F-you Country Boy. Jesus Freaks Need Not Apply.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Mike Huckabee — Comments (234) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You know the most damnably aggravating thing about this campaign season for me? I continue to feel compelled to defend Mike Huckabee and I'm still convinced he'd hurt the party were he the nominee. And as I continue to defend Huckabee, some have decided I'm an anti-Mormon bigot, some have decided I must be a Huckabee supporter, and some have decided I've just lost my mind.
Here I go again defending the guy who I have no intention of voting for.
Today, Rich Lowry* writes:
nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety. . . .Huckabee has declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans.
Think that's bad? Read Lisa Schiffren's post here. It drips with condescension, which only got worse here -- enough for Rich to notice. They aren't the only ones.
And all of that is damnably aggravating to me because I tend to think Rich is right on these things, as are Lisa and others. But the sheer snideness of most of the attacks on Huckabee makes me want to defend the guy. While the attacks are on valid issues, at heart, the attacks appear to be because he is a former preacher from the South -- a country bumpkin and a Jesus Freak.
The New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative IntelligentsiaTM loves the base when it does as it is told, but let's not actually let the Jesus Freaks run things directly. You know, we're all suppose to listen to James Dobson, but God forbid one of his ideological kin actually takes charge.
Read on . . .
*This is a matter of me writing quickly and running off to a Christmas Party. I'm glad Ramesh Ponnuru emailed me to ask what it is that was "snide" in Rich's column. I should not have lumped Rich in with the whole because I don't think he was snide. My point with Rich's column instead was that there are a lot of hits on Huckabee at the angles Rich takes -- most of them are snide, though Rich's itself was not. Those hits are hits that he's a preacher, he believes in creationism, and he'll creep out the non-evangelical among us. I actually think Huckabee could do quite well in a secular world. His articulate statement on the evolution question, for example, is one that a lot of non-evangelicals took positive notice of. My apologies to Rich for suggesting his was, itself, snide.
This whole thing reminds me of a John Derbyshire column at National Review back in 2003, during the heyday of the Crunchy Con movement. Rod Dreher had just written his NRODT story on it and National Review decided to stop being the standard bearer for conservative thought and instead become the National Geographic of the Conservative Movement. Derbyshire declared himself a "Metropolitan Conservative" and I tend to think it is this class of people who should let the rest of us go after Huckabee. They should go silent. The more they speak in their condescending manner toward those who are, in reality, the bulk of the GOP base, the more they give away the game that they want us in the party -- they just wish we'd all shut the hell up and take orders instead.
Derbyshire writes:
Now, 43 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll last May said that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal. So the uncomfortable question arises: If we NR-niks are to the left of 43 percent of Americans on this issue, just what kind of conservatives are we?
It's the same with Creationism. I touched on this topic in a column a few days ago, where I called Creationism "pseudoscience." A poll conducted last March showed that 48 percent of Americans believe in Creationism, vs. only 28 percent in evolution. It happens that a couple of years ago, someone on a private e-list I belong to asked me if there were any Creationists at NR. I said I thought there was one. I had forgotten that NR had eavesdropping rights on this particular e-list. Kathy Lopez, who eagle eye never misses a thing, e-mailed me to ask who it was I had in mind. I told her. She checked. Nope, he wasn't a Creationist. To the best of my knowledge, therefore, there were no Creationists at NR, and to the best of my knowledge there are none now.
Go back now to Lowry's column today where he talks about evolution. Remember, as well, that even McCain commented on just how articulate and thoughtful Huckabee's remarks on evolution were. Now, continue reading to the heart of the Derb's column:
What the heroic worker was to an old-line Marxist, what the suffering Negro was to civil-rights marchers, what the unfulfilled housewife is to Hillary Clinton, the Vietnamese peasant to Jane Fonda, the Palestinian rioter to Edward Said, so the red-state conservative with his Bible, his hunting rifle and his sodomy laws is to me. He is authentic, in a way I am not.
There doesn't seem to be much point in apologizing for this condescension, and I am not much given to apologizing anyway. It's worth noting, though, as a fixed component of, I think, the entire outlook of metropolitan conservatives. I don't think it is any cause for rancor or antagonism. The metropolitan conservative and his provincial cousin both have their part to play in keeping what Sir Kenneth called "the balance of ends and means." Sitting in New York cooking up argumentative commentaries is as useful, in its own way, as running a Christian home-schooling group in Knoxville.
. . . . I see what happens when conservatism becomes a merely metropolitan cult: conservative politics becomes marginalized and impotent. That's not going to happen here; and it won't be me and my big city pals that prevent it, it'll be the legions of real, authentic conservatives out there in the provinces. God bless them all for keeping America strong, free, and true to her founding principles.
[Emphasis in original]. I think Derb's sentiment from back in 2003 is revealing itself now. The New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative IntelligentsiaTM bristles at the idea that a back water social conservative from Arkansas has excited the base in a way the others haven't. We were, after all, suppose to go for Romney or Rudy. They told us so.
I don't want to defend Mike Huckabee. He's not my candidate. I don't yet see any major reasons to trust him on fiscal issues (though he did say he wants to kill the corporate income tax). But it's a sad day in the conservative movement when the conservative intelligentsia has sustained harsher words for a socially conservative Governor than a serial adulterer who has said this year that the government should provide assistance to poor women wanting abortions.
There are attacks to be made on Huckabee. But I think most of those who are making them are only helping Huckabee because the snideness of their tone overshadows the accuracy of their attacks.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Giuliani Unleashes The Dog; Sadly It's A Poodle — Comments (45) »
F-you Country Boy. Jesus Freaks Need Not Apply. 234 Comments (0 topical, 234 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Why is Romney you punching bag every time the MSM attack Huckabee. While there are lots of reasons to attack Huckabee, there have also been other attacks that are plain wrong. But, What I don't understand is everytime there is bad news for Huckabee, Romney is blamed.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
All you have to do is look at Mitt's statist health care plan and his vow to bring it to the rest of America to know why we keep bringing him up. We are only pointing out the hypocrisy of the North Eastern Establishment’s criticism of Huckabee as too fiscally liberal. Mitt is hardly a Fiscal Conservative and neither is Rudy. To continue to try and make this an argument against Huckabee is foolish. I intend to make this point in an upcoming blog on Mitt’s fiscally liberal record.
As for Rudy go to here: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/aceintx/2007/dec/10/my_support_for_huckabe... to see his more liberal record.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Well Said! Please do so. The minstream conservative media is not doing it!
"Truth can stand on its own and needs no help from half-truths, shades of grey, white-lies, or plain lies"
You can cherry pick and manipulate to make it look like Giuliani isn't a fiscal conservative, but anybody who looks into the record knows better.
Similarly, you can nitpick to try to make Huckabee look like a fiscal conservative, but he isn't either.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
"All you have to do is look at Mitt's statist health care plan and his vow to bring it to the rest of America to know why we keep bringing him up."
Romney has said repeatedly that he wishes for individual states to deal with healthcare in their own ways. He also said that the Mass plan wasn't his ideal plan, and indeed, 9 key elements were removed by Democrats.
Please get the facts straight if you're going to push an argument.
And no, increasing state spending by 65% and tax burdens by 47% is never conservative. Ever. Not now. Not 20 years ago. Not 20 years from now.
Huckabee is wholly unacceptable. Bad-mouthing other candidates will not change that.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
...you say that you are not a Huck supporter. I would recommend that you quit worrying about coming to his defense.
I am simply a Christian. But I am not a Huck fan. Those sympathetic to Huckabee need to recognize that there are significant reasons for many in the Party to come out against him given 1) his positions that are contrary to central conservative principles and 2) some glaring judgment lapses while governor (Dumond+). I do not take criticisms of him as a criticism of me as a Christian. I listen and recognize the truth that he would divide rather than rally the Party in the general.
If Huck were well-grounded on socon, fiscon and seccon issues, I would be inclined to support him. He simply is not. So, I look elsewhere - because he will harm the coalition as much or more than Rudy will.
You really do not need to come to his defense. Talk about the serious decision that people need to make - between Romney and Thompson. Focus your energy where it matters.
All the best.
I agree with you that Erick does not need to defend Huckabee the politician. But the attacks on Huckabee have been to his social conservatism, which is the only thing I like about the guy. And that is worth defending.
His fiscal conservatism is non-existant. He is far too much a compassionate conservative for me. (We don't need another). His view on illegal immigration is appalling.
He would not hurt the party like Rudi would. After all, Huckabee is another W. But we don't need another W.
We don't need the ex-liberal governor of Massachusetts either.
Give Fred your energy and effort.
Yes, Huck would hurt the party like Rudy would - only from a different angle. Splits are splits. And the next W is the last thing the party needs for 2008.
seem determined to go down in flames, for they finally have a "Christian" running (never mind the other candidates' confessions).
Building a border fence and refusing amnesty is appalling to you? What are you, some sort of open borders guy?
Let's just say that Huck's recent "retooling" of his immigration position has been, erm, Romneyesque and leave it at that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
it's that he appears to want to be our Pastor in Chief.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
is what is scary. As a Catholic (and the last time I checked, a Christian as well), this Fundie nanny statism thing is just as mencaing as the Hillary! nanny statism.
I can't think of a more ignorant or contemptible comment than the one you just made. Huckabee has a record as do Giuliani & Romney. If you so called FisCons would stop drinking the Romney and Giuliani KoolAid you'd see that Romney and Giuliani have been at least as fiscally and probably more fiscally liberal that Huckabee was.
As far as I'm concerned Fred Thompson is the only candidate that has grounds to criticize Huck's fiscal policies. He's my second choice after Huck. I've ruled out Guiliani or McCain as a possible vote in the general election even if they're the nominee. As I research Romney's record on fiscal issues for an article I will soon post, I am coming closer to saying I will never vote for him in the General election either.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
First of all, I'm a SoCon, an Evangelical Christian and a licensed minister. I'm also not committed to any candidate at this point.
I've been all over Bubba Jr's record as Governor and it stinks. Roughly doubled the tax burden in AR, the cost of state government rose at three times the rate of inflation, his blather on pardons is more BS than should be tossed on any one subject, his commentary on immigration is unbelievable, he knows nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about the conduct of a war, and is clueless about the fact that FairTax, the FMA and the HLA will never pass. Oh, then theres that "we'll be energy independent by the end of my second term" crap.
Bottom line, he's a fiscal imbicile. My dead white cat knows as much about foreign affairs as he does and none, absolutely none, of his "signature programs" will even get to the floor of congress for a vote. Oh, and then there's the fact that - based on his comments on Lawrence - he is clueless about the Constitution and SCOTUS as well.
So, we get to put up with complete ignorance when it comes to governance and on top of that we get to have him challenge his opponents by questioning their Christianity, all the while listening to how important his faith is. In between flat out lies about things like the fuel tax issue and, oh yeah, he did give back the furniture.
Sheesh. You want ignorant and contemptable go look in a mirror while holding a picture of Bubba Jr.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
giving up your license? Sorry if you are an evangelical Christian, I might be the Pope!
"Truth can stand on its own and needs no help from half-truths, shades of grey, white-lies, or plain lies"
Listen up pin head.
It's like this. I really resent Bubba Jr. making his Christianity THE big reason why I should consider voting for him. See his ad in Iowa. Just because he's a Christian (and I'm not quibbling over that) and just because he's a pastor does not mean he knows diddly squat about the things that are required to be POTUS. For instance, when questioned about his lack of foreign policy expertise, he touted the fact that he had a degree in Theology. Oh, FWIW, he doesn't have a degree, he was only at the seminary for one year.
Listening to him is like turning on the TV on Sunday morning. I'm sick and tired of his little "red sea/red tape" snippits mixed with his obvious and total ignorance of foreign affairs of conducting the war, of dealing with the Washington DC Democrats, of tax and economic policy.
He should go back to pastoring, he will have my good wishes.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I make the point that Rudy and Mitt are at least as bad on fiscal and immigration policy and you split your britches. Look at their records. They are both Rockefeller Country clubbers who are as bad or worse when it comes to expansive government.
As far as Huck's foreign policy experience goes, can you give me Mitt's or Fred's or Rudy's foreign policy experience?
BTW spare me Rudy's 911 experience in answer to my question on foreign policy. As I've stated on numerous posts that he did a better job of emergency response than Ray Nagan did in New Orleans this would qualify him to handle a tornado in Washington DC but doesn't have anything to do with how he'd respond in an international crises.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
position of either Mitt or Rudy so their position has nothing to do with Bubba Jr's.
With respect to foreign policy experience, none of them have any to speak of. Only Huck would try to make a joke out of his ignorance though. Rudy has also put together a foreign policy advisory team made up of real heavy weights and he gets a plus for that.
The one thing that I know Rudy can and will do is fight. He'll fight the Democrats in Congress just like he fought and beat the liberal interests in NYC. I don't know about Mitt, and I'm sure if there's a fight, Bubba Jr will be a no-show. He'll want everybody to just get along like they did in Arkansas. That means more government and more taxes and less security.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/aceintx/2007/dec/10/my_support_for_huckabe...
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
aceintx
"as bad or worse" You say Rudy and Mitt suck but Huck sucks too? Yep, I vote for people who I think suck too. LOL
You sound like a four year old.
By the will of Evangelicals to flex their muscle, and then looses (like I think he would) in the general, the Religous Right wing of the party will unfortunately be severally wounded.
When one part of our party says "screw you" to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems. I would say that for any party wing. That is what is happening with Huckabee, esp. when taken in context of Perkin's email article from a week ago. To be told that Evangelicals will support Huckabee despite numerous policy differences just to send a message to secularists, is a major problem, in my opinion.
The worst nightmare for our party would be a two man race between Huckabee and Giuliani. Total nightmare. Huckabee V Romney/Thompson/McCain would allow things to still be salvageable. Giuliani V. Romney/Thompson/McCain would have been the best probable scenario, but that won't happen.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
You said: "When one part of our party says "screw you" to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems."
Well, that's exactly what happened. All of the early front-running candidates were Northeastern Republicans (+McCain) with liberal views on social issues, only one of whom was even interested in giving the appearance of caring about socially conservative stances - and I have serious questions about his (Romney, if you hadn't figured it out) sincerity. The Establishment Republicans basically told socons who raised the questions about these socially liberal views and the lack of a candidate that shared their priorities "go soak your heads, what are you gonna do, vote for a Dem?"
And they went out and found Hucmkabee ans said "notice us. We're powerful, we're passionate about our issues, and we will nominate someone that cares about what we care about and see how you like it."
I was really, sincerely, hoping that person would be Fred (and to extend, I still hold out hope it might be). But Huckabee was actually in the race, was communicating, was reaching these people and saying "I hear you" when no one else would. And the evangelical base responded wholeheartedly.
The Republican party and establishment Republican media (I'll refrain from stealing the trademarked phrase!) have no one to blame but themselves for the rise of Huckabee.
I would love to see the nomination come down to Huck vs. Fred. That would be ideal. But if Fred isn't going to get his act together (though, thankfully, he seems to be), I'm not going to stand by and let the nomination come down to two men who haven't done a darned thing except give lip service to prove they're any further right than the Dems socially.
You have no plausible argument that McCain and Romney are totally at odds with Evangelicals, to the extent that Huckabee is with nearly everything The only Republican aspect is pro-life and marriage. That's it. You have numerous problems with ethical questions, gift giving, missing computers, etc. and all the pardons. These are serious problems.
With McCain, Romney and Fred, you have politicians who are at least willing to work with all segments of the party.
If Huckabee wins then looses, the biggest looser is the Religious right. Unless Romney, McCain or Thompson wins, this party is headed for a major split.
why I am against Romney socially. It's his record. I don't believe in convenient "policy shifts" or "personal revelations" or whatever that happen to directly coincide with one deciding to run for office.
McCain, it would not be hard for me to vote for were it not for McCain-Feingold, which I think is pretty heinous.
In any event, I may have not have made myself clear. I'm not really supporting Huckabee now, precisely because of ethics issues I see cropping up that he can't easily explain away, in addition to his further explanations of some policy positions that I find either unconvincing or wrong. What I was addressing why his rise happened in the first place. I looked at Huck and said "oh, there really is an authentic social conservative in this race." And so I supported him (though I've never been polled, so it's not like MY personal decision affected anything). And now that I dig and find some of his record, well, I'm souring on him a bit. But I still defend his social positions, and more importantly, the IMPORTANCE of those social position.
Which is why I like Fred. I think he's pretty close to me social-issues wise. And I don't understand why people excoriate (vocab word alert!) him for not embracing an amendment that won't pass.
I want Fred to do better. When it comes to my state (sadly, far too late to do much good), that's probably who I'm voting for. But I'm also defending Huckabee right now because I think those that want to dismiss him often dismiss issues very important to me along with him.
Believe it or not, I think McCain may be the only one to salvage our party right now.
I like Fred too, but the guy just doesn't have the passion. Hell, he didn't even acquire enough signature to qualify for the Delaware primary ballot.
You should consider putting McCain-Feingold aside (partly because the Supreme Court already gutted a portion of it in FEC v. Wisconsin RIght to Life) and vote McCain. I really believe he is best for the party right now.
McCain is the only Republican running that not only holds the Reagan coalition together, but also brings Reagan Democrats back into the fold.
I think Romney's rhetoric in '94 and '02 is worse than his actual record. He vetoed every pro-abortion bill that came to his desk while governor and fought hard on the gay marriage issue.
I'm having a good laugh at you as a Rudy supporter when I hear you saying to SoCons "When one part of our party says 'screw you' to the other part and forces their candidate on the party, we are in for some major problems."
I remeber making posts a couple of months ago the the Rockefeller wing were forcing Rudy down our throats and basically telling us to shut our mouths and fall in line.
As I recall the dismissive line was...."What are you going to do...vote for Hillary?"...well now it's our turn to ask....what are you going to do?...vote for Hillary?
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Are you claiming he is a Rudy supporter? Is that why he has all that Romney stuff in his sig? He's been a Romneybot since day one. If you are going to go around attacking people's motives you might want to be a little more observant.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
To mymanmitt is a link to Rudy.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
Now its Leon's turn to come clean.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As I recall the dismissive line was...."What are you going to do...vote for Hillary?"...well now it's our turn to ask....what are you going to do?...vote for Hillary?
Yes, I will. There is nothing sacred to me about voting a straight ticket, and Hillary is light-years better on foreign policy than a complete neophyte who couldn't be bothered to read the NIE on Iran in a timely fashion and then lied about it when he got called out. It also doesn't help that he's a fiscally liberal populist -- favorably comparing in that regard with John Edwards. Nor that his primary selling points are a series of social conservative views that aren't mine.
I have no problems with a preacher being President, but he has to have the qualifications first. Huckabee doesn't have them, particularly in foreign policy and fiscal matters. Right now, I'd support either Clinton or Obama over him. (He beats Edwards for me, but, then, I'd vote for the devil over Edwards. Twice.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Mitt was a governor and Rudy a mayor...What makes them more qualified than Huckabee on foreign policy? The only thing I see different between them on foreign policy from Huck is that they have Ivy league degrees and sip champaign at the Rockefeller Country Club.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Mitt's foreign policy credentials aren't fantastic, but they are far beyond Huckabee, who apparently thinks having a degree in Bible is foreign policy experience. I say this not at all to diminish the study of the Bible, which can inform many things, but I think it's important to remember Martin Luthor's admonishment, "I'd rather be governed by a wise Turk then a foolish Christian."
Anyhow, Mitt was the Governor of a coast with considerable international trade and international business. Also, Bain Consulting and Capital, the company Mitt was CEO of, has more international business contacts then you can shake a stick at, which is huge. Dean Acheson became Secretary of State in part due to his international business/law connections and knowledge.
And you are really all wet about Giuliani. Other then McCain, and arguably Brownback before he dropped out, he's got the most experience in foreign policy issues. First off, being Mayor of New York is inherently international job. It's the biggest international city in the entire world. No city on the planet has more money and people from different places going in and out of it then New York. One out of every five people in New York is employed by a foreign country.
It's also the city that the United Nations is located in, and he had to deal with some of those folks all the time. Perhaps you heard about the time where he kicked Yasser Arafat out of a party for the UN because he hadn't been invited.
However, he had lot of foreign policy experience before his time as Mayor. As an Assistant Attorney General he was in charge of the DEA, which deals with international law issues and drug trafficking, which obviously extensively involves foreign policy issues. He also dealt, famously, and in my opinion wrongly, but that's a different issue, with the Hatian Immigrant situation.
When he became U.S. Attorney, he was involved in many, many terrorism cases. He famously prosecuted the Palestinian Terrorists who murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Anyhow, he was involved in a lot of them, and that's key experience in the WOT.
Of course, there is also 9/11. The fact that things went as smoothly as they did given the chaos is not an accident. He had been planning responses to terrorism for all 8 years of his terms in office. He was well aware of the threat and understood the threat of terrorism and the results speak for themselves.
This isn't even to mention the fact that even before he left office, he had traveled to other countries helping them with their security and crime related issues. Since he's been out of office, he's helped places from Mexico City to Tel Aviv with security related issues.
Giuliani is infinitely more qualified on foreign policy and national security issues then Huckabee is.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
that Romney was in charge of the first Olympics after 9/11 and had to deal with the security of those games - quite a difficult challenge.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I'm not a huge fan of Giuliani, but the rest of your assessment is spot-on. Romney is a calculating, canny guy. He's not led by his heart, the way Huckabee seems to be (see, e.g., Dumond). I may not like him all that much, but he's easily better than Huckabee.
As for Thompson: I started out not liking the guy, but his dogged commitment to federalism is impressive. Not my first choice -- like Nixon reportedly remarked, I don't know if he's the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'm also not all that impressed when someone is laid-back. I'd rather see hard work. But he'd do as well.
But, of course, I remain committed to McCain, despite strong disagreements on campaign finance.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
- I'm having a good laugh at you as a Rudy supporter
I realize that your annoying canned talking points are designed for use with Rudy supporters, but it detracts from your presentation when you blithely use them on people who have "mymanmitt.com" in their signatures.
You are once again becoming a spam hose. If you would like to spend another night in the box, post another link to that note you've already linked to twice in this thread.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
College, I'm no expert. Is it possible for a Republican to lose California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida and still win the general election?
I don't see Huck winning those states, no matter the opponent.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
all of those are routinely on the Dem side of the ledger anyway.
So the question comes down to "can a Republican win without Florida?"
The answer is complicated. Short answer = yes, but FL is a big loss. If you lose FL, it is absolutely required to win OH. Can't lose both. In addition, you'll need to steal either Michigan or Pennsylvania, which are 52-55% Dem.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Yeah, but Ohio looks ugly now. The atomosphere is caustic towards Republicans, and will be, for structural reasons. This isn't a case of a bad poll day. I think the GOP needs to find a winning strategy without OH, meaning FL, WI, PA etc..
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
the same things Huckabee says that some of us don't like are things that probably would put him at a big disadvantage in all those states, including Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Other 'Pub candidates might win the northwest, even California.
Florida? Huck can fuggeddaboudit.
If Obama were the Dem choice, I'm not even sure Huck would carry the South.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I think the things he's saying give him an advantage in those states (Mich, Ohio, Penn). He's a populist and will play well in conditions of economic challenges.
More, the democrats have held onto working class votes in many of those regions by default. On social issues, those groups are very conservative. Combine that with Huck-style economic populism and I think you flip support by at least 10 points.
It's true that he has no chance in California or really anywhere on the west coast. But I don't think that any other Republicans do either (unless Hillary is the candidate in which case I think everything is in play).
"I think the things he's saying give him an advantage in those states (Mich, Ohio, Penn). He's a populist and will play well in conditions of economic challenges.
More, the democrats have held onto working class votes in many of those regions by default. On social issues, those groups are very conservative. Combine that with Huck-style economic populism and I think you flip support by at least 10 points."
Populism can be a tricky thing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he were 'out-populismd' by Hillary, or any Democrat for that matter. They have it in their genes. Those social conservatives in PA did not stand behind Rick Santorum. Do we know why?
The economic populism is even worse. He will get support from the 'demolish the IRS' crowd, but that is never going to happen, for practical reasons. The Fair Tax is NOT a panacea. I think any of the others who have a record of reducing taxes or holding the line on them could do as well as he.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Flagstaff,
My intent is not to comment so much on Huckabee, but I can't resist letting you know that rural parts of MI, OH, and (western)PA are going to like the Huckabee message. Not all, but it isn't as bad as you might think. Hey, we have a bunch of Amish folks and Mennonites ... Christian evangelicals just don't scare people. They live with them.
That being said, I have some bones to pick.
Other 'Pub candidates might win the northwest, even California.
Show me the data. Feed me. The last data I saw was every Dem was up big on every Republican in California, and it wasn't even close. Kerry thumped Bush in California 54% to 44%. How does any Republican (all are pro-war except the UNSPEAKABLE ONE) make up 10% points on Bush? I don't see it. McCain or Rudy might be able to pick off Oregon, but I don't seriously believe that even WA is in play.
If Obama were the Dem choice, I'm not even sure Huck would carry the South.
Please provide evidence. Bush won by 25% in Alabama. This is a pretty good down payment. Show me your evidence. Time does heal all wounds, but the Deep South is the former land of the Dixiecrats. You really think Obama could compete in the South with Huckabee? Unless you show evidence, I think not.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
There was at least one poll that had Giuliani slightly ahead of Hillary in Washington. I can't find it now but I assure you it exists.
It's also worth noting that Washington is a weird state. D's always win it, but they don't win it by much. GWB is probably one of the worst politicians for the purpose of actually winning Washington for a whole host of reasons, but he still got 46% of the vote in 2004.
Honestly, the big problem with Washington is that they HATE Religious conservatives. It's an EXTREMELY secular state, especially Seattle, even moreso then most big cities (SF is the only one that's even close to as low in church attendance)
I could see either McCain or Giuliani winning Washington. Is it likely? No, but it's not impossible either. Mitt, Huck, and Fred, almost no way in hell, but I think Giuliani or McCain could win it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Because he might win Washington state?
Not following you.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
that would appeal to wash state libs more than a democrat.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Dang! The time machine is in the shop for repairs. It needs a new veeblefetzer and a potrzebie upgrade. There is NO WAY I can show you evidence that my opinion is correct. I just have a couple of rejoinders.
"I can't resist letting you know that rural parts of MI, OH, and (western)PA are going to like the Huckabee message."
They didn't like a similar message by Rick Santorum well enough to re-elect him. Could it have had anything to do with his previous support of quasi-liberal Arlen Specter, who obligingly threw him under the train, or was it just because of his 'stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case' (Wikipedia)? Maybe those gave Santorum problems with the people in Eastern Pennsylvania. Would Huck have some of the same problems? Wouldn't anybody?
"I don't seriously believe that even WA is in play."
Washington came within an illogical court decision of electing a Republican Governor last time. That means somebody there was doing something right. As liberal as Seattle and some other parts of WA may be, there are also plenty of people there ready to listen to fiscal conservatism and sensible border policy. Again, my opinion.
"You really think Obama could compete in the South with Huckabee?"
Well, maybe that was a bit much, but you could probably make your argument for all the other candidates, too, so that really doesn't help Huck. But I do believe Obama will do better with black women and college voters than Hillary would.
Here's my opinion in a nutshell. Some folks believe that Huckabee is the ideal candidate because he seems solid on pro-life and he favors the Fair Tax. Maybe some other reasons, too. They can overlook his agreement to tax increases in Arkansas (maybe they were needed), and his curious stands on illegal immigration, old and new, and his apparent cluelessness about many other issues of national importance.
Other folks believe that Republicans need to nominate a 'middle-of-the-road' candidate, one who will be closer o the Democrats' positions on a raft of things. Again, these people might like Huckabee, too. The idea is that he could attract the independents and the undecideds and the fallen Democrats that don't like whomever their candidate may be.
I fall into the category of folks who believe that if we don't give the people a choice (instead of an echo) we might just as well go home before the election. We need to provide a choice to get the mainline conservative to vote at all. Stands like McCain took last summer on illegal immigration take a long time to be forgotten.
Let the people pick between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, not between a real Democrat and an imitation Democrat. We might even pick up some seats in Congress while we're at it. IMHO.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
But I think most of those who are making them are only helping Huckabee because the snideness of their tone overshadows the accuracy of their attacks.
They haven't figured it out yet, and please don't help them!
...some Huckabee supporters have defended his economic positions (as has been said on this site as well as others) by mentioning that his positions are closer to mainstream, consensus opinion than those of Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson.
That being said, "mainstream, consensus opinion" cuts both ways. To wit, the mainstream is a bit wary of, for lack of a better term, the "Bible thumper" mentality, and some of his statements along those lines, as genuine and heartfelt as they are, have the tendency to rub some people the wrong way...
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
It isnt that Huckabee is a Christian is why he is catching on - and I live in the heart of GOP territory for Missouri.
To do so is an over simplification and a lack of understanding of why he is catching on.
Do people like that about him? To a point, but people identify with a lot of what he says and are tired of the establishment..
I might add that many people love seeing those in Washington and in the media squirm at the sight of Huckabee doing well.
He has a core. I have tried to write about this repeatedly.
Now that he retooled his immigration policy - look out.
I just wished Fred could get some free media the way Huck has, because he has that core and antiestablishment foundation as well..
anyways.
People had better listen up, because Erick is right.
Now that he retooled his immigration policy - look out.
So, one man's "flip-flop" is another man's "retooling"?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
flip flop, retooled - bottom line is that he changed it.. you know, the same way Romney retooled his abortion beliefs (but apparently didnt enforce them on a deminationalized health care policy). :P
Plip.....Running against Kennedy Mitt was Pro Life
Flop....Running for Governor Mitt was Pro Choice and Pro gay marriage.
Flip....Running now Mitt is pro Life and Pro traditional Marriage
Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
He was pro-life when he was running for the Senate in 1994? That's a laugh. You should really check out Ron Paul... I think he is more your speed, judging by the quality of your posts here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I donated to his Campaign for Senate in 1994. My memory is that he claimed to be pro life. I'm willing to admit I am wrong if proven otherwise but as I remember it he made statements to that effect early on.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
You're VERY VERY wrong.
Look, I find it hard to believe you even knew Romney existed in 1994. As far as I can see, no Republican who does not have a completely clean past on social issues can expect anything but vitriol from you.
You're really obsessed with this flip-flop canard though. If Romney were to blink, you'd scream it was a flip-flop because he closed his eyes and opened them again. Flip-flop!!!
Facts do matter and I my recollection was incorrect. The reason My recollection was wrong is that Romney uttered the Clintonite card that he wants to keep abortion safe legal and rare. It could be argued and was at the time that Mitt was being cute and trying to have it both ways as we all accused Clinton of doing at the time.
As far as whether donated to Mitt's campaign or not in 1994 I did. I don't care if you believe me or not but Mitt caught a lot of people's attention in 1994 because he caught fire against Kennedy and forced the Dems to spend money to save Kennedy. My opposition to Mitt at this point stems largely from my disappointment of him during his debate of Kennedy because all he seemed to do was say yup...me too
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Martin A. Knight,
There is a flip-flop problem with Romney. You just can't go and change most of your core beliefs when you decide to run for president.
The best way to explain this is to use the explanation from Karl Rove on how to be elected president (He was speaking generally, not about Romney or anyone else in particular on FOX News a few nights ago). First, you need a record. Secondly, you need a narrative that explains why you are the singular most qualified person. GW Bush came up with a very good, solid, narrative. People could believe it.
Romney introduced himself one way, in Massachusetts, and is now running using virtually diametrically opposed views. People like me, who lived in MA, just don't get the narrative. We know better. This isn't right. He is a New England liberal Republican. He isn't a religious social conservative. Additionally, there are plenty of other candidates who do have quality narratives: McCain, Fred, Rudy, even Mike. People understand where these guys are coming from, even if they don’t like them. The same can not be said for Romney.
Everybody is allowed to flip-flop a little bit. Times change, conditions aren't static. So some flipping is allowed. Some unsavory aspects of the past can be overlooked. Perhaps even an ethical lapse if followed by satisfactory penitence. But to completely re-cast your core beliefs? Nope. And to boot, he is running in wartime, against a quality veteran who happens to have been right on most aspects of the Iraq war from the beginning, due to his experience. Is the world all of a sudden going to calm down? I don't think so. I look into my crystal ball and see problems with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, and perhaps Egypt. Congress writes detailed policy. The president sets foreign policy and is CIC. I think the choice is clear, but you sort it out for yourself.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
Look, I've seen Romney's campaign flyer and some literature from 1994. I've seen the clips of the debate, moderated by very liberal Boston Globe (I believe) journalists who kept the subject matter and framing in a way that deliberately emphasized where the GOP was not on the same page as the majority of the Massachusetts' electorate. From the questions, one would think there were no other issues more pressing to Massachusetts than abortion and gay rights in 1994.
Either way, from his 1994 campaign flyer one is hard pressed to find anything other than abortion in which he was divergent from Republican/Conservative orthodoxy. My point here is that it's a myth that there is this wide chasm between what Romney was in 1994, 2002 and now at the tail end of 2007. It's been way too exaggerated and deliberately so that no evidence is needed for anyone to claim that Romney flip-flopped on this or that and get nods of agreement. It's now become conventional wisdom that Romney has flip-flopped on EVERY POSSIBLE THING under the sun.
Heck, even if the issue hasn't even come up yet, when it does, Romney would be accused of flip-flopping even before he has said a word about it. If he says he likes dogs but it also discovered that he once owned a cat - his critics would be screaming "flip-flop!" within the next second.
Worse is that the way Romney critics' flip-flop logic is constructed is just chock full of bad faith. He simply cannot prove that he is sincere under that logic. The only thing he can say that his critics would accept as true is if he claims to be a secret Democratic mole who would proceed to destroy the GOP from within once he gets the nomination. Anything else, and they scream "flip-flop" and demand that he tell them his "real" (i.e. apparently far Left liberal) views.
Sorry, but after seeing "flip-flop" for the seventeeth time no matter the subject, context, history, or veracity from the same person about Romney it's quite obvious their mind is made up and cannot be changed. There's literally nothing he can do short of traveling back in time to convince them.
I hate it when anybody plays fast-and-loose with the truth, even if they don't outright lie.
As you said, the pro-choice/pro-life question is the main "flip" Mitt has done. He hasn't "flopped" back. His explanation is reasonable. At least he hasn't claimed that it didn't happen.
I believe him. If someone else doesn't, they might as well just say, I don't believe him," rather than "He's a flip-flopper."
I don't like Huck, but it isn't because I don't believe him. It's because his memory is so bad.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Romney wasn't pro-life when he ran against Kennedy. Remember all those You Tube videos that people have been using against him all year?
And he has never been pro-same-sex-marriage.
So yeah, his abortion views changed, but they changed in the right direction.
Kennedy called him on his flip-flops even back then, which caused Romney to even more insistently declare that he was pro-choice.
... just this morning!
It's obvious from this, he's going to singlehandedly force every woman in America to have a partial birth abortion! Worse, he'll be making them flip-flop from being pregnant to not being pregnant!
charges against any candidate show up here so frequently. One should know they'd be exposed quickly.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
have driven me further from the other Romney/Rudy/McCain and the RNC in general (I'm w/ Fred and am not a Huck supporter). The Democrat party has always had elitist snobs at the core leadership roles. The recent anti-Huck campaign has shown the RNC/National Review country club sect act just as snobbish and elitist. The RNC came a courtin' to the churches - now they just want us to shut up, take orders, and vote for their guy. Some folks are going to be very surprised at how this works out in early 08.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
A lot of people feel that way nowadays.
I did not feel that way until a couple of weeks ago when the antihuckabee onslaught started and people started poking at him *because he was taking that portion of the vote.*
At that point I thought to my self, what am I, some piece of meat to be ordered who to vote for?
Oh wait, I am supposed to vote for candidatex because they have the money and answer all the questions right in a questionaire (who cares about options or the authenticity of the person).
I did not feel that way until a couple of weeks ago when the antihuckabee onslaught started and people started poking at him *because he was taking that portion of the vote.*
People started poking him because it started to look like an open borders, soft on crime, tax-and-spender actually had a shot at the Republican nomination... and that is a truly scary prospect.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I thought we were talking about why Republicans were attacking the guy? "Republicans" and "national media" don't really have much overlap.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The national media is just full of Republicans. I like to watch CNN and MSNBC and read the NYT and Washington Post to get the Republican perspective on any issue, myself.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The National Review is 'national,' all right. It just isn't read by that many of the voting public (I think).
Realistically speaking, they have little effect compared to the NYT and cohorts, who are in Huck's corner until they get him nominated.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
seems intent on pumping up Huck because they feel that if he can gain more and more steam, he is the most beatable for their candidate.
Not Republicans and the Media but Rockefeller Republicans and the Media...they sound the same!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Giuliani and McCain have stayed aloof. All four decisions reflect political choices.
Mockery always is a dangerous tack. In Huckabee's case, the guy is a target-rich opponent.
and are done in a frontal assault, not by leaking information to drudge and having him and other news outlets push it.
I wouldnt be as opposed to Romney as I am now if we had stayed on policy and Romney would have made his case in person.
You have a point, though.
Many of you do not understand why Mike Huckabee is winning. Let me give you the reasons. I consider myself a former liberal who switched after 9/11.
1. He connects like no other candidate in the race. This is the #1 reason. If you do not trust the salesman you’re probably not going to buy the product.
2. He’s an authentic pro life candidate with a long history of LEADING and fighting for the cause. Many social conservatives live and die for this cause. It’s more important than the war to them because more babies are dying everyday b/c of abortion. He used the church connections to email and connect to as many evanglicas as possible.
3. Debates have been his best friend. He hit home runs on quesitons that we're practically designed for him. It was like watching one candidate in a home run derby and the rest of them in an actual game.
4. Television and the free press. He’s made many appearances when other leading candidates turned them down.
5. He exudes optimism and runs a positive campaign.
6. He shows empathy to what middle class people care about. If other candidates care they should speak to this more often. You CAN care without sounding populist.
7.The other leading candidates have many flaws.
8. He peaked at the right time. All of the planets aligned right after the You Tube debate.
9. General Petraues.
Ok, let me touch on the other candidate’s flaws. Rudy’s obvious flaws are his social views. I’m with Mike Huckabee when he says if we elect a pro choice candidate then a lot of Republicans will owe Bill Clinton an apology. Mitt Romney does not connect with middle class voters, he seems to attack other candidate’s positions on issues he has absolutely no credibility on, and obviously has advocated for gay and abortion rights in the past. Fred Thompson is the car salesman who knows everything about cars but rarely sales them. John McCain is past his time. He’s the one man who deserves to be president, but I guess it’s just past his time.
Another thing I want to point out is that many of the people I talk to say they could care less about what they did in the past on immigration. They want to know what they’re going to do when they get in office. All of them said they understood some of the Republicans who advocated for certain rights for illegals. But then they said it’s not about two years ago, it’s what they’ll do now after the people have spoken.
Huckabee is the perfect candidate for Oprah Nation. I doubt anyone who is seriously paying attention can argue with many of the things you've said.
Maybe it's because I live in the northeast, but I just don't see Erick's point as he's laid it out - for example, I have a hard time finding much if anything in Lowry's post with which I disagree. Rather, my frustration with Huck's rise is not his overt religiosity, but rather it's that I think he S-U-C-K-S on darn near every issue not squarely in the SoCom realm. And even on the issues where he's solid (abortion, marriage, etc.) he seems to have tied his future tightly to (pardon the expression) Hail-Mary passes (FMA and HLA - neither of which will see a single state legislature in a generation) where incremental changes in the right direction would be fine at this point.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
And it is certainly not because he is a Southerner, either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But what Erick is saying is that it's hard to make the point that it's "not because he is a Southerner" when many people are calling him "Hick-a-bee" and "Bubba Jr."
I've never seen anyone call him "Hick-a-bee." And the reason mbecker calls him "Bubba Jr." is because Bill Clinton's nickname was "Bubba" and this guy could be Bill Clinton's mini-me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
has a tinge of anti-Southern bigotry, and some of the criticism of Him and analysis of why Huck has surged has been anti-Christian bigotry and stereotypical thin conventional analysis to fill column space.
That criticism HELPS him. The sooner Fred gets ads on TV going after Hucks lib policy positions, the better.
One thing we need to learn from Huck is his sympathetic rhetoric towards the lower and middle calls. We need to point out that CONSERVATIVE policies are good for the poor and lower class.
Its not class envy rhetoric is we stick to our policies. We need to win the underdog vote.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I agree with you about FMA and HLA because I don't thing we should make the perfect the enemy of the good and I don't doubt that Huck would go for the 20 yard gain to the sideline if he couldn't complete the Hail Mary but I don't see why some of you insist that supporting the FMA and HLA excludes the possibility of advancing the ball. It's a red herring!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
To demand fealty to the FMA and HLA is to exclude all candidates who are with you on all things that can practically pass.
This is where Dobson is terribly misguided politically.
Great post mikeyc. You made some really good points here that make a lot of sense.
Great diary Erick--I'm so glad that you wrote it. As a Huck supporter, all of this recent Huck hatred has been really getting to me.
about Huckabee. But let's take a look at your 9 points.
1. "Connects like no other candidate" ? Like Will Rogers did? Like Bill Clinton did? He is easy to listen to if you don't listen for substance, so it certainly is a point in his favor.
2. "Authentic pro life candidate" The one thing about him that is truly authentic.
3. "Debates have been his best friend. He hit home runs on questions that we're practically designed for him. It was like watching one candidate in a home run derby and the rest of them in an actual game." A good observation. Sort of what one might call "an uneven playing field" or a "rigged competition." Will be nice to see how it goes from now on.
4. "Television and the free press. He’s made many appearances when other leading candidates turned them down." Or, his appearances have been picked up by a favorable media.
5. "He exudes optimism and runs a positive campaign." Optimism is good for him, for sure. Positive campaign? I guess if you ignore the time he had a chance to distance himself from the "Mormons aren't Christians" accusation and he chose instead to pretend that "no answer" isn't the equivalent to saying "that's correct."
6. "He shows empathy to what middle class people care about. If other candidates care they should speak to this more often. " I guess that's why he went from providing scholarships to illegal alien children to wanting to throw them all out of the country. And he certainly empathized with a few murderers; it's still up in the air as to whether that means he empathized with the middle class, but I don't think so.
7. "The other leading candidates have many flaws." So does he.
8. "He peaked at the right time." That's for sure.
9. "General Petraues." I was out of the loop again. I don't get the connection.
All in all, I think you summarized a lot of the reasons why Huckabee is doing well now. One on substance, 8 on style or perception. That might not hold.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either very ignorant, completely blinded by a priori ideology/religious belief, or lying for the purpose of pandering to the first two groups. The basic scientific questions about the age of the Earth and human origins were answered long ago and the answers are not in any danger of being overturned -- certainly not in favor of anything resembling the Genesis account.
I've enjoyed watching the effect of Huckabee's candidacy on the conservative intelligentsia. It's like watching a bunch of pro-Indian nineteenth-century politicians react to Wovoka.
that god as given us the gift of science and the ability to learn about the world around us... which made the possibility of Genesis being a literal account of the creation of the world and life a complete impossibility?
Sure Huckabee is a decent guy, but that is NOT ENOUGH. We need to stop this non sense. His policies are poor. His experience is poor. I could care less that he was a Christian preacher, but when he preaches about opening up Cuba with Fidel Castro on his death bed it makes me want to vomit.
Nothing about the man leads me to believe he would be a good President, or anything more then a sacrificial lamb that the SoCon's offer up to Hillary or Obama.
Your first paragraph attempts to start a discussion that is not appropriate for Red State. I suggest you stop.
by knowing what is and is not a complete impossibility. I really don't care what you believe on the origin of the universe and life, but don't be so foolish as to think that your side is above question.
I absolutely agree with you on Huckabee, though.
So, why don't you get started on your apology to the group, now? - Which will include your regret for personally attacking other people's religious beliefs, your regret for attempting to start a flame war on a site where you are a guest, and your regret for being a rampantly condescending schmuck.
Next. Post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
and we agree on evolution.
My supposed "attack on others' religious beliefs" was nothing compared to some of the attacks on Mormonism I've seen by other folks who continue to post on this site. I didn't deny anyone's right to refer to themselves as Christian, for example. I disagree with others' religious beliefs, insofar as those beliefs include the idea that life on Earth doesn't evolve. If telling someone that they are wrong is a bannable offense, then I suppose this is my last post.
Obviously there's a land mine here, but I think you'll find -- if you read Rich Lowry, George Will, and other conservative luminaries -- that my "sin" was stomping on it squarely rather than attempting to tiptoe across it gently, as they do. I think you'll find that, if Huckabee wins the nomination, there's going to be rather more stomping and rather less tiptoeing in this particular conversation. On both sides of the aisle.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Interesting fellow: mostly remembered for his getting wrong the tenets of evolutionary theory, although he did quite a bit more. Anyway, his particular theory was that individual adaptations could be passed on to latter generations. Impossible, of course: rewriting your genes is much harder than it sounds - but hey, the 19th century, right? But the funny part is something that SM Stirling noted: Lamarckian evolution works quite well for social groups. Adaptations made by one can and will be passed on to "later" generations as a matter of course... provided that those adaptations work, or are at least neutral. Apparently, Lamarck should have been a sociologist.
All of which is a roundabout method of bringing up the delicate subject of how some people may need to get cracking on their adaptation, lest they end up like yourself.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You saved me the trouble of a very long, bruising rant against that moron. Thank you.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Are you a geologist? An evolutionary biologist? For full disclosure, my academic specialty is Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology, with focus on neolithic and Classical periods and excavation experience in the Solutrean Paleolithic -- so I'm pretty familiar with ye olde timeline of human development, and I don't agree with your statement above about it being settled science/history.
I'm not affirming a belief in a multimillennial age of the earth..but I don't heap scorn or contempt upon those who may choose, for whatever reason, to hold such a belief.
Oh, well, think of it as evolution in action*.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*Larry Niven.
And it's funny how perfectly his post makes Ericks point.
If you take the attitude that your beliefs are right and everyone else MUST be an idiot, your going to energize people to backlash against you.
Evolution is a theory. You don't believe in a theory, you give it credence maybe. There are a lot of "theories" on the creation of the world, evolution is just one of them. I am a scientist, and I don't "believe" in evolution.
but having read Lowry's piece a second time, I still agree with Lowry.
I don't like Huckabee either, despite being a social con. I don't like how he gets church and state messed up. I don't like how willing he is to seek new government initatives and payouts. I also think we'll have party unity problems if we nominate the guy. But I find myself defending him sometimes as well.
There are enough things to target Huckabee for without attacking the religious beliefs and confessions he shares with millions. If you don't like Huckabee, making him look like the standard-bearer for the Church is a terrible idea. You might as well send him funds to run another "Christian leader" ad.
Showing that his policies are misguided works. Or if you're going to attack his beliefs, show how he's differing from the people he claims to lead. The pardon issue is potent here; it's a chance to show that he's fundamentally wrong about the purpose of government, and thus a highly questionable choice for our highest office.
the elite in DC who wouldn't know God and or Jesus, if you prefer if either slapped them in the face, really ought not expound on any religion.
If the grassroots decide that Huckabee is their man than that will be the R candidate.....period.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Huck, despite the fact that he is my #4 choice. Its really not defending him per se, but rather, defending the South and Christians against slurs, and also, for me, making points about the difference between a governor and a president, esp in the South.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
....because HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Why is that hard for Erick to understand?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
against Huck based on policy, but resents attacks against him, and esp his supporters based on religious or sectional bigotry.
I will be writing a long blog this weekend on this, as I have been out of action for a couple of weeks.
I'm for Fred, then Mitt and then Rudy btw.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
It's the flip side of "the only reason anyone attacks Romney is because he they hate Mormons." There might be a few people who only attack him because he's a Mormon, as there might be a few people who only attack Huck because he's a preacher or from the South, but we aren't talking about all that many people. My problems with the man have nothing to do with religion or geography. I'd guess the same goes for 90%+ of the people on this site.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Huckabee is not even a conservative on the issue where he claims to be conservative. To extend docj's analogy, he pushes some "hail mary" passes on social issues but that is all he has in the offensive playbook. Neither he nor his ardent supporters can apparently comprehend the connection between social issues and judges, since he agrees with the result in Lawrence v. Texas.
Sure, a few folks have been over the top in their criticism of Huck (unlike the purely merit-based discussions about every other candidate -- please, please note dripping sarcasm). But most of the "unfair" criticism has been trying to engage Huckabee fans on issues that seem important -- at least to the rest of us.
Nice article. Unfortunately for an example of how difficult it is for people to restrain themselves from being condescending, you have only to look here at Redstate.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/rick_moran/2007/dec/13/fred_vs_huck_substa...
From the article above: "Now one might think the best way to get our Iowa brethren to abandon this silly love affair with a silly candidate would not accuse them of being dunces. I disagree. Sometimes, you need to throw a bucket of cold water on people to call their attention to erroneous thinking."
Ouch
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
We need someone that is completely committed to reason and science. I often read posts here about global climate change and the way the Left has turned it into a quash-religious movement and ignoring valid scientific analysis. But now we want to elect a man who is denies fact and reason on basic scientifc principles? As a matter of faith, you can believe what you want. As a matter of public policy, I cannot vote for a young Earth Creationist.
Global climate change == Darwinian evolution in that both are sacred cows. Strict Darwinian evolution + abiogenesis is nowhere near a fact, and I would be willing to debate, but I am not sure if it's okay to do so here at RedState.
A little bit intolerant of you, isn't it? But that's ok. We won't hold your faith in current scientific theories against you.
is based on logic and reason. Fundamentalist Religious theory is based purely on faith and what the preacher says.
Guys science and religion are not oil and vinegar. They go together very easily, like milk and chocolate syrup.
or one of the "true-believer" scientists - I have met a lot of those in school (geology). Some science research is exactly based on logic and reason. Some research, though, is either based on what is politically correct at the time or the biases of the researcher or grant provider. Dude, scientist are human. They aren't perfect superbrains that are never wrong, biased, or misled.
Also, I don't believe something just because my preacher says it. We disagree on a number of things, although small ones. Appeals to human authority aren't any better when the appeal is to a "scientist" than when it is to a "preacher".
I see 2 very different views of Huckabee and Fred Thompson.
In the blogosphere Huckabee is reviled by Conservatives. This site's members, along with others, spent a great deal of time going after Huckabee. Just about anything negative that could be said was said, and is said. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, is virtually deified here. Nary a negative thing is said about him and when it is, it is met with a torrent of hostility.
However in the real world Mike Huckabee continues to build momentum. He is polling extremely high and appears to have Big Mo on his side. Fred Thompson, otoh, continues to be on life support.
I do think that the vitriol against Huckabee helps him bolster the image that he is the outsider.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
You're right flyerhawk, in regard to this interesting divergence involving the blogs and the grassroots. The funny thing is that, even though I'm a Huck supporter, I really do like Fred and thought that he performed well in the last debate. What's more, I noticed that most Huck supporters rank Fred as their number two. Therefore, I think that Fred and his supporters would be wise not to trash Huck and his supporters too much.
It would probably do Fred some good if he had some far out idea about something, anything, that would get him some press coverage.
Instead he's stuck with those practical, workable ideas that just make sense but don't outrage anybody.
He hasn't flipped or flopped enough to get that covered. i guess he should come out with a statement of strong support of McCain-Feingold, so he can explain how he no longer thinks it was a good idea because it hasn't worked.
Anything to get some press coverage. On Bill O'Reilly's web site, he doesn't even include Fred in his poll of "At this point in the campaign, which Republican candidate do you prefer?"
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
some bold stands:
http://race42008.com/2007/09/18/how-can-i-not-endorse-the-foghorn-to-my-...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Either (1) you had your tongue firmly in cheek, (2) you took an easy opportunity to plug your blog, or else (3) you were taking me far too literally.
I am just hoping that Fred can GET SOME PRESS COVERAGE. Maybe he needs to say that he thinks a manned Mars mission is not a good idea given our national debt situation. Or that subsidizing the children of illegal aliens, no matter how well-intentioned, is being done at the expense of all the children who are here legally. Maybe with the addendum, "I will insist that Mexico start compensating us for the expenses we incur feeding, clothing, educating and treating its children and adults. And I'll make sure that Compean's and Ramos's trials and convictions are reviewed immediately for remedial measures--pardons. We cannot have an effective Border Patrol if we arrest its officers for carrying out their duties"
Anything to get on the morning, afternoon, and evening shows. No matter how good his ideas are, they need to be heard by the people. Most of them DO NOT read his position papers or even understand them if they do.
Finally, I don't really understand why Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney rather than Fred (even though I'm OK with Romney).
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
patience.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
that I know they are better than Hucks's. Someone could get Huck's folks when he dies. If Mitt wins Iowa and NH, then Mitt probably gets them all and wins it all. But Fred could do well enough in Iowa to become the alternative and win SC and go on to gight the Nh winner
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I'm not voting for Huckabee, but I've always been taught that Conservatism is about ideas, and we should duke it out in the arena of ideas. Now I don't mind a polemic debate, but the issues people have with Huckabee do tend to be expressed in a condescending tone, which is unnecessary, and reinforces his David v. Goliath "I'm the outsider" platform.
We don't need Huck as the nominee, but not because he's openly religious and ardent in his beliefs.
Now, let's all feel sorry for Huck, and say a prayer for him as we pull the lever for FDT.
He's actually tossed in for Ron Paul
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjRmNDEyYmU5NWZjMWI5OWI2MDcxYmY...
I know the NR as a whole has gone in for Romney, but it does call into question the conclusion you draw from his particular brand of elitism. RP isn't that far off form Huck in terms of being anathema to the "New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative Intelligentsia".
I think you just have a race where all the factions of the republican party are directly fighting it out for their vision of the party. The tenor of the attacks on Huck just come from the nature of the factions that oppose him. It's not an elite conspiracy. Just a mini-civil war with each side bringing out their particular weapons.
I get tired of the establishment country clubbers in GOP revising history to try and make Reagan out to be a social moderate. He was not. He brought the evangelicals in. In his Evil Empire speech he advocated protections for Baby Doe that would make the Schivo case seem lame. Reagan was made fun of by the msm for his Biblical beliefs in vicious ways.
Noonan, like much of the msm, speak of the evagelicals and the "environment" in Iowa in such simplictics terms that it insults my intelligence.
Noonan says:
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.
more later below
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Wasn't Reagan at one time a pro-choice governor who grew beyond that later in life, like some of those in this campaign?
He'd get shredded out here for that, just shredded.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
your point?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That's the point. I doubt we want candidates who have not changed their views on something. But it is a bit too convenient to divide these changes into conversions (good), retooling (neutral), and flip-flops (bad, bad, bad!).
mischaracterization of Reagan, misunderstandimg of the current "environment", esp in Iowa, and misunderstanding of the very same people that put Reagan over the top.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Not exactly. Reagan was always pro-life, but he also believed, as do most pro-lifers, that women should be able to have an abortion if their lives are in danger. He signed a bill that supposedly allowed that, but it had a big loophole that basically allowed for abortion on demand. Anyhow, I don't know the ends and outs, but I know that's the jist of it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
When in doubt, go with life!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C20040...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
No ONe disagrees on that
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
His bill was pre-Roe and a far, far cry from the abortion on demand we have today. In those days a health exception truly was a health exception.
It's my understanding that the first rule of logic is that A cannot be non-A. That means the material universe must either have been created or not-created, which is to say eternal. But since, just as is the case with a creation at a particular point in time, eternal existence cannot be verified by the scientific method i.e. systematic and repeatable observation, doesn't that mean in the end that those who reject a literal creation (Genesis, Big Bang, etc.) are also basing their view on a faith decision?
The big bang theory is also based on faith as it is impossible verify its claims as time travel has not been figured out. It just a theory based on information we have available today. Must like the theories that the earth was flat or that the sun orbited the earth in the middle ages.
Either way, its all based on faith. Its just a matter of choice which faith you accept.
"The big bang theory is also based on faith as it is impossible verify its claims as time travel has not been figured out."
Thank you for admitting that you don't know have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
"just a theory"
Then you clearly don't understand the connotation of the term "theory" in science. Calling an explanation a theory is giving a significant amount of credence to it, as a theory is an explanation with predictive power.
theories (not facts) are based on currently known science. Yes, it is based on current 'facts' as we know them, but these usually known facts seem to continually prove false...so, yes, it does take faith to believe the "current" theory or even our currently "known" scientific facts.
No need to go into our past currently known theories and facts in science...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
So? All theories are approximations to the truth. The perfect example of this is the progression in theories of gravity from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity to the current attempts to unify QM and GR via a theory of quantum gravity. Newtonian mechanics had its flaws, as does GR. Both have predictive power which can be verified to a certain extent. Yet the fact that they have predictive power (they generate predictions which can be verified and, in fact, have been verified) means that they are useful to a certain extent. No one is passing them off as GUTs and no one believes them in the same way people believe BS like young earth creationism.
What you know as truth/fact today may be hearsay 50 years from now. It has been proven over and over through the centuries, what makes you think that we have suddenly become all-knowing? All theories are just that "theories" BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE! If it was NOT a theory, it would be known as a FACT (as we currently know today).
After all, the General relativity "theory" has already had some corrections (it was also initially WRONG)... Even Einstein was not the know it all - even for his time...
All science, all "facts" as we know them are only based on the truth/science as currently known. I can guarantee that some of these known "FACTS" will change in the next 50 years. Do you really dispute that?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
All theories are based on the observations that have currently been catalogued. Yet scientists reject the theories which are unable to account for new observations--this is part of what separates the styles of thought that produce utter crap from the styles of thought that produce more meaningful interpretations of data. The assertion that faith is necessary for a theory is BS as no one is putting any faith into said theory in the first place.
Many theories are based on other theories, ie, hopeful facts based on hopeful facts...now that does take some faith. Much of the universe - creation, state, matter, etc., is based on theory upon theory. I no longer want to discuss this, so just disregard. Your perceptions differ from mine..
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
All the time. Every twenty to 30 years they completely rewrite the history of the universe. Mostly its because there is so little information and so much speculation.
Take a look at dark matter/ dark energy. Its real hard to pontificate when you have to admit you don't know where 90% of the universe is.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What I was saying about all science but probably badly...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
...I do not think it means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya
the·o·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Wasn't it some of the more activist SoCons who complained how divisive RUDY was going to be?
At this rate, Rudy could be the unity candidate. Or Fred. Or McCain.
If the last two, the old saying would be particularly valid:
Revenge is a dish that people of taste prefer cold.
We can make the same argument and did. I made it this summer and was given the back of the Rockefeller Clubs hand and you are doing it now, "Rudy could be the unity candidate", as if SoCons haven't made it abundently clear that Rudy is unacceptable to him. We were told to shut up. After all "What are you going to do....Vote for Hillary?" Well, now that you are wearing those same shoes you were shoving on my feet...Waht are you going to do?
If the Party makes the decision that we are going to unify around Thompson to bring the SoCons, FisCons, SecCons and ImCons together I'll be their fighting but at this point, if we as a Party are going to torpedo Huckabee as a SoCon and shove Rudy and Mitt down our throats I'm going to bid this party ado and wish you all a happy election because I'm not kissing the establishment ring any more.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
decide who we pick. Not even the grand poobahs of RS, be they Fredheads, Mittbots, RudyBots, Huckbots, or Mcaniacs decide for them.
If you recall, certain SoCons threatened to bolt if Rudy was the nominee. Now that Huck's Socon momentum is the news of the day, they are reaping what they sowed.
Biblical justice, I would say. And I do believe in the Bible.
Actually, I'm very sympathetic to some socon positions, but you guys could piss off whole choirs of angels with your antics in this world.
Let's not call em MittBots...Let's call em sMITTen
AHAHAHAHAHAH
I kill myself. LOL
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Seeing as it is Huckabee time
Proverbs 11:8 The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead.
Just who got delivered to have Huckabee come in their stead ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Nowhere do I see any language coming close to what you are inferring.
I think Huckabee's, and all the other candidates, education is fair game. Huckabee comes up way short in that category to my mind.
It's the primaries. Huckabee is a weak candidate outside of social issues. The time to vet the weak is now.
The logic of some who propose supporting Huckabee simply because they don't like the attacks on him is faulty at best. I don't understand the outrage.
It's not like anyone is calling his religion a cult or anything.
I'll vote for MH in the general if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate him. It will be like feeding the lamb on its way to the abattoir.
immigration. Without rule of law, conservativism is merely wishy-washy conservatism. One would think that the NYC-DC elites would love Huckabee because nobody has reason to believe that Huckabee would be any stronger on the issue than the current President.
Even the majority of democrats are opposed to amnesty for illegals. Of the 5 "tier 1" Republican candidates, Huckabee is weakest on immigration, and the 5 aren't all that strong on the issue (except for Thompson).
Immigration is going to be the key differentiating issue. I think it will lead to a strong Thompson finish in Iowa.
"they just wish we'd all shut the hell up and take orders instead."
The evangelical wing of the party won't get much sympathy from me. Your comment that I quoted above sums up exactly how I feel the evangelical wing of the party has treated those of us that are Mormons. Who came to our defense? The New York/Washington elites as you refer to them, which I have to admit has raised my view of them immensely.
I feel like this article could be rewritten with some different quotes and by substituting the conservative intelligenstia with evangelicals and the evangelicals with Mormons and you would have summed my feelings up almost perfectly.
Pretty much every faction of the party is getting contemptuously attacked due to the perceived inadequacies of their "representative" candidate.
The problem is that many groups are being left questioning how much they really have in common with other republicans rather than rallying around a compromise candidate the way we normally do by this point.
So what you're saying is you have no sympathy for the wing of the party that is responsible for any Republican wins we've had in the last decade or two?
So you basically wish they'd just shut the hell up and take orders from you on who to vote?
The funny thing is that is exactly what the evangelicals did for many, many years. And over those years the candidates that the GOP put up were less and less representative of them. Now it got to the point where none of the top candidates are even sympathetic to evangelicals concerns.
The choice the GOP has to make is obvious: embrace to some degree evangelicals and give them a reason to show up to vote for them, or risk turning these voters off to politics and become a permanent minority party and never win the White House again.
How do you keep evangelicals part of the coalition? Nominate someone who will listen to them and give them what they want. Right now, Huckabee is the only candidate that does so. Fred almost had them but decided that he shouldn't do anything about abortion and gay marriage. Otherwise, no one else even comes close.
If Fred had only said he supports a federal marriage amendment and a federal ban on abortions he'd be the one sitting atop the polls. Too bad he can't compromise on those two issues, but I guess sticking to his guns on keeping gay marriage and abortion legal is more important than winning the nomination and the presidency.
I'm not an evangelical, but we do have to compromise. And by we I mean the rest of the party with you.
The truth is, I think Huck could win the general and rearrange the Republican coalition. He could pull conservative hispanics, religious union members and socially conservative working class democrats. Even if not a single economic or small government conservative supported him, he could win. Frankly, the Huckabee coalition has far greater electoral prospects now and in the coming decades than our current one.
I personally don't support him and think he would be a disaster for _my_ vision of the party and what I want to see it do. But you're right that we can't win without you. We have to find a way to compromise and pull in a consensus candidate.
What I am saying is that when I feel like one faction of the party has been throwing rocks at me, it's really hard for me to be too sympathetic when others start throwing rocks at them.
As for whether evangelicals feel used by the party over the years, I really don't care. See the preceding paragraph for why.
"The choice the GoP has to make is obvious: embrace to some degree evangelicals and give them a reason to show up to vote for them, or risk turning these voters off to politics and become a permanent minority party and never win the White House again."
The rest of the party is more than willing to compromise with you guys. But what we have with Huck is the evangelicals essentially telling the rest of the party to go to hell. Huck's rise seems to be based on the fact that he "is" evangelical rather than any particular platform he has. The rest of us look at this and it seems that the only way to compromise is to make sure the candidate is evangelical.
"Too bad he can't compromise on those two issues, but I guess sticking to his guns on keeping gay marriage and abortion legal is more important than winning the nomination and the presidency."
You care to back up this up with some facts?
First of all, you're not asking him to compromise. You'd like him to pander to what has become your two issue myopia. You guys have become blinded to everything else in this debate by your single-minded pursuit of the HLA and FMA. Anyone who doesn't pass your litmus test is not even worthy of consideration.
Fred's record on abortion and marriage have been stated very clearly. He disagrees with you on the proper, constitutional, way to address abortion and marriage. Your statement above is a mendacious misrepresentation of his stated positions.
Why don't you go here and actually read what the man has actually said before you spew any more misinformed invective.
http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf
On Abortion:
“I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical
science. And the way to address that is through good
judges.” ("Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)
On Marriage:
“You know, marriage is between a man and a woman,
and I don't believe judges ought to come along and
change that.” (“FOX News Sunday,” 3/1/07)
So unless you can back up your statement with some facts, I think the honest thing for you to do would be to retract this statement and apologize for having even made it in the first place.
There are plenty of things that you can honestly debate without resorting to this kind of trash talk!
I too was going to challenge him on that crapola statement, but you did it so much more eloquently than I ever wouhd have.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
He provides a target rich environment based on hi Policies. He's a flip flopper on Social issues. He's a johny come lately on Immigration and he is proudly proclaiming that he would bring us a Nationalized Health Care System that includes a mandate from the Federal Government on individuals on what they are allowed to spend their earnings on. When challenged on this he always falls back to the canard that if people can't afford it we'll pay for it on their behalf. Never mind whether the Federal Government has any authority under our Constitution to mandate citizen's independent expenditures and whether we want yet another great society like program that "Gives" things to needy citizens from our federal budget!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Even though you don't have to oppose Mitt as a Mormon, do you?
By the way, Mitt has said that he would not create a federally mandated system like the Mass one. He said that the solution for Mass is not the solution for the rest of the country.
As for his comments on the Mass Health Care system and passing it for the Fed...he's flip flopped on that.
Even if he doesn't want to do it for the Federal Government it speaks volumes to his Big Government approach to problem solving...to deny this is to delude yourself.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I don't ever recall him stating that he wanted the Mass model to be duplicated at the federal level. I do recall him saying that he wanted to give states flexibilitiy to adopt a mass style model or not, custom to each state.
Also, if you are going to keep responding to Huckabee criticisms with attacks on Romney, get your facts straight.
We can start with Romney's position on traditional marriage for one. He has been consistently and ardently for traditional marriage since before it became an issue. I defy you to find any quote, statement, position paper, whatever, where he declares his support for gay marriage.
For someone who claims to have contributed to Mitt in 1994 you consistenly miss on the facts. Is it accidental or intentional?
If you want to us the Consitution please point out where it pays for someones college tuition let alone an illegal.
Huck has made religion the issue. He is the one that said he is uniquely qualified to understand radical jihad because he has a theology degree (incidentally, he doesn't actually have a theology degree) and is running commercials saying he is a "christian leader." Now that he gets taken out to the woodshed for this crap, everyone else with similar theological beliefs takes it personally. If Huck is going to run on his religion, he needs to understand that this is going to happen.
If Mitt ran on the basis that his Mormon religious beliefs uniquely qualify him for some aspect of the presidency, then he too should be taken out to the wood shed by the elites or anyone else.
Let me first tell you that I believe the Bible is literally true. I am not a supporter of Mike Huckaby, because as others on this list have posted, we do not need another compassionate conservative.
There is nothing compassionate about being a socialist/ Marxist/ Democrat who believes that a huge beaurocratic government is the answer to all our personal problems.
What I find irritating is the continuing condescending and disparagement of anyone who happens to not believe in evolution or global warming. There is no scientific evidence to support either position. It's just that most people have been bombarded since birth with the idea that the earth is millions of years old, that evolution is a fact, and that the fossil record supports these beliefs.
I have been studying evolution for years, and I can confidently tell you that it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does in the truth of the Bible.
Hundreds of respectable scientists have rejected evolution because it cannot meet the scientific analysis which is required to support it as a fact. It is mathematically and chemically impossible for life to have spontaneously generated, or to have evolved into higher life forms, and the age of the earth cannot be concluded to be millions of years old based on the current geology.
I would ask those who are so quick to condemn anyone who believes in a young earth and the six day creation to study the actual science which exists, and draw your conclusions from the evidence, not what has been presented as truth for the last 150 years since Darwin and Gore.
both sides base their interpretations upon the same evidence, so which interpretation is right? For the record, I do wholly agree with you, however, I feel this is not the right place to discuss creationism vs. evolution.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
elements of socialism from the federal government?
"There is nothing compassionate about being a socialist/ Marxist/ Democrat who believes that a huge beaurocratic government is the answer to all our personal problems."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
And I am highly doubtful that Thompson could even eliminate all traces of socialism in federal government if he were to be elected President. The elements of socialism, as you call it, has been with us for the last hundred years, and it's not going away anytime soon...maybe never.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
"since Darwin and Gore"
Classic. Absolutely classic.
"mathematically...impossible"
Show me the proof. Which axiomatization will you use? ZFC?
I think this pretty much explains the NR endorsement. The rise of Huckabee gave them the same feeling that the evangelical/so-con wing of the party had been feeling for the last year or so. There's around 15% of the party that seems to have jumped around, mainly on the pro-life issue, trying to find someone, anyone who could defeat the northeastern elite candidate. Thompson had some of them for awhile, but failed to seal the deal. Romney had some of them, but not locked into him, because they just don't believe him. McCain's had some of them, except they just don't believe he can win. So now that pack has switched to Huckabee, and the northeastern elites are panicking, and trying to make Romney more palatable.
Welcome to the club. By trying to push Giuliani through, they may have destroyed the party.
and will only be if we push some group completely out of the coalition.
If the evangelicals split off in something approximating the dixiecrat move, then the party is sunk. We've all made decades of compromises to stay together. It would be impossible to put these groups back together starting from scratch.
however - it must come from the grass roots and be authentic. That is part of Hucks appeal (or at least around here it is).
Lots of people are tired of the establishment (ron paul breaking 10% in FL is proof). Having them ram a candidate down our throats who seems good on paper, but has no soul/vision wont work.
This kind of stuff might have made some sense in previous cycles, but it is nonsense in this cycle. Romney, Rudy, and McCain all have significant backers from the party. I'm sure Fred and Huck have some backing as well, but their late starts (Fred late in getting in, Huck late in catching on) hurt them in that department. This isn't the case of one establishment candidate versus everybody else. That's why we have 5 top tier candidates right now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This isn't a case of elites versus the real party. This is a case of nearly every major faction in the Republican party pushing their vision of where the party should go.
Frankly, we've drifted apart over the last decade or so and, after seeing the party in control, it's hard to all hold onto to our idealized visions of what the party would do in power. Now, after 2006, we all think that the party needs to return to it's core values which we all happen to think are ours.
With the dems a floppy excuse for an opposition, it's hard to even get too excited about the need to keep them out of power.
Normally, the establishment would have funded and pushed a compromise candidate but that didn't happen this time. It's precisely the fragmentation of the elite leadership that led to this, not a coherent fight between elites and insurgents in the party.
I have not seen many if any non-Huck supporters demand someone else or they'll bolt the party. Quite the opposite, many who have issues with Huck as a conservative or his ability to win a general have made it clear that if he is the guy, they'll be there. Count me in that group.
But there are numerous posts making it clear if a Northeast "Rockefeller country club" Republican is the nominee they're gone, literal ultimatums that if the candidate is not one of the Southerners, Huck or Thompson (McCain from the Southwest) they're gone. If fact, Rudy who sparked an economic renaissance in NCY by lowering taxes and government spending is called a Rockefeller Republican who isn't any more fiscally conservative than a governor that raised takes and government spending across the board. That is beyond silly.
I guess every Republican from the Northeast is of the Rockefeller variety and not an option primary, general or otherwise for this portion of the party. Rudy and Mitt may not be the most conservative in the crowd, but they're nowhere near the old liberal Rockefeller wing of the party.
Plenty of F-you city boy, don't bother applying or I'm not showing up for you in November 08 out here. A lot more than the other way around.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
But I always had a feeling that a good deal of the Anti Rudy sentiment was actually displaced anti NYC sentiment.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
be united in 2008
despite all the yakyak now and for the past year
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Less if you believe the polls about fewer people claiming the Republican label. We still need a nominee that appeals to Independents and a few Dems. That's why we could never nominate Tancredo or HWSNBN.
that will appeal to independents and some dems.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Late to the party, it would seem.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
I would join the mass exodus if Giuliani got the nomination (but only on the Presidential line), but I'll take Romney over a Democrat in a heartbeat, and over a lot of Republicans. I've heard no one even suggest they'd split if Romney was nominated. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
I think Romney is acceptable, but we'd lose states like Arkansas and Tennessee, and Romney's not going to pull enough blue states away to beat Hillary (don't know about Obama). I just don't think Romney will be able to pull independents either. Fred has proven to be able to do that, at a time that Clinton carried Tennessee by healthy margins.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
The fact that he is a Baptist Pastor was actually a plus for me, as I am very concerned about the lack of morality in politics and government today.
I had my concerns about his fiscal policies, but wasn't ready to bolt the party over it. Besides, I liked him alot in the debates. His folksy ways and gentle, yet clever responses were enjoyable.
He was never my first choice, but I would have voted for him.
Why won't I anymore? It is the anti-Mormon stuff that got to me.
Now Erick, I don't think you are anti-Mormon, or anything like that. I just feel you are uninformed about some of the long history of... "theological" debate between Mormons and Baptists.
I was irritated by what I felt was a "wink and nod" by Huckabee to anti-Mormons. Not because I felt his thinking Mormons are going to hell disqualifies him- He's a Baptist minister, I don't expect him to suddenly accept Mormon doctrine as okay- but his willingness to tolerate this kind of motivation among his supporters disturbed me. If he's willing to accept this for political advantage, what other things would he be willing to tolerate in order to gain political advantage.
Still, if he had just done this, and then gone on to win the nomination, I probably would have held my nose and voted for him.
Then he asked the 'innocent' question: "Don't Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers."
Now others are trying to paint it as an ignorant mistake, and say we should just accept his apology.
I know better. That question that Huckabee asked, oh so innocently, is the exact question (including phrasing and the innocent tone) that is promoted by Ed Decker (noted professional anti-Mormon, whose book and movie, The God Makers is common material for every Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma- and thus I assume Arkansas as well) as the best opening line of attack on the Mormon faith, particularly in the setting of a public debate!
Now others such as you, who don't know this are understandably willing to be more charitable towards Gov. Huckabee and assume it was an mistake born out of ignorance. I don't hold that against you.
To me however, Gov. Huckabee has revealed himself as a skilled con man who believes he can manipulate people to his personal political advantage though deception.
In other words. He's a Republican version of Bill Clinton- and I don't want another one of those.
To me this goes far beyond Huckabee just insulting my personal faith- though no doubt that has made my response more visceral and raw in it's emotion.
I hope that you do not feel targeted by it, as I do not feel anger towards you. I just think you are misjudging Huckabee very badly.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
pretty well. I wasn't aware of the Ed Decker connection, book, movie, or even the existence of Ed Decker himself, but it doesn't surprise me. The comment was just too convenient (Michael Medved's defense of it notwithstanding).
The "floating cross" ad brings up another point. The question is isn't really whether it is or is not a cross, or even if it's appropriate. The question is, how did Huck respond when asked about it? His response was, approximately, "It just happened because of the background bookcase. We didn't even notice it when we screened the ad before its release."
I believed him when I heard that. It made sense, something that could easily happen while rushing an add into distribution. He didn't even have to say "So what?" for my benefit.
Then I saw the ad. There is NO WAY I believe that he could watch that ad and NOT see the "floating cross" effect. So, he is using the Clinton technique of denying the obvious, knowing the 90% of the people that hear him will not actually SEE what he was talking about. And he DOES sound so good, even when he's obviously either lying or brain dead.
What is so stupifying about his statement is that he could easily have simply said, "Yes, we noticed it, and we thought it was a nice effect in the Christmas message. Don't you think so?" Or even, "We did it on purpose. It IS Christmas, you know." Instead, he chose to make an unbelievable statement, just because it can't be proven inaccurate.
Ann Coulter has likened him to a "Republican Jimmy Carter," and because of that the observation is gaining some traction. But a "Republican version of Bill Clinton" is much closer. I agree with you on that, and have said the same thing before. I guess Annie chose to ignore it because it is just SO obvious. I simply don't trust the guy.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
but Huckabee freaks me out. I think the guy is borderline nuts.
Bingo. Especially on the Romney and Giuliani part (more Romney than Giuliani at NRO).