AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Rush: Democrats & Independents, NOT Republicans, are Voting for McCain/Huckabee

Rush Limbaugh points out what pretty much everyone is missing in this entire Primary process: McCain and Huckabee have been seeing success, not because of support from Republicans and Conservatives, but because of support from Democrats and Independents.

This is why it is so aggravating to me to hear people keep giving up on Romney and Thompson, because they think McCain and/or Huckabee are favored more by Republicans/Conservatives. They are NOT. Just stick to supporting your candidate and then vote for him in the Primary! Stop caring about what some schmuck in Iowa or New Hampshire or Wyoming does! Stick to your principles and support your candidate.  Stop with the ridiculous freaking out and wild speculation.

RUSH: Rich Lowry posted something interesting yesterday at National Review Online. He entitled it “The McCain Weakness.” This is what he wrote: “This is it: Conservatives were 54% of the electorate [in New Hampshire] and McCain lost to Romney among them by seven points. When the race moves south, conservatives will probably be 75-80% of the electorate, and they will presumably dominate in closed primaries. But this is the thing: At the outset, it looked like the way the early states were stacked up would help Romney. But once Romney lost Iowa, they were stacked up to help McCain.

“The Arizona senator might be able to all but knock Romney out of the race in Michigan with another strong showing among independents, meaning he could possibly KO Romney without ever beating him handily among Republicans. Weird, huh? Then, with Romney gone, McCain is presumably competing with Huckabee and Rudy (although Fred is still lurking) for those conservative voters and that’s a fight he could well win.” Now, this is really fascinating, and it also illustrates how the little people actually knew before all these primaries began. All this hype about who has to win where and who has to win what, is meaningless — except for what I said. You have Iowa, New Hampshire, two states that do not feature conservatives. The caucuses are a weird setup in Iowa, and, of course, New Hampshire anybody can cross the state line and vote, and among conservatives Romney beat McCain by seven points! It was with independents he won. Now, we’re Republicans, and theoretically we’re out there trying to nominate a conservative to run as president here, as close to one as we can get, and yet the guy who wins New Hampshire is going all over the board, and the guy who wins Iowa getting votes from independents, who by definition are not conservatives! This is why, folks — this is precisely why — McCain and Huckabee are feverishly trying to get Romney out now, as soon as they can, and this is why they are being vicious in their attacks on Romney.

This is why we repeatedly point out here that the states that allow independents and even Democrats to vote in their Republican primaries are not indicative of the Republican Party, which is why McCain and Huckabee have shots in them. McCain and Huckabee are winning these early states, where Republicans are outnumbered. It’s not Republicans; it’s not conservatives in majority who were electing Huckabee or McCain, so far, voting for them. Michigan is the same. Now, the Democrats in Michigan, they got a little bit different problem because Michigan violated party rules and is running ahead of when the party wanted to, so Michigan’s getting no delegates. The Republican Party is penalizing Michigan a little but not totally, so there are delegates at stake for the Republicans in Michigan. So Hillary is the only person on the ballot in Michigan. Nobody else is competing there. The Democrat Party in Michigan is urging people on the Democrat side to vote nobody. They don’t want them crossing the aisle. They want nobody, because they’re trying to get even with the party and make amends at the same time to try to get some delegates that can vote and count at the convention. So they’re trying to not vote for Hillary.

They don’t want them crossing the aisles and voting on the Republican side. But McCain clearly wants that, which is what happened last time in Michigan in 2000 and Huckabee clearly wants that. So if McCain and Huckabee can combine to pick up most of the independent Democrat vote, and even if Romney gets most of the Republicans, he’s still going to be outnumbered. So Romney will be defeated if this happens in three states, not by Republicans voting against him, but by Democrats and independents. This is key to understanding, and it’s fascinating because Romney figured Iowa and New Hampshire would launch him. Now he’s gotta go to Michigan, and he’s gotta go to Nevada, and then everybody’s gotta go to South Carolina. So it’s fascinating to me, folks. Here we have Republican primaries in which Democrats and independents are determining our winners! It’s important that you understand that. Romney… I hate to say this, but Romney may be out of this before we ever get to states where a majority of Republicans, conservative Republicans are going to vote — and look at who the choices might be then! I don’t think he’s going to get out. But I mean the definition is he’s done, he’s cooked, he’s lost four, hasn’t won one. At some point you gotta win something for momentum. He’s not going to get South Carolina. By Super Tuesday, Republicans might have as their two choices people that are not conservatives that have been elected, I should say, and have their leads based on votes from Democrats and independents. Can you say “screwed”?


RUSH: Now, I want to clarify something. I might have left the impression that Romney would get out after Michigan. The press is talking about that. The press, once again, is repeating the mistakes: “If he doesn’t win in New Hampshire, he’s finished. He’s gone.” He’s still in there, and he leads the delegate count right now, and they’re saying, “If he doesn’t win Michigan, he’s going to get out. It’s done. He’s finished. He’s not going to get out.” He will precisely not get out until Super Tuesday because the real conservative voices in terms of the American people have not been heard! It’s independents and Democrats who have given victories to Huckabee and McCain so far. It was Romney who won a majority of Republican votes in New Hampshire. But they were outnumbered by all the other people that could cross over and vote from whatever party or no party. So Romney’s not going to get out. His strategy is to wait ’til Republican conservatives actually start voting here, in these primaries, and they haven’t yet, in terms of a majority, and it’s not going to be the case in Michigan, either.

January 11, 2008 , 1:15AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Democrats, John McCain, Mike Huckabee | Comments Off on Rush: Democrats & Independents, NOT Republicans, are Voting for McCain/Huckabee

Mike Huckabee Says Conservative Republicans are Shiites

As if I needed any more reason to dislike Mike Huckabee, now I find out that he feels I am the equivalent of Islamic Shiites. Brilliant.

Bryan Preston has the details at this HotAir post: Mike Huckabee and the “Shiite Republicans”

Here is the summary:

Add it all up. Huckabee campaigned with Democrats and hurt the Arkansas GOP, which hurt conservatism in that state. He smeared Arkansas Republicans as “Shiite Republicans.” He raised taxes rather than cut spending when confronted with that choice. He pushed a bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. He would close Gitmo and move the terrorists there to US soil, which is the same position that the ACLU promotes. He’s an Obama supporter’s choice to make trouble for other GOP candidates in the Michigan primary.

The guy may be nice and he may be a good, humorous speaker, but as far as I can tell he’s no conservative.

[ … ]

Huckabee says he wants to change the Republican party. Running with Democrats isn’t the way to do that.

I hope that Mike Huckabee’s supporters are seriously looking at this guy’s record. He is no Conservative and one could argue that he helps Democrats more than Republicans. He says he wants to change the Republican Party? Sounds like he wants to change the Republican Party to be more like the Democrat Party.

Again, I truly hope people are looking at this guy’s record.

January 10, 2008 , 4:12PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Mike Huckabee | Comments Off on Mike Huckabee Says Conservative Republicans are Shiites

Rush Limbaugh: Media Supporting Huckabee/McCain to Destroy Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh bluntly tells it as he sees it.

My advice to conservatives is to ignore the mass media and the political pundits who are all hoping to destroy conservatism and usher in the rise of populism and open borders. Ignore them all as they are just trying to depress you. The two conservatives in the race are Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. Vote for one of them come your primary.

Now, if one of the populists/CINOs wins the GOP nomination, I will not tell you to NOT vote for them. That is your choice to make. Personally, there are a few CINOs for whom I will never vote, because I see them as just as bad, if not worse, as Democrats: John McCain and Mike Huckabee. I am actually willing to give Mitt Romney a serious 2nd look. Rudy Giulini, I’m not so sure. If it came down to him and Hillary, I don’t think I would vote for him. If it comes down to him or Obama, I will vote for him.

But we all have to decide what is important to us this election cycle: winning at all costs or standing up for our ideology of conservatism. I hope all of you are analyzing this in a serious manner and not just voting based on fear of Democrats or just wanting to be loyal to political party over principle.


RUSH: Now, I want to remind all my Republican friends that there are many states after Iowa and New Hampshire where the Republican populations are far more indicative of the conservative base, and to get caught up in what happened in Iowa, to get caught up in what’s going to happen in New Hampshire as though they’re the only two states that matter and that they’re going to determine the fallout on both parties is a little bit over the top.

Iowa is a caucus; it’s a weird setup. New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the Republican primary, which is why McCain is doing as well as he is doing, and it’s why the media want this to be a bellwether against Romney. I mean, Pat Buchanan came in second. He came in a very strong second in New Hampshire in 1992. Now, I’m not saying that these contests are not to be taken seriously here, and that they’re not to be fought and to be won, but we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. New Hampshire is no longer the conservative barometer it used to be. The state has changed, it is now quite liberal. A lot of people who used to live in Massachusetts have moved into New Hampshire to escape New Hampshire’s high taxation and other problems. New England generally the northern states, states like Iowa, is not where the conservative base resides in large numbers. The Drive-By Media would love to destroy the conservative coalition. They would love to destroy the conservative base to the Republican Party. That’s why they are promoting Huckabee; it is why they are promoting McCain.

The Drive-By Media, ladies and gentlemen, will tell us each and every day who the true conservatives in the Republican primary are, and they will tell us by virtue of who they attack and also by virtue of who they prop up. They are propping up McCain; they are propping up Huckabee. The Drive-By Media hate conservatives. They want to destroy conservatism. It is the bulwark standing in their way of power and monopolistic control of all the apparatus of the country, government, media, and everything else. It’s one of the best indicators I can offer you. If you’re asking who is the genuine conservative out there or who is most conservative, who is most liberal on the Republican side, just take a look at who the Drive-Bys are enamored of and you will be able to answer the question yourself without me having to tell you. Why do you think that Senator McCain is making his big stand in New Hampshire? Because he did well there in 2000 and because he knows he runs really well with independents. He knows that New Hampshire is not a big conservative state.

If McCain were running on a genuine conservative agenda he’d be focusing on South Carolina for example, but he’s not. He’s focusing in New Hampshire because he thinks conservatives can be outnumbered there by this new influx of independents. You know, he’s up there in New Hampshire, if you listen to McCain, touting his left-wing environmental agenda with Joe Lieberman, for crying out loud. Now, recently there has been an endorsement that have people scratching their heads. “Jack Kemp, supply-sider, endorsing McCain? What’s this all about?” I’ll give you two reasons, and I’m just hazarding my own guess here, but I think it’s the old boys club in Washington, the inside the Beltway establishment apparatus, and the dirty little secret: Congressman Kemp is an open borders guy. So is Senator McCain. Have you noticed that in these forums and debates, McCain doesn’t want to talk about immigration; he doesn’t want to talk about campaign finance reform; he doesn’t want to talk about the things that genuinely rile conservatives? He wants to sweep those issues under the rug, and try to redefine what those issues were all about and what his position was on both of them.

Now they’re saying if Romney finishes second, he’s finished. How can that be? How can coming in second in the first two states finish somebody? If he comes in second, it may disappoint some people, but it also means that in these two states he’s the only Republican to win high spots in both. The idea that anybody’s finished after New Hampshire and Iowa is absurd. It’s Drive-By Media spin designed to dispirit and depress people. They’re out there saying, “Where does Romney go after New Hampshire?” Where do any of them go? It’s wide open! They go on to the next primary! South Carolina and Michigan. That’s where they go. For the Beltway crowd — not just the media, but for people that live and work inside the Beltway — to make conclusive statements about who’s going to win and who won’t based on all this — two states — is nuts, at least as far as the Republicans are concerned. There is no one candidate that has any front-runner momentum right now at all on the Republican side.


RUSH: I know it’s easy to get caught up in the spin of the Drive-By Media — and not just the Drive-Bys, but the whole inside-the-Beltway crowd — making conclusive statements about who’s going to win and who won’t based on Iowa and New Hampshire, at least as far as the Republican Party is concerned — no one candidate has any front-runner momentum right now. Listen to this. Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for yesterday shows McCain and Huckabee tied at 19%, Giuliani at 17%, Romney at 15%, and Fred Thompson at 13%. At some point, we’re going to get past these states that work for Huckabee and McCain. But there’s no clear front-runner on the Republican side. The only thing that you could say that might happen to somebody on the Republican side after two states is that expectations weren’t met. Now, it’s different on the Democrat side. You can see the panic in Hillary’s camp. You can see a big slide in her national polling. Obama has overtaken her nationally. He’s up double digits in two polls, in New Hampshire for tomorrow night. Unlike Romney, Romney has never led in the national polls, even though they talk about him as the front-runner, he never has led in the national polls.

You know who has led in the national polls has been Giuliani. But they speak of Romney as the front-runner; they attack him as the front-runner. Mrs. Clinton has always been the big front-runner in the Democrat Party, and she’s lost that status now in these national polls. And she’s losing to somebody, Barack Obama, who has absolutely no experience or qualifications to be president — and that is astounding, and it goes directly to her lack of likability. Now, I’m not sure she can’t recover someplace. She may be finished. I don’t know. The point is, nobody knows what’s going to happen. Even after tomorrow night, nobody knows, and it’s silly for anybody to start saying that they do. I wouldn’t be completely certain of her being finished. You know, she still has the support of the party machine. Now, that could be threatened. The stories are out there that Mrs. Clinton’s money is drying up. I thought she’d raised a hundred million bucks! I thought she’d raised all this money. Now we’re getting stories, that her donations are drying up; staffers are becoming dispirited. Maybe so. We’ll just have to see how it plays out. There’s no doubt she’s in deep trouble. Make no mistake about that. But to say that she’s finished, at this stage, is a bit premature.

I’ll tell you, there’s so much conventional wisdom out there. I, for one, just want to repeat this: I don’t think McCain’s a lock in New Hampshire tomorrow night. I believe these debates matter. I believe people in New Hampshire watch ’em. In both the Saturday night debate and the Sunday night forum, McCain did not do well. I don’t care what anybody tells you. You can look at the focus groups and see for yourself: He did not do well. He came off as sinister, mean, and strident on Saturday night. Sunday, he came across as tired and out of it, as though somebody had said, “Look, you’re a little too strident last night on Romney. Back off,” which he did — and then for McCain to sit there and whine and moan about attack ads? Come on! This ain’t beanbag! Politics is a blood sport. You know, McCain has run his share of attack ads. But these guys have been in politics all their lives. They’ve had attack ads run against them. They act like big babies, they can’t deal with attack ads. And, by the way, what’s an “attack ad”? You know, McCain is just like the Democrats in this regard. If you run an ad that’s truthful about their record, all of a sudden you’re “attacking” them. There have been some truthful commercials about McCain.

McCain has been the author of the first official intervention in the First Amendment in this nation’s history: McCain-Feingold. He has opposed tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts. So to put that out there in an ad is not an attack ad. It happens to be true. You have all this sensitivity about these attack ads. You don’t see Romney whining and moaning about these things. You don’t see Fred Thompson whining and moaning about these things. You don’t see Rudy whining and moaning. But you do see Huckabee and McCain whining and moaning about this. It’s unbecoming, because this is what it is. Politics is what it is. I’ll tell you what I actually think. This is based on truth, and it is in fact truth: the media are out to break up conservatives. I was instant messaging with F. Lee last night, and to me, there is no question. I spent this weekend in intense study of what’s going on up there. I watched more political TV this weekend than I have watched probably in the last six months. My instincts were confirmed: Media are out to break up conservatives, dispirit us, destroy us, destroy the Republican coalition of the evangelicals; the social and fiscal conservatives; they’re out to destroy that.

They want to destroy that by getting McCain or Huckabee nominated. That’s how they intend to do it, and we have pundits, including some who are conservative, who are falling all over themselves to be the first to announce permanent realignments, permanent trends; the end of this era, the beginning of that era. In truth, all they have to be making such sweeping predictions is the results of the Iowa caucuses, where a couple hundred thousand people voted, 10% of those eligible, in a very odd format. Now New Hampshire is coming where the more liberal or populist candidate in the Republican Party now benefits from the flood of independents who vote in the GOP primary and skews the results, which means that you cannot draw conclusions about the Republican Party based on New Hampshire but they will anyway, and you’ve got to keep this in mind. Whatever happens in New Hampshire tomorrow night, the Drive-Bys are going to try to spin this as the end of conservatism as it’s known. Now, let me be blunt about some things here. Governor Huckabee does evangelicals a disservice when he uses faith to promote what is a liberal, populist agenda — an agenda that includes large tax increases, which were not offset by tax cuts.

I hope you saw the question from Romney last night to Governor Huckabee about taxes. He wouldn’t answer the question. He got very testy, and said, “I’m not talking to you, Mitt! I’m talking to the moderator, Chris Wallace.” So Wallace simply repeated Mitt Romney’s question.

“Well, did you raise taxes, a net increase, after all your cuts and increases?”

He didn’t want to answer the question. When he finally got around to answering, he said, “Well, the courts made me do it.”

Court orders were not responsible for $500 billion of tax increases, folks. I hate to tell you. There’s no governor that can say a court made him raise taxes that many times. It was a bit sad. The Huckabee agenda is large tax increases, not offset by tax cuts; open borders; amnesty for illegals, particularly their kids. He was also nailed on that last night.

“Well, governor, you’ve said that you want the kids of illegals to stay and go to school.”

“Well, federal government hadn’t done its job. Kids have to be educated.”

“Yeah, but you said that you want to give college students in-state tuition, and federal government doesn’t say anything about that.”

And then he said, “Well, what’s really going to happen here is when we deport all these illegals, they’re going to take their kids with them, if they go out of school, have to go back to Mexico, get in line, they come back, they’ll go back and finish school.”

“Uh, but I thought it was great to have ’em here and stay in school?”

It was just all over the ballpark. And then McCain trying to defend his amnesty (laughing) by saying it wasn’t amnesty because there was a $5,000 fine. Yeah, right. Let me say a couple of things about that $5,000 fine. Do you know who’s going to pay the fine, if anybody? Their employers are going to pay the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. But besides that, there’s no enforcement in that bill, or there wasn’t. Who’s going to track these people down and collect the money? What if they don’t have it? If the $5,000 is paid, then okay, there’s no amnesty. There’s a big penalty, right? No amnesty? It’s an annuity! If you’re going to get five grand from these people and that puts ’em on the Social Security rolls and on the welfare rolls, it’s an annuity! It is amnesty! He’s going out of his way to say it wasn’t amnesty, but it is — and in New Hampshire, you know, they’re not so concerned about it, the independents that have moved in there from Massachusetts, but this kind of stuff is not going to fly once we get out of New Hampshire. Once we get out of South Carolina, some of the border states, it ain’t going to fly, folks. Amnesty is not amnesty because we’re going to fine them $5,000?

Everybody knows they’re not going to be tracked down to be forced to pay the five grand in the first place! Our memories are not that short, here, Senator McCain. We remember this amnesty bill like it was yesterday. Our memories are not short on campaign finance reform, either. I mean you’re out there complaining. I thought you got the money out of politics! I thought you got all the mean-spirited out of politics. Now you’re out there complaining about “attack ads from Mitt Romney.” I guess we need some more campaign finance reform, don’t we, Senator McCain? (Big sigh) Anyway, back to Huckabee. You start granting amnesty for illegal aliens, that’s going to hurt the incomes and jobs of church-going, middle class Americans. And, by the way, this includes negotiating with Islamic fascists: The Golden Rule, treat them like we’d like to be treated and so forth? These Islamic fascists, they murder American soldiers. They’re set on destroying Israel. They’re threatening to kill President Bush when he touches down Wednesday in Jerusalem.

There just is nothing Christian about dealing with the enemy the way Governor Huckabee has proposed doing it. McCain is running away from his opposition to tax cuts. He did this last night. He never mentions McCain-Feingold, anymore — we do — even though he wouldn’t stop talking about it for years before this election. Senator McCain’s support for more rights for the detainees and the closing of Club Gitmo, to me illustrates a serious weakness in terms of securing this nation. You know, open borders and closing the borders is as much about national security as it is about the illegal immigration issue. Senator McCain has repeatedly joined with Feingold and Kennedy and other liberals to undermine one conservative issue after another, and this will be remembered once we get out of New Hampshire. We’re finished with Iowa. Once we get out of these places and go to places where the Republican conservative base really is, then all these soothsayers and wise men inside the Beltway are going to be in for a huge shock.


January 8, 2008 , 1:18AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Populism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh: Media Supporting Huckabee/McCain to Destroy Conservatism

Are Mike Huckabee’s Supporters Ignorant of his Policy Positions?

I came across Laura’s blog, Pursuing Holiness, after I read a comment of hers left at HotAir, and I am glad that I did.  She has one of the best posts I have seen deconstructing Mike Huckabee and explaining the base of his support.  From the way she lays it out, his base seems to be very ignorant about his policy positions.

Mike Huckabee is getting support despite the fact that he is not a fiscal conservative, supports illegal immigration, is completely ignorant on foreign policy, is weak on the war effort based on his flip flopping on Gitmo and waterboarding, has taken donations from embryonic stem cell research companies and also has a history of commuting criminals, including some who have donated to his Party in Arkansas, only to go on to commit more crimes once they were allowed to go free by Mike Huckabee. 

Knowing all this, why on earth does he have any support whatsoever?  From what Laura explains, it seems that the sad reality is that most of his supporters are simply completely ignorant about his policies and are just supporting him based on his slick talking and his Christianity.

[ … ]  But I have been following the Republican side of the race, and I think this is a good description of how Huckabee won. Rather than look closely at his record and policies, people looked at his faith and personality. He’s the “Christian leader” so his record and policies must be okay, right? After all, he’s a Christian. A former pastor, even. And it’s about time one of our own got some recognition. The GOP is OUR party, and it’s time people accepted that fact. Well, that’s the mindset of an awful lot of people. So they “feel” a certain way about Huckabee and voted accordingly.

I’ve had email exchanges with a friend who I believe is representative of Huckabee supporters. She’s a long-time Christian conservative who homeschooled her daughter. What follows is a summary of those exchanges.

My friend knew about the commutation issue, but thought it was overblown by the drive-bys. After all, wasn’t one about a kid with a BB gun when he was five? I said that wasn’t exactly representative of the controversy, which has actually been going on for some time. Here’s what Arkansans were saying in 2004 about the situation. For example, beyond the BB gun, there was a serial drunk driver whose wife donated $10,000 to Arkansas Republicans just before he got out – and who later re-offended.

Well, the big money is behind Rudy and Romney, right? I said maybe so, but how is that relevant to Huckabee’s merits as a candidate? I understand the desire to root for the underdog, but the underdog isn’t necessarily right.

Still, he’s good on the war, isn’t he? My friend didn’t know that Huckabee flip-flopped on Gitmo. He wanted to keep GITMO open in June 2007, but after hearing from a few ex-Generals a few months later, wanted to shut it down and move the prisoners to Leavenworth. The only benefit to that is the very nebulous “world opinion” – and let’s face it, most of the rest of the world really only likes us when we’re victims. 9/12 syndrome. Moving them to Leavenworth would end up giving them full access to US courts, but these aren’t really prosecutable criminal cases, so many would be set free. Huckabee took the alleged “moral high ground” right alongside the Democratic party on this issue, and to the detriment of our national security. There have been numerous cases of released detainees showing right back up on the battlefield, including Abdullah Mehsood, featured in the Gitmo Cookbook. Speaking of flip-flops on Gitmo, he also flip-flopped on the Cuban embargo.

And don’t even get me started on his “arrogant bunker mentality” Foreign Affairs article, which was fisked here. He’s also clueless about what breeds terrorism – it’s not poverty. Other than staying in a Holiday Inn Express, what conservative foreign policy qualifications does Governor Huckabee have?

But Huckabee is fiscally conservative. Didn’t he cut taxes umpteen million times? Sure, but he raised them fewer times, in higher amounts, for a $500 million increase.

My friend is against illegal immigration. She didn’t know – or forgot – that Huckabee’s soul requires him to spend our tax dollars on incentives to increase it.

“Some people want me to be a lot harsher [on immigration policy],” Huckabee explains. “When I realized that there are kids [children of illegal immigrants] out there who are as good as me and they didn’t have a choice where they were born; they didn’t have a choice to whom they were born; then I have to ask myself do I really want to put my heel in their face no matter how hard they work? My soul won’t let me pander that issue any further than that and I’m not going to,” he says with determination.

Children in Darfur are as good as me, and they didn’t have a choice where they were born. What do we owe them? I have sympathy for children of illegals, but they are the problem of the country they were born in. Rewarding the families of illegal aliens only encourages more people to break our laws. But Huckabee says that my position on this is “un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.” What bible verse or accepted Christian doctrine mandates income redistribution by government? Taxes have no part of Christian charity. Charity is voluntary. Still, Huckabee’s soul evidently had a change of heart, because he cribbed a much stricter illegal immigration policy.

I think what will really impact people like my friend’s support of Huckabee is Rush Limbaugh’s opinion of him. Rush has specifically said that Huckabee is not a conservative, and that’s the kind of thing my friend would take seriously. Rush has also said that Fred Thompson is the “one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism.”

As for me, I truly believe that the GOP is the frog in the pot. We’ve been gradually moving further and further left. At this point, I will even vote Hillary before I vote Huckabee. I’d rather turn the heat up with an unabashed leftist that Congressional Republicans will fight than continue simmering. It’s time to adjust our feelings to the facts. The fact is that people who call themselves conservatives (as opposed to Republicans, which includes a much broader spectrum of people) should not be voting for Huckabee. The question is, how many conservatives are left in the Republican party?

I am wondering that myself.  I am also wondering how many informed, educated people are among the Republican voters out there.  Are people actually informed about the candidates and are simply rejecting Conservatism or are people simply completely uninformed and ignorant on the policy positions and are voting and putting their support behind candidates based on style over substance?

Hopefully it is just a matter of ignorance and being uninformed and not that people are starting to reject conservatism and accept socialism and populism.

January 5, 2008 , 4:49PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Christianity, Mike Huckabee | 1 Comment

Mike Huckabee Wishes to Enslave Americans

First of all, don’t get too worried about the results in Iowa. The only Presidential nominee that Iowans have gotten correct in history has been George W. Bush in 2000. Other than that, their history is abismal. Put simply, they don’t represent the nation or the Republican Party. So as disgusting as the gushing over Mike Huckabee’s and Barack Obama’s wins in the Iowa Caucus has been, it really doesn’t mean much in the big picture, if things stay true to history.

However, since it seems pretty obvious that people are supporting Mike Huckabee on style and his slick talking rhetoric which covers up his socialism, I feel obliged to start posting more about Mike Huckabee to expose him as the dangerous fraud that he is. Bruce Walker touches on the main thing that really grates on me about Mike Huckabee: the fact that he uses Christianity as a political tool, instead of as personal inspiration. As Mr. Walker explains, not only is Mike Huckabee a bad politician, he is also a bad Christian, misinterpreting the message of Christ.

Via Bruce Walker at The American Thinker: Mike Huckabee and Christian Duty

Mike Huckabee said last Sunday on Meet the Press that his faith was important to him and that it drove his views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease and to hunger. Huckabee then went on to say that he thought the Republican Party needed to take a greater leadership role on these sorts of issues and that, as a Christian, he wanted to make sure that Republicans spoke out more on these issues.

Excellent. As a Christian Republican myself, I will express support for protecting God’s Creation, fighting sickness, and ending hunger. All are profoundly Christian ideals. But Mike Huckabee, as a Christian, is not really talking about protecting Creation, fighting sickness or ending hunger. Mike is talking about using the coercive power of government to force other people to pay taxes and to comply with onerous and arbitrary laws to do what Mike thinks, as a Christian, he should be doing.

That is the salient fact: as a Christian, Huckabee can be a witness to Christian behavior; he can exhort others to themselves become a witness to Christian behavior; but he cannot demand the enslavement of others to do those things which, as a Christian, he feels that he should do. The term “enslavement,” of course, is relative. Americans are comparatively free. But everything that Huckabee feels government should do requires a loss of freedom for every American. Moreover, Huckabee is not just asking for the greater enslavement of Christian Americans, but he is asking for the greater enslavement of all Americans. This is most un-Christian. Does my verdict sound extreme? Substitute “Rome” for “America” and substitute “publican” for “tax dollars.”

Did Christ ever say his followers should ask Rome to do more for the welfare of its subjects? Or did Christ ask each individual Christian to personally do more to feed the hungry, to comfort the sick, to care for the widows and orphans, and to seek justice and mercy? Rome was a welfare state. The urban masses of Rome lived on bread and circuses. Roman power, outside Rome, buil[t] good roads, aqueducts, baths, bridges, libraries and undertook many other public works projects. Pax Romana was a very real blessing to nations who had fought wars around Mare Nostrum for centuries.

Despite the ways in which Roman power could be used to improve the world, Christ never looked to Rome to bring paradise or earth or even to be the agent of doing good in this world. Christ, rather, enjoined his followers to personally sacrifice and work for the rest of the world. He did not want Christians running for Roman offices to use the hated Roman taxes to “do good.” His message was personal.

Christians have heeded that call. Newt Gingrich, for example, does care about the environment and ecology, but as a private citizen. Rush Limbaugh quietly and privately helps many charities. Each Christmas the Salvation Army has hosts of volunteers who raise money to directly help the poor. Christians throughout America have healed the sick, comforted the distressed, and preserved the glory of Creation – but they act personally, and not through the enslavement of other Americans.

Mike should want to be a disciple of Christ and not a consul of Rome. At the time of Christ, everyone knew just how much good Rome did, but they also knew the price of Roman benefits. It was by no means clear whether Rome, on balance, did more good or bad. But it was always clear that the Christian who gave of [his] own purse to feed the hungry did pure good. That is the distinction between using Rome (or any government) to try to do good and using one’s own Christian conscience and will to do good.

But there are other problems with Huckabee’s pining for more government intervention. Not only is the enslavement of others to do what one thinks is right fundamentally unchristian, but it is also horribly inefficient and produces much wickedness disguised as goodness. Creating bureaucracies of government employees to “care” for the poor, the environment, the sick and so forth has proven the least cost-effective way of helping people, but worse, these bureaucrats are not acting out of Christian love: they are just doing their job. These “dependency” bureaucracies actually coarsen the consciences of both recipients and administrators.

Huckabee also misses the theological fact that caring for Creation, curing the sick and feeding the hungry is not just a Christian injunction, but a Judeo-Christian injunction. The Blessed Creator spoke clearly to the Jewish people about their duties in this area as well. If Huckabee is speaking as a Christian, perhaps he might do well to note that the Jewish people have the same moral imperative. And, of course, Jews have done much to relieve human misery, to research cures for diseases, to help preserve nature, and to do the other things Huckabee wants government to do – and these actions, like the actions of good Christians, have been done privately, without the help of enslaved taxpayers.

Often this service to the poor and the frightened in America by Jews has been dramatic. My father-in-law spent six tortured years as a slave laborer in Auschwitz, but he spent the last seventeen years of his life as an unpaid volunteer to keep Henry Hudson Park in New York free from gangs and other unhealthy influences so that families and children could have a safe, happy place to recreate themselves in the middle of Riverdale. No one asked him to do this: he did it.

Mike Huckabee is quite right to enjoin all Christians and Jews to help the poor, comfort the sick, preserve the beauty of our Blessed Creation, to give jobs to the unemployed and all the other moral commands of the Judeo-Christian religious and moral tradition. Mike Huckabee is quite wrong in perceiving this duty as a function of an impersonal, ineffective and unaccountable government. What Mike says we should do, we should all do individually, as our conscience commands us to do. We cannot replace our hands and our wallets with the hands of slaves or the federal treasury.

January 5, 2008 , 4:46PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Christianity, Mike Huckabee | Comments Off on Mike Huckabee Wishes to Enslave Americans