David Horsey's latest takes a stab at understanding the latest twist in the horserace of the Republican nominating contest. Horsey's simplification of Rudy Giuliani as the candidate of national security conservatives, Mitt Romney for "business conservatives," and Mike Huckabee for social conservatives doesn't quite hold true in reality but it makes for a nice cartoon.
My hunch, however, is that observers with little more than indirect experience with social conservatives may be a bit miffed in full at how Huckabee can be rising in Iowa and in the South given his well-documented problems with economic/small government conservatives. For one, Huckabee's rise isn't merely a product of social conservatives, it's specifically a product of Evangelicals (as the links in the section on Huckabee at this post describe). That's an important point to understand even in the context of politics around here and the local GOP.
To understand what that means, take a step back from Mike Huckabee for a minute. Consider someone like him, without the baggage of a Presidential race: current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. Since taking that gig earlier this year, Gerson has spent a good deal of time talking about the issues of the day in a manner quite similar to Huckabee (Gerson spent a full column praising him). As Ross Douthat notes in his broader critique of Gerson, many of those columns have served to make Gerson's fellow conservatives more than a bit angry at him. More importantly, Douthat identifies one of the serious deviations from the conservative mainstream by many Evangelicals like Gerson (and thus Huckabee):
As the world understood the term conservative in, say, 1965, Gerson isn't one. Like many Americans who've crowded into the GOP over the last four decades--blue-collar Catholics and Jewish neoconservatives as well as evangelicals--the militantly libertarian spirit of the midcentury Right is largely foreign to him. But on the road from Goldwater to Reagan, and thence to George W. Bush, the conservative movement transformed itself from a narrow claque into a broad church, embracing anyone and everyone who called themselves an enemy of liberalism, whether they were New York intellectuals or Orange County housewives. This "here comes everybody" quality has been the American Right's great strength over the past three decades, and a Republican Party that aspires to govern America can ill afford to read the Gersons of the world--social conservatives with moderate-to-liberal sympathies on economics--out of its coalition.
Not only do many Evangelicals not truly embrace the more libertarian aspects of conservative thought, they outright disagree:
From 19th-century abolitionists through William Jennings Bryan's Social Gospel to the civil rights movement, evangelicals have tended to associate themselves with idealistic crusades and messianic ambitions--and thus, as often as not, with the aspirations of the political left. "As a faith that revolves around the experience of individual transformation," conservative scholar Wilfred McClay remarked early in 2005--at the height of liberal panic over the influence of religious "values voters"--evangelical Christianity "inevitably exists in tension" with the established order. To call someone "both an evangelical and a conservative, then," McClay concluded, "is to call him something slightly more problematic than one may think."
Thus, Evangelicals in that strain of thought don't necessarily have a problem with Mike Huckabee's fondness for big government if they share the same values he seeks to impose (his support of a national ban on smoking in public places being perhaps the most overt). They likewise are less likely to blanch at Huckabee's sometimes embrace of less conservative domestic policies, including higher taxes.
Consequently, observers left thinking Huckabee voters might be easily dismayed by his nanny-state tendencies or some of his other domestic policy ideas outside of conservative orthodoxy are likely to be proven wrong. Such issues may hurt Huckabee a bit with Evangelicals currently backing him, but his ethical problems in Arkansas are likely to me be more of a problem for him with that crowd if someone like the Club for Growth can find a way to use that weakness effectively.
Bluntly, many Evangelicals just feel comfortable with Huckabee. He's one of them, as he communicates so clearly at the debates. Giuliani doesn't work for them. They're leery of Romney for a couple reasons, including the Mormon one (though they'd probably come around in the general). They've had problems with McCain for years. And Fred Thompson is one big disappointment on the campaign trail after all the months of hype.
So, Huckabee it is. They'll ride that horse while they have it; some with great glee knowing it irritates economic conservatives with whom they often fight within the Republican party (James Dobson is well-known for having such disagreements). Whether such a base of like-minded souls achieves critical mass to ultimately influence the GOP nomination as the race unfolds is another matter, though it's important because as Erick Erickson has said, Huckabee might pose more of threat to the GOP coalition than Rudy Giuliani.
Either way, for now it's important to understand what Evangelicals are and what they aren't as part of the Republican coalition. Many are not the natural fit some think.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 29, 2007 10:24 PM | Email Thiswww.mike-huckabee.blogspot.com
Posted by: John on November 29, 2007 10:33 PMJust like the Iraq war and the Medicare drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. And this is why I am a Ron Paul supporter.
"...social conservatives with moderate-to-liberal sympathies on economics..." are just not my kind of candidate.
Ron Paul is pro-life, and wants to eliminate Roe vs. Wade. He is a Baptist, and has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. This should appeal to social conservatives.
He has NEVER, in his twenty years in Congress voted for a tax increase. He does not use the Congressional retirement system, and has never voted to raise congressiona pay. He wants to eliminate the IRS, and by cutting spending back to 2000 levels, we can replace it with NOTHING and still work down the debt! This should appeal to the fiscal conservatives and those concerned with budget deficits and spending.
He wants to bring the troops home and focus on defending US borders. This should appeal to those concerned about illegal immigration.
And no Iraq war hawk can win in November anyway, not as long as public opinion is about 70% against it. This pretty much rules out McCain and Giuliani. Ron Paul can draw votes from Hillary in November, thus eroding her base.
I think Ron Paul is the only candidate who can really unite the fiscal and the social conservatives, and can win in November.
By the way, have I mentioned he won the CNN/YouTube on-line poll with about 46% of the vote? The next candidate got about 20%. He's raised over $9.9 million this quarter alone, and has passed Thompson's 3rd quarter totals.
Eric, you left out "my man" Ron Paul! :)
Did you know that syndicated columnist George Will is a Ron Paul supporter?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 11:55 PMgive me a break, he is not going to win and his foreign policy (or lackthereof) is a diaster.
Posted by: RJ on November 30, 2007 12:52 AMPeace.
LR
Posted by: Lucas Roebuck on November 30, 2007 01:18 AMSpam is mass e-mails, or comments that are copied and pasted a hundred times. Yet this is the only place I have typed this. Spam is irrelevant to the thread, but mine is relevant.
Look, if you don't like what I am writing, I invite you not to read it, OK? It's not like I am creating a noise nuisance that you can not avoid. Simply avert your eyes, my friend! :)
I think it is GW Bush's foreign policy that is the disaster, and this is McCain's and Giuliani's policy as well. But whether you agree with it or not, you have to agree that it is unpopular, and that it is among the top two most important issues for the electorate. Therefore, being an Iraq war hawk dooms a candidate to failure in November.
Do you want 2008 to be 2006 all over again? I don't.
You don't know that Ron Paul is not going to win. He might!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 01:26 AMAdulterous people hate him for what he believes.
The leftist media prefers Julie-Annie or Romney, both RINOs.
Just say no to homo supporting Wepuwicanth.
Posted by: Independent Voter on November 30, 2007 05:21 AMConsidering the taxes voters in Washington state seem to like, then Mike Huckabee is your man...
Posted by: juandos on November 30, 2007 05:38 AMSocial conservatives are one or maybe two issue voters. They have a non negotiable issue that ties them firmly to the republican party. If you nominate somebody who doesn't hold their position on that issue, they are essentially independents. There are lots of Christian beliefs that the democrats embrace better than the GOP, so all bets are off.
Huckabee's Arkansas record is not as bad as it looks. He after all had a very democratic congress pushing an agenda on him. He had the courts pushing spending on him. During his term the tax burden did rise, but it rose at 50% of the average of the other 49 states.
Taxes are also more appropriate at the state level than at the federal level.
He also has the most radically conservative Tax agenda of the GOP candidates. This should count for something.
If Huckabee gets the nomination he will be by far better than the Democratic nominee on Economic issues. He will not lose the business republicans in the same way that someone like Guliani will lose the social conservatives.
He is also the best candidate for expanding the GOP's base. He has a message that plays well across economic and racial lines. The current GOP base is inadequate to give the president any mandate at all. It is likely inadequate to allow the GOP to win. While the other candidates are struggling to retain the GOP's base voters, Huckabee is working to increase that base.
Posted by: Josh R on November 30, 2007 07:08 AMAnd Ron Paul is being successful at increasing the GOP base. He is bringing people in to the party that once called themselves Democrats, independents and even the formerly apathetic.
Ron Paul is pro-life, and wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He's been married to the same woman for 50 years.
I think his conservative credentials beat Huckabees. Plus he is an MD and served five years in the military.
Ron Paul is much better than Huckabee.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 07:26 AMLiberals arn't going to sacrifice choice, the environment, and the social safety net for the Iraq war and legal marijuana. We want all those things, and we want them from the federal government, mostly becasue its the only actor capable, but also because we see ourselves as Americans, not Washingtonians.
Conservatives are the same way. They aren't going to give up Iraq (and foreign policy in general), farm subsidies, and moral issues, for lower taxes.
So what you wind up with is a candidate with little support. Kind of like what Paul has now.
Posted by: Giffy on November 30, 2007 07:57 AMGood post! And people also have to understand that Evangelicals are NOT monolithic. I mean, one of the highest profile leaders of the Evangelical movement, Rick Warren, is hosting Hillary Clinton at a conference at his church.
Bruce/Independent,
The issue I have with Ron Paul and most (not all) if his supporters THIS race is the fact they are NOT Republicans. If you are going to run under the banner of a party, and want to earn the nomination of that party, then you need to pledge to support the party as well if you do NOT get the nomination.
Personally, Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo would be my last choice of the Republican nominees, but my first choice of any contest against Democrats.
Ron Paul should understand that if he wants to play in the party, then he does have to show some loyalty to the party. Publicly stating you will not vote for any of the other candidates if they will the nomination is IMHO selfish at best, and shows a truly Machiavellian approach to politics.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 30, 2007 08:11 AMAnd you mistake independence for loyalty. Look, if Ron Paul had to leave the race, and told his supporters to support one of the pro-war candidates, his supporters would laugh at him! These are mostly new blood being brought in to the party. Their votes are non-transferable, but the party loyal will vote for anything with an R on it, even Ron Paul if he is nominated. You can't lose them, by definition. They're loyal.
The fact that Huckabee's support might go to Romney or Giuliani, really says that their positions are really close together. And usually by November, I'm having a hard time distinguishing the positions of the D and R anyway! They both run to the center, and you wind up not being able to tell them apart.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 08:41 AMWhy do you think Bush's ratings with evangelicals has fallen so much? It has nothing to do with his wonderful social conservative positions and actions, it has to do with their perception of his integrity.
Posted by: Doug on November 30, 2007 09:13 AMThey bring up his immigration stance, which I don't understand. He simply states that if we are to be a compassionate nation do we punish children for the sins of their parents. Many here have no problem when Bush speaks of being compassionate. Is that because you know Bush has just given lip service to compassionate conservatism?
No, what I see as an independent, is several factions trying to gain control and forgetting that without the other factions you would be very much a miniority party. Sorry Bruce for this comparison, but without the "big-tent" you would be like the libertarians, who have been determined and forthwright in their pursuit of limited role of government.
This isn't to say the Democrats are not having the same problem, also. They are, which is why nominating such a divisive candidate as Hillary sure doesn't make much sense for them, either.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: tc on November 30, 2007 09:16 AMFunny I agree with you Bruce! With every posting in this blog, you twist it into a promotion for Mr. Paul. "Ad nauseum".
I really haven't made up my mind yet and read each posting on the different candidates hoping to get blogers opinions of that candidate. But instead I read 4-5 paragraphs and usually 2-3 postings by you, praising Mr. Paul. It has reached a point I don't want to hear another word about him and you are the one making the turn-off. Some call you high-jacking, to me it is rudeness to the utmost.
Sorry Bruce, save your love fest for Mr. Paul or you may find me seaking the fault in this paragon of vurtue.
Oh, yes, effective immediately, I will take your advice and stop reading your postings on him. You could do us all a favor and title every post "Ron Paul" so there would be no mistake.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 30, 2007 10:04 AMOther notes, Wilfred Clay obviously does not understand the difference between a conservative and libertarian. Libertarians embrace capitalism. Conseratives are wary of the capitalism. So you can be an conservative evangelical but not an libertarian evangelical.
Posted by: M&M on November 30, 2007 10:13 AM"Either way, for now it's important to understand what Evangelicals are and what they aren't as part of the Republican coalition. Many are not the natural fit some think."
1. Evangelicals really are not a monolith.
The term is defined as:
"Defining the Term in Contemporary Times
There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century. The first is to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella-demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is. A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals...."
http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html
So, you are covering some wide territory.
2. I am an indie, so these are my observations.
There seems to be two strains of conservatism in both parties. There are social conservatives, currently found most often in the republican party, but many southern dems are also social conservatives. There are fiscal conservatives, again found most often in the republican party, but not always. Many fiscal conservatives are not necessarily social conservatives. I guess that is the Rudy faction of your party. It is hard to get a good fix on where Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is on the spectrum because Brucie argues that he is the messiah for every issue, but I think he is trying to take issues from both groups. I believe that most countryclub republicans are fiscal conservatives and not necessarily social conservatives.
It is interesting that if you go back to the positions of both a Nixon and JFK. Nixon advocated a guaranteed annual income, I wonder how that would go over today with your party and JFK advocated tax cuts. So, I wonder if some of the boundaries have moved over time?
I don't know much about Huckabee and just became aware of him recently. It seems from an outsider that a lot of energy is against him for some reason.
I think one way of analyzing conservatism is on the issue of what policies encourage the formation of families and promote the raising of children and what policies don't. That would include a variety of both fiscal and social policies.
First, he is from Arkansas. I am tired of this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing and I think Huckabee fits that 'dynasty' mold since he was also from Arkansas. I don't know and maybe I am a little jaundiced against Arkansas politics. But, I do have that problem.
Then, while I encourage him losing 100 plus pounds and keeping it off, I question a guy's emotions and self-control to get that heavy in the first place. I hope he keeps the weight off, but I just have a problem with that aspect of being a human.
Then, I don't want a President who is more of a thumper than Bush. I don't think Bush was as vocal as Huckabee is. See above two paragraphs and I begin to think the Huck is playing shuckster to the real thumpers and playing up to them. The thumping that Huck does really doesn't belong in the public discourse. (Notice also how I have not lumped Bush, Obama or any others into this; another example- Robertson was also too over the edge for a politcal candidate, IMO). BTW, I also do my thumping privately.
Posted by: swatter on November 30, 2007 10:47 AMWhile I agree with you that "thumping" should not be done at the public level, I don't think that Huckabee, necessarily wants to "thump."
Unfortunately, the questions he gets from the media tend to be of a religious nature. Just like the rest of the candidates, the media seems to be trying to put him in his box. I think the cartoon that Eric linked to is an example of this.
I, for one, want to get past these pathetic excuses for debate and hear from their mouths how they feel about issues I care about. Maybe Huckabee is a tax guy, maybe not. But, based on a lot of stuff I've read about the Club for Growth, I'm not too sure I can trust them either.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on November 30, 2007 11:25 AMI also don't know what you mean by main-stream pro-lifer and how Huckabee doesn't represent the pro-life community. To me the only fault I have with his pro-life stance is the fact that he still supports the death penalty, given its demonstration of uneven applicability, dependency on how rich the defendant is (or is not), and upon the placing people in the position of playing God. The Catholic Church, as many other denominations have stated a position against the death penalty continuing to be used. This is why Brownback opposed the death penalty. So if this is what you mean by not being main-stream pro-lifer, then I would guess I would agree with you.
Posted by: tc on November 30, 2007 11:58 AMYou must realize by now that when it comes to Presidential politics at least 80% of the voters are ignorant of the actual stances and positions of the candidates. It's a fact of modern day campaigning, that is why so many campaigns go negative so that they can 'teach' voters about the 'real record' of their opponents. It is all for naught, the end result is that come election day 80% of the voters still don't have a full understanding of the candidates and will base their votes on a piece of the pie or something they heard.
The candidate who takes best advantage of that is usually the winner. Personality plays a huge part in the end. If a candidate is thought of as truthful and has a couple things in common with the voter, that is enough. Hence the other candidates' need to separate people from that perception of Huckabee. Attacking his economic or immigration opinions will move a smaller section of voters than effectively attacking his credibility.
Romney v. Huckabee in Iowa - that's what it has to come down to. Romney's conservative supporters have doubts about his credibility so they are willing to move to another candidate. They will continue to do so unless Romney goes after Huckabee's credibility rather than some lesser position problems.
Posted by: Doug on November 30, 2007 12:22 PMFor conservatives who care about more than one issue, as I do, and even for one issue pro-lifers who want a candidate to trust, Life of the Party says, "wait before hopping on the Huckabee Horse."
Posted by: Michelle on November 30, 2007 01:30 PMOne thing to keep in mind is that there are also fiscal moderate, social conservative Dems. My grandmother, an FDR-dust bowl Dem who has never voted GOP has said she will not vote for Hillary and that if it comes down to Hillary-Huckabee, she just might vote GOP.
Another issue is the many hats Republican like my dad who is an Evangelical, business, and hawk Republican. He will vote GOP regardless, but in the primary he will vote Evangelical first.
Me? I'm an Evangelical, period, and am very close to voting Huckabee regardless of what the GOP does. I'm a little tired of voting for a facsimile.
Okay back to work now!
Posted by: Jessica on November 30, 2007 01:39 PMfantastic article/post. very informative. thanks.
Posted by: dinesh on November 30, 2007 02:13 PMThe difference is that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater supported the ultimate nominee when their own campaigns failed. You do the best you can with your own campaign, but if you lose, you support your party over the other, because the planks of the other candidates will align closer with yours.
Ron Paul's stated he won't. That tells me he is not a Republican, but just using the party as a way to get publicity/notice.
Ron Paul shows that he's really a selfish and immature man - it's his way or the highway, no compromise. If we don't elect him he has publicly stated he will not support his "claimed" party.
Ron Paul may have some conservative ideas, but he is no Republican. Here's some immortal words to consider:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 30, 2007 05:03 PMIn November 2008 it looks like there may be a successful Iraq with a reduced contingent of US military forces present not as an unwanted occupier but an ally of a Democratically elected Iraqi government with its people united by the common victory over a foreign terrorist threat(al Qaeda). Both Ron Paul's supporters and the Nancy Pelosi party may have to swallow more than a little crow or look increasingly out of touch with reality.
Posted by: KW64 on November 30, 2007 05:30 PMAll I can say is AMEN.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 30, 2007 06:07 PMI would like to ask you to give some consideration to what constitutes leadership. Rep. Paul has over many years earned my abiding respect. He has been a voice of principle and reason in a body which has hardly distinguished itself in that respect during recent years.
But leadership is more than ideas and principles. To be a successful leader a man must be able to motivate others to share and act upon his vision.
There are a fair number of people in Washington who have, to varying degrees over the years, worked on legislation involving Rep. Paul and his office. Ask around.
Rep. Paul can always be counted upon to make a well-reasoned and articulate speech on the floor of the House, soundly grounded on Constitutional principles, structured and phrased in a manner which would have been familiar to the Framers themselves.
This is an important contribution. These principles can not be ignored, they must be stated. It simply must be said. But there is a big difference between saying and doing.
And in the House getting it done means persuading 217 other people to act. If you go to the House website, go to Rep. Paul's page, and go to the legislation page
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
you can see the list of legislation he has SPONSORED during the last four Congresses. The 107th-109th were those with Republican majorities.
What you see reflected in the list of co-sponsors for Rep. Paul's legislation is a great deal of principle but not much in the way of results.
Ron Paul has an ambitious agenda for change. Were he to become President, implementing this agenda would require him to move a great deal of legislation through Congress.
Does his track record give you reason to believe he would be successful? I will not dispute that Rep. Paul has inspired thousands of Americans to support him, financially and publicly. But when I look at his track record of legislation I do not see real results.
Rep. Paul has served for over 20 years in Congress. I believe that is where he is most needed, and where he can best serve his country.
Driving the moderates or the conservatives out of the party may make some feel more comfortable; but remember when Goldwater got smashed, the Democrat majority in Congress was increased and the Great Society programs that proved disastrous were ushered in. Whoever runs on the Democratic ticket will be a liberal because no one but a liberal can get the Democratic Party nomination anymore. Conservative Republicans need to agree to support a moderate if he is nominated because the alternative is not only a liberal president but an increasingly liberal congress as conservatives who stay home will allow more Democratic congressmen.
When Reagan, a conservative, was nominated and the moderates hung with him and turned out, not only did Reagan win, but a Conservative Senate was elected that paved the way to much lower marginal taxes and renewed economic growth. When conservatives hung with both moderate Bushes they won but when many switched over to a supposedly socially conservative Southerner, Jimmy Carter, the true moderate Gerald Ford was beaten and the result was a pacifist and economically liberal government.
The lesson is that conservative Republicans can win and moderate Republicans can win if we do not let the liberals divide us. Liberals are much fewer in numbers than either moderates or conservatives.
Posted by: KW64 on November 30, 2007 06:57 PMI am not so sure it is different people. I know plenty of people my age that want lower taxes and less intrusive government (such as ending the drug war).
But you are right, pretty much everyone will find a position or two that Paul takes that they are not confortable with. But how is that different from any other politician out there? The plus side is that you KNOW the position you will not support him with upfront because he is 100% honest about his positions. I am not thrilled about his position on immigration. But you know what... Overall he is by far the best candidate out there for me and he is for most conservatives in our state as well.
Why get hung up on the one thing you disagree with the man on when you agree with him on so much more?
Posted by: Travis on November 30, 2007 09:21 PMI agree with you. I get tired of the media always trying to force viewers into thinking of the candidates in the one dimension. Romney always gets the mormon angle pushed. Huckabee gets the preacher angle. Paul gets the 'longshot' angle or internet support only angle.
Why not just report on what their positions are and let the people decide if they are too much or a preacher or their religion is too out there, or whether the candidate is really a long shot or not. We the people are smart enough to figure that out on our own.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 30, 2007 09:26 PMIf the "strong national security" you refer to is a code for supporting the war in iraq and possibly iran, then yes it might lead to a rallying of social conservatives and pro-big business conservatives in order to defeat the pro free-market and anti intrusive government type conserviates candidate Ron Paul in the primary but it will also ensure the victory of the democrats in the general election.
2006 should have taught the GOP that the people are not impressed with our interventionist foriegn policy. I think a big chunk of conservatives in fact did learn that lesson. Over a third now want our troops out of Iraq!
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 30, 2007 09:35 PM2. I believe that the lamestream media should push Hillary on the Chinese money connection and they should push Paul/Chavez/Mugabe on his associations with Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and the KKK. Don't expect any answers from either presidential candidate and the lamestream media is as always asleep at the switch.
Posted by: WVH on November 30, 2007 10:22 PMSo a third want our troops out of Iraq; that would mean that 2/3rds want us to stay and finish the job.
You know, the job that includes the surge, the surge that even John Murtha admits is working.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 30, 2007 10:51 PMI would classify examining .0001% of a candidates supporters as more of the ignoring the candidates issues. Paul for example has positions that are about as far away from the KKK and nazis so questioning him on a couple people that sent him money that identify with that groups is ignoring the issue.
I am guessing that since this is all you dwell on you will disagree.
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 07:39 AMwell just because a third want the troops home, does not mean the other two thirds want them to stay in iraq. ALot are undecided and more are coming over to oppose the war. The general population is 70 opposed to the war.
Pauls opposition to the war has never hinged on how well the surge is working. His opposition is based on the our founding fathers advice to mind our business. The war without or with the surge is creating more hostile people that develope int terrorists. Oh and he is also opposed how we unconstitutionally went to war.
Yes a majority of republicans still support it, but a majortiy of americans are against it. Do you want to win the primary and lose the general?
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 07:44 AM"he has a chance to win our state in the general"
So the majority of the state like Ron Paul doesn't buy into the 9-11 Truther nonsense?
Cool...
Posted by: juandos on December 1, 2007 07:47 AMWould you approve of a law that allowed you personally to never have to pay taxes ever again?
My guess is that 70% of the country would approve that. Does that mean that the government is wrong and people should never have to pay any taxes? The government has to do what the country needs done and the people cannot do for themselves. This means that if a job needs to be done in Iraq for the benefit of this country's long-term security, then just maybe they need to get the job done even if 70% of the people disagree with it.
My son gets medicine, even if he doesn't like it. I tell him to act like a man and take the medicine he needs. For all you anti-war liberals and Ron Paul supporters - this might be a case where you need to act like men and take your medicine.
Posted by: Doug on December 1, 2007 08:12 AM
December 1, 2007 -- FOLKS in Washington seem to think that the unexpected success of Ron Paul in the Republican primary suggests the country is in some kind of "libertarian moment" that will reshape American politics. Sorry: While I'd be delighted if the GOP were gripped by libertarianism - that is, a resurgent commitment to economic and social freedom - the truth is actually quite the opposite. ...
I am going to shock the heck out of you. I would be inclined to look at Paul/Chavez/Mugabe's positions if he were a credible candidate. I read quite a bit, but I can't read everything. Can you come up with another presidential candidate on the republican side when confronted with the kind of questions addressed to Paul about Nazis, KKK, and the Aryan Nation has not: 1. Disavowed the support and returned the contribution 2. diassociated themselves from such groups?
Can you come up with a republican candidate for president other than Strom Thurmond, David Duke or George Wallace who was running as an independent who has received such support?
I await your research on that issue.
Second, how does Paul/Chavez/Mugabe expect to be leader of all the United States if he associates with Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and the KKK. The Nazis still believe in the final solution of exterminating all Jews and they are not too fond of Catholics either as they are controlled by the Pope. The KKK still believes in lynching Blacks and the Aryan Nations believes that all races other than Caucasians are inferior and should be driven out of the US.
According to the guarantees of the US Constitution, people should receive equal treatment by the laws and government. So, your estimate of 0001% effect of this support is way off the mark. The effect is more like 90-95%.
I await you naming a major republican presidential candidate other than David Duke or Strom Thurmond receiving the kind of support that Paul/Chavez/Mugabe does.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 11:09 AM
After Mike Huckabee recently spoke before the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), suddenly his candidacy shot forward, placing him in the "Top Tier" among Republican candidates. Obviously, Huckabee is "in the hip pocket" of the CFR. Only Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are standing firm against the Illegal Invasion from Mexico. THANKS TO DR. C. BRADLEY MORRIS for sending me the material below, which proves what I have said. -- Duane
From: "C Brad Morris"
Subject: Video of Mike Huckabee Calling for Scholarships and In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens:
To: "'DUANE MAXEY'"
Bro. Duane,
I received this today from a list I belong to, thought you might be interested.
Brad
Video of Mike Huckabee Calling for Scholarships and In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens:
http://arkjournal.com/2007/11/following-is-from-one-of-my-favorite.html
Ron Paul says: "When we subsidize something we get more of it".
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 1, 2007 11:13 AMYes Paul has recieved money from Nazis and prostitutes. It probably totals about .001% of the money he has raised. Funny how so many people want to dwell on that .001% rather than the other 99.999 percent of his supporters and dollars raised.
He does not keep company with these people however. He just will take their money and use it to promote a small limited constitutional government. Do you want a limited constitutional government?
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 11:19 AMI think that many who post here think that borders should be secure and the deluge of illegal migrants should be halted. The American people have thus far thwarted the immigration bill proposed by Bush and the Chamber of Commerce.
The question to you and others is whether the tactic should be to pressure frontrunning credible candidates to look at migration from a national as opposed to state perspective and whether the frontrunnings candiates are better than second and third tier candidates over all?
What you are suggesting is the government is like a parent and we the people are like kids. Many people like this idea and think it is great for the state to treat us like kids. For the past 100 years or so we have refered to these people as democrats.
Ron Paul is thankfully is different! He beleives the government gets its power from the people which is the direct opposite of what you seem to be suggesting when you suggest the government is like the parent and us the kids. Ron Paul differs from Huckabee and others by treating us like adults that can live freely without government interference.
Thankfully more republicans are donating to Ron Paul than any other in our state. This signals that us republicans are rejecting the nanny state that you are suggesting we embrace.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 1, 2007 11:23 AMAny response to my question to you. What other republican candidates other than Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and George Wallace receive money from the Nazis, Aryan Nation, and KKK? Sorry, if you can;t answer, your Consitutional defense falls flat on its face.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 11:25 AMIt is JUST AMAZING that others seem unable or unwilling to grasp the excellent points you are making here. And all they have to respond is name-calling and smear tactics. I think this proves our positions are a serious threat to theirs.
They are really working against their own long-term rational self-interests.
I guess you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 1, 2007 11:48 AMIf there were another Republican candidate other than Ron Paul,that would end the war,secure the borders,and limit Big Gubmint,I would have to consider them before I would consider a Democrat.
Years of being on the small business hamster wheel will do that.
I went from employing Pot heads and making money,to putting potheads in jail,Hiring Mexicans, selling at higher prices to keep the pot heads in jail,and running on a hamster wheel.
Criminal Justice,and war spending represents the biggest the biggest percentage of the rise in govement overhead.
we need to let the non violent criminals out of our prisons,and put them to work towing the cart rather than being on it.
Illegal Immigration would not have the enabling business sector to help it thrive.
We do not need an illegal alein workforce.
We need to let our work force out of Our jail's and prison's.
Ron Paul is the only candidate period..that will allow this to happen.
that is why I will vote for Ron Paul,even if I have to write it in.
The democratic process is you get to vote for whom you wish, but some of the followers of Paul/Chavez/Mugabe would subvert the democratic process.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 12:44 PMThe only whoring around here is your shilling for Paul/Chavez/Mugabe. The Lusty Lady marquee has more recent jokes. Any response to my questions to Travis?
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 12:47 PMThompson does not show fire in the belly - he and McCain are on the ropes and after the first primary, they may both be out of the running. Same goes for Ron Paul - after the first primary, unless there are unforeseen surprises in store.
Posted by: KS on December 1, 2007 12:58 PMNope. Cause it really does not matter who donated to Paul nor does it matter whether they donated to other people.
The important thing about candidates is what they stand for and whether they truly will defend what they stand for. Paul stands for limited government and his 20 years as a congressman has shown his record back up what he says.
The other candidates running for president either do not stand for limited government or they will promise it only to not give it because they were bought and sold by some corporations.
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 08:26 PMI never expected your or Brucie to answer my question. The republicans that read these threads knew the answer already. Point is that Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is not a republican, he really is an independent or third party candidate attempting to use the republican banner. As soon as Rudy chooses a social conservative to run as Veep, Paul/Chavez/Mugabe will then have to decide whether to run as a third party candidate with Kucinich on the leave Iraq now platform. You and Brucie will not vote republican if Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is not nominated and the republican activists know this. They also know that nominating Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is the only thing that can overcome Hillary's sky high negatives. It would be the situation of Edwards v. Duke in Louisiana-vote for the crook and Hillary needs that leverage. Thanks for stating what I already knew.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 08:43 PMYou stated in #63, "The republicans that read these threads knew the answer already."
I would like to ask not just republicans but all those regular readers out there... Do you agree with WVH's accusation that Paul is a racist, bigot, nazi, and should be lumped in with Hitler, Chavez, and Mugabe? Are you greatly concerned that he may have a few scumbags donate a few bucks to his campaign?
Or are you more concerned with Pauls policy positions?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 1, 2007 10:10 PMGive it UP, already! I've been following this spat for quite a while. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but there is no evidence for your claims about him.
I think it says a lot about you that you'd be willing to support Giuliani and not Paul, but that you would claim that Paul is not a Republican because he will not support Rudy. If I remember correctly, you are not a Republican either. Who cares?!
I am a Republican and I will NOT be supporting Rudy!
Posted by: Michelle on December 1, 2007 10:14 PM1. Have have posted the following article from the American Thinker on another thread:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=American+Thinker+and+Ron+Paul&btnG=Google+Search
Oh, by the way, do you plan to give up your prolife stance anytime soon?
There is plenty of evidence in the record, read the article and no, I won't give it up already, will you?
2. Michelle, I am an indie and given a choice of supporting Hillary over Paul, I would vote for the crook. Paul has a 20 year association with Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and the KKK. As far as I know, no other republican candidate has that association. If you have info about any of the other candidates with such an association - post it.
Give up hounding Paul/Chavez/Mugabe, well when the life of the party gives up their pro-life stance. Campaigning against bigots is very prolife.
So, if you wish to answer the question I posed to Travis, please do so.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 10:47 PMI thought you were supporting Lyndon B Larouche
since you are so heavy on the conspiracy scandal machine called Ron Paul.
Lyndon is and "indie"
Last I heard from Lyndon the Russian's were camped IN FORCE outside of Issaquah waiting to attack the Wal Mart.
LOL
This is my kind of fiscal conservative. Cut all the taxes possible. Spend tax dollars efficiently and effectively to improve infrastructure so business can flourish.
Mike Huckabee is the best candidate running in 2008!
Posted by: Nancy on December 2, 2007 07:59 PMI am supporting no candidate because unlike some who post here who receive mailings from Alpo, I actually listen to stump speeches, read debate transcripts, if I don't watch, research candidate history and look at the issues described on their web site.
There is still plenty of time for individual candidates to make a misstep. Unlike many, if I don't like what I see, I can always vote for Ralph Nader. For those who can't walk and chew kibbles and bits, that means none of the above.
Public Puppy, I'm laughing at you as well, not because you are well informed or a credit to the citizenry at large, but because you are so darn pathetic. I usually adore all kinds of canines, but you are simply a poor excuse for a pooch.
Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2007 08:49 PMThe agents of intolerance are going to spend and spend on fear and fear cause the devil will put out our eyes if'n we don't..
They put too many les desirables on the cart.
Plus they are boring.Thats no fun attall,which means no vote at all for me...
You said:
"Sorry,I fell down."
After reading your posts and looking at the symptoms for head injury or brain damage:
"After a head injury, a person may experience a period when his or her brain does not function normally. The person may become confused, have partial memory loss, and lose the ability to learn normally...."
I think you should leave the keyboard and proceed to the nearest ER to have them look at your symptoms. Hope they can help you, it is better to have half a functioning brain than none.
Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2007 10:36 PMOf course I don't plan to give up my pro-life stance EVER, but of course, my stance is legitimate.
And though any fighting against racism is legitimate, your charges against Paul are not!
This is strictly guilt by association dished out by someone with an extreme amount of time on his hands (not to mention, being obsessed), to go and dig up dirt on supporters of Ron Paul, not Ron Paul himself. I don't have that kind of time to be so tedious, even if I were interested in digging up dirt on the supporters of my political opponents, including Paul's. It would be much more effective to find material on the man himself.
As for the "well documented" column you link to, I see that yes, there are some white supremecists that support him. However, if you read their discussions, you'll find them arguing amongst themselves because he does not share their views of a 'white nation'". For instance, here is one example:
Ron Paul is the best of a bad lot. Consider this.
There is no candidate that supports our beliefs fully because our philosophy is not accepted in mainstream society due to America's mainstream media influence.
Ron Paul may not be a WN, but at least he advocates less emphasis on special treatment of minorities and foreign policy and more on individual freedoms.
Everyone must realize that no matter who we vote in office, our idealistic nation will not form until a revolution occurs. But would you really vote for a Democrat who will throw money at minorities or a current Republican who will continue putting our white troops in harm's way?
Just following a few of those links, this is the kind of stuff one finds if they take the time. Tedious. And what a viscious attack because the column *looks* "well documented", but most readers will not bother to follow all of those links. However, Ron Paul's detractors run the risk of having this whole thing backfire by continuing to spread this smear.
I would really rather spend my time helping my candidate though.
Posted by: Michelle on December 2, 2007 11:49 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_xH0IODRA
It shows Reagan, Cheney and GW Bush clearly expressing Ron Paul's position on the Iraq war. No nation-building, no entangling alliances, no war without an exit plan.
It proves that Ron Paul's position in the war is Republican. Yes, these video clips were from 1964 to about 2000, but Reagan's remarks were intended to be general positions of philosophy, and Cheney and Bush were actually referring to Iraq or the Middle East.
The response will come: "but 9/11 changed all that." No, 9/11, as many good conservatives have pointed out, was at the end of a long string of attacks that began under other, often Democratic administrations, such as Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis, the Cole bombing, the US embassy bombing, the first WTC attacks, etc. All of these were "blowback" for our failed Middle East policies.
Please. copy and paste this link. Watch the first 5:25, and tell me that Ron Paul's position is not Republican, or not conservative.
Nation-building is liberal Wilsonianism. How did the liberals take over the Republican Party?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 12:28 AMDid you get my e-mail? If not, please contact me and send me your correct e-mail address.
Posted by: Michelle on December 3, 2007 12:37 AMI guess you also have not really looked at Mike Huckabee's record in Arkansas, especially pro-life record. There is a reason why the pro-choice foes are so upset with Huckabee. They know his record.
As far as the Catholic Church and death penalty, I refer you to: http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/default.asp.
You have so many mis-truths in your statements, it is hard to believe. You seem to want to believe the third-party false Internet stories, instead of the actual facts. Club-for-Growth is wrong in their ads, so is Mitt Romney's flier on immigration, for example. Please get the real facts.
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 08:26 AMI am not sure using this term to describe Huckabee is necessarily a "slam" as you intended. Per the Wikipedia description, Economic Liberalism's roots are with Adam Smith's philosphy of a free market (e.g., "Let the market decide"). I think you meant to "slam" Huckabee in stating that he was a "Keynesian" based policition, which is more associated with the Kennedy, liberal end of the Democratic party. As has been shown through the 1990's, the best working model for the economy, actually is getting back to the Adam Smith's roots, focusing on the market (e.g., more the Monetarist, Friedman/Chicago School of economics), as practiced by Greenspan, which was the major driver to keeping the economy growing. This along with the combination of Newt's Compact in the mid-1990's calling for a balanced budget, and Clinton going along with this economic policy (e.g., having Rubin at Treasury, who was a Monetarist, and Robert Reich, also in his administration, who also is a Monetarist), produced the prolonged growth in the 1990's. It also produced a balanced budget. The Irony is Clinton could not have done it without Newt. It is unfortunate that GW has undone all the hard work in the 1990's that produced the growth.
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 09:01 AM1. Under our system of government, you are entitled to support, work for, and vote for any candidate you wish, even a bigot.
2. You said this:
"Of course I don't plan to give up my pro-life stance EVER, but of course, my stance is legitimate."
A question to you. Why is your stance legitimate while anyone that disagrees with you not legitimate?
Now you said this:
"This is strictly guilt by association dished out by someone with an extreme amount of time on his hands (not to mention, being obsessed), to go and dig up dirt on supporters of Ron Paul, not Ron Paul himself. I don't have that kind of time to be so tedious, even if I were interested in digging up dirt on the supporters of my political opponents, including Paul's. It would be much more effective to find material on the man himself."
This is how the Paultards decided to approach Medved after he questioned Paul's associations:
"In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."
Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as 'David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:
"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? ... I'm voting for Ron Paul."
Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support. Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Michelle, your response is so canned and so out of the Paultard playbook. Hope you have enough free time to respond. Brucie sent me an e-mail, I might still have his address, if you need it. I guess birds of a feather.
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 10:22 AM
A further point. I know very little about Huckabee, but he has taken several slams here and his supporters don't engage in the same paranoid rantings that you Paultards do, any explanation as to why?
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 10:27 AMIn Lyndon's last report The Russians have left Krispy Kreme in Issaquah
and are preparing to attack the Target in Issaquah.
The Target sign may have been hit hit small arms fire,or some left over glazed donuts.
Conspiracy galore.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/LaRouche_Theories.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche
Read and laugh at Lyndon,Then laugh at WMD
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 3, 2007 10:53 AMI don't know if you have brain damage or have just been hitting the whiskey too hard. Your response is right out of the Paultard playbook. Refer to the American Thinker quote. Just because you are nuts and support a lunatic doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Maybe you should change your diet from Alpo to a natural based food with rice and no additives.
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 12:17 PMYou are compromising my directive.
Please stop blowing my mission.
I must sneak up on my victims. I do not want them to know that I am out to stop them from controlling my banks and my sports leagues.
Sean Taylor was shot,and it was not an accident,It was a plan to stop the negros from controlling my sports leagues one negro at a time.
If you do not vote for Ron Paul,we will not be able to gain back control of our banks and our sports leagues.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 3, 2007 12:28 PMPlease do not tell the kremlin about the decline of the negro in Baseball,they will take away some of my per diem.
Now I must go attack the jews factory in Issaquah that installs the extra leg muscle in the negro.
You must not continue to make awareness of the general public to warn all Jews and negros, or my mission will be compromised.
Ron Paul must be elected so I can continue on with my mission.
LolOLOLOLOLOL
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 3, 2007 12:50 PMYou said in regards to my stance on the protection of human life:
A question to you. Why is your stance legitimate while anyone that disagrees with you not legitimate?
First, I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is not "legitimate". Second, my position is legitimate because it is based on objective truth. Our nation was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalieble rights, and among these are Life...Governments are instituted among men to protect these rights."
Now as to why you find my response so canned, and why you consider it out of the "Paultard playbook", I just spent several HOURS reading through the material that is linked to in the "American Thinker" article you linked to. I did so independently, not because I am a Ron Paul supporter, I'm not, but because Truth matters! I come up with NOTHING that indicates any racist sentiment on the part of Ron Paul. Some of his supporters, yes. But that does NOT impugn him.
That this happens to confirm the comments from the wider group of Ron Paul supporters, doesn't make it canned, but instead works to validate and help Ron Paul. This is why I say that the attacks on him are backfiring. This is also why I say you should give it up. You're not gaining any ground. Go back and try to come up with something else with real weight. Meanwhile, you have two non-Paul supporters defending him, Pudge and myself.
As I said, it would be much more effective if you had dirt on Ron Paul himself, not a tiny minority of his supporters.
Posted by: Michelle on December 3, 2007 01:18 PM1. An economic liberal, generally, believes that it is a proper use of government to provide for the economic needs of some people. Huckabee expresses this, as do Democrat liberals (and Communists, for that matter), when they're "on" their game, as "concern" for the poor and children. That concern, when personal and expressed with one's own funds, is Christian, but the use of government for that purpose is liberal, immoral, and with regard to Federal spending, unconstitutional. The difference between a socialist and a Huckabee-style economic liberal is that a socialist has a rational, systematic approach based on the assumptions that the liberal only holds emotionally and erratically.
2. My criticism of Huckabee on Life had nothing to do with his record in Arkansas, where it was a political asset.
2. Majority statements of the Catholic Bishops are not Catholic doctrine. Read the Catechism. Catholics (real, believing, Catholics) accept the Bible - and Biblical teaching is unmistakable.
3. Your blanket accusation of "mis-truths," being entirely ambiguous, is impossible to respond to, except to point out that, contrary to your implication, all facts are real.
4. Please, if you want authoritative information, do not rely on Wikipedia (or Wiccans, either). Anyone with a computer can post articles on Wikipedia, or edit existing ones, but only articles acceptable to their liberal editors stay up. At a great cost of time and effort and correspondence with Wikipedia representatives, the Reagan Wing has confirmed that they have no compunction against publishing outright lies based on their political bias.
5. Huckabee policy has little in common with Adam Smith, nor Smith with the more liberal aspects of John Maynard Keynes, though Keynes and Kennedy are what would be the conservative end of modern Democrat Party thought (if it were represented at all.)
6. You say, "The Irony is Clinton could not have done it without Newt," but, it would be more accurate to say, "Clinton WOULD not have been FORCED INTO it without Newt" The fact is that the first two years of Clinton were an attempted national political dive into full Marxist philosophy that woke up the country and made 1994 possible. The Republican majority stopped Clinton cold, and then began to ferment.
Make it three.
I have not endorsed Ron Paul, either, but this particular line of attack is baseless and becoming counterproductive.
Paul is under no obligation to personally screen all 120,000+ of his donors for their beliefs, nor to return funds of people with whom he disagrees. Nor is he under any obligation to respond to attacks by any hypocritical radio talk show host who cares to write an "open letter". It is enough to reject the objectionable beliefs, themselves, and Paul has done that. Reading the websites of the White Nationalists, alone, confirms that he disagrees with them and they know it.
If Medved were not a hypocrite, he would have written an open letter calling on Rudy Giuliani to renounce BOTH his support BY and his support OF the riot-hardened homosexual terrorist group "Stonewall". But Rudy gave them breakfasts in the mayor's mansion every year. Not a peep from the "cultural crusader."
The word "Paultard" is a measure of your intellectual infantilism, WVH, as are all your references to Chavez and Mugabe. It is scurrilous ad hominem on the level of a schoolyard brat.
Posted by: Doug Parris on December 3, 2007 01:49 PMBesides, where is his support? When he tried a money bomb two weeks ago in a meek imitation of Dr. Paul's supporters, word got out at 1 PM EST and by 7 PM EST Dr. Paul's supporters had passed him, after a 13-hour head-start!--and the HuckaBomb was 3 weeks in the making, and the Paulunteer response was same-day, spur-of-the-moment.
So Hucakbee can't raise any money. His poll numbers are inflated. Why? Because the MSM needs someone else to distract from the stumblings and failings of Romney, McCain, Guliani, and Thompson, and also to further distract from the rise of Dr. Paul, which drives them NUTS! Huckabee doesn't turn out supporters as the straw polls and rallies suggest by the lack of presence of his supporters. So why is this guy even considered a player if he has no money, no support, and bad policies?
Watch what happens on Dec. 16 and prepare to be shocked, astonished, and amazed...
RP08!
Posted by: Tannim on December 3, 2007 02:38 PM1. Modern economics basically starts with Adam Smith. Within the last 50 years (or so), three economic thoughts have dictated government's view on economics. The first being Keynesian, which basically thought that government could control the economy through taxes and government spending. The second is Monetarist (Friedman/Chicago School), which basically states that government should stay out of controlling the economy through tax and spending policies, instead the economy should be controlled via central bank's money supply policy (Greenspan). The third school is Laffner's Supply-side economics, which believes the economy can grow via reduction of taxes of the rich (i.e., trickle-down economics). The question of tax policy only relates really to the last group, who believes trickle down works, yet as demonstrated in the 90's the managing of the money supply brought about a balanced budget. This is something the supply-siders have never demonstrated. Both under Reagan and GW, the tax cuts have been a significant contributor to the deficit ballooning. Your reference to government's role in individual's life isn't really economic policy (per se), it is more relating to big government (Liberal Democrat) versus minimal/no government (Libertarian view). In this sense, I would agree that Huckabee isn't has conservative as some Republicans. I still would put him in the spectrum of McCain and Romney. It is hard to tell where Thompson is really at, since he is so lackluster in campaigning. If minimal government candidate is what you are after, then you should be a Ron Paul person, who is the most minimalistic in view of government's role.
2. (Pro-life stance) If it isn't on his 11 years as govenor, then what is your argument. You have never stated where he isn't mainstream pro-life.
Second 2 (Catholics) I am not Catholic, so I don't claim to know exact Catholic stance. Is the website, I quoted, not an official Catholic website? Isn't in addition to the Bible, the Pope's words also viewed as infallible? With regards to the Bible, just a note, there is no where in the Bible where it states that Life begins at conception. Psalm 139, which is often quoted, only states that God knew us in the womb. The theological stance of life beginning at conception has been an oft-debated issue throughout the years (go back to ST. Thomas Aquainos (sp?) to view early stances on the subject). I believe the Catholic Church's opinion is that any artificial obstruction of the natural act is against the teaching of the church and thus the ban on contraceptives also (i.e., it is based at even earlier than the moment of conception). I actually find this stance more theologically correct, but not necessarily implementable in a pluristic society. From an end-of-life/medical argument, one could point to the beginning of brain activity as the start of life (around 11-14 weeks), since we operate under the thought that "physical" life ends when there is no longer brain activity.
3. All your facts are real. First off, very little of what you wrote would be considered facts. Most all of it, along with what I have written, would be considered opinion, not facts. Let's take a few statements, for example:
In your post @23, you state "Mike Huckabee's economic liberalism does NOT represent evangelical thought, though it represents the views of some evangelicals." This isn't a fact, it is an opinion. To make it a fact, you would need to (1) state what specific economic liberalism you are talking about (I have already demonstrated that the term is not used in its generally accepted context) and (2) what the "mainstream" (as stated in 42) though is (and where you get this "mainstream" thought from). I have seen nothing in Huckabee's stances that seperate him from mainstream evangelicals. What specifically are you talking about?
At 42, in my response to looking up the facts, you state "I have. Huckabee is an economic liberal and his website is an attempt to mislead." This means that you have looked at his website. What does he state there that is an attempt to mislead? Can you provide examples? Again, it is an opinion that may or may not be proved. My guess is however, if it has errors, his opponents would jump all over them. Most campaign websites are often more vague and safe than full of errors. What other news sources can you refer to. I would refer you to: FoxNews Politics section, Real Clear Politics, ABC News Politics, CBS News Politics, Slate Magazine, MSNBC Politics section, Washington Post Politics, New York Times, etc., plus here at Sound Politics. All of these sources, and more, are what I read to get the full picture.
5. I am not sure where you are going with your 5th point. Of course Smith isn't like Keynes, although Keynes built upon the work of Adam Smith, much like the Monetarists looked at the failings of Keynesian economics to come up with their model. The supply siders are on the outside. I still agree with Bush Sr, that this is vodoo economics. It has never been demonstrated to work. What it has shown is that large tax cuts increase the deficit and increase the gap between rich and poor. Frankly, I am tired of the CEOs and Fund Managers fleecing of the economy while the middle class ends up paying for it. We are talking about people making billions per year and paying 15% or less in taxes. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are right on this subject. They both feel they can pay more in taxes, instead of less. Huckabee is populist in his approach. He didn't grow up rich. He worked his way through college on his own. As a pastor, he didn't make that much money. To me, I feel he identifies alot better with the common man, than GW (who had everything given to him in life) or even Romney.
6. One could argue your point. My main point is that the budget was balanced through the nineties with the combination of Newt and Clinton. Neither one of them could have done it on their own, nor could they have done it without Greenspan managing the money supply at the Fed. Newt forced congress to get serious about not spending money that wasn't there. Clinton held the line on tax cuts (only implementing target tax cuts), so as not to increase the deficit. Greenspan, kept the economy in check so that there wasn't inflation, nor recession. Remember, it was more Rubin (at the treasury), than Clinton, that had a major influence on the administration's economic policy. Clinton, simply listened to the person who was more knowledgable on the subject. Add to this Reich (also an economist) at Labor, one can see that the Monetarist view did produce the necessary model for obtaining what everyone desired (a balanced budget).
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 02:58 PMIt seems to be that the media has noticed that Fred actually could challenge Guiliani, and wants someone who will let their favorite...Guiliani, win.
If the conservatives get split enough on each of their personal issues, and each candidate is a one issue candidate, then it is easy to split us up and give the nomination to the liberal, fiscally conservative media who has always picked Guiliani for the Republicans. These latest articles about Fred not doing anything? Just covering their own negativity. Fred is not a showman...he can't even act, which is why he plays himself in most movies. So why does the media insist that he put on shows? That is Romney's spot. Pure show...no substance.
Let's get together on the one candidate who fills the bill for everyone. Go Fred!
Posted by: Deidre on December 3, 2007 03:36 PMI do agree with your point that he plays the same character on TV and in the movies. He played a very good crumudgeon Admiral in Hunt for Red October. That doesn't make him a good president. Reagon had the gift of communication, which is why he was able to get stuff down. He could sit down with Tip O'Neil and have a conversation. It was the same with the Soviets and others.
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 06:20 PMFirst, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?
I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.
Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It's only the beginning, I told him.
Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.
But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only 30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through inflation and bombs.
Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don't like what we're doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.
Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 09:01 PM1. I may be infantile in your words but I don't associate with those who propose to exterminste other races, religions, or creeds such as Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK. I immediately disawow such types. Guess what, seen a press release from Paul/Chavez/Mugabe on the subject, Thought so. Now, Huckabee has been slammed on this site and others, the response feom his supporters differs markerdly from the Paultards.
2. Have any response to the American Thinker piece posted above?
3. Good grief, if I'm gaining adherents for Paul/Chavez/Mugabe, maybe his campaign should give me a salary. The entire salary should be donated to the Salvation Army, of course. I get Paultards for the cause, the Salvation Army gets a big donation, and if Paul/Chavez/Mugabe pays me out of his funds, he gets a charitable donation. A real win-win for all.
As long as I'm gaining followers for your cause most prudent people would shut-up and let me keep rounding up Paultards for you, don't ya think?
Any reponse to the American Thinker?
Meanwhile, rounding up support for your cause.
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 10:11 PMOn Wikipedia:
I know precisely how Wikipedia works, you apparently, do not. Anyone can post or edit. Anyone can correct any post or another's edit. Truth is NEVER a criterion, it's just who wants what, who gets there first, who gets there last, who gets there most often, and who has staff access. Wikipedia has no settled concept of "truth." In many cases, the scenario you paint is exactly the opposite of what happens. For instance, On Minutemen Founder, Jim Gilchrist: "if something true gets posted, it will quickly get dismissed and overwritten with the incorrect information. If someone continually posts true, corrected information or other continual anti-abuses they get banned from posting." Mr. Gilchrist has been continually slandered, there, can document the lies and errors, and has made the corrections, as have many others, with legal documentation, all to no avail. Insiders at Wikipedia always change it back to the slanders. The people in control at Wikipedia told me, directly, that they had no interest in "Truth" as objective phenomena, simply trusting to whatever idea or version of events becomes "consensus." Bear in mind, further, that "consensus" is not "democratic" at all. There is never a fair, public, one-man-one-vote determination, and never any accounting for repeat revision activity by their own liberal staff. It is like a prison yard of intellectual gangs, making their own rules, struggling for power in the tradition of the Hegelian Dialectic.
With regard to your use of the term "economic liberal," I agree we are not speaking the same language. I use the term in the same sense that, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative wing of the Republican Party use it. You use it in the same sense that "progressive" academics use it and you hold their economic views.
There is no reason to quibble over terms. But I will dispute your sense of history.
Free enterprise economics, as a national practice, basically started with Moses who established private property ownership and a system of laws protecting citizens from injustice, abuse and government. That system vested the source of wealth (the Land) in private hands in perpetuity, and made both deficit spending and "monetary policy" impossible. It was a system without interest rates or inflation. Until the advent of the United States, Original Israel, together with the nation that it generated, was the greatest "system" with regard to freedom in World history, and one of the most prosperous and it lived, that way, a bit longer than twice the age of the U.S., culminating in corruption, that is to say, gradual abandonment of the original system by its participants. (the same problem we face as a nation).
Free enterprise economics in the modern world arose concurrent with Democracy and the American Revolution, not as theory, but as the result of adhering to, essentially, the same rules Moses introduced, because the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the U.S. were Biblical Christians.
When you say "Modern economics basically starts with Adam Smith," it is like saying "Gravity started with Newton." What you mean is that "modern economic THEORY" so began, because that is all that happened. Gravity and Free Enterprise economies started long before Newton or Smith.
What conservatives have to dispute, economically, with what I called "liberals" (If you can suggest an alternative term, let me know), is the role of government as a "provider." The primary question is whether or not it is the appropriate role for Government to guarantee basic human economic needs, or other provisions that are produced by men's labor and property, by taking some of that labor and property (by force) from the producers to give to those that have not produced. The Huckabees and Clintons and Romneys and Bushes do it piecemeal, one program at a time, while the Communists do it all at once, but it is the same philosophical principle, taking something from those that produced it to give it to those that didn't.
When I said that Huckabee is an "economic liberal" I meant that he is comfortable with, and supportive of, that re-distribution, though the Bible condemns it.
When you say, "Both under Reagan and GW, the tax cuts have been a significant contributor to the deficit ballooning." You repeat a radical left-wing lie, but I will assume you do so from ignorance, sincerely. Both Presidents' tax cuts led to massive economic expansion and much, much greater tax revenue, the antithesis of contributing to a deficit. In Reagan's era, revenues went up SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT. SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT. In both cases deficits ballooned because of profligate spending, spending Reagan opposed and Bush promoted. The Democrats, who controlled Congress under Reagan increased spending 74%. That is precisely the cause of the deficit. Redistribution.
When you say, "It is hard to tell where Thompson is really at, since he is so lackluster in campaigning..." you are repeating another lie. When you say, "...Ron Paul...who is the most minimalistic in view of government's role." You, again, delve into the realm of fabrication. Paul is not as conservative as Tancredo or Hunter and can demonstrate no superiority on purely economic issues to either of them. You seem to think in images created for you by mainstream media.
I disagree that economics is "not intervention" in people's lives. People work for the stuff of their lives, the food and clothing and cars and houses, the stuff they provide for those they love and for their own needs. Their money is that stuff, in liquid form. When Government takes it away, to study the DNA of bears or to bribe the Palestinians to quit bombing Jews or to provide clean heroin needles for junkies, they are intervening in the lives of everyone who pays taxes. It is the greatest intervention Government is currently involved with. It is the root cause of all our economic problems.
I've told you twice already where Huckabee is not a serious pro-lifer. Go back and re-read the posts, I see no need to repeat it. I don't understand why you seem blind to it.
Catholic Doctrine is a matter of both the Scriptures and their "Holy Tradition", not just any tradition. Individual Catholics express opinions, true and otherwise, as does the Pope, on religious issues without affecting the doctrines of the Church. The Pope can make infallible statements, but the Church has never believed that all or just any statement he makes, even on important doctrine, is necessarily infallible. Essentially, he has to let everybody know when he's speaking infallibly and the default mode is "not currently infallible". The idea is that he's not omniscient, just connected. He can know, and express, infallibly, as God reveals truth through him.
The popular doctrinal fads, particularly those held by the theological liberals within the Church, are not necessarily authoritative.
You say, "...there is no where in the Bible where it states that Life begins at conception." First of all, you are wrong. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Bible does not say that. Well, by the same token, it never states that Mike Huckabee has begun his life, either. He is completely omitted. Go read it yourself! Mike Huckabee is not protected by the Bible. Unless, of course, he is a human being. In that case, if we were to be able to determine, by any means, that unborn children, or Mike Huckabee (at any stage of his life) are human beings, then the Bible would forbid killing them. Not a tough problem, Binky. When a child is conceived he is both human and alive. Further, he is not a subcomponent of another human being like a fingernail or an appendix. Further, he is not dependent, any longer, on his parents for anything but basic environmental factors, oxygen, nutrition, warmth, things EVERY human being needs, and can get in many places, so "dependency" is not an issue. You would not survive long, yourself, without air or water. He is a complete individual, genetically independent and viable without his mother; Once conceived, an unborn person can be implanted in the uterus of a completely different, un-related woman and grow up to be the same person, genetically, he would have been with his natural mother. He (or she) is a separate INDIVIDUAL and a human being. The Bible says not to kill him.
But back to your previous error, No... I don't think I'll take the time. Psalm 139, does, in fact establish personhood for the unborn and it is even more explicit elsewhere, but, if you are hungry for the truth, you can find it on your own. This could become tedious for others.
"we operate under the thought that "physical" life ends when there is no longer brain activity."
Speak for yourself.
"All your facts are real."
I didn't say all MY facts are real, I said all facts are real. Facts are the things that are true. Reality. We all have the same reality. Your facts are my facts and they are all real if they are facts at all. It was a joke, actually, but one, apparently over your head. From the rest of the paragraph it sounds like you either missed something I posted on Huckabee or are incapable of understanding it, either. You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
"I still agree with Bush Sr, that this is 'voodoo economics'."
Why am I not surprised? How old are you, anyway? Bush Sr. would never, never say that again. There are few statements in history so emphatically disproved.
"What it has shown is that large tax cuts increase the deficit and increase the gap between rich and poor."
This is absolute bull. You are a thoroughly programmed robot of public indoctrination.
"I am tired of the CEOs and Fund Managers fleecing of the economy..."
Do us all a favor, then, and move to a socialist country. Such a move might improve both nations simultaneously!
"As a pastor, he [Huckabee] didn't make that much money."
He didn't spend much time as a pastor, either. Huckabee is an advertising executive. That is his real gift. And he sure made out as Governor. You need to read up on THAT some time.
"he identifies alot better... than GW... or even Romney."
So why do they have such similar economic ideas?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact. Perhaps you missed it at #90. No matter, try this:
This particular line of attack is baseless. Paul is under no obligation to personally screen all 120,000+ of his donors for their beliefs, nor to return funds of people with whom he disagrees. Nor is he under any obligation to respond to attacks by any hypocritical radio talk show host who cares to write an "open letter". It is enough to reject the objectionable beliefs, themselves, and Paul has done that. Reading the websites of the White Nationalists, alone, confirms that he disagrees with them and they know it.
If Medved were not a hypocrite, he would have written an open letter calling on Rudy Giuliani to renounce BOTH his support BY, and his support OF, the riot-hardened homosexual terrorist group "Stonewall". But Rudy gave them breakfasts in the mayor's mansion every year. Not a peep of objection came from the "cultural crusader."
To expand on the point, you say, "... I don't associate with those who propose to exterminste other races, religions, or creeds such as Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK."
First, it is clear, Ron Paul does not associate with "Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK." The articles you reference don't even make that claim. You're making it up.
Further, none of the people who have contributed to Paul, even the "White Nationalists" "propose to exterminste other races, religions, or creeds."
You are just lying.
You are making up crap.
You are a slanderer and a sloppy one.
The fact is that "White Nationalists" are, racially, a virtual mirror image of liberal black leaders like Charles Rangel, Al Sharpton and the NAACP, proposing the same racial separatism, but for whites, not blacks. Both sides are seriously misguided, but neither one is proposing exterminating the other. Haulocaust deniers, as a matter of fact, among White Seperatists, do so as an extension of their rejection of "extermination" ideology. They reject "extermination" and try to claim that White Nationalists always have. They're wrong, of course.
It is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that Paul has nothing in common with that ideology. It is further, clear, that he