Reason #3: Huckabee Supports the Federal Marriage Amendment
By Anteater Posted in 2008 — Comments (108) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here is Reason #1 and Reason #2 to support Mike Huckabee. I'll make my third reason short.
#3: Huckabee Supports FMA
The Federal Marriage Amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman. While this issue of gay marriage is a winning issue for the Republican party, only two candidates actually support FMA:
1. Huckabee supports FMA
2. Romney supports FMA
3. Fred opposes FMA
4. McCain opposes FMA
5. Rudy opposes FMA (but might support it under certain circumstances).
If you think that FMA is not a big issue, think again. Is it coincidental that Huckabee and Romney are 1st and 2nd in Iowa? Also, I believe that Fred would still be a frontrunner right now if he had supported FMA. The single reason why social conservatives did not coalesce behind Fred (as they were planning to do) is because he came out against FMA [source].
Thus, social conservatives have two remaining options: Huckabee or Romney. Mitt Romney made a huge blunder this month by stating his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) at the state level [source]. ENDA legislation is vigorously opposed by virtually all social conservatives. This action alone proves that Mitt Romney is not in tune with social conservatives.
Thus, by process of elimination, we arrive at Mike Huckabee as the only conservative choice once again.
Huck is NOT the conservative choice. He's the "One Issue for Dummies" choice.
Actually I have already presented 3 reasons, and Huckabee wins in each of them. Wait for the other reasons.
disconnected and dumb as this one.
Hey, if you want to know what the Evangelicals in Arkansas think about The Huckster, check this out. This fellow has six well explained and well documented points on the guy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
See here, Huck is trouncing everybody in Arkansas: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/arkansas-polldata-decemb...
They love him over in Arkansas, which suggests that Huck was a really really good governor. That evangelical you link to is flat out wrong in some of his points.
that says that in a poll conducted in mid-December, 59% of 608 Republicans surveyed prefer Huckaflea to be their nominee...Whoopdeedoo
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
He does not...What he has is 59% of 608 Republicans polled between Dec. 12-17 that said they want him to be the nominee....
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
of the 608 Republicans surveyed, you're right, compared to Republican opponents, he did have a 50% lead (give or take 4.4%). I still think it's misleading...just like I find it very misleading for the 'NEWS' to say 'Blank percentage of Americans believe this and that'....That's whooey...maybe Blank percent of THOSE POLLED believe this and that, but not necessarily all Americans...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
In a head to head race against Hillary, he's down by 1 point...now granted that's within the 4.4% MoE but still, losing to Hillary? That's just sad.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
They just love Hillary more.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Elected Bill Clinton 4 times. Even the Republicans meet most of there future spouses at family reunions and the term "toothbrush" is correct.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
that tells us how he's the best fiscal conservative.
The only one that'll be better than that is the one that tells us he's the best on foreign policy.
Then his case is EXTREMELY weak. As a "full-spectrum" conservative - I care about those three, but also about a wide variety of other issues.
I care about taxes, spending, illegal immigration, private school choice, etc.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
....they are all equally important - I want the whole spectrum. Just saying you're the most pro-life means you're probably weak on other issues.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I might not be from the 'South' (considering I live SW of 'Where the West Begins' (that'd be Fort Worth, for you non-Texans)), but trust me, we understand the FMA and HLA, while great concepts, have no chance at this point in time.
In order for a law to be effective, the hearts of the people must change. Unfortunately, until we get the parents of this nation and stand up and be the men/women God intended them to be, homosexuality and abortion will continue to be a problem.
With the information age comes some benefits and some consequences. Even if, by some miracle (believe me it's going to take God's intervention) the FMA and HLA became the law of the land, it will stop nothing. Women will find other ways to 'rid themselves' of the pregnancies and same sex relationships will still take place. Suicide is illegal, however, you can find plenty of ways to do this by using your favorite search engine.
Our churches are failing us as a nation. I attended a church for 10 years and worked tirelessly in Children's Ministry during that time. I constantly had to beg people to donate time and/or money to help the children of our own community, and 9 times out of 10, to no avail. But mention a foreign nation needed another church and they'd sit on their duffs and write out that check. We have become a society that wants everyone else to do the work and not get our own hands dirty. It makes me want to puke.
If you want the FMA and HLA, then quit trying to shove it down the throats of Congress and presidential candidates. Turn your computer off, go out and witness to those in your city and/or town. You'll be much more successful than what you've been so far.
Then, and only then, will the FMA and HLA not only have a chance to become law.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
...we should be changing hearts and minds, in addition to supporting good legislation.
On the issue of abortion, when it comes to changing hearts and minds, the first part is to correctly characterize abortion, something that Mitt Romney fails to do (see Reason #1).
On the issue of gay marriage, most Americans are against it anyways. This issue is a political winner for the Republicans.
are against gay marriage...However, when Kinky Friedman embarrassed himself, and my home state, by running for governor, he said something to the affect of 'let the gay's marry, no reason they shouldn't be miserable too.'
That seemed to resonate with people and it freaked me out...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
...is a distraction from the overall judgment that has to made about who would be the best president.
First, mbeck is right: just on its own merits, the game is self-defeating since all of us socons want life and marriage protected, and the most effective way to do that in the current cultural and political environment is getting good judges appointed and approved. This requires a GOP candidate who can speak to all three parts of the conservative coalition, not one with an arguably liberal record who happens to be only socially conservative.
Second, we live in a very dangerous world, and we need a president who gives evidence that he recognizes this. Gov Huckabee's comments on foreign policy give evidence of a dangerous naivete. Our next president needs to understand that his first obligation is to protect the country, IN ORDER THAT we may still have a country where Life and Marriage are protected.
Yes, his name was Brownback. Give me an argument for why your preferred candidate is a social conservative.
If your standard of who you are going to nominate is how pure a social conservative they are, then why aren't you backing Allen Keys?
He's a hard core social conservative and has lost to Obama once already, so he would be a prefect guy to nominate if all you care about is symbolism and not actually getting someone elected who then is proposing legislation that can be passed into law.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Is support for some secret mystery amendment to the constitution that stands zero chance of passing. Still waiting to find out what version HLA Huckabee is promising...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
... is that not only is Huck socially conservative, but he is also one of the most electable Republican candidates right now.
By who?
Last time I checked there are many more I's, D's and moderate R's than hard core social conservatives who would vote in a general election. I have no clue who you think would vote for Pastor HuckaFraud in a general election, outside of a very very small group of single issue social conservative voters like yourself.
Pastor HuckaFraud at the top of the ticket would insure a defeat for the Republican party come the general election that would surpass the McGovern defeat of the early 70's. If that's what you're after, then knock yourself out.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
1. Huckabee nets endorsement from prominent black conservatives:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2008/01/huckabee_nets_endorsement_from.php
2. I have seen several electability polls where McCain and Huckabee were ahead of the pack.
3. Huck is an optimistic communicator and a Teflon candidate -- does that remind you of anybody?
Eight years of that dope from Hope is all this nation can handle....What would the general election look like if it was Hillary/Huckabee? 4 dopes from Hope? Get the trash can ready, I'm gonna spew...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
I've said before that there is no way I would vote for Romney or Rudy but I could see myself holding my nose and voting for Huck. But, I could see a 3rd party becoming viable if your scenario actually plays out. However, I don't think we'll need to worry about this. No way Hillary wins the Dem nomination (I could be wrong since Dems sometimes dispay suicidal tendencies - see John Kerry) and I don't think Huck will win anywhere outside of Iowa and maybe SC if Fred drops out.
Fred, John & Mitt. Any one of whom will do more for the pro-life cause the Faker from Hope. They are all pro-life/antiRoe & opposed to same sex marriage. Any one - plus Rudy - will nominate and get confirmed judges who will be better than Hucks. BTw, why won't he talk about the judiciary. He's made a commercial on the HLA but avoided judges like the plague.
And don't come blathering back with a line of crap about the HLA until you can tell me which one the man supports. Specifically which version, because they are not all created equally.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You can spin it just like his statement about Lawrence v Texas. Yea I trust him on SCOTUS... about as far as I can throw Teddy Kennedy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
of self-serving, reality-denying bull s**t that reason #1 & #3 are.
You make me long for the Ronettes, they had more common sense and could make a more rational argument. And their candidate is no farther off the reservation than yours.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Rebut any of my points in Reason #2. For starters, the guy who first brought a spotlight to the Harriet Miers nomination thinks that Mitt's record on judges is abysmal.
Brownback's endorsement of McCain was pre-Huckaboom. Many people back then thought that Huckabee had no real chance.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/12/brownback_not_surprised_by_ris.php
will get you a small latte at Starbucks. Although it is always nice to bet an endorsement from a former President(ial candidate)
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
man we've really lost our minds in America....I'm glad I drink diet rootbeer it only costs me $.20 or less per can...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Each of the other 4 candidates, to varying degrees, would advance the social conservative agenda because of their commitments to strict constructionist judges(yes, even Rudy, with Ted Olson and Bill Simon advising him). But if Gov Huckabee's apparent out-to-lunch-ness on foreign policy puts our country at risk, the social conservative agenda WON'T MATTER. It seems to me that a lot of Gov Huckabee's supporters are willing to tolerate his gaffes on foreign policy "because he's right on our issues". Fred Thompson's voting record is every bit as pro-life as Mike Huckabee's(including oppo to embryo-killing stem cell research), every bit as pro-2nd Amendment, and only different on Marriage by his support of a federalist approach to the issue. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, he gives evidence of an understanding of the dangers facing our country and how to protect us, SO THAT WE STILL HAVE A COUNTRY in which we can argue for the protection of Life and traditional Marriage and Family. Too many of Gov Huckabee's supporters, like too many Democrats, speak as if it's still September 10th. That scares me.
...to see why the other candidates either 1) have abysmal records on judges or 2) will not be able to appoint conservative judges anyways due to the majority of Democrats in the Senate.
Huck gets the big issues right when it comes to foreign policy (just recently he was proven to be prescient with regards to Pakistan):
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/anteater/2007/sep/29/a_favorable_analysis_...
"First, mbeck is right: just on its own merits, the game is self-defeating since all of us socons want life and marriage protected, and the most effective way to do that in the current cultural and political environment is getting good judges appointed and approved. This requires a GOP candidate who can speak to all three parts of the conservative coalition, not one with an arguably liberal record who happens to be only socially conservative."
Yes! This is the key point in this whole primary: We are defining the party with this wide-open no-incumbent election. To keep the coalition together we need a candidate who speak to all wings of the party.
Only 2 candidates do that credibly IMHO - Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
(which is a normal state for you, but I respect the way you display your wrongness)
There are plenty of social conservatives who are just fine with Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. They don't share your little pet litmus test of constitutional amendments that don't have a prayer of passing.
SoCon .GT. FMA/HLA
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Unfortunately, he is very, very liberal on ever issue except Social. Huckabee and Rudy, both on the extreme ends of the party. We need a real conservative.
Rush: Huck 'not a conservative'
Rush Limbaugh devoted a large portion of his first show since the holidays to criticizing Mike Huckabee's candidacy and offering a disapproving bottom-line assessment of the former governor.
"Ladies and gentlemen, Gov. Huckabee, mighty fine man and is a great Christian, is not a conservative, he’s just not," Limbaugh said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Rush_Huck_not_a_conser...
Unfortunately, he is very, very liberal on ever issue except Social.
This is a patently false statement which is easily debunked.
I guess you can write off at least a quarter of the Republican voters especially those of us in the North, Northeast and West Coast.
It's this hard stance on those social (or what I call "bedroom issues") that puts me out of step with the Republican party I grew up with. I'm for smaller government. That means I don't give a rats who you are sleeping with, and I am pro-choice, although I don't believe a single penny of taxpayer money should go for it, and there should be some reasonable restrictions (such as parental notification for one). So when say throw the "l" word at me, it makes me wonder why I have faithfully voted for the GOP since I was old enough to vote.
Disheartening
The Republican party welcomes socially-liberal fiscally-conservative voters too! Huckabee, once nominated, would love to have your vote.
There is no way this gets the support in the sufficient number of states anyway. So, it's irrelevant who supports it or opposes it.
If you are totally and absolutely unelectable in a general election, who cares what you think?
Oh wait, that's not an important criteria, just being "right" on social issues for some small segment of the Republican party.
How special.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
the FMA is a waste of your and my time. (A) it'll never, ever, ever, ever pass, and (B) government enshrining an endorsement of personal behavior into the Constitution violates both conservative and libertarian views of the role of government in society.
(A) it'll never, ever, ever, ever pass
There's nothing wrong with supporting an ideal even though it is not politically pragmatic at the moment. And the issue of gay marriage is a winner for Republicans anyways.
(B) government enshrining an endorsement of personal behavior into the Constitution violates both conservative and libertarian views of the role of government in society.
You see, in order to pass an amendment, it really has to have huge grassroots support. So passage of such an amendment would only be a reflection of the will of the people. Also, FMA may violate somebody's notion of federalism, but it certainly does not violate conservatism:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/anteater/2007/sep/23/conservatism_vs_feder...
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Are you supporting him too?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
That's why so many people loathe Huck - conservatives care about taxes, spending, immigration, small/limited government, etc.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
And let me say something about Harry Reid -- he is a Democrat and he is no help to the pro-life movement.
If I had to choose between social conservative and non-social conservative, I would go with the social conservative.
than Harry on any issue. And if he has his way with the HLA & FMA he'll do infinitely more damage to the prolife and profamily movement than Harry could ever dream of.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
to the conservative coalition.
That is not a viable prescription for building a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress.
***
“Peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.” – Ronald Reagan
DEAD BANG LOSER. As is the HLA.
Show me a single poll that has over 50% support for either.
Show me a freaking plan from the Dope from Hope that will get either of these turkeys to the floor of Congress for a vote.
Show me a head count in the Senate of Republicans who would vote for this idiocy. Hell, you won't even get half the Rs to support this crap.
Hint: support ain't there. Nobody but but Huck's KoolAid Brigade gives a damn about these amendments because they are a distraction from getting something actually accomplished in the area reducing abortion, restoring the rule of law by having judges and justices who actually respect the Constitution, and promoting real family values at the state level.
Huckabee - and apparently you - are simply too stupid to understand that and are more than willing to let another 30 or 40 million babies be aborted so your precious Pharasical principles will be intact. The lot of you utterly disgust me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...and not just Huck supporters, support FMA.
You make an argument based on pragmatics. It is virtuous to support a goal that may not yet be politically viable (but note that gay marriage is a political winner for Republicans), and it is very telling that some candidates are not willing to support FMA. This is really an indication of a person's core convictions.
the FMA or the HLA. You are drawing a false conclusion so you you can justify your support for The Dope from Hope.
Traditional marriage is a winner for the GOP when - and only when - it's fought at the state level. Where it belongs. Fight this crap at the federal level it's a loser. Look at what it took to get DOMA. Any just why do you think the last time a version of the HLA was put to a vote was 1981? And that version was the absolutely least restrictive of all. It did nothing more than give the states the right to regulate/ban abortion.
Not only is Huck wrong on EVERY issue, he's just too stupid to be President if he actually thinks this crap is worth wasting one second of legislative effort on.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
A bunch of individuals though. Like all the Presidential Candidates but the Dope from Hope.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
of the evangelical Christian, social conservatives like me that wouldn't be a part of one of those groups.
All the major social conservative organizations support FMA.
Family Research Council
American Family Association
etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Group
Thus, while there could be a few social conservatives that oppose FMA on pragmatic grounds, they are in the minority.
You don't seem to be able to get into your head that it is possible to support a candidate who doesn't support the FMA and not be opposed to it!!! I do not oppose the FMA - if someone wanted to pass it, fine. Get a clue here, Anteater. Maybe it will sink in if I yell:
You just can't get past your litmus tests, can you?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
and it's a non-starter without a solid two-thirds majority in both houses of congress.
In the context of electing a president, it's little more than Identity Politics.
***
“Peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.” – Ronald Reagan
Just against the version that Huckabee promotes. The version that he supports is the constitutional version of DOMA with some other aspects put in.
You may not like it, but it is not legitimate to say that he is against "the FMA".
I look forward to your fourth reason: the three you have presented are the only ones that I can conceive that are semi-legitimate and are generally only one reason.
There is one version of FMA that is agreed upon by virtually all social conservatives. That's the one Huckabee supports and Fred opposes. Please read the source that I cited above that states that so-con leaders did not coalesce around Fred due to his lack of support for FMA.
Here is the source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6029.html
Here is some background on FMA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
Opponents of the FMA argue that it would violate the states' rights to regulate marriage by federalizing the issue, which they say should be left to the states. Many liberals have used the federalism argument, including Senator John Kerry, moderate Senator John McCain, and paleolibertarians like Lew Rockwell and Representative Ron Paul, who, while opposing the FMA, oppose gay marriage.
What specific language of the law does Huckabee support? I can't say I'm for or against something if I don't know specifically what it is.
That's all details, man. He can't tell you what the amendments he proposes would actually do. The only reason he's got any details on his FairTax proposal is because someone else did all the work on that.
Why would he waste any time figuring that out, when he knows there's no chance of any of them becoming law, and he (hopefully) knows that he's got nothing to say about constitutional amendments?
Providing details is not part of the duties and responsibilities of a Christian Leader, anyway. Did I mention he's pro life?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This is equivalent to saying that there is "scientific consensus" on anything. It just isn't true and cannot be true.
I am socially conservative. I don't support the Huck version of the FMA.
Here is the problem, and I've called you on it before. You are not starting with the definition of a social conservative and then applying that to the candidates. Rather you take a position that you declare to be the only TRUE position of a social conservative and determine if the candidates are SoCons.
Your method is first devoid of logic. Second, it is exclusionary and judgmental (i.e. no one can have a valid though on the subject except you).
A true conservative (of any variety) begins with a philosophy and the positions on the issues flow from that philosophy. But there are usually multiple positions that can successfully implement a given philosophy.
He regularly "begs the question" as you point out, which is to say he constantly assumes that which he first must prove.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
OK Anteater, you're into this for three reasons to support The Dope from Hope.
1. He's the "only" pro-life candidate. He supports HLA.
2. He'll fight for "good" judges.
3. He supports the FMA.
First of all, in every one of your blogs, you don't focus on what Huckabee will do, you focus on your perceived weaknesses in the other candidates. Let's take a look at Huck's positions and make a judgment based on him.
#1. He's the "only" pro-life candidate. Yeah, by your definition that to be "pro-life" you have to support the HLA.
I've been asking you for several weeks WHICH version of the HLA Huck supports. You will not answer. There have been seven versions before the Congress, only one has gotten a vote - in 1981 - and it failed 40-50. Note that of the available versions only two would actually make abortion illegal, the other five simply return the issue to the states, which is the same result as overturning Roe but without the benefit of declaring Roe "bad law".
WHICH VERSION OF HLA DOES HUCK SUPPORT. If you can't answer this simple question, please drop your insane insistence that a candidate must support "HLA" in order to be pro-life.
With respect to your insistence that no other candidate is pure enough on life, that's simply a crap argument. Fred has been endorsed by NRLC. Rudy has committed to keep all administrative restrictions on abortion/abortion funding in place and has an incredible panel to advise him on judicial issues/appointments. Mitt may be late to the game, but he's not going to cross the base on this one because he'd be done and he's smarter than that. Do I have "proof" of any of this? No. No more than you have that Huck would have returned the furniture to the Arkansas Governor's Mansion if he hadn't been sued. I will say that the probability is much higher for my three assumptions that for the furniture.
The second point on HLA, which you ignore, is that by pushing the HLA (and the FMA), Huck will light a fire under the pro-abortion factions in this country. It will become a rallying point and they will join at the hip, along with the elected Dems in DC, and not only will they stop the HLA & FMA, they will successfully block any and every judge who's ever even thought about the issue. You will get no pro-life/family legislation passed. The opposition will be a solid front, just as they were during the Clinton impeachment mess. Fronting the HLA & FMA will be a huge net negative and will drive the pro-life/family movement back to 1971.
The third point on HLA (and FMA) is that hell will freeze over before either gets to the floor of the Congress let alone passes with a 2/3 majority. You can't even get 2/3 of Republican Senators to support the HLA, add to that zero Dems and you're dead in the water. In the process, you've spent precious time and political resources to beat a dead horse.
#2. He'll pick good judges. You have no standard of history from which to draw that conclusion. None. Zip. And as far as Huck "fighting for" his nominees, there is no history of him fighting against Dems in Arkansas, if anything his history is exactly the opposite. He looks for ways to "work with" them. In addition, he's got no advisors of record on judicial matters and based on his recent comments on Lawrence v Texas, he doesn't know diddly squat about constitutional law. None of this should inspire anybody that his picks would be anything other than David Souter or Harriet Myers. Again, there is no "hard" information from which to make these judgments, but given that his history is solid crickets chirping and his recent forays into judicial matters is less than impressive, I think the conclusion that he is, at best, unreliable on judicial appointments, very reasonable.
#3. He supports FMA. OK. See #1. In addition, please note that your link to FMA being a "winner" for the GOP doesn't relate to a federal constitutional amendment. It relates to a state constitutional amendment. At the state level, defining marriage in state constitutional terms has been a winner virtually every time. The process is totally different from a federal constitutional amendment. In every instance, those state constitutions have been modified by a direct vote of the people, not by state legislatures. There is a huge difference.
If you think that the elected Dems in DC are going to let the FMA get a 2/3 majority in the Congress, you're delusional. Not only will it lose by a huge margin, they will make it (along with the HLA) as the poster child for Republicans wanting to make law about your activities in your bedroom between consenting adults. It's a loser. Big, big loser.
Now then, if you're planning to comment on this, please start with the version of the HLA Huck supports and provide some links to the effect. If you can't come up with that much back-up for your screeds, don't bother to comment.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Huckabee clearly isn't a politician in the politics part of being a leader. He understands so very little beyond the quick quip and the funny oneliner.
Identity politics.
Unfortunately, facts and reason do not matter one iota to those who are supporting Huck based on identity politics - which I have reason to believe a lot of them are.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
On Reason #1:
You make it seem like HLA is the only issue I talked about. Please read my diary again -- I touched a multitude of subjects, including embryonic stem cell research (John McCain), the refusal to characterize abortion as murder (Mitt Romney), and the pro-abortion rights lobbying (Fred Thompson).
Regarding HLA, the specific version of HLA that a candidate espouses is orthogonal to whether a candidate supports any version of HLA at all.
On Reason #2:
I used a process of elimination to arrive at my conclusion. Rudy and Mitt have "abysmal" records on judges. McCain has compromised on this issue (Gang of 14), and Fred would not be able to effect a change in the composition of the Senate. Please read that article by the guy that first shined a spotlight on the Miers nomination.
On Reason #3:
The issue of gay marriage is a winner for Republicans whether it be state or federal. Every single prominent social conservative organization supports FMA. The overwhelming majority of Republican Senators support FMA. Note that some senators like John Kerry hide behind the federalism argument to oppose FMA. Every candidate that opposes FMA is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of social conservatives. And Romney is out of touch with social conservatives too -- see his support for ENDA.
Regarding HLA, the specific version of HLA that a candidate espouses is orthogonal to whether a candidate supports any version of HLA at all.
Those two propositions are not orthogonal. First, if a candidate does not support any version of HLA, you know that he does not support any specific version. Second, the significance of a candidate supporting an HLA depends largely on which version that candidate supports.
...when making a "process of elimination" argument with different factors involved.
If you have a candidate A who does not support HLA, and another candidate B that does support HLA, you do not need to determine the specific version that candidate B supports in order to make a value judgement between the two candidates.
Now if you wanted to compare two candidates who both support HLA, then you could go into finer granularity and talk about specific versions in order to discriminate between the candidates. I did not need that level of specificity, as I was able to discount John McCain (the other HLA supporter) due to his support for embryonic stem cell research.
Mitt Romney seems to be on the fence when it comes to HLA, but I was able to discount him due to his refusal to characterize abortion as murder.
on Hannity & Colmes, and am now willing to throw him under the bus.
Thought you'd be pleased!
brought you HLA (which version was it???).
1. Hell will freeze over when this gets through the House and Senate.
2. Hell will thaw out and freeze over again before it gets through the state legislatures.
3. This will take both time and political capital away from doing something that might be positive.
4. It will, along with his support of HLA, ignite the Dem base and the elected Dems in Congress. You can kiss off getting anything that looks like a conservative confirmed to any court.
Huck is NOT the conservative choice. He's the "One Issue for Dummies" choice.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.