway Establishment GOP. If we shove the social cons to the side and write off morality, keep the stupid Big Tent thing going, Repubs will keep losing –Obama or Hillary will be in office for the next 20 years and the ‘pubs will be on the trash heap. WAKE UP. “Dodge”, good name for this writer. A$$hole.
I’m more concerned about financial matters, such as money, taxes, public or private revenues. If we have a healthy country , then we can work on the other issues.
If you vote abortion or gay issues only, you get Obama!!!
I don’t know where I stand. There are too many “group”, conservative this, progressive that…crap, I’m an american that wants to see jobs back to the US, house prices in line with income, social security on stable ground, no free welfare programs, no affirmative action, MORE!! people caring about people!!!
I hate hate hate politicians that talk down to the voters. We’re not a stupid people!!! Obama does not fit my bill of an American that cares about the people.
Huckabee drives me nuts
15. They’re still moral adolescents; they don’t understand why it is so important to be a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative, and why personal restraint is so important.
18. Clearly you haven’t read the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments, which state, “No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Also, the 13th Amendment illustrates that the Federal government can make anything it wants a Federal issue, provided it does so by means of Constitutional Amendment, hence banning slavery regardless of what any former Confederate States had to say about it.
Hey Mike, let any more convicted killers out early today?
Huckabee isn’t as narcissistic as obamao, but he’s not worth my time either.
28. What convicted killers did Huckabee ever grant clemency to? Any killers whom he allowed released weren’t killers when they were released. Tell me, how is it just to condemn a teenager to life in prison for property crimes? We punish people based on crimes they are duly convicted of, not based on what crimes they may commit in the future because we “know they are bad.”
Libertarian or totalitarian…choose! (and then there;’s a big thunderclap)…what a bunch of tripe. Not to mention false. You see, Unbridled libertarianism is totalitarianism because if nothing is wrong then everything is allowed, and it’s only a matter of time before the strongest take over and push the little guys around, with or without the government’s help. This is something the Randroids never understood. That when you sever humanity from the things that make it human, like love, friendship, and charity (all of which involve “living for another man”) you reduce man into a mere animal simply going around to satisfy his animal appetites. This is not freedom, but slavery. Instead of being free, you are a slave to yourself, and your desires.
The Founding Fathers, and in fact every political theorist up until Machiavelli, understood that liberty was only for moral people, a people with a moral center around which debates could take place, and by which different courses of action could be measured. The Declaration of Independence may not be the governmental working document of the United States, but it is a good summation of the intended political philosophy of the early phase of the country. Every Founding Father, literally, every single one, stated, repeatedly, that the Constitution was only for a moral, and even further, religious people. Social conservative are merely continuing this practice and philosophy.
Social conservatives are conservatives for the very fact that they want to conserve, granted, they want to onserve something that is very close to not existing anymore. What they want to conserve is a the government that provides liberty, that is freedom to lead a good and productive life, and not the mere animal freedom to do what one wants at any time. These two concepts of freedom are very different things, and are, in fact, diametrically opposed to each other. Social conservative want laws that encourage true virtue not false virtue (true virtue being things like charity, community, courage, and temperance; false virtue being things like lowering your carbon footprint and recycling). Social conservatives want laws that will encourage true liberty, not mere licentiousness (Example: driving. In this country one can drive anywhere one wants, but we can only drive on the right side of the road, and only take turns at certain times. These things limit us, but it is actually the limitations that make us free to go where we wish). And of course, social conservatives want to protect that institution that is the foundation of all other institutions and is, in fact, the breeding ground and school of all the virtues, the family. This is conservativism because every government of the US had laws in place to protect and encourage the family up until the 1960′s when Lyndon Johnson decided to change that (he also decided that religious institutions, which for generations had been able to speak out on political matters, could no longer have a voice in the public square)
Wow, I really didn’t intend to write a manifesto when I started this post, but I guess it kind of came out that way.
By the way, Goy, Kipling, keep fighting the good fight. Nice job, to both of you.
Response to Michael @31: Very eloquent, my friend. I am glad you wrote your manifesto. : )
Paul’s win may also have had something to do with the fact that Palin and Huckabee didn’t show up. As it is, Huckabee is much more fiscally conservative than many give him credit for. He inherited a mess from the Clinton/Tucker administration, and left behind a surplus, all the while improving the roads and schools. The Fair Tax alone would be such a great improvement over the current system that even if taxes were to go up a bit, it would be a net benefit to the economy and quality of life.
#18
“You prove my point quiet well, to paraphrase, ‘we’ve always done marriage this way so that is just the way it is and someone else has no right to do it another way’”
On the contrary, you MISSED my point. I was not making an exhaustive public policy argument for marriage. My point was that marriage properly defined does not infringe on anyone else’s right to live as they please. OTOH, the homosexual legal agenda includes forcing the entire country to arbitrarily redefine marriage and threatening fundamental rights that have been protected, until now, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. That is just one reason why the small number of aggressive activists who are trying to coerce the rest of us to bow to their demands must be resisted if we want to remain free to live out out our core convictions in the marketplace…and in the marketplace of ideas. My argument for marriage is not your “that’s the way it’s always been” carcicature. Think a bit more deeply about the consequences of arbitrarily changing marriage (yes, it’s arbitrary…you can’t argue against polyamory or brother-brother “marriage” if you argue that two dudes can be “married”), then we’ll talk.
“..the Life, Liberty reference is to the Declaration of Independence…which does not contain the phrase.”
Yeah, no kidding. You miss the point again. Liberty presupposes life. It is a philosophical argument, not an exegesis of Founding documents, but you can’t deny that the Founders believed this. Abortion is not an expression of a view, it is the killing of a defenseless human being. If you really believe in liberty, you cannot believe that any American — at any stage of their lives — should have their liberty so brutally and permanently stolen.
“The social conservatives want more government, more police state tactics and never, ever want fewer laws (please point to an instance to correct me here!).”
I AM the “instance” to whom I will point. Your argument has burst into flames. I would be in favor of shredding the entire Federal Register and closing down every federal agency aside from the DoD (which would be thoroughly reviewed) and a small number of others. You obviously know nothing about social conservatives, most of whom are also some of the strongest supporters of a free economy.
Huckabee isn’t even a social conservative let alone his flirtations with Marxism.
See you Huckleberry, much later and tell your anti-American, anti-white bigot friends that I said – Hi!
Okay, so.. Huckabee is not the one we want..
Who is????
I sure do like this Mike Huckabee. Were his comments untrue?
@37. Sallie: – Okay, so.. Huckabee is not the one we want.. Who is????
I have a suggestion that doesn’t involve spending time on something that is almost 3 years away. Hopefully this isn’t the wrong crowd for that.
How about we concentrate on THIS NOVEMBER and take stock of what falls out of that, eh?
Because at the rate BHO is losing his cool and demonstrating his vast reserves of inexperience and naked narcissism, he is very likely going to pull additional extra-constitutional stunts that are far worse than violating the contracts that were shredded with the Chrysler and GM debacles. Just like FDR did.
Should we see a conservative Republican surge this fall, and should additional Democrats announce their retirement, etc., it’s entirely possible that 2011 and much of 2012 will be taken up with Congressional investigations into the monumental improprieties pursued with respect to TARP, GM and – if they should try it – using reconciliation to implement socialized medicine. Should that happen (remember, few people thought Clinton would ever be impeached… until he was!), Bob Dole could win in 2012.
Vincent@35: He does not want to get the “point” or idea. I have had the same running debates with posters like 18 but not as eloquently and grounded as you. As exemplifed by his last two paras, you checked him so well that he had to bring in tangental issues.
His cry about the social conservatives wanting more government is a red herring. How he equates abolishing abortion (devolving it to a state’s issue)or restricting it with “more government” is baffling to me. And since he knows so much about the Constitution and Bill of Rights perhaps he could point out the exact article that the SCOTUS used to issue this “right”.
Be prepared for his “I bet you support capital punishment” and how you square that hole with abortion argument next..
Michael@31: Brilliant!!
In reply to Tex Taylor. Prior to stating Huckabee would be taken in by any government program, it might be a good idea to look where stands on many differnet issues. While you are at it take a look at The Fair Tax HR25 you can learn about it on fairtax.org and ask questions about the Fair Tax at fairtaxnation.com
In reply to Carol I agree with you about paying down the debt and balancing the federal budget. If more government jobs are created and government spending is increased, it will ever happen. The Fair Tax could help bring back jobs and give a boost to the Economy in America. I am a strong supporter of the Fair Tax and I am joining the Tea Party movement. Huckabee drives me nuts because he doesn’t plug the Fair Tax enough, even though he is one of the biggest promoters of the Fair Tax.
I am waiting to see an open debate in the Republican Party, debate between the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. In my opinion the Fair Tax can do much more. The Fair Tax is simple and it is Fair. You would pay your tax only when you purchased new retail products or services. Check it out.
Snark. Sputtering. Rant. Gall. Whine. Confrontation with Mr. Stewart. Please set forth for future reference how exactly to prevent social conservatives from using such fiery rhetoric as Mr. Huckabee has so viciously and flagrantly displayed, along with his deliberately untrimmed, angry eyebrows.
The CPAC sponsor list also makes questionable whether social conservatives were actually left behind as intended, especially when the funding could so easily be traced (http://www.cpac.org/sponsors.html). The best social conservatives, especially certain religious ones, are those who, like union members, can be trusted to show up and vote as required, keep silent, challenge nothing and donate, donate, donate.
And why link to Comedy Central directly? Does one correctly suspect that Mr. Dodge is attempting to protect his adherents from exposure to more of Mr. Huckabee’s tirades in the extended interviews? Whew, close one.
From what I see, Huckabee is working hard to support conservative candidates. His focus is completely on 2010 and that is where ours needs to be as well. Just my $.02
Huckabee is a sniveling weenie who lets murderers run free and is obsessed with making Americans less fat. We already have Bloomberg for that nonsense, so who needs Huckleberry Nannypants?
RonJax80,
‘
Don’t misunderstand me. I actually like Huckabee – but I also border the state of Huckabee governorship and think he’s out of the mold of “compassionate” conservative, not tough enough to address restriction of more government, and would actually grow government. That’s the record while governor.
I would certainly be closer to Huckabee in intent than say, the author of this insipid post or #18 anonymous. You want to kill the movement, take their advice. You alienate social conservatives by dissing or disregarding the culture as this author appears to suggest, and I’ll guarantee you even with all the hoopla of the Tea Party, you’ll be real lucky to get more votes than Ross Perot did in ’92.
I’d like to win starting in November…
Comments #16 by Kipling and #31 by Michael are right on. They should be in civics textbooks read by every kid in high school.
Sorry I forgot to enter ID on previous posts and then left for several hours.
Please point out the word ,” licentiousness,” anywhere in the Constitution. Your propose to interpret the document as a “living one” (a very familiar argument). None of you have answered my point that while the framers knew very well about abortion, homosexuality and drugs they pointedly did not address any of them as federal issues, thereby relegating them to the authority of the state along with countless other issues, so is your definition of licentiousness following the letter of the Constitution? Plainly many of the framers were religious, but they pointedly prohibited the establishment of a religion by the federal government, they went out of their way to prevent the imposition of their own personal, moral code on the Republic, something the social conservatives are hell bent to do.
Please point out one of my posts here in which I’ve proposed that a homosexual agenda be forced on anyone? Please explain how seeking a federal definition of marriage that excludes them is promoting Liberty?
Conservatism is not a license to force your agenda onto others anymore than socialism is. As for the traditional usage of the term as in the conservation of something, what in today’s state of the nation do you want to “conserve”? The point is that the country has to be changed because it has been corrupted by socialists for decades.
#40 blotto
Please point out anywhere in my posts where I referred to abortion as a “right.”
By the way, I am an avid supporter of capital punishment, a military second to none, a secure border with deportation of illegals and imprisonment of their facilitators, dissolution of any federal departments not directly and verifiable needed to accomplish the limited scope of federal government as written.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in that I want less Federal government. Government is a necessary evil, more is necessarily more evil, but government closer at hand and in better view of the people is easier to control and the scope of corruption is invariable less, so state government does need to do more in regards to the social issues you feel so strongly about.
Just in case you were wondering.
Don Rodrigo is a liar. He couldn’t name one single “murderer” that Huckabee has allowed to “run free”.
If Don Rodrigo wants to see a “sniveling weenie”, he can just look in the mirror.
Formula to never ever lose an election (even to a vacuous empty suit that reads a teleprompter real nice-like):
Fiscal libertarianism + neo-con foreign policy – religious fundamentalism – libertarian isolationism = Landslide
As an admitted “Christian extremist” I know that I sit up at night scheming as to how I can control the lives of others. How, I wonder, can I get people to take more responsibility for their lives; to take better care of their families; to “reap what they sow”; to not abandon their children; to stop having babies out of wedlock; to stop murdering each other; to learn to take care of themselves so they can take care of others; to reduce the size, intrusion and necessity of government in our lives; etc. But the real crazy parts of my “extremism” are I do not think I or anyone else should be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion and that “gay marriage” will further wreck the basic building block of society. Yep, I am just as crazy and intolerant as the Taliban. There is just no room for me in polite society.
When Huckabee began his term as Governor, Arkansas was ranked 31st in total tax burden. It was ranked in the same position 10 years later when he completed his time in office. Yet, the state had developed a significant surplus by that time. This was accomplished with a state legislature where there were fewer than 10 Republicans and more than 90 Democrats.
There were some tax-increases. Four, to be exact. One was court-ordered for schools, one was enacted by THE VOTERS with over 80% of the vote to support roadway improvements, one involved nursing home funding, and I do not recall the other. There were also over 90 separate tax-cuts of one version or another. With regard to the roadway improvements, Arkansas was rated as the 7th most improved and the overall most-efficient in infrastructure spending.
No Governor (or President – although this one may wish to be) is a dictator. He cannot implement his wishes by decree. In looking at the overall big picture – bothe his record and current rhetoric, I just don’t see Huckabee as a not being fiscally conservative. He has been outspoken about the big-spending, bailouts, and Federal interventions of the past year and a half. The Fair Tax, which he advocates for, could be a huge boon for American business in the world market, not to mention freedom from the tyranny of the IRS.
Finally, those who discount him as wanting to impose his religious beliefs (which line up with those of a majority of the country) should look to his record as Governor. There is no evidence that this was his agenda at all. I view him as someone with common sense and worth serious consideration.
donttreadonme said: “…libertarian isolationism = Landslide”
We can follow Ron Paul’s advice and sever the hard won relationships integral to our economy, let our partners burn, hunker down and let the landslide over us.
donttreadonme said: “…libertarian isolationism = Landslide”
Oops, I see that was “subtract” libertarian isolationism. Okay, we agree.
Reply to JustAl @47: Although licentiousness does not appear in the Constitution it does appear in the other political writings of the Founding Fathers. For more information please see Robert Midlekauff’s “The Glorious Cause” and Gordon Wood’s “The Creation of hte American Republic.” Both men are leading scholars in their historical field.
While the Founders did prohibit the establishment of a national church, they did not “go out of their way to prevent the imposition of their own personal moral codes upon the Republic.” To claim that they did is to ignore their own writings. Washington himself wrote about instilling the proper national character and even Jefferson sought to promote his own moral code.
I fully agree with Mike Huckabee’s take on CPAC. Not sure if he will run again or not but it would be nice to have a true fiscal and social conservative (not to mention an adult) in the White House. Those who know him best support him the most. There is a reason for that. They know his real record, not the twistfest and nearly humorous distortions you read in comment sections like these.
I personally know people who lived in Arkansas during his time as Governor. When Huckabee arrived, Arkansas was a corrupt state, with education, unemployment and infrastructure ranking among the lowest in the USA. And despite lowering taxes more than any Arkansas governor in state history, he has always answered for one significant tax hike to rebuild the state’s foundational woes. What you don’t hear much of, is that he signed the bill into law after the voters passed a ballot initiative in favor of the tax funded projects…by 80%!
Huckabee didn’t raise taxes, the people did. And to say that the most visible advocate for the Fair Tax Plan in American politics is liberal with economic policy, seems more than a little odd. That is not a liberal vision regarding tax reform and economic recovery. It, like many of his ideas and accomplishments, is an example of thinking outside the box and being bold enough to enact creative solutions to big problems,without worrying what the polls will say the next day. He answered to no establishment. He was loyal to no lobbyist. He made some human mistakes and still does, but he did his best and he did a great job.
What Huckabee’s record shows as an executive leader, is that he is the most deserving person to credit for the literal modernization of the state. By the end of his era, Arkansas proved to be a model for restoration. Booming economy, low unemployment, better schools (went from 48th to 9th place), higher incomes and a relatively low tax burden compared to many states. And, though he arrived with the biggest state debt in history, he left with a surplus of nearly $1 Billion.
Mike Huckabee is in a league of his own. He has the most experience of anyone in the GOP bullpen at this time and has a likeability factor that would run off of any chart. Plus, his communication skills would even be envied by Ronald Reagan. Comparing Mike to Mitt Romney or some of the other “establishment candidates” would be like comparing Thomas Jefferson to George Jefferson. If Obama wins a second term, it won’t be because of the liberals. It will be because many so called “conservatives” were so ill-informed and boneheaded where Huckabee is concerned that they failed to unite behind the wisest, most talented leader our nation has seen in a generation. Rush-Beck-Coulter-Malkin and their ilk offered up Obama for us the last time around and it appears they are gearing up for act two in 2012.
If some of the comments above in this thread are from people claiming to be “conservatives”…we are in one world of hurt.
JustAl…you’re all upside down, my man.
Marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality. The definition of marriage has always been assumed, so there was never any need to deal with it in the Constitution as the institution was not under attack at the time. BTW — were you aware that a condition for statehood for Arizona and Utah was that they define marriage as one man and one woman, making polygamy illegal? How do you feel about that?
Now, what we have is the homosexual legal agenda trying to impose a new definition of marriage on EVERY state, and THEIR moral code along with it, through the federal courts (Perry).
(The moral code argument is so weak JustAl, as EVERY SINGLE STINKIN’ LAW is based on a moral principle. The Founders most manifestly and explicitly applied “moral codes” in formulating our government. Again, I don’t believe you are thinking past the surface.)
It doesn’t matter whether or not YOU have advocated imposing the homosexual agenda on the rest of us…the fact is, it’s happening and you don’t seem to have much problem with it. You burn your crosses on the lawns of those who are defending marriage, not those who are attacking it in the most undemocratic way. Whether or not the Founders mentioned marriage in the Constitution doesn’t really matter. They DID provide for the amendment process, which is the uber-democratic way to do things and, yes, I support a Constitutional amendment affirming marriage. The forced redefinition of marriage sought by the radical homosexual movement is a clear and present threat to religious liberty, free expression and right of conscience. (See Feldblum, Signorile and other homosexual activists who admit this) Retaining the definition of marriage threatens no one’s rights. (No homosexuals aren’t “excluded” from marriage, they just don’t like their choices…and wounded self-esteem is not the best basis upon which to overturn a long-standing and indispensible institution)
To demonstrate the lack of coherence in your thought, I have to ask: Where is capital punishment in the Constitution? If you break out the 5th and/or 8th Amendments…I’ll have to apply those to abortion, but that wouldn’t help your argument, now would it?
Either way, it doesn’t really matter that abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. The Founders could not imagine that the Supreme Court would have imposed a diabolical legal system (ON EVERY STATE) in which any woman, at any time during her pregancy, for any reason or for no reason at all could kill her child. If they would have forseen they, they would have constitutionalized the dignity of the unborn. You say it should be up to the states? What if Illinois legalized murder? What if Arizona legalized rape? That OK with you?
What it comes down to JustAl, it’s not the SoCons that are trying to impose our agenda on you or anyone else by undemocratic means, it’s the abortion enthusiasts (hello Roe & Doe) and the homosexual activists (Perry & Bishop) of the Left, with whom you have aligned.
Kippling,
That is my point, the founders’ other writings reflect their “personal” feelings, the fact that they did not include those same items in the Constitution shows indicates they did try to keep those feelings from coloring the law of the land.
Vincent Pinson,
I was unaware of the issue with Utah and Arizona and would have been opposed to special conditions being applied to those states. I’m sure you are aware that Texas specifically reserved the right to leave the union and was made war upon by the Federal government when they exercised it. You have just provided yet another example of the Federal over reach I am talking about, no doubt implemented by social conservatives.
I still do not agree that granting a right or privilege to another citizen somehow detracts from yours. The pettiness of your argument consistently drives moderate voters away from the conservative cause.
Most death penalties are meted out by states as they should be. A Constitutional amendment should have been put in place prior to implementing Federal death sentences in my opinion. Also take a look at the war powers as defined by the Constitution and ask how the Federal government got so out of control as to put is in war after war without declaring any of them.
The Socons seem willing to let the Federal government have all sorts of control over the personal relations of others and don’t seem to realize that this attitude facilitates the Federal government taking all sorts of control over other things. The law should not be a weapon wielded by special interest groups. The Federal government should not be used as an enforcer of your moral code because you feel self righteous than it should be a re-distributor of wealth because the socialists have class guilt.
Lincoln isn’t one of my favorites but he could turn a good phrase, “Those who deny liberty to others deserve it not themselves.”
Response to JustAl @58:
The other writings of the Founders include other government documents, official debates on governmental matters, and various officil statements of their beliefs so how can they be trying to keep their personal moral codes out of the public sector.
Your argument about social conservatives wanting to use the federal government to enforce morality is a strawman. The federal government already enforces morality. That is why we have laws against murder, stealing, etc. Besides, it is those who favor the homosexual agenda who are now attempting to use the federal governent to enforce their moral standards under the banner of [false] liberty. It is those who support the homosexual agenda who want to redefine traditional institutions and thus attack the conservatives social positions. It is they not us who would use government to push their moral standards.
I seriously doubt that Lincoln would consider the homosexual agenda to be a part of liberty.
Who are the “religious right”? The “social conservatives”?
95% of them are Catholics or evangelicals (not to be confused with mainstream CHRISTIAN religions). Catholics have been taught since childhood that abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong! Nobody is going to change their minds on that! They were taught…since childhood…that the embryo is a person to be treasured…not a clump of cells.
The REST of us CHRISTIANS and Jews were never indoctrinated with such beliefs. Our religious indoctrination was centered around acts of “Personal Responsibility” and being a good & dependable person. Having a child “out-of-wedlock” was an intolerable shame…not a cause for celebration (because of the decision not to abort).
Neither group is EVER going to support the other. The indoctrination is too strong. So what are we conservatives going to do about it?
Looks to me like the CPAC group got it right:
Emphasize FISCAL conservatism.
Encourage the anti-abortion, ( plus anti-stem cell research, anti-gay rights) fiscal conservative people to put these issues back where they belong: in their CHURCHES. Preach CONSTANTLY on those issues. Continue to indoctrinate their members’ children…in their CHURCHES!
Encourage the pro-abortion, ( plus pro-stem cell research, and “indifferent to gay-rights”) fiscal conservatives to UNDERSTAND that Catholics and evangelicals are UNABLE to change their social beliefs. Be willing to take abortion out of GOV’T SUPPORTED programs. But demand that abortion stay legal for non-Catholic and non-evangelical women. User pays.
Both conservative groups must understand that neither group is EVER going to change these strong personal social beliefs!
Feel the love from the social conservatives. I did not tar all Christians with the same brush as some have claimed. I merely referring to the ones who seem to view liberty and freedom as just for them. The fact that someone has called me an ***hole for expressing my opinion above neatly sums the attitude of some of the extremist elements.
It was a mistake for Huckabee to skip out on CPAC and have a sulk. He could have been there and explained his position. Then again he is not very much for freedom for smokers, his “fair-tax” isn’t and he is a censor. He thinks diabetes is a bigger threat than terrroism.
It wasn’t so much that CPAC was more libertarian is that they were open to all types of conservatives. People forget that at the same time they let GOProud sponsor, they also let John Birch, a group which is polar opposite. (For which they got abuse from the RINO types about.)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838
Huckabee makes the guys at CATO vomit for being such a Liberal. He sure ain’t a conservative! More Jimmy Carter than Reagan.
Huck made his argument, after the fact, Sarah made it before the fact, and gave her reasons, Keene’s previous enterprises, and the JBS endorsement.
Huck has never been principled about this sort of thing, why start now
@58. JustAl: – The Socons seem willing to let the Federal government have all sorts of control over the personal relations of others and don’t seem to realize that this attitude facilitates the Federal government taking all sorts of control over other things.
Seem? Well, which is it? Do they seem to be willing, or can you demonstrate HOW “socons” are willing to let the feds have “all sorts of control” over personal relations? As yet you haven’t done so, that I can see. No one has. It’s just assumed. And you demonstrate that blind assumption when you write, “…no doubt implemented by social conservatives,” at which point it’s very difficult to take anything else you’ve written very seriously, because you’ve made an assertion that is not supported by facts in evidence but, rather, inspired by your personal disdain for those who fit your personal definition of “social conservative”.
I’m decidedly conservative (by contemporary definitions) on many things, but in every case the question hinges, for me, on what the State is explicitly authorized to do, or not do, with the consent of the governed, and how that either reinforces or adversely affects the strength, sustainability and moral fiber of our Republic. The three are not separable.
Governments do not grant rights and can’t rationally grant privileges that are not supported by rights already recognized in the Constitution. When it does so – by creating rights and privileges that are, by definition, extra-Constitutional – then, yes, that action definitely detracts from those rights and associated privileges that I enjoy as a citizen of a Constitutional Republic. The reason is simple: that action by the State effectively replaces the rule of law and thereby renders the rights I enjoy ultimately subject to its legislative whim.
This is why abortion, gay marriage, health care and illegal immigration (specifically, amnesty) have become wedge political issues – they are areas where the State has arrogated to itself the authority to grant rights and privileges that are not expressly supported by the Constitution. It’s my observation that most conservatives – in many cases whether they realize it or not, because so many get distracted by arguing the wedge issues – ultimately hold this same conviction.
As such, this whole notion of “social conservatives” is a canard, IMHO, invented by the left to paint the entire conservative majority as a bunch of crazed religious fanatics who want to put surveillance cameras in people’s bedrooms. In fact, it really only applies to a (shrinking) minority of conservatives who were long ago marginalized in much the same way that the far-left is currently being marginalized now that their leftist, totalitarian agenda has been largely exposed.
The reason I don’t consider myself a “social” conservative – despite the fact that I believe creeping moral turpitude is the number one factor causing America to emulate the worst of declining Europe – is that it completely misses the meaning of the Republican Form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution. It’s also largely because the term is no more well-defined than the term “liberal” or “progressive”, and means different things to different people and in different contexts. That has the destructive effect of leading to cross purposes that confuse every discussion on wedge issues – political distractions – like… abortion (i.e., the profusion thereof), gay marriage (i.e., redefinition of marriage) and illegal immigration (i.e., amnesty), ALL of which are symptoms of an overweening, centralized government and ALL of which could be resolved to the majority’s satisfaction by rolling back the size and scope of that government and forcing it to be held accountable for what its members do in their quest for lifetime incumbencies, unbridled power over their constituents and an elite, untouchable lifestyle.
Now, on driving so-called “moderates” away from the conservative cause, perhaps you need to take a step back and characterize both of those notions first. You’ll find that they’re not as concrete as you may think. Moderates, in my observation, are almost universally people who have a good amount of common sense and corresponding compassion, but who aren’t necessarily driven by moral convictions and, more importantly, don’t fully understand their Constitution well enough to know the limits it places on government. Moderates need to be educated in this regard, not “wooed” by compromising constitutional principles. The latter is the strategy pursued by those we typically refer to as RINOs, and it’s a big part of what gave us the government we have today.
This is the basic fallacy behind the erroneous application of the “Big Tent” syllogism, i.e., “all successful political parties have the majority, Republicans are a political party, therefore the Republican party must seek to encompass a majority”. The problem with this approach – an approach which is promoted far too freely here at PJM, IMHO – is that a bigger tent is not automatically a stronger tent.
A diverse polity is essential to a strong society. America has proved that beyond a doubt. But the key is this: everyone has to know, abide by and assimilate the rules. As a growing tent is increasingly polluted and diluted with more individuals, and factions of individuals, who don’t understand and/or respect the limits placed on government by the Constitution, it basically turns into a Circus. This is demonstrated handily by what we have in D.C. today, which can only accurately be described by one word: Circus. It’s a circus that is increasingly – dangerously – reflected in our faltering society. In large part, this is due to the leftist pollution that has poisoned both political parties over the last thirty years, turning the GOP into the Compassionate Conservative – i.e., Socialist Lite® Party – and effectively turning the Democrat Party into a ‘soft’ version of the Communist Party.
You can rail against the reality all you like, Al, but that reality is this: as American society has fallen away from, distorted, corrupted and/or abandoned the various institutions that reinforce moral behavior, and embraced the modern liberal agenda of dependency on the state, moral relativism and rule based on the whims of the vocal and/or power-seeking minority, our economy has suffered, our society has suffered and our relationship to the rest of the world has suffered. This process has been ongoing for almost 100 years – ever since humanity’s natural psychological tendency toward dependency found an ally in a new political ideology largely made possible by the industrial revolution: socialism.
Ultimately, the aspiration toward a moral society is not limited to “social conservatism” at all. A great example is the following:
Increasingly, our entire society looks like an amplified version of the picture painted in Daniel Moynihan’s 1965 report, from which the above is excerpted. Feminism, institutionalized and often vicious misandry (a word Google’s dictionary doesn’t recognize, and which I am forced to “Add to Dictionary” every time I use it in a new application), moral relativism, Taxpayer-funded welfare subsidies for single-parent (invariably mother-only) family-’ism’ now dominate.
All of these are the products of a society where child-rearing has been largely handed to an institution that is dominated by the constructivist, collectivist agenda promoted by John Dewey (and inspired by Marx), and not the traditional, moral underpinnings supported by strong family and strong community inspired primarily by the Judeo-Christian morals and ethics that found their way into every secular facet of society. Those moral traditions require voluntary mutuality and individual responsibility. The moral relativist, modern liberal agenda has replaced these traditions with a combination of pathological dependency on the State and coercion used to facilitate the redistribution of wealth. All that has been accomplished by ignoring the limits placed on government by the Constitution, not by suppressing the voice of the so-called “social conservatives”.
As long as social, or cultural, matters are swept to the margins, countries
do not deserve leadership. And guess what, they wind up relegated to positions that are not leadership.
As long as too many Americans accept competing standards of truth, they undermine whatever credentials they produce as bona fides of their fitness
for leadership.
From the Eastern perspective, evil opposes righteousness. From the Western
perspective, evil opposes liberty.
Now, are liberty and righteousness mutually exclusive? The more clamour that they are, the greater the undermining of that country.
Reply to #45 Tex Taylor, Thanks for replying back to my post. For someone to remain Gov for ten plus years in a predominately Democratic run state, must speak better than words for Huckabee. You are going to be able to find faults with anyone who has served for over ten years. We all have our faults, strengths and weaknesses. I watched every televised debate and if it wasn’t on TV I watched it on the computer. Huckabee and Ron Paul had to work to get their chance to speak and when they did everyone listened. If you get a chance read the book Doing The Right Thing, this will give you an inside look at Huckabee. Huckabee is one man who has seen The Fair Tax as something good for America and has been promoting it ever since the Iowa caucus. One other thing, you could read The Fair Tax book, by Neal Boortz and Rep John Linder. It helped me to better understand it. As you can tell I am bias towards Huckabee for many reasons.
I agree with #52 Midwest, good comments
I agree with #56 Thatman, all good comments, not sure about the 1 billion surplus, and the last paragraph bothers me. I don’t like to make comparisons and I care more about the positive values of a person.
Our country is in trouble and we need somehow to get the engines moving. Our national debt, current tax system, lobbyist, special interest are dragging down our economy. I see the Fair Tax as a partial resolution to stimulating the economy. Paying down the debt is another. The Republicans need to start their debates now between Flat Tax and Fair Tax. The debate on issues which will help strengthen America, like we saw for only 2 weeks after 9/11.
36. What flirtations with Marxism?
60. Read the words of Jesus to the churches in Sardis and Laodicea (Revelation 3).
Perhaps the writer should do a little research on Huckabee, CPAC and the dynamics of the Republican Party before blogging about it.
1. Huckabee is not just concerned with social policy, or ignoring fiscal conservatism. Huckabee is a complete, Reagan Conservative. Dedicated to social, economic and military strength.
a.) He has the moral convictions to remain unwavering on social values. Just because he disagrees with GOProud, it doesn’t make him a religious extremist. It makes him in step with the MAJORITY of Americans, and authentic. Standing for values is not intolerance. Making social Conservatives come last and belittling our values is intolerant.
Perhaps the writer would object to Huckabee’s disdain if CPAC had invited a pro-abortion sponsor to the event? What if a sponsor wanted to promote a tax and spend idea, or socialized health concepts? Where do we draw the line, and why do social issues end up on the alter of sacrifice even though values voters make up the majority of our base? And who are you, or CPAC or anyone else, to decide that? Since when are the 3 Pillars of our platform no longer mutually exclusive?
It is a strength of Huckabee’s to honor Life and Marriage, and is very consistent with the GOP Platform.
b.)And much to Ann Coulter’s dismay, her champion, Duncan Hunter, endorsed Huckabee in 2008 because he is dedicated to honoring our veterans, troops and war against Islamic extremists.
c.)And I will use the writer’s comments regarding Fair Tax as a prime example of Huckbee’s small government, constitutional position on fiscal policy. It is the most conservative and lobbyist-free solution among all the GOP 2012 contenders.
By comparison to Mitt Romney, who is considered the father of ObamaCare via his failed socialist health reform policy as governor of MASS, Huckabee’s record as a fellow governor shows very different results. In addition to taking over the MASS health care and insurance industry, Romney’s administration expanded government, decreased economic viability and left a cycle of bankruptcy and over-budgeting that is still haunting his home state.
Yet, Huckabee took over AR after the Clintonites began going to prison for pillaging the state, and walked into the biggest financial, educational and structural disasters in the state’s history. He modernized the state’s infrastructure and left it with schools ranked 9th in the nation (48th when he arrived), a booming economy and the largest budget surplus in history. This leads to my second point…
2. Romney, who is neither a social OR fiscal conservative, came in second behind Paul in the straw poll, and won the previous 3 times. Since the “C” in CPAC stands for Conservative, doesn’t hat strike anyone else as odd? Paul was only supported by 3% of Republicans in the 2008 Primaries, yet won this year. Again…odd. Until you look at the small, unique polling sample of only 1,400.
The writer describes this year’s CPAC as “a conservative Mardi Gras, and even the left called it a “Woodstock for the right.” In a year when Tea Party demonstrations are rallying hundreds of thousands to DC, and packing out town hall meetings, you would think that such an event would draw more than 10,000 people.
What kept 99% of us away in the year of Conservative resurgence? Who is running this thing? How is the polling conducted? Who decides who is conservative and who is not? And why is this event exclusive with the mainstream media but not the majority of Republicans? Perhaps the answers to these questions will explain why so many Conservatives, including Huckabee, dismiss the CPAC concept as corrupt and irrelevant.
3. Speaking of polling, you will find that Huckabee has come in first in over 90% of national and state polls conducted by established organizations like Rasmussen, Politico, and Real Clear. Just Google Huckabee polls 2012…if you dare! I don’t think that he cares about his polling results at CPAC!
Hope this helps, Andrew!
“To dismiss God and His Word is to repel the power, character and compassion that made America great and brought forth great men to lead us.”
Baloney. It is the Constitution that made America great. That and all the land, although without the Constitution, the land wouldn’t be so valuable. Russia and Canada have more land and China almost has as much.
That Constitution has a thing called the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion. That puts the lie to your rant without going any farther. I will walk out on a limb and say if the Chinese or the Arabs had found America before the Europeans and settled it without a Christian in sight, as long as they would have created the Constitution, America would be where it is today.
As far as great men, that is a chicken and the egg argument among historians. Do men create the conditions for greatness or do conditions create greatness in the men? I’m of the conditions school.
George Washington was great because of the conditions he found. If George hadn’t risen to the occasion, someone else might have. Probably would have. We’ll never know for sure. Without the conditions, George was just another plantation owning slaver.
Back on Topic, huckiee poo is a RINO.
Marriage is determined by the state because of tax and inheritance laws. End the income tax and inheritance tax and the whole issue of marriage becomes a private matter between the married couple. Inheritance can become a matter of contract.
Taxes and tax breaks are mainly about social engineering. I find it amusing that those social engineered tax breaks done by the 4th world are now coming back to bite them on the butt. They have managed to move the goal posts so far and so fast that they scored an own goal.
There is no God.
There never has been a god.
There never will be a god.
God is an invention of men huddled in fear around a fire, listening to things going bump in the night. This “god” gave them the strength to make it till dawn. That was good for them.
This is the 21st century. If it’s dark outside I turn on the lights. If there is something going bump in the night, I shoot it. I don’t need no stinking god. If you do, fine. Just stop trying to ram that worthless SOB down my throat.
If you need a ‘god’ to get you through the night, go for it. I’ll stick with my .45 ACP. More range and knockdown power then ‘god’.
Response to Rosinante @71:
The U.S. Constitution is the product of western civilization and its Christian heritage. Read what the Founders themselves had to say if you disagree.
The secret to American success is not the Constitution or democracy but its committment to a moral order based upon Scriptural principles. The Greeks and others had constitutions and democracy long before the United States but their attempts all ended in tyranny. Other countries around the world have copied the U.S. example of contitutional government and democracy and have failed. The American experiment has survived so long because of its strong Christian heritage. Once that heritage is severed, it will fall like all the others.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It does not attempt to separate the state from religion. Nor does it promise freedom from religion.
Rosinate, do you dismiss the premise that life exists within narrow
parameters? If you do, then you have no trouble pointing to randomness, instead of design being how life came to be, and how it continues.
But, are you open minded enough to examine the premise that you might be wrong?
no more evangelical politicians. the political histrionics of America’s Calvinist past, a la Lyman Beecher, are in no way the foundation of the republic. we have persevered in spite of these loon toons, not because of them. the modern evangelicals, whether speaking of bush or carter, do indeed have a connection to the USA’s past. almost all of it shameful. the social right have been just as shameful, fascist, corrupt and evil as the progressive left. it is incredible to me to listen to supposed conservatives demean leftards as the dummies they are for believing in a system that has always failed, and always enslaved while at the same time believing a creed with no more substance than the Easter bunny. beck is right the difference of sucking, and sucking less is a distinction without a difference. a pox on pseudo moralist Christians.
JustAl, your tag should be JustDontGetIt. I am a “social conservative.” I have already explained what I would do to the power of the federal government if I had my choice about it.
Redefining marriage isn’t “granting a right.” It is redefining the fundamental social institution of the human species. The homosexual legal agenda is attempting to impose that redefinition on the entire country through the federal courts, currently in the Perry and Bishop cases (CA and OK, respectively), yet you, Mr. Accuse Everyone Else of Advocating a Living Constitution, seem to be just fine with that. Citizens of 45 states have defined, by constitutional amendment or statute, marriage as one man and one woman. Your allies win? The right of every one of those citizens, more than 90% of the country, will have their right to affirm the definition of marriage ripped away. If either Perry or Bishop is “successful,” the votes of something like 40 million Americans on this pure public policy issue will be wiped out. You don’t have a problem with that?
Additionally, as I’ve writtne repreatedly on this thread — state-enforced elevation of homosexual acts as equal to a marital union carries with it grave threats to the First Amendment rights of free expression, free exercise and the right of conscience and even parental rights. We’re already seeing it even absent a counterfeit legal fabrication known as same-sex “marriage.” Google Elaine Huguenin, Julea Ward, Marcia Walden, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, Barbara Maniaci, Catholic Charities, David Parker…there are many more. Any advance of the totalitarian homosexual legal agenda means the erosion of freedom for everyone else. Those who use the state as a coercive weapon to further their own agenda will, and do, use the same edge of the same same sword to eradicate the liberty of others. Seriously, read what Chai Feldblum, an Obama nominee for the EEOC, has said about the clash between religious liberty and a legal construct she invented called “identity liberty.” In her world, it doesn’t matter that free expression, free exercise and right of conscience are explicitly protected in the First Amendment — she believes the First Amendment must give way to sexual anarchy. Your allies, the homosexual activists, are the ones trying to impose their moral code on us. SoCons, for the most part, don’t give a rat’s ass if homosexuals want to commit sex acts with one another. We just don’t want to be faced with swift and severe retribution from the state should we not supinate ourselves before the altar of Kevin Jennings. You are all too willing to surrender my rights, though.
Response to gcblues @74: Please prove your contention that social conservatives are “shameful, fascist, corrupt and evil as the progressive left.” My guess is that you cannot and are just here to spew you rhetorical venom. Let us have some specifics here and then will deal with them point by point.
As to Christianity being a system wiht “no more substance tha the Easter bunny,” you could not be more wrong. The Bible speaks to all areas of life and answers the higher story questions of life completely. It is the inspired Word of God and is thus wisdom to all who would follow it and live in its shadow.
I am a born again christian and use the Bible as my guide. The Bible teaches us to love one another and to pray for those who are in our government, that have rule over us. The Republicans say they are christians too just like the Pharisees in the New Testament. Jesus called them out in Matthew 23:13-28. I call the Republicans Pharisees. I could not be a Republican, even if there were only the one party.
Response to Milton McConnell @77: The comparison is not a very good one. The Pharisees were religious leaders who had stopped advancing the objectives of God to feather their own nests. Are you saying the Republicans are religious leaders who should be about advancing the objectives of God? Are you saying that the Republicans are too focused on ceremonial law and not enough on the larger issues? Or, are you saying that the Republicans bind men with legislation instead of setting them free?
Are you in favor of setting up a theocratic government because that is really the only way that you could possibly put the Republicans in the same position as a Pharisee?
My guess is that you are going the long way around the barn to call Republicans hypocrits. If this is the case, I cannot defend against a blanket indictment against all Republicans. Obviously, given the vast number of Republicans there must be a number of hyporits amoung them. As there must be a number amoung the opposiing side as well. If you would be more specific, perhaps we could advance the discussion.
Response to Andrew Ian Dodge @61: While you may not have tarred all Christians with the same brush, you certainly have attempted to do so to all social conservatives.
Yet, while you continue your prancing pony show, you have still failed to address any of the substantial points raised by many of the respondents to your original post. How brave of you to focus on the name calling and not deal with the substance of the others. You still seem to be Dodging here.
Captain Obvious
02/26/2010 09:05 AM
Hey, guys, get over to Pajamas media and add your comments to a very anti-Huckabee article. Sheesh.
And so the spamming Hucktards arrive, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.. Or is it a knife, meant to be placed
squarely in the back of everything conservative. Big government
Statists like the Huckster are the real enemies of conservatism.
“For someone to remain Gov for ten plus years in a predominately Democratic run state, must speak better than words for Huckabee”
Yes, you said it!
Big government liberal Huckabee quite at home with his own kind!
61. Under no circumstances should we ever allow the government to enact a consumption tax AND an income tax simultaneously. That is a recipe for making us into Europe even faster.
71. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. Somehow, despite numerous tyrants seeking to exterminate Christians (and on a related note, Jews) and make the Bible disappear, the tyrants always fall, and the Church stands over the ashes of the empires that tried to destroy it. The Bible is the only religious text that teaches equality before the law, regardless of race, class or gender. It says immigrants are welcome to come, but they must abide by our laws. It is the basis for the rights of the accused. Pray tell, how would non-Christians have ever imagined such a thing as the Constitution, let alone been able to abide by it even as little as we have? “This Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”- John Adams
Why did President Adams say that? Because those who refuse to be governed by the Lord’s law, that is, to govern themselves with self-control and discipline, restraining their base passions in favor of righteousness, will be ruled by tyrants. Why? Because the people will demand it in order to restrain those who run roughshod over the weak. Better to deal with a single dictator who oppresses the people, but at least is tough on crime, than to endure criminal gangs running roughshod over the people, constantly at war with one another in an attempt to satisfy their insatiable lust for sex, loot and blood.
This year’s CPAC Convention saw two of the three prongs of the Reagan conservative coalition on the outside: national security conservatives and social conservatives.
A “conservative” convention that has a Presdential straw poll and Ron (“America Is To Blame For 9-11″) Paul wins means that national security conservatives are on the outside.
A “conservative” convention where Christian conservatives do not feel welcome means that social conservatives are on the outside.
This year’s CPAC convention was not a good event in a number of ways for real conservatives.
#82 Rick, It is real easy to throw darts. What we really need is open debate, we also need to be willing to see the strengths as well as the what we believe (our opinions) are the problems with people who we down play. You, call Huckabee an out right Liberal, I guess because of what he was required to do as Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee, I believe, thinks of it as vertical politics. Where you pull the good ideas from all sides and work with them. Then use the ideas that are best and if needed be ready to give valid reasons for ideas that appeared pertinent but were not used in some piece of legislation.
It upsets me when I read in the paper, the votes by our congressional leaders. It would be great if they included some kind of statement why they voted for a piece of legislation.
#83 mythbuster, It would be great if you went into a little more detail. What you know about the Fair Tax. If and when the Fair Tax is implemented it would be a replacement for the Federal Income Tax. Please go to FairTax.org for additional information and go to fairtaxnation.com if you want to comment or get questions answered.
The Fair Tax and our Congressional leaders reading and understanding what is in a bill before they voted on it could have prevented a lot of the mess we are in today. There are too many favors between our Congressional leaders, Lobbyists and Special interests, a lot which is tied to our current tax code. The Fair Tax could help to eliminate that problem. With the Fair Tax productivity would no longer be penalized.
Vertical Politics and The Fair Tax could be a good thing for America and Americans.
85. I know all about the Fair Tax; I even wrote a prize winning essay about it. I was objecting to 61′s suggestion in the link that we should enact a consumption tax, but keep the income tax for those making over $100,000. That is a completely unacceptable position. It’s a nose-under-the-tent move that would lead to all of us paying an income tax and a consumption tax. It’s the one suggestion that the authors of the Fair Tax Book were completely unwilling to consider, for that very reason.
81&82. Start naming some things Huckabee did that you find Statist. All I see here is hearsay and conjecture. For one thing, post 82 was entirely circular reasoning. You completely discounted the possibility that Huckabee could be a good leader who managed to get things done despite overwhelming opposition from the legislature without providing any factual evidence to support that position.
#86 myth buster, I like your comments, thanks for catch my error. I didn’t see where #61 wanted to tax those making 100 hundred thousand plus. I went back to #61 and I still don’t see that statement.
Mythbuster wrote: “This Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”- John Adams
Why did President Adams say that?
———-
Hmmm, I’m guessing that things were not going well at the time.
kipling
1. you have no right to demand a response from anyone. try asking nicely.
2. evil due to religion world wide accounts for almost all evil. as for the usa. care to start with the new england and deleware indian wars and go forward? wanna look up the us religious laws justifying, executions, banishment etc in us history. how many rogues use your credo for evil. you count the ways. and omit the baloney that they are not “true” christians. what baloney. there are as many evil and good christians as there are good and evil muslims, athiests etc. christians own no corner of morality
3. the bible being the “inspired word of god” is absolute nonsense. which bible is that kipling? whose translation? whose view? whose version? which books are omitted or included. it is utter nonsense. that is why the bible is used to justify your beliefs and all the fools that went before you. it can justify anything. to justify slavery, and oppose slavery, to justify war, and to condemn war and on and on and on. it is contradictory nonsense contrived by humans unable to live their own lives. unable to conceive decency and morality by reason.
4. if indeed there was a god, he gave you a mind and reason. use it. if you really knew the answer, you would be dead. the meaning of metaphysical kipling is that it is not here for you to examine. you can know it only by blind empty faith. nothing anyone should base government or their life on.
Response to gcblues @89: Let us take your points one at a time.
1. In a free society that values intellectual debate and the arena of ideas, I do have the right to demand that someone support their arguement, especially when the thrust of that argument is an attack on the belief system of others. Mr. Dodge and anyone else who I have challenged in debate have an equal right to decline to support their position but it really weakens their initial argument.
2. Scripture teaches that man is inherently evil and has the capacity to turn anything he touches to evil. Religion is no different. Think of the countless evil done in the name of science (Nazis), progress (Communists and Progressive), etc. Due we therefore reject science and progress because a flawed human has twisted it to an evil end? How many rogues have used science, progress, the greater good, as a justification for evil? Are we to therefore condenm all? If by your definition evil done in the name of some thing taints that thing forever – even if it is a distortion of the true thing – then all is lost because evil has been justified by every excuse imaginable.
To show that the Christian belief system is evil you would have to point to an instance of evil in their beliefs not in how someone misconstrued those beliefs. Can you point to an instance?
Christians are a people with a direct revelation from God that speaks to all areas of life. In that regard, they are very unique and thus do have a corner on the market.
3. The inerrancy and inspired nature of the Bible is too large a topic to go into much detail here. However, I will say that through textual criticism, the writings of 2nd century church fathers, and through ancient copies of the original manuscripts, we can safely conclude that we have a Bible that is over 99% faithful to the original. If you or anyone else would like, I can give you the hard numbers.
As to the gnostic gospels and others, basic historical research skills demonstrate them to be forgeries written centuries after the events.
The Bible cannot be all things to all men. If you care to give a specific incident then we can discuss it. If you can to point out one contradiction then we can take a look at it. But let me be clear, the Bible contains no contradictions.
4. Scripture teaches about the fall of man in Genesis 3. When man fell so did his intellectual and moral nature. Thus reason and intellect can never lead us to utophia because it is fallen. The French Revolution began with high hopes for human reason and ended in the bloodbath of the Reign of Terror. The 20th century was the age of reason as man laid aside the Bible and it has been the bloodiest century in human history. Reason has not done so well on its own.
Man can only know the parts of God that God chooses to reveal. Man alone, working with his own intellect and reason, can never conceive the true nature of God. God has to reveal Himself and He has done that partially in Scripture.
If you or anyone else cares to, I can take you through the Scripture and show you what God reveals about (fill in the blank).
Some people have taken issue because I do not answer the question is about CPAC being “more libertarian”. I don’t agree that it is “more libertarian”, merely that CPAC is now a more friendly place than it was in say the 90s for conservatives other than social conservative ones. CPAC is welcoming to all types of conservatives and not just one sort. I think this is a good thing, obviously those who prefer it to be just a gathering for social conservatives beg to differ.
“A “conservative” convention that has a Presdential straw poll and Ron (“America Is To Blame For 9-11″) Paul wins means that national security conservatives are on the outside.”
Why 800 people voted for Ron Paul in a straw poll out of 10k participants? Big freaking whoop, I am a national security conservative and I surely didn’t feel unwelcome.
Social conservatives were not unwelcome, CPAC just refused to bend to their demands to ban all groups they, the social conservatives, decided were unworthy to attend. This blackmail backfired big time and CPAC was a huge success (record numbers). Its pretty sad if so-cons won’t even attend an event because they might have to be “in the company” of gays and people who don’t take the so-con line on everything.
Reply to Andrew Ian Dodge @91:
Let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to reply.
I have no problem with CPAC becoming common ground for all members of the conservative movement to come together and rub shoulders. I do have a problem with those who erroneously characterize libertarians as part of the conservative movement. They are not. Unbridled personal liberty is not a conservative issue and it is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. For the sake of brevity, I will leave it at that but I have written about it in more depth at my blog. Just click on Kipling above for access.
Social conservatives did not attempt a boycott of CPAC. As far as my research could find, only two social conservative organizations threatened to boycott. It is even unclear whether Liberty University boycotted or simply withdrew their co-sponsorship due to the inclusion of GOProud. The social conservative boycott is a myth mainly promoted by leftist blogs. Do a simple google search on “CPAC Boycott” and see who promotes the myth.
Social conservatives did not attempt to blackmail CPAC. Liberty University objected to the inclusion of GOProud and threatened to withdraw their sponsorship. CPAC held firm and liberty withdrew. While Liberty University is a social conservative institution, it does not speak for all social conservatives. You are promoting a myth that all social conservatives boycotted CPAC and it is simply not true. CPAC had record numbers for the simple fact that social conservatives did attend.
CPAC was hardly the champion of inclusion in the incident. They accept GOProud as a paying co-sponsor but did not allow them to speak on their agenda or on the issue of gay rights. It sounds like the principled action of CPAC had more to do with money than inclusion. Do we have a little pay-to-play here?
From what I could ascertain from research, Liberty University had no problem with GOProud attending the event or even setting up a booth. They objected to the inclusion of GOProud as a co-sponsor because the GOProud agenda and the social conservative agenda of Liberty University are polar opposites. Would you have been okay with the ACLU or Media Matters being a co-sponsor of the event?
Mike Huckabee is on the cutting edge for conservativism in the United States. Somehow people have it in their minds that just because he listens to the other side and respects the other side of the aisle (i.e. having First Lady, Michelle Obama, on his show) that he is secretly supporting them. Rather that could not be farther from the truth. Mike Huckabee respects his opponents and in some cases even supports them (i.e. supporting reducing childhood obesity). He knows that in the U.S. we are all one – E. Pluribus Unum (out of many – ONE) and that we need to respect and listen to each other while politely and respectfully disagreeing. The only candidates Mike Huckabee will even begin to support with his PAC have to be prolife, pro-reducing the size of government and support a Fair Tax system (which already has bipartisan support).
We need a leader of Mike Huckabee’s character and integrity in Washington and in our Nation. He is the best and will make an outstanding United States President some day.
kipling
since you have no sense of reality. since all your argumentation is circular referring back to your fantasy. since you responded not to a single point made except your lack of right to make demands on others. i suggest you bother people other than me.
Huckabee is not a fiscal or small government conservative. He believes in using the state to further his belief system. During his presidential campaign he went on quite often about how government should do this or that. He is no better than the socialists who want to use the power of the state to enforce their will, he is a statist through and through.
#95 Andrew Ian Dodge, I am just curious, is there anything you can say that is good about Mike Huckabee? What issues do you care about? What do you think about the Fair Tax? Did you ever watch and listen to debates during the 2008 Republican Primaries? What makes you think Huckabee is not a fiscal or small government Conservative? From all I have read and seen, he certainly is. He understands the US is spending and borrowing into unsustainable debt. Huckabee is giving his time, resources and energy to support candidates who are for fiscal and smaller government. Where did you get your information or opinion?
87. It’s in one of the links he posted.
95. Name examples, or else it’s just hearsay.
Reply to Andrew Ian Dodge @95:
Huckabee’s apparent lack of committment to fiscal conservatism has always bothered me as well. I am a 3 for 3 conservative. In other words, I stand for fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and social conservatism. Social conservative credentials alone are not enough to sell me on a candidate. However, social conservative credentials are essential for me to sign off on a candidate. Huckabee is not the national spokesman for social conservatives and you do a disservice to social conservatives by treating him as such.
Gay activists and the libertarians who support them are the ones who want the federal government to support their belief system by reversing centuries of western civilization to appease less than 1% of the population. How can a government which can redefine and thus destroy the oldest institution none to man be ever considered limited?
Response to gcblues @94: To the contrary, the answers provide by Scripture to the higher story questions of life match perfectly with reality.
History proves rather well the point that man is inherently evil. The humanistic concept of evolutionary progress means that after thousands of years the best we can attain to is Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Show me the proof that man is not inherently evil. Show me the proof that progress has occurred. For all of our vaulted technology we can simply kill each other more efficiently. Why would I think the 21st century would be any different from the pervious 20? Reason and rationalism has failed us. That is why we have entered the post modern age of nihilism and existentialism.
The Biblical scholarship is the same process we use for all ancient texts so why should the process for Biblical scholarship be any different.
We may agree to discontinue our discussion. Nothing is lost for the intellectual exercise and perhaps much may be gained.
Fascinating conversation. I gave up about halfway down. It sounds as if a lot of the posters here are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One has to suspect that a few are just really clever trolls, i.e. msmensa above. A few seem merely deranged.
It seems to me that the idea is to stop the fifty-or more accurately, 80 plus year slide into a statist government to replace that founded back in 1776 and anchored in 1787. Stopping that slide is going to require everyone who sees it and wants to stop it working together. The first step would seem to be getting together. Seems to me that insulting one another, attacking those you might be able to work , and especially shredding the reputation of leaders respected by significant groups of our most likely allies, leaders like Gov.s Romney, Huckabee and Palin. Don’t want one or another as President? Don’t trust one or more? Engage them and their followers on the issues in the platform committee, in the primaries, even by supporting a different candidate in a general election, BUT, do it civilly, on the issues, with provable facts, as opposed to Obamafacts. Dispute the evidence, argue the policies, stop the character assasination. The way some of these posts read, we’ll be too busy shooting each other, and ourselves, in the foot to ever mount an effective fight to save our constitution and, thus our country, from the current leftist surge.
The left’s biggest weakness, or one of them, is it’s vitrolic hatred of any disagreement with it’s narrative, it’s view of
” The Way Things Really Are!” There are some here who sound the same. Save the anger and the cheap shots for the bad guys.
Are there some folks we can only go so far with, some not very far at all? Sure. Some we can only agree with as far as, “those guys have gotta go? Yeah, so go that far with them, part in peace, and soldier on. Will we fight with some of them later? For sure, though maybe we’ll be able to do it civilly and with some respect.
I’m as angry about what’s being done to my country as anyone here, but I do recall that it’s not just MY country, or even mine and those who agree with me. I really believe that it is the radical left who have made civil discourse impossible, but I’ll keep my temper if they’ll keep theirs. Beyond civility, they’ll still need to go further than their willingness to let me be bipartisan if I’ll vote for their takeover.
Where am I coming from personally? A hint, mid-western, orthodox Catholic, and retired Army combat vet who finished as a JAG Maj.
Bit more? Disappointed Republican, mildly populist retiree from a blue collar background. From there, if you’re a reasonably understanding type, you can guess about my positions on most to virtually all issues. My approach, clearly enough, is mission first. Let’s get back to that little document from 1787 that I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend. A living document that contains within itself the terms on which it is to grow- see Article V, Constitution of the United States.
Hope to see some constructive discussions on how we’re going to go about doing that.
#100 Dave Juncer, I believe I understand everything you wrote and I agree.
Not sure what you mean by
Don’t want one or another as President? Don’t trust one or more?
An example I have is, and this has bothered me ever since about the Republican Party. During the Republican primaries, prior to the Texas, Ohio and a couple other states primaries. There should have been an open debate between Ron Paul, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. The debate would have made the Republican Party stronger and identify the strengths and weaknesses. Instead the media took over the course of the Republican Party.
I respect Sarah Palin, the way she speaks out from her gut, as well as her heart. It appears she is being pushed to do more. I respect Mitt Romney for his accomplishments in the business world. I really don’t know enough to say anything else about him except the media appeared to put him on a pedestal. I respect Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul who are fiscal responsible. I liked his reasoning and I wish he could have been able to participate more in the debates. He even said if he were President and the Fair Tax came across his desk he would sign it.
I respect John McCain, but I thought he was more about getting endorsements and delegates from the Democratic States. He didn’t appear to connect with the people. When he pulled Sarah Palin as his running mate, she made the connection with the people and made me feel better about voting. During the debates McCain could milk the clock. Palin added to and helped the Republican Presidential ticket.
I was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee, primarily because he supports and promotes the Fair Tax. I also agree with all the other major issues Huckabee believes in. I also believe the time he was able to get in the debates, he made a lot of sense with his answers and approach. The media worked at putting Huckabee down, but Huckabee kept coming back with strong grassroots support. I Repect Mike Huckabee, too.
It is too bad the Republican party doesn’t promote open debate and appears more controlled by the media.
It is too bad the Republican party doesn’t have a debate between the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax.
One argument I hear is the Fair Tax would add 23 percent to the price of a product. That is not true, but if it was, prices have already gone up more than that and our economy is hurting. The Fair Tax could have helped to prevent many of the problems we are seeing today. Our current tax system is driving our economy into the ground.
For those who care to learn about The Fair Tax go to fairtaxnation.com and fairtax.org. There are so many benefits with The Fair Tax HR25.
Republicans need to debate and not just for one hour. the Iowa caucus is a good model for other states, as a way to become more informed and encourages debate.
Reply to Dave Juncer @100:
A good place to start would be to support Senator Bunning in his refusal to extend unemployment benefits by unanimous consent. Bunning is not against the extension but he wants the Senate to honor the pay-as-you-go rule that it recently passed. Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid trumpheted the passage of pay-go as a demonstration of their fiscal responsibility. We now see that they had no intention of honoring it. Everyone should contact their Senators and tell them to get on board with Sen. Bunning. A call or note of encouragement to Sen. Bunning would not hurt either. Let us return to the rule of law.
To this conservative voter CPAC lost it’s potential credibility with the serendipitous straw vote for Paul. What a waste of political muscle. And Huckabee’s sour grapes won’t help, either.
I’ll give the organizers a C grade and suggest they are not the future, but instead are merely spokespersons for recent conservative history. They need to get out of the way and let the folk who will truly restore this republic [by reducing the size of government's footprint] get into the game.
He is a decent bassist, a pretty good chat show host and an ok pundit.
#104 Andrew Ian Dodge, That’s a start. What do you think about the Fair Tax? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?
#104 Andrew Ian Dodge, I forgot to add, i am a fan of Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin and The Fair Tax.
I am now going to watch the video of Glenn Beck giving the keynote address at CPAC.
94. Why don’t you try predicting the future, in detail, and never getting anything wrong. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophesies, and this shall be the sign that it is true- Russia and Iran shall lead an alliance to attack Israel, but they will lose. Indeed, the attackers shall be utterly devastated, while Israel will spend seven months burying the corpses of their enemies.
“[I]f the Conservative Political Action Conference that ends ups with a straw poll vote saying that Ron Paul is the nominee of the party for president, something’s gone haywire there. That’s not a conservative conference.” — Rush Limbaugh
Source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022210/content/01125109.member.html
Huckabee is a distraction, and a hypocrite.I’d like to know how HIS current gig at Fox was procured.Was it part of a payoff by the Mccain campaign to reward him for serving as a spoiler and fatally damaging Romney’s candidacy?If Huckabee can’t accept the fact that some very fine anti-statist folks happen to be gay,he should drop out of the movement, and go back to preaching fire and brimstone cretinism to his benighted fans.
#109 deguello, Where does Romney stand on the Fair Tax. My observation is the people who ignore the benefits of The Fair Tax, must be beholden to lobbyist, special interests or other reason where there needs to be the type of control the current tax system (federal income tax) has over the people.
There are so many advantages the Fair Tax could bring. A major advantage is productivity would no longer be penalized. Every time I purchased new retail products or services, I would pay my tax. The same would be for every man, women and child in America. No more loop holes, no more calling the irs to ask questions, and no more forms or filing income taxes.
It takes a man like Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee to promote a product that beneficial to the people rather than more government control. Where is the debate. I have been spreading the word about the Fair Tax for five plus years and I just can’t figure out why it doesn’t catch hold in Congress and the Corporate world. It is down played in the media.
The grassroots is rapidly growing in favor of The Fair Tax HR25.
Msmensa: abortion is the genocidal murder of millions of innocent, unborn babies. All sane, literate persons understand that fact. It is therefore wrong(sinful) to fail to stamp it out!
The vicious bitches who slaughter their own children will burn in hell for all eternity,(unless God lied to us), and so will the thugs who aided and abetted, condoned or even tolerated their satanic conduct. No human female ever gave birth to a milkshake, a tonka toy or a second trustdeed; always to a human baby. A person, not a “clump of cells.” Killing innocent persons is murder; and murder in not negotiable.
109. Huckabee didn’t spoil Romney; Romney and Thompson spoiled Huckabee.
kipling
seeing your posts, nothing you type is intellectual. you simply demand straw men proofs to nothing anyone says. you never debate. you read to respond, not to understand other’s words. you seem to do it to everyone. that is neither intellectual nor is it debate. as an ex intercollegiate debater and judge for many years, trust me on this. you make no argument. ever. your flow chart is completely disconnected from everything anyone says. please, try to see this as constructive and possibly you will begin to reap the reward of clarity. try putting down the bible and reading something intelligent to put some order in your thinking. Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Cicero’s De Inventione, or the Ad Herennium are all great starts. each provide more information on humanity than your poor modern translations of hallucinating dessert wanderers.
Response to gcblues @113:
The real problem is that I understand your points very well. Those points are the same shallow secular talking points that unfortunately passes for intellectual discourse nowadays. Let us examine your posts and see how they stand up under scrutiny.
Your post @74 is ahistorical in its examination of the American founding and then digresses into a secularist screed about the “shameful, fascist, corrupt and evil” social right. You provide no evidence to back up your contention. You then proceed to call Christians loon toons who believe in the Easter Bunny. Is this what passes for intellectual debate on the college campus of today? I challenged you to back up your assertions @76 and that really seems to upset your keen debating demeanor.
Your post @89 is simplistic in its attempt to equate all religions with evil. You show no appreciation for intelectual development or for primary source documents. You simply push your anti-intellectual atheism. I responded to all of your points @90.
In your post @94 you respond to my point by point rebutal of your previous post by name calling and ad hominem attacks. You must have learned debate at a liberal institution. I responded to your points once again @99.
In summary your posts consist of unsupported attacks upon social conservatives and religion as well as personal attacks upon me. Yet, in your hubris, you venture to lecture me on proper debating techniques and how to structure an argument with clarity. What more can I say? I will let our respective posts speak for themselves.
I can’t help wondering if Mr. Dodge and many responders posting here have actually taken the time to read a few of Governor Huckabee’s books and listen to what he has to say. Comments taken out of context, as the ones attributed to Huckabee in this article don’t pass the sniff test. Huckabee will continue to have my support because of his proven ability to get things done, his integrity, and his charisma.
Oh my dear MsMensa (BTW–I’ll match IQs with you any day)
If your mother had decided, as a matter of sacred “personal responsiblity” to end her pregnancy, that little blob of tissue might have been someone YOU would have felt worthy of a little respect. It would have been YOUR little body dismembered, YOUR little heart stopped, and YOUR life ended.
But you need to know this comment came from one of those indoctrinated evangelicals. Just keep on NOT thinking about it.
Abolish the IRS! fairtax.org Overturn ROE V WADE!! Huckabee 2012!
I had the pleasure of hearing Gov. Huckabee speak in person several times during the 2008 campaign. I always found him to be a positive, upbeat, intelligent & a very enjoyable speaker. I believe Gov. Huckabee to be a consistent conservative in every way. If you look beyond the talking points of the opposition & get to the actual facts of his political career in Arkansas as I have done, that is what you will find. Gov. Huckabee is a Christian, but I have never known him to be disrespectful to anyone of any other faith. I am honored to have voted for him & will be thrilled to do so again. I believe he has a vision for our country that will solve many of the pressing problems that we are now facing.