Tag Archives: Mike Huckabee

Republican Politics

In the race for the Republican nomination, there’s something for everyone.

There’s a liberal who’s principled and experienced but still liberal.

There’s a populist who tickles ears and yet is Christian, courageous, and popular.

There’s a fiscal conservative with serious experience and a very public track-record who wore a dress (once, on camera), supports homosexual marriage, and is not in favor of criminalizing mothers who have abortions (a slight but significant difference from actually being pro-choice).

There’s some dude with two first names and some good ideas, but with serious inconsistency, and serious stupidity concerning international affairs and national security harking back to pre-WWII Republican isolationism.

There’s a conservative business leader and governor with a funny first name and movie-star looks who’s been consistent, if not amazing.

And there’s a movie star without the looks who’s been amazing, if not consistent. If only he acted like he wanted to win.

There are others, but they are also-ran’s or sometimer’s and not worth consideration at this stage in the game.

I don’t much care for the liberal, the populist, the fiscal, or Mr. Two Names. Though I could stomach the fiscal, were he to, by some stretch of imagination, win the nomination. The others I abhor for various reasons.

The liberal is neither a man of honor nor a man of principle. He has convenient and far-sighted-sounding reasons for his liberal attachments and accomplishments, but his willingness to sell the farm, ideologically speaking, is not the measure of a man. Personally, I admire and honor his courage in his past. But I fear to many years within the beltway, and those who have spent those years with him not recommending him in the droves we’d expect, are very indicative of a lack of character and ability.

The populist is just that. He uses his sincere (and I do not doubt, genuine) Christianity to excuse and/or support and champion decidedly non-Christian policies. God did not institute a welfare state (for individuals or corporations) in Theocratic Israel. Instead He instituted laws and policies which protected individuals from each other’s harm and sin. Claiming that “green” science is correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary does not lead me to believe he is either “wise as a serpent” or “harmless as a dove”. In fact, I would submit the populist is the inverse: He is wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent (taken ironically, of course).

Mr. Two Name needs no rebuttal as he is his own best revealing mirror. Dismissed out of hand is the best response to the majority of his supporters.

I’d like the movie star to catch a fire, but his lack of consistency heretofore is troubling, and I believe, more accurately indicative of who he’d be in office that what he’d be if he did catch a fire.

The man I voted for in my last election (for some time at least) in California is the leader. A realization I came to after considering what he does when there’s not supposed to be a camera around.

Here are a few articles from across the web which seem to me to be particularly salient and and appropriate to the candidates in this race.

  •  The Trouble With McCain
    Jay Cost, Wall Street Journal

    Thirty-four Republicans have endorsed Mr. Romney, while just 24 have endorsed Mr. McCain. Furthermore, Mr. Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for Mr. McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of Mr. McCain’s résumé, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not.

  • Hillary And MLK
    John McWhorter, Wall Street Journal

    …[T]here she was on “Meet the Press” Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson’s masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama — which is true.

  • Barak Obama And Israel
    Ed Lasky, American Thinker

    One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism.

  • Where They Stand
    Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal

    …[T]he political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–“I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Frank & Ernest: Numbers Don’t Lie

Two stories about numbers that aren’t lying. Unfortunately, numbers often don’t have voices capable of counteracting lies made by their misuse.

First, from The People’s Voice blog comes a bit of misinformed and communist rhetoric in support of HR 676 by our old friend Congressman Conyers.

Beginning with with the classic assumption that everybody worthwhile agrees with him, the author, Stephen Crockett, claims that:

It is obvious that none of the major Presidential candidates of either the Democratic or Republican Parties are supporting the right approach to providing universal healthcare. Frankly, all the Republican candidates are going to be major obstacles to achieving this national goal. While the top Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) do support the concept, they are all offering Band-Aid approaches for a life-threatening economic and health crisis in America.

I’m not sure, Mr. Crockett, but I don’t find it obvious. While I agree that there are several challengers on each side whose policy proposals are so bloated and impossible as to be laughable, the fact that you apparently don’t think they go far enough is proof positive that it is not obvious.

Just a warning: it goes downhill from there.

From Thinking Out Loud: Visions of Universal Healthcare Dance In Their Heads.

Second, in what is becoming an unpleasant task considering the number of good friends who support this guy because he is a Christian while ignoring the obviously un-christian nature of his policies, Mike Huckabee is listed as one of the top ten “most wanted”corrupt politicians of 2007.

Judicial Watch placed Mike as number 6, surrounded by such other luminous paragons of anti-virtue and un-justice as Hillary Clinton (#1), Rudy Guiliani (#5), and Barak Obama (#8):

Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

Aforementioned Congressman John Conyers is#2 on the list. And California’s Senator Feinstein and Representative Pelosi are numbers 4 and 9, respectively.

On Abortion

If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong” Mike Huckabee

Going to a humanistic but practical definition of the Moral Good outlined by a Philosophy professor I took a class with:

Moral good is a quality of the action or intention of a free and knowing agent, which action/intention adds/preserves the physical i.e.biological, psychological, economic, etc–whatever is “natural”(to the object) good of some natural whole such as humans and other species in some rational subordination to human and with keeping in mind the distinction between essential goods and incidental (trivial) goods.

In the issue of Abortion, are there some benefits which are essential and some which are trivial? In a relative scale, a continuum, are there some benefits which are better than others?

What are the benefits of Abortion as defined by it’s supporters?

  • Health of the mother.
  • Protection of the victim in cases of rape and/or incest.
  • Protection from abuse of the mother and/or an unwanted child.
  • Protection of those who are going to abort anyways by providing safe/legal environment to have it performed.
  • Preventing deformed and handicapped children from having a less worthwhile life.
  • Quality of life of the rest of the family.
  • Happiness.

To these I would add protection of the perpetrators of rape and incest.

What are a few of the problems with Abortion? The anti-goods. This list is very short. I wanted general categories rather than specifics.

  • Abortion kills human life.
  • Abortion causes physical and emotional issues in the mothers.
  • Abortion destroys potential.

Now, compare any other these items in these two lists, the “goods” against the “bads”, and is there a case where the “goods” are morally superior to the “bads”? For the sake of our discussion, how do the list of “goods” and “bads” line up on the continuum from essential to trivial?

In the extreme case, perhaps the strongest, most emotionally charged arguments for Abortion are those involving rape and incest and the life of the mother. How do these cases compare in the essential to trivial continuum with those against Abortion?

I would submit that killing a human to resolve an ugly, evil situation such as rape or incest does not mitigate the evil of the original situation nor the lasting consequences of it. If anything, adding the guilt of murder to an already traumatized victim cannot be a safe course of action.

And what of the child? The child has no say in the circumstances of it’s conception. The child could well be a prodigy, it could be special needs, it could be normal and unique like all other children. With special needs children, any person who can look at such a child and not be struck both the intense love such a child needs and is capable of reciprocating, is sorely lacking in humanity. The point is, to unjustly cut off the potential of any child at any point is a grave mistake and a crime with few equals.

Therefore, comparing the competing cases, we see that on the continuum, any benefit to the mother to be attained by killing her child would be trivial compared to the essential goods to be attained in the potential of that child.

And what of the idea that another child could rob the older children of some of their owed love from their parents? Is love a zero-sum game, where there is a set and finite amount of love contained in this world, that to add to those who need love we subtract from the total available to any other? To believe that is to believe a lie, an obvious and tawdry lie. A child both receives love and gives love, adding to the total love in a family. Love is not, cannot be, selfish. We experience love when we are not even the direct or intended recipients of it. To witness love is to feel love and experience it. As older children observe their parents giving of themselves, selflessly, to a new and dependent child, they can understand true love as it is modeled for them.

Finally, what of happiness? Is a smaller family a happier family? Are children likely to be aborted more likely to experience unhappy lives? It is true that abortion primarily appeals to poor and minority families (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a documented White Supremacist and supported eugenics and abortion as methods of controlling what she deemed to be unworthy aspects of society), but are these necessarily unhappy families? If even one of the children may experience a happy family, basic decency demands we give that child the chance to experience that life. And not every child who experiences an unhappy child will necessarily experience an unhappy adulthood. We are not automatons completely dependent on our situations and histories. Instead, we have choice in how we respond and react to each of our situations. To deny the chance that child may grow up to use their troubled history as a springboard to launch them into the far reaches of achievement in society and culture. Or do you have so little faith in humanity?

Abortion is wrong, evil, hateful, arrogant, stupid, and blind.