Huckabee is a Smart Politician Regardless of Other Detractions
Huckabee’s defense of his Merry Christmas ads in a Church Sermon is the kind of thing that will endear him to the Christian Right.
It is a huge step for a politician to do something so Politically Incorrect in this election’s atmosphere. Huckabee has a dump truck load political dirt from his past to overcome; however putting the Christ back into Christmas is a blinder that devout Christian voters might look askew to the dirt and see a social Conservative light that has been dimming over the years.
It is a smart move by Huckabee. Romney could not dare to inject such Christian symbolism into his campaign for it would re-awaken Mormon theological doubts by Christian big dog supporters who lined up behind him.
For my man Fred to get his poll numbers up, he will have to roll some dice on some sensitive political issues.
Let’s face it, although the Paleocons in the Republican may deplore the actual influence of mobilized Christian Right voters, they are still the king makers in the Republican Party. For a GOP nominee to win, he is going to have to sway a chunk of those Christian Right voters to their side. Now it might be a little different in the big dog November 2008 election in which the Christian becomes a faction of American voters, but even then the Christian Right’s ability to get people out to vote is remarkable if the Christian Right operates on inspiration rather than disappointment.
Comments
Math, I pray you are not referring to George W. Bush. He made decisions based on the same Intelligence that the Democratic Party leaders had received and concurred. There is plenty that George W has done that I disagree with lately; however going after Islamofascists is not one of them.
It is the Liberals that are the King of Hill Liars. They are a lot like their last Presidential nominee: they are for before they are against it. Thus lies and defeatism are the solution to fit what they are now against but once were for.
Do facts matter in politics?
Do facts (and lies verified by facts) matter in Christian politics?
Can constructive moral people, including Christians use facts and lies to evaluate candidates?
If yes, then a list of presidential lies matters. Certainly a list of lies in opposition to a list of accomplishments matters.
The most recent promise by Dubya turned into a lie was that if Pakistan helped the USA, they would receive help from the USA to build democracy. What the facts reveal, however, is thousands of political arrests, suspension of the court system, declaration of "emergency" suspension of the constitution, reports that US anti-terror funds have gone to escalate anti-India efforts, and the assassination of the premiere opposition politician.
Is the Christian Bush a man of his word on the issues related to Pakistan and democracy?
On the issues related to Pakistan, terror, democracy and stability in south asia, what does the relative list look like between lies and accomplishments?
Your kidding right? Pakistan is being given the carrot for democracy and Musharraf has abused it; however Pakistan is the new Iran only it already has a nuclear arsenal.
Bush is doing pretty good in trying to get more democracy to Pakistan without allowing terrorists to take over the nation.
If a Democrat is elected President in 2008, he or she would probably pull a Carter. Abandon Musharraf like Carter abandoned the Shah. The Shah though repressive was Westernizing Iran and was about to move slowly from absolute rule to a Parliament sharing rule.
If a Democratic Party President wins in 2008, history will repeat itself. Politics in the human world is not black and white, it is machiavellian. As far as America is concerned, politics is used to achieve what is good for American National Interests. If politics fails then the Clauswitz theorem of war occurs: War is politics by other means. In other words when politics fail, war occurs to achieve or protect the National Interest.
I for one do not want to see Islamo-psychos possessing a complete nuclear arsenal.
Did you make two lists? Did you make a list of Bush's lies and a list of Bush accomplishments, and did you compare them to see which is the longer list?
m
No math I did not.
1. I am too lazy.
2. I know the Leftie list would be longer because what they have called lies is not in most cases correct.
I'll give you this though: I believe the government (Executive, Legislative and their bureaucracies are not noted for full disclosure to accomplish partisan positions) I am a GOP partisan that believes the Democrats and the Left have an agenda to transform America into something I know I would not like.
his assuming 'unitary' executive power,
his pursuing war without a constitutional declaration,
his selecting and firing of US attorneys based on party line,
his doctrine of preemptive strike,
his allowing the energy indstry to write energy policy,
his allowing the pharm indstry to dictate to the FDA,
his centralist, standardized, federalized No Child edu policy?
How conservative is all that?
galactic sized deficit,
his spying on American citizens,
the refusal of his responsibility as executive to enforce law,
his unprecedented level of classifying of basic government documents,
his use of the CIA to conduct foreign policy instead of the constitutionally
valid State Department?
What are these trends? Not conservative.
What is the traditional notion of the conservative about the nature of markets, the possibility of competition, the levelling of the business playing field, and the role of taxation? What is the conservative view - the one held by influential philosophical conservatives? How does that compare to the way the Bush administration has run the economy, written tax law, regulated markets?
Let's as some basic conservative questions about business.
Is is easier or harder now for small businesses to start and succeed?
Is is easier or harder now for small business to compete?
Is is easier or harder now for small businesses to deal with government?
Is there more of a level playing field today in most markets, or less?
Is the tax burden today more on the shoulders of workers and entrepreneurs?
Is the regulatory burden today in favor of big business or small?
Do powerful people in Washington listen to small businesses or to big?
Who will the huge federal deficit hurt more, small business or big?
What is the effect of government on business these days? To open up markets or to keep markets in the hands of the big corporations that currently dominate them?
Conservative? I don't think so.
What does that have to do with who is or is not following good conservative principles? Your original post was not about Kerry or Gore (neither of whom I would ever vote for).
It should not matter what party you are or what church you go to. Make a list of all the lies Bush has been caught in, and then make a list of all his accomplishments. See which is longer.
Your original post said
"Huckabee’s defense of his Merry Christmas ads in a Church Sermon is the kind of thing that will endear him to the Christian Right. It is a huge step for a politician to do something so Politically Incorrect in this election’s atmosphere."
To evaluate that statement, we might look at recent history. Bush appealed to the same folks Huckabee is appealing to. Bush was anything but politically correct. As you may have been trying to point out, the Huckabee move was politically rather like a Bush move.
But what does that tell us about the future ability of Huckabee as a president? Bush had religious credentials, but ended up violating both conservative and religious principles, as well as shredding up the US constitution.
Can we tell how good a leader someone will be by how they appeal to Christian voters? The Bush experience suggests that no, we cannot.
What does that have to do with who is or is not following good conservative principles?
---------
Nothing.
If my choice is a or b, but I prefer c, should I not vote? Sometimes yes.
The US Supreme court is one reason to be OK with W.
Math said:
I don't fear Leftists; I don't trust or agree with their ideology.
President Bush has not done anything different than any other 20th century Democratic President that preceded him, Clinton in particular. The Executive Branch has Constitutional power to manage the US government while the Congress has the purse strings and the Judiciary is supposed to clarify the gray areas the Constitution is not clear on. In protecting America the Judiciary has not ruled that his Executive decision to engage foreign terrorism with the assent of the Congress incidentally, is Unconstitutional.
A formal Declaration of War: The war began as a defense of American National Security from the threat of Transnational terrorism in which various rogue governments have supported verbally or actively. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan directly protected the transnational terrorists al Qaeda responsible for a foreign attack on American soil. Did Congress oppose the Bush action to invade Afghanistan? NO. Did the Supreme Court rule it was Unconstitutional for Bush to invade Afghanistan? NO. I can say the same thing about Iraq.
Nonetheless you are correct. According to the Constitution, the President asks Congress for a declaration of war and Congress votes yea or nay. It did not happen; however I doubt you will ever see it happen again. In an age of high tech military capability there simply is not time to issue a Declaration of War except in the case of entering a war that has been on going for some time. Are we to deliberate with Congress if nuclear missiles are headed toward America for a declaration of war? Those days are gone and the Constitution needs to be Amended to the reality of the times.
Again though I must point out that Bush is hardly the originator of war by Executive Order. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson entered wars by Executive Order without a Declaration of War in Korea and Vietnam.
It is totally Constitutional to fire US Attorneys without giving a reason.
The Doctrine of pre-emptive strike is a reality of the 21st Century.
I am not hip with the energy and pharmaceutical policies, but that is not just Bush, that is a Bi-Partisan failing of government.
Frankly the no child left behind concept is excellent; its implementation has been a debacle. School Districts simply cooked the academic books to comply with better education principles rather than implementing better education principles. America's children are graduating from High School with the knowledge of dummies compared to other Western Nations. Something has to be done on a national scale to reverse graduating a nation of dummies.
Math said:
Neoconservative: Willing to do what it takes to protect the Security of Americans during the war with Islamist terrorists bent on taking down American society through methods of fear. I don't have a problem with that while the war is happening. I would if the war is won and the practices continued.
The CIA is legally bound to stay out of domestic affairs and is a tool of the State Department. In fact the CIA and the State Department have a huge amount of employees that do not like Bush and have done their best to undermine Executive Authority.
Math said:
I have to admit I am not even close to comprehending economics and I am aware that Conservatives support the issues you have stipulated; however I have read that the economy under the Bush Administration has prospered except in the case of the National Deficit.
The thing I am more concerned about than the economy is the social issues. Frankly President Bush has been a disappointment in not taking bigger steps to be socially conservative in deed more than in rhetoric.
And frankly this is the allure of Mike Huckabee: social conservativism. I think many Christian Right Conservatives are willing to look past Huckabee's history of spend and Tax in Arkansas to get a man in Office that will fight harder to transform a Left leaning Judiciary to at least a strict constructionist Judiciary. Huckabee is viewed as man that might place Christianity back into the foundations of American Culture.
Personally I believe the social issues can be accomplished with Fred Thompson Conservativism who would also be more inclined to be a fiscal Conservative. However my man Fred emphasizes his Conservative credentials above what he supports as a social Conservative. This is hurting him with Christian Right Republicans that do not understand that a social reversal long decades of Leftist social transformation would not be immediate.
Math said:
I tend to agree with you here except the "shredding up the US constitution" part. Bush has pushed the envelope on the Constitution as much as any past Democratic President, that is hardly shredding the Constitution.
If you want to talk about shredding the Constitution, that has been accomplished by Leftis organizations such as the ACLU that deceived people into thinking the Constitution is a document written to be nullified by a Left leaning Judiciary that is nearly impossible to check because of the near 50/50 split in Congress. Congress would have to come up with an Amendment to overrule a Judicial decision and then have the States ratify it (I am not certain of that numbers but it is something like 2/3 or 3/5). Because of the political impossibillity to challenge a Judicial decision America has been slowly transformed from what a majority of Americans would not vote for. That is a successful Leftist Judicial tyranny.
The Conservate's best recourse is to appoint strict constructionist interpreting Justices and Judges to offset the Leftist tyranny.