AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

His Nomination Rests on the Demise of the Reagan Coalition

He is a nice enough guy, charming and witty speaker and a populist politician. That’s fine if you want those things in your elected officials. But it is not fine if you are a believer in the Reagan Coalition: Reagan Conservatives Say: Huckabee Not One of Us!

“Since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a “Christian leader” in an ad promoting himself for president?…I suspect that neither Jefferson’s Providence nor Washington’s Great Author nor Lincoln’s Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain.”

Charles Krauthammer

*****

“If the Republican party chooses to follow Huckabee’s lead, it will allow political sweet talk to destroy its greatest electoral and policy-making advantage: the GOP’s traditional political consensus built around limiting the size and scope of government.”

“Indeed, Huckabee explicitly seems to want to destroy the longstanding partnership that has defined the Right. Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s campaign manager, recently dismissed the Reagan coalition as “gone,” saying “it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” That’s quite the claim, but perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. Huckabee has every incentive to distance himself from the GOP coalition; his nomination rests on its demise.”

Dick Armey, Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is chairman of FreedomWorks in Washington, D.C.

Granted, I will give Mike Huckabee credit. Unlike John McCain, who seems to be trying to redefine conservatism to fit his moderate/liberal policy positions, Mike Huckabee makes no bones about the fact that he is running his campaign on the basis that the Reagan Coalition is dead and he sees that as a good thing.

I give credit to Rudy Giuliani for also running on an honest campaign of being a Republican with socially liberal policy positions. However, neither of these politicians will be getting my conservative vote. But I do appreciate them being somewhat honest. Granted, this pretty much shows that Mike Huckabee, like John McCain, is not trying to attract Reagan conservatives, but rather “independents” and “moderates” and those whose main concern is a “Christian Leader”.

Advertisements

January 13, 2008 , 11:10PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Mike Huckabee, Ronald Reagan | Comments Off on His Nomination Rests on the Demise of the Reagan Coalition

An Evangelical’s Reason for NOT Supporting Mike Huckabee

Despite the mantra of the mass media, some political pundits and some bloggers, the evangelicals are not a voting bloc which votes blindly to support a certain political party or person. While I don’t support Mike Huckabee at all, I was a bit annoyed by all the “Iowans are idiots” or “Evangelicals are morons” talk coming out of Mike Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucus and his rise to frontrunner status in the national polls among Republicans. Unfortunately, our society likes to do this: denigrate an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.

There was only a small percentage of Iowans who even bothered to vote in the Iowa Primary, yet people still decided to say that all Iowans were “stupid”, because a few thousand of them voted for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama? Also, Mike Huckabee did not even get the majority of the evangelical vote in Iowa. He earned a higher percentage than any other candidate, sure, but they all did not vote for him. So the contempt shown by people across the country for certain groups, based on small amounts voting, is purely ridiculous.

In that vain, here is a post by “I Pity the Fool!”, an admitted evangelical, who states his reasons for not supporting Mike Huckabee: An Evangelical’s Explanation of Why He Doesn’t Support Huckabee

An exerpt:

It has come to my attention through various conversations over the past few months that there is a general belief among the Republican (conservative) faithful that in order for someone to beat Hillary/Obama we must be moderate. A truly conservative candidate would be nice, they say, but this is just not reality. My friend told me just last night that former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn) would be nice but in order for the GOP nominee to win he must be closer to “moderate.” The logic here is “be more like them in order to beat them.” This logic is such that I must respectfully disagree. The Republican nominee that goes with the if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em routine will be soundly defeated. Here’s why: If you don’t differentiate yourself from your opponent the American people will have no reason not to vote for your opponent. After all, if many positions are the same then one only has two things to work from: 1. Your personality and 2. Whoever has had this position the longest. Either way is bad.

The former Governor Mike Huckabee is just such a moderate candidate. If nominated, I firmly believe (if his record is exposed) that he will be soundly defeated as the swing voters will just stick with the Democratic nominee. As the title of this blog entry indicated I can be classified as an “evangelical Christian,” one of the more powerful voting blocs in the nation at this point. I am ashamed to say that we have been fooled by Huckabee. [ … ]

Go there to read the rest.

Here are a few comments I left there:

“Finally, I do not support Mike Huckabee due to his attempted manipulation of the American voting bloc known as evangelical Christians. “Vote for me–I’m Baptist” is hardly convincing to me.”

Bingo. Aside from all the policy issues on which I disagree with Mike Huckabee, his identity politics and using religion as a weapon in this race has been the biggest turnoff for me with him.

I’m supporting Fred Thompson as well and have been supporting him for months now, after I determined he was the only conservative in the field other than Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s white supremacist and isolationist positions eliminate him from consideration for me. He just does not understand foreign policy at all. His latest comments on the Iranian incident clinched it. Apparently he knows about Gulf of Tonkin, but has no memory of the more recent USS Cole incident.

Hopefully, conservatives will come to their senses in the coming weeks and vote how one should vote – on principle – instead of based on “elecatability”. The Left and the Democrats used that tactic in 2004 with John Kerry and were ridiculed by Republicans. Unfortunately, it seems like many Republicans are now using the same tactic. Instead of talking about policies and principles, Republican voters are talking about “electability”. Funny how 3 years has turned Republicans voters into Democrat voters, huh?

Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 4:26 PM

*****

” Would he be better than Hilary or Obama? Absolutely.”

One more thing… I disagree with this statement. Mike Huckabee is basically a Democrat who is anti-abortion. I don’t call him pro-life, because he has accepted donations from embryonic stem cell research groups. So he is not very principled. The only thing he really has going for him is his charm. However, Bill Clinton had charm too. That is not what makes a good President.

You allude to Jimmy Carter, which is spot on. The only difference I see between Mike Huckabee and Jimmy Carter is that Jimmy Carter was a Democrat and Mike Huckabee is a Republican. Jimmy Carter made the Democrat Party look bad with his weakness and we then had 12 years of Republicans in the White House. Mike Huckabee would have the same effect, only having people entirely lose faith in the Republican Party. As such, I believe Mike Huckabee would be worse than Hillary or Obama in office. 4 years of them and we might have the country wake up to realize that conservatism is better for America than socialism. But 4 years of Mike Huckabee in office might turn off the entire country to both conservatism and the Republican Party.

Something I hope people think about.

Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 4:31 PM

January 13, 2008 , 6:11PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Christianity, Conservatism, Evangelicals, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee | 1 Comment

Fredmentum? Fred Thompson SURGING in South Carolina

The more people get to know Fred Thompson, the more they like him.

Curt at Flopping Aces notes the “surge” of support for Fred Thompson in South Carolina: Fredmentum! Catch the Fevah!

THE NEW YORK TIMES reports that Fred Thompson is surging in South Carolina. And I just got an email from a journalist who says that crowds at Thompson events are suddenly over-capacity. Is it a tipping point for Thompson, or just a blip? Stay tuned.

As Curt notes, one of the best ways to support Fred Thompson, outside of getting out the word about him and his policies, is to donate to his campaign. He has had great success in raising money over the past week and continues to see his donations come in.

One last thing… I remain true to my point that people should not vote for someone based on “momentum” or “popularity” or “electability”. Research the candidates and vote for them based on whether or not you agree with their positions on policies. However, for those of you who have already stated that you want to vote for Fred Thompson, but have reservations based on “momentum”, “popularity” and “electability”, this post is for you.

[Cross-posted at my MySpace Blog

January 13, 2008 , 5:21PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Fred Thompson | Comments Off on Fredmentum? Fred Thompson SURGING in South Carolina

Cha-AAAAARRRRR-gers!

While I wanted to see a rematch of the Colts-Patriots game in the AFC Championship Game, I was glad to see the San Diego Chargers beat the Colts. First, I have been fed up with the Colts-love since they beat my Bears in the Super Bowl last year. Second, I have been fed up with annoying Colts fans, who (1) have an annoying, immature hatred of the New England Patriots and (2) have been annoying for the past few years either whining about losing in the playoffs or bragging about how they have been the best team in the league, but just seem to choke in the playoffs. Newsflash, Colts fans: if you don’t win in the playoffs, you are not the best team, plain and simple.

But the point in the game where I started rooting big time for the Chargers was after the referees took 7 points away from the Chargers right before halftime. After Antonio Cromartie had an amazing return of his tipped pass interception of Peyton Manning, when the Colts looked to be going in for a TD right before Halftime, the referees called some bogus holding penalty during the return that negated the touchdown. After seeing the replay, anyone looking at that objectively could see that was a bogus call. In fact, the Colts’ player actually threw the Chargers player to the ground!

After that play, I turned into a huge Chargers fan for the game. So I’m very glad they won.

On top of which, I thought it was hilarious that the Chargers beat the Colts without having LaDanian Tomlinson for the entire 2nd half, and then didn’t have their QB Phillip Rivers for the key part of the 4th QTR. The Colts got beat by the Chargers 2nd team QB and 2nd team RB. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

*ahem*

Next week, however, I am back to rooting for New England to go 19-0.

January 13, 2008 , 5:20PM Posted by | NFL, Sports | Comments Off on Cha-AAAAARRRRR-gers!

We are Losing

Via Selwyn Duke at The American Thinker comes the read of the day: The Race for the American Mind

[H/T Michelle Malkin]

I personally believe that this is the greatest enemy we face going forward. Not terrorists, not Global Warming, but censorship. It has already been happening all over the world. Don’t know about it? Well, you either have not been paying attention or the mass media is not telling you… or a combination of both.

From those who are exposing the facts about the dangers of Islam to those who are exposing the facts about government officials, left and right these people are being silenced. Either by Corporations such as Google, or government Justice systems such as those in Canada or by pressure from activist groups on private companies, such as the Islamists who pressure companies to not print anything critical of Islam. It has been happening for years, while everyone is busy posting half naked pictures and video on MySpace and Facebook and YouTube, wasting time idolizing people on American Idol or getting a dose of anything but reality on “Reality TV”. Meanwhile, we are losing our freedom of expression.

[ … ] The attack upon free expression is more varied than one may think, but I’ll start with the obvious. Most have heard of the euphemistically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” which would essentially eliminate traditionalist talk radio. People such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage may then be relegated to satellite – assuming they’re willing to leap into the ether – and its far smaller audience.

Then we have hate speech laws, which empower governments to punish people of politically incorrect passions. In Europe, Canada and elsewhere, average citizens have suffered persecution for criticizing homosexuality and Islam and voicing other unfashionable truths. And as hate speech laws become more entrenched and accepted, the list of taboos of the tongue grows longer – and more widespread. They’re coming soon to a theater of social operations near you.

And these laws are netting the famous as well as the anonymous. Two Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” are investigating columnist Mark Steyn and the country’s bestselling news magazine, Macleans, because it published an excerpt from Steyn’s book containing criticism of Islam. In Britain in 2003, Scotland Yard launched an investigation of colorful commentator Taki Theodoracopulos – not for using more letters in a name than one ought – but for “inciting racial hatred” by writing that most criminals in northern English cities were black thugs who belonged to gangs. Across the North Sea in Germany, a leftist politician filed charges against the citizen encyclopedia “Wikipedia” because one of its entries contained too much Nazi symbolism. Here’s the kicker: It was a piece about the Hitler Youth. Then there’s Jewish historian Arno Lustiger, who filed a lawsuit in Germany against Vanity Fair magazine because it published an interview with a neo-Nazi.

While the stout-hearted Mark Steyn won’t end up cooling his heels or capitulating, the same cannot be said of everyone. Wikipedia caved quickly and altered its content, and, although we can expect greater fortitude from more professional operations, the implications are ominous. As such investigations, charges and lawsuits become more prevalent and start to stick, the media will be increasingly gun shy about publishing politically incorrect views. Fewer and fewer will deviate from the new Tass line, until news and commentary are banal, barren and bereft of truth.

Surely, though, some of the millions of blogs and other Internet sources would not be cowed, and it would be hard to arrest every one of their operators. But the government won’t have to. There’s more than one way to skin a Constitution.

While the Internet seems like a wild and woolly land of bits and bytes, just as information can be transmitted at the touch of a button, so can it be suppressed. Remember, when spreading your message, you’re at the mercy of an Internet Service Provider (ISP), hosting company and, to a lesser extent, services that disseminate information, such as search engines. And as these businesses have already proven, they’re more interested in currency than current events.

Consider Google’s well-publicized capitulation to communist China. Using a filter known informally as “The Great Firewall of China,” the search engine’s Chinese version censors information about the independence movement in Tibet, the Tiananmen Square protests and anything else China’s commissars find objectionable.

It seems like Google’s motto “Don’t be evil” should have a corollary: “But cooperating with it is fine.”

It should be noted that Google censors information in its German and French searches as well (and probably elsewhere).

Then there’s Google’s subsidiary YouTube. Early last year it agreed to remove a video Turks found objectionable after a court in Turkey ordered that the site should be blocked in that nation. It took YouTube all of two days to say mercy.

But direct government action isn’t necessary for censorship, as social pressure often suffices. In fact, the private sector often enforces “hate speech” codes even where states do not, such as here in the US. In 2006, pundit Michelle Malkin’s mini-movie “First, They Came” — it showcases victims of Islamic violence — was deleted by YouTube after being “flagged” as inappropriate. Malkin isn’t alone, either, as other anti-Islamism crusaders have not only had videos pulled, but accounts suspended as well.

Getting back to Google, it has also been censoring traditionalist websites from its news search for quite some time now; entities such as The New Media Journal, Michnews.com and The Jawa Report have been victims, just to name a few.

While these information sources can still be accessed, such censorship takes its toll. When the most powerful search engine in the world strikes you from its news service, it reduces both your readership and the amount of information at users’ fingertips.

Censorship threatens individual activism as well. There are now countless everyday folks who disseminate information via email, sometimes to thousands of recipients. It’s a quick, efficient and, most importantly, free way to sound the alarm about matters of import.

Yet email is far from sacrosanct. Social commentators Dr. David Yeagley and Amil Imani had their MSN Hotmail accounts terminated for criticizing Islam. Then there are the proposals to tax or levy fees on email, a truly stifling measure. It would make bulk transmissions prohibitively expensive for the average citizen, thereby robbing him of a resonant Web voice.

It doesn’t take the prescience of Nostradamus to project into the future. If political correctness continues to capture minds and hearts, the pressure – both governmental and social – to call truth “hate speech” and censor it will continue to grow. What happens when search engines not only purge traditionalist dissent from their news services, but also their search results? What about when sites won’t publish such content for fear of being swept away in the ideological cleansing? These entities will fold like a laptop.

It could reach a point where ISPs won’t service you if you send the “wrong” kinds of emails and will block “hateful” sites. Don’t forget that “access forbidden” prompt. At the end of the day – and it may be the end of days – hosting companies may just decide that such sites’ business is no longer welcome, and registrars may even freeze their domains (a hosting company provides a site’s “edifice”; a domain is its “address”). They may be consigned to Internet oblivion.

While these forces march on, we “haters” are busy educating more people every day about the their nature. This brings us to the race for the American mind. If we could influence enough citizens to reject political correctness and oust public officials who serve its ends – if we could sufficiently transform the culture – the dropping of this iron muzzle could be forestalled.

But there’s a reason why I phrased that in the subjunctive.

We are losing.

Education isn’t easy when people aren’t listening. A great victory for the left is that it has dumbed-down civilization, making people lovers of frivolity and vice, comfortably numb.It has created legions of disengaged, apathetic hedonists who wouldn’t read a piece of commentary if it was pasted to a stripper. Such people can be led by the nose and, when they occasionally notice the goings-on in their midst, will welcome the silencing of the “haters.”

And what of us — you? If you are a “hater,” your voice will grow fainter, fainter, fainter . . .. [ … ]

By spreading the truth we could ensure that the thought police wouldn’t succeed in suppressing it.

January 13, 2008 , 5:19PM Posted by | Censorship, Mark Steyn, Media Bias, Political Correctness | 3 Comments