Just got back from Mike Huckabee's appearance at the Westin in Bellevue. Going through the process of transcribing my notes and should have something up tomorrow morning. Assuming the power doesn't go out here in my home.
A quick note. Huckabee's the real deal as a candidate and combined the right mixture of knowledge, humor and political savvy to make one formidable. Agree with him on the issues or not but the guy is not a light-weight.
DW____________________________________________________
I'll be tailing Mike Huckabee today and hopefully will be able to ask some real questions that local readers want to know; as opposed to the drivel about polls and fund-raising which will dominate local coverage today.
Of course I could just stay behind the computer, rewrite a press release and gripe when the campaign doesn't e-mail me a copy of the former Arkansas governor's speeches...
Posted by DonWard at November 15, 2007 07:44 AM | Email ThisFor Huckabee: Christian Support for Government Charity.
I also just posted version one and version two of the relatively untitled GOP Debate Song. Fun fun fun!
Posted by: pudge on November 15, 2007 08:46 AMMy rich Democrat donor was just in and stated he though Huckabee was running for V-P. We talked about Arkansas in general a little bit. Rascal will probably still vote D, but really, really likes Romney.
Posted by: swatter on November 15, 2007 11:13 AMHowever your YouTube question to Huckabee showed an attitude of anti Christian more than a real question.
Prior to Government stepping in, Christians were the only ones who provided charity. I recall very well in the 50s through 70s when I was a young cop, when we found a needy person, we always called the local ministry leader and he would direct us to a church that did that thing (clothing, shelter, food, money-usually for gas).
Then something happened after Nixon when the government started pouring money to local "action" committees, who eventually became government entities--we have at least three in my local community--and slowly people started leaving the church for immediate needs and donated funds for church charity dwindled. We cops were told to contact the local government group for that charitable help.
Charity begins at home not in Washington DC. (BY the way we are not talking welfare & government salaries, but meeting temporaty needs).
Currently in my local community we have at least three churches who have clothing or food banks and one who provides shelter for battered women and their children. This is a result of Faith based direction with some government funding.
My question to you is, What difference does it make who is providing help for the needy as long as it is provided without restriction?
I have not heard where one goes to a church food bank and were ask if they were a Christian. As a mater of fact, with government funding charity through a church, the church is prohibited from discrimination. They often work with only volunteers so the cost to operate is less than what the government agency costs. More bang for the buck!
Christians are not our enemies, in my life I have not seen any of them cutting human heads off on YouTube or forcing anyone to sit through a sermon!
Anyway I think your question needs re-wording with a little less attitude--or just come right out and tell him you don't want Christians involved in helping the needy and want him to change his opinion to yours.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 15, 2007 12:03 PMI am anti-myself?! Wow! ;-)
You completely missed the point of my question (and apparently, the actual words). I don't know how you missed it, because I just listened to it again and I thought it was pretty clear. I was not asking why Christians are involved with charity, but why he thinks Christians should favor doing charity specifically through the government.
I am a Christian. I study the Bible. He says we should, as Christians, perform charity through the government. I disagree.
I love your question, and as a committed Christian, I think you're right on! How anybody can take the Bible's call to Christian charity, to mean that it we should do so through the government is beyond me!
Huckabee has a lot of questions to answer, and I thank you for bringing one of the important ones up.
He needs to be asked more in detail about his position about amnesty, which I don't find that it will likely happen at a KCGOP event, but one can hope!
Also, Pudge, I like your debate song too
Too bad he doesn't have a chance...his religion will doom him. The GOP religionists will never allow allow someone as president from a religion they view as a cult. Shame too, he's actually the most qualified of all the GOP candidates.
Leave it to Cato to always make some really dumb remark!
What you have something against Mormons?
Quite telling of you Cato.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 15, 2007 03:38 PMSometimes (most of the time) the most qualified doesn't get elected.
Posted by: swatter on November 15, 2007 03:38 PMIf the choice is Hillary or Obama (Self serving "religion" and Islamic) vs Romney, this Christian Republican will vote for Romney! I sure don't want what the dems call religion!
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 15, 2007 03:41 PMHere in Seattle, the dominant religion is probably nature. People take hikes to commune with their "god."
None of these (environment or big government) are questioned by liberal Seattlites. They are accepted as gospel; on faith. Questioning recycling or global warming is heresy.
I like Cato's posts above.
Huckabee is a big-government social conservative. If you want higher taxes and government spending, he's your man.
Pudge is right.
For Churches, accepting government funding is a Faustian bargain. The money always comes with strings, or will in the future. These strings will violate some principle or other of the religion. For instance, if you accept this funding, the feds may tell you you can't discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment, or you might have to distribute contraceptives, or they will violate your first ammendment rights or some such thing.
It is tempting, because it is a really easy way to get money for what could be a very good cause, but it will work out very badly for you in the long run. The paperwork and the bureaucratic inflexibility that comes with the funding will reduce your ability to be flexible and creative and serve the needs of the poor.
It is the separation of church and state that gives us freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. One of the reasons that religion is flourishing in the US, and withering in Europe is state-sponsored religion. Nothing kills passion like government bureaucracy. Maintaining this separation should be a key goal of social conservative policy. You don't want one sect discriminating against all the others via the law. Accepting government funding for charitable activities blurs this seaparation, and sets a terrible precedent that will probably erode religion in the future in the US.
My advice to churches is to stay independent, and tackle the challenge of fundraising from private sources. In the long run, the poor will be better off, and so will your church. Government funding is a deal with the devil. It is a temptation. Be strong. Avert your eyes and pass it by.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 15, 2007 09:11 PM
Only "professional journalists" do that.
It wasn't an argument that is heard stating that giving money to churches or religions is allowing the churches to proselytize.
Your message of minimal government was a good one.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2007 06:48 AMBruce Guthrie,
I love your stuff, man. I'm writing-in Ron Paul for president in the 2008 election. I don't think he'll get the Republican nomination, but we can always write him in on election day!
Cheers!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 16, 2007 08:03 AMWhile Hillary might be hurt by the liberal base going elsewhere (or not voting), the other top two candidates -- Edwards and Obama -- would be hurt by moderates going elsewhere (or not voting).
As to corruption, oh please. If you are an independent as you seem to imply, you surely realize the Dems are not remotely better.
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2007 08:13 AMPI, I see you haven't read Michael Yon's lastest dispatch dated today yet have you. There are lots of pictures (last week it was of Muslims restoring the cross at a Christian church) of Muslims sitting in the Christian church in Baghdad imploring their Christian friends to come back because they want them as neighbors.
PI, isn't the opposite of what is happening exactly what you feel is happening due to inadequate reporting from the press?
Not the end all, but definitely a huge sign. And when the Christians come back, it will probably mean that Iraq will be secular.
Rudy says the polls will show our people support the actions in Iraq next year (I think the people do do already but polls are, well, polls).
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2007 08:15 AMPudge, your videos are awesome. You always make me laugh.
Even though I don't agree with Huckabee on everything (especially the charity-via-government thing...ugh), I really like him a lot. I think he has what it takes to be president, and he knows how to work with difficult people (he was gov. of Arkansas...). Also, people need to remember that the executive branch is not the be-all and end-all--lots of people tend to forget that electing (and once they're in office, nagging) their senators and representatives matters just as much if not more than electing the right guy as president.
Oh, and I hear a lot about Huckabee being a "big-government" type, which he may seem as such on some issues, but he actually has talked about how he values local governments and that some things should definitely be left up to the states.
Posted by: Cydney on November 16, 2007 09:31 AMWise people like Swatter are able to have a rational discourse with any peaceful person. Kudos and thanks.
We agree on free markets and limited government. (I'm sure we agree on a lot more than that...)
And on these two issues, we both disagree with Huckabee, and agree with Ron Paul! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 16, 2007 10:37 AMKeep on keepin' on!
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2007 11:54 AMRudy: He may be the best for us- I suspect he is. He has more baggage than Bergman's and there's many more scandals in the pipline to come, if he's nominated. Even with Pat Robertson's endorsement, (how many pieces of silver was he promised?) I don't believe the social conservatives will cross the street to help him even if our candidate is Hillary, the anti-Christ.
Mike Huckabee: I thought he was kind of scary because he's likable, good on his feet, and socially conservative- even though his name IS Huckabee, and he's practically unknown. After these threads, I see you don't trust him much, are picking him apart, he's far from ideal (and his name is still Huckabee).
Romney: In the real world, he's a very credible candidate, but in the la-la land of the 2008 GOP, the shorthairs of the grassroots are so firmly held by Christian evangelicals who think Mormonism is Satanic, they'll never elect him, nor probably even nominate him.
Ron Paul: He's got support by the libertarian left, who love his stands on legalization of prostitution, and drugs, which are for starters, why the GOP will never nominate him. Should he ever be seriously on any ticket, it won't take long for investigative types from the media and the parties to find his deep connections to white supremacists, the militias, and a lot of other goofiness in a long political life in the Texas panhandle.
Fred Thompson - is as boring on the stump as a box of hair- IF he even shows up. He takes weekends off, and more naps than Ronald Reagan. I was afraid he might live up to the expectations, but not to worry, he's disappointed even himself. He's got lots of flip-flops in his past and a wife who Republican women (and I know Republican women!) are already hissing about.
Who should you nominate? I can't make up my mind either.
~
Don: please don't delete me; please don't delete me; please don't delete me...
blathering michael: kudos to you for making a long comment that made me laugh and that wasn't full of too much hooey. It's democrats like you that actually give me a glimmer of hope--at least you have a sense of humor.
:) Keep it up.
Posted by: Cydney on November 16, 2007 04:41 PMYes, you are correct in that the Dems are pretty corrupt, too, but the Republicans have been getting some really, really bad publicity for their shennanigans lately. The worm will turn however, and eventually we'll get back to stories about Democrat corruption. It's just that the Republicans have made it sooo easy, what with Randy Cunningham, Scooter Libby, etc.
Swatter @ 22,
Were you talking to me? I didn't mention anything about Christians returning to Baghdad in my post. I don't have any opinion about that issue as I lean towards Nep-Paganism rather than the Abrahamic religions.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 16, 2007 06:24 PMblathering michael,
Have you ever been to the Texas Panhandle? Lubbock? Amarillo? Post? La Mesa? I lived there for a couple of years, and I never saw any white supremacists or Nazis running loose. No militias, either, unless you want to count the Texas ANG guys.
My experience is that the people from the Panhandle and the rest of Texas are wonderful folks. To call them names just to try to smudge Ron Paul is a dumb thing to do. Ron Paul is the only guy worth voting for in the 2008 presidential elelction.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 16, 2007 06:32 PMThe Republicans are salivating at the prospect of Hillary as the Democratic nomination. Their evil spin machine is and will be working overtime, digging up dirt to insure Hillary is finished finally forever. The icing on the cake is that the really, really crazy leftists think that Hillary is just another neo-con. That'll mean a nutcase liberal will come forward to be the "progressive" candidate and draw votes away from Her Highness.
Yep, if Hills gets the nom, the Republicans stand a better chance of winning the White House in 2008 than if any other Democrat (with the exceptions of Dennis the Menance and Joe Biden) gets the nomination. The neo-cons should be praying every night for Hillarys nomination.
Since I like neither Reps or Dems, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. (He's actually a Libertarian, you know. The "Republican" label is just a way of breaking onto the media's national stage.)
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 17, 2007 07:23 AMRight now, the Republicans of 2008 are looking like the Democrats of 2004. There is still 11 months + until the big election. You know what needs to be done - there has been too much baggage from the Bush Administration and the PR has been miserable. The first reasonable step would be step up the PR by all of the candidates and above all demonstrate fiscal responsibility followed by a bonafide plan to win in Iraq, then get out !
Posted by: KS on November 17, 2007 10:20 AMKS is correct, R's must denounce the last 8 years iand take their lumps. You may not be forgiven in 2008, but 2012? there's a chance if the D's can't pull us out of the morass of the disatrous Bush years.
Posted by: blathering michael on November 17, 2007 10:56 AMObviously, the big areas they need to change are:
1) The war in Iraq
2) government spending
Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain all represent more of the same. None of these can position himself credibly as representing change in these areas.
The only R candidate who could pull this off is Ron Paul.
The attempt to associate Ron Paul with Nazis is obviously an act of desperation from people who have no rational way to oppose him. I am not afraid of this kind of attack. It is so easily dismissed, makes the attacker look bad, and proves that Ron Paul is perceived as a credible threat. Bring it on.
Ron Paul will get another "money bomb" on 12/16/07 that will break his recent one day fundraising record of $4.3 million on 11/5/07. His TV ads are now running in NH. He drew 5,000 people at his last rally.
Big-spending Iraq war hawks: get out of the way, or you will bring your own party down with you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 17, 2007 11:33 AMLots of tall talk for the Republicans, but I think still the best gift the Dems could give the Reps is Hillary as the nom. There's so much dirt under the carpet with the Clintons that it's like a Christmas gift to the Rep spin machine. I'm sure they're working overtime to get the smear commercials ready. Heck, the Clintons are so dirty that the Reps may not even have to resort to Nixon-style dirty tricks!
Your best bet is Hillary for the Dems. Now, if you could just come up with a candidate...
(Sorry, Ron Paul doesn't count: he's a Libertarian.)
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 18, 2007 09:48 AMWill the R's be smart enough to nominate him?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 19, 2007 01:51 AM