One of my favorite Mike Huckabee quotes (leaving aside John Edwards at the beauty salon): "Life doesn't end at birth."
Another blog I'm strongly recommending is Tennessee for Huckabee, with this link: http://tn4Huckabee.blogspot.com . Today, he reprints a fine Michael Medved column, one that makes a strong case for current GOP candidates as a whole lot better than those in the past. Read it and see if you don't agree. Here's a comment I made to tn4huck, whom I'm doing my "hot pursuit" number on in an effort to get him to sign up as a "Palin Fan."
And here's another one walking through the gates into the Palin camp: "http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2007/08/palin-for-veep.html Kazoo read Adam Brickley's (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/) original essay on The Case for Sarah, and it made eminent sense to him. I urge you to read his piece. I believe that by Feb. 5, 2008, Super Tuesday, we may just have our 777 Bloggers for Sarah. If we "only" have 599, however, I'll still be ready to claim victory.
I don't see Michael Medved's columns as often as I should. Generally, I love the guy. He's absolutely right -- this year's Republican candidates offer more diversity and better records of accomplishment than we generally get.
I wrote a column about three weeks ago going through the Republican choices for V-P over more than 50 years. Frankly, it's a sorry lot.
Nixon? Twice V-P, resigned later as President, although not before his own V-P, Agnew, resigned in a bribery scandal. Dan Quayle? Well, Sen. Quayle was a nice man, but he came across as dumb as a doorknob. Dick Cheney? Again, a good man (with a great wife and daughters), but he has a serious health problem and no plans to run for the presidency or any other office.
Presidential candidates (Republicans and Democrats) often seem to make their V-P choices out of a hat. When they're chosen to carry a particular state, the ticket ends up losing it, as happened with Nixon-Agnew and Maryland in 1968.
After the 1972 election, one of Nixon's top aides asked why he had kept Agnew on the ticket. The President replied, "No one in his right mind would want to assasinate me."
Most of us sitting at home watching FOX or CNN assume the presidential nominee goes through some calculating -- and even agonizing -- choice for a VP who is "thoroughly vetted." That just doesn't happen.
Yes, we do want to "push" somebody like Sarah Palin, an absolutely terrific candidate, on the presidential nominee. Why? Because we don't need another Spiro T. Agnew or even a Dan Quayle.
If worse comes to worse and Mrs. Clinton gets elected, we want someone there -- preferably a female -- who would be a ferocious competitor in 2012. We don't want someone who can carry one state. We want someone who will eventually carry the nation.
On the issues: as my earlier column (which will expand a little and become tomorrow's column) says: There are a lot of "conservative" candidates standing foursquare for the Family and children who don't practice what they preach. They tell us the lies they think we long to hear.
When it comes to have a large and loving family, Sarah Palin isn't relying on slogans. In fact, she goes home everyday to just such a situation. When it comes to political corruption, she doesn't just say she's "agin" it, but rather exposes the wrong-doers. Ironic as it seems to say it, she's putting her home state -- by far the largest one geographically -- on the map.
Gee, what if we had a candidate who truly was wonderful? Short answer: we do.
Stephen R. Maloney
.jpg)
5 comments:
The reason people are "unsatisfied" with the Republican fiels is that they are unsatisfied with the four who've gotten all the medoa attention . The media doesn't report celebrity. The media CREATES celebrity.
Two of the most experience, sober, and innovative candidates are already gone because the media gave them no celebrity profile: Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson.
If the mainstream media were controlled by people who think like WorldNet Daily or Free Republic types, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would ber superstars. Conservatives are uncomfortable with Fred McGiuliomney,because of ambiguity in their histories. Yet, they lead "the polls." Do you seriously think that's an ACCIDENT?
That's why Huckabee's propgress is particularly notable: Reagan-like, he has projected himself past the media to the people.
The ONLY factor that restrains him fro being the poll-leader is that the media aren't falling all over themselves about Huckabee as the coming Messiah, a la Colin Powell or Fred Thomson. Thompson hasn't announced a candidacy and Powell never did. The media's container was sprouting leaks 12 years ago that have now grown to draining holes.
Those holes look as though they may be large enough for enough water to pour through to raise Huckabee to the top by the end of the primary season. Working in the other direction is the frontloading and compression of the process. That's why I think Stephen Maloney is correct that it may come down to Giuliani and Huckabee: if enough pours through the cable and Internet leaks, Huckabee wins. If the compression of the system means that time runs out first, and money and media hold together as long as it takes for enough delegates to be chosen, Giuliani wins. In brief, with Huckabee the people will win, while with Giuliani the media will win.
Those leaks are still growing. Unless mass-culture pollutes enough minds (which is why cities vote liberal;), before then, the populus will affedt a big bite on what has been the conventional process, in the next election or two.
First off, thanks for including my blog. I see Gov. Palin as a great candidate for VP. I agree that it seems as though there has been little thought put into past VPs and candidates. I mean, lets be honest, Dick Cheney is not a great VP nor was Al Gore before him.
I look at this election as a different horse. Seems to me that politics have changed and there must be a viable, capable and politically strong choice for VP on the Republican side. We are in for a fight as it is, lets not make it an easier one for Clinton.
I have seen a Democrat strategy at work that may work in our favor. Seems to me that the Democrats still believe that they are still running against President Bush, which of course is not the case. Lets hope that strategy backfires on them. I think thats where a strong Conservative ticket(Huckabee Ticket!!) will come into play.
Don't get me wrong, Gov. Palin would make a great VP. But, I would be concerned about her national notoriety at the moment. Allow her to speak at the convention and build some steam for her. Look what speaking at the Democratic Convention did for Obama.
Its an exciting time. I am anxious to see how everything plays out.
Tennessee for Huckabee
I think some in the media -- and I wish I could include FOX News -- are uncomfortable with the cult of celebrity, the type that glorifies inconsequential people like Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. Both of them were appealing personalities as child "stars," but that begs the question of whether a "child star" is in any way a good thing. Many years ago there was a bad about literature called "The Mirror and the Lamp" (by Prof. Abrams) talking about whether literature mirrored reality or created a new reality. In terms of media attention, it probably helps to be from New York (Clinton, Giuliani, Bloomberg) rather than from Arkansas. Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton (from Illinois and Arksansas) ran for the Senate from New York. The one thing you're leaving out is that Giuliani was a very authentic hero of 9/11 and a very good, if controversial, Mayor of New York. Interestingly, the last big-time presidential candidates from New York were Franklin Roosevelt (won a lot) and Thomas E. Dewey (lost a lot to FDR and Truman). I think if you Google Mike, you will find he's getting a lot of publicity. My wish for Mike right now is that he would move away from the "sound bites" on abortion and candidly explain what he means when he says, "Life doesn't begin at conception." He's irritated at some of the same things I am, but I wonder if he would risk offending some of his evangelical base, which he might. There is a REAL pro-life (concern for both unborn and born) and a sentimental (and even self-absorbed) pro-life, and I believe Mike comes out on the side of the REAL version. Good for him. By the way, the public for some reason likes bad girls (Britney, Lindsay) and bad boys (William Jefferson Clinton). Maybe Mike should do something bad?
Dear Tennessee for Huckabee: One thing I wish Senate Thompson would do is to talk candidly -- and in some depth -- about the curious waiting game he's gone into. We've been hearing for three months that he is "about to" or "going to" declare. Meanwhile, he's falling back in the polls. It appears (not sure) that he was not able to raise nearly as much money he thought he would. Some months ago, I read the Wikipedia article on him, and I said after, "Oh, oh. There is a ton of baggage here (and probably another ton that's not in here)." I know the Thompson campaign challenges the validity of the Wik piece, but on what basis I haven't heard. I mention this because I know you're from TN and like Thompson. As someone committed mainly to Sarah Palin at this point, it doesn't help my cause to raise even these mild points on Fred, but there is a lot I don't know him that I feel it's important to know. For example, after 9/11 he said of his Senate position, "Now is not the time to leave." Then, he left. Are there explanations for this, and if so will we ever hear them? If I had been a U.S. Senator after 9/11, I would NOT HAVE LEFT THE SEAT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Now as to what you wrote about. I expect the Democrats to run against GWB until November of 2008. It worked for them in 2006, and they expect it to work again. As you suggest, that magic trick may not work well again. On Dick Cheney, I've been dancing around him as a V-P, and I believe he's been somewhere between mediocre and truly awful. I wonder in the election if he drew 100,000 votes (not many when you're talking about 240,000,000 million votes) to Bush. He has come across (and hey, I'm the conservative) as the Administration's Darth Vader. I have never heard a good explanation why the V-P choices have been so bad. I am launched on a crusade to get people to read Kazoo's explanation of why he's backing Palin. The link is on my site. People ask me if my support has anything to do with the fact that she's (as the saying goes) "hot." If that has one percent to do with my support of her, I'd be surprised. The reasons are the same ones Adam (palinforvp.blogspot.com) outlined and that attracted Kazoo. The questions you raise are good ones. I almost wish there was some way to FORCE (just kidding) people to read the Medved piece you reprinted. There is a mythology about how wonderful the candidates we had in the past were. They weren't. By the way, Tennessee is an important state usually, and it's more important this year.
Note: What Mike said about life issues is "Life begins at conception but doesn't end at birth." Mike is trying -- without total success -- to send a message to social conservatives that they (we) have a responsbility to children ("What ye do unto the least of them, ye do unto me"; " . . . for of such (children) is the Kingdom of God") Some social -- not a great many, I hope -- see themselves as having responsibility to the unborn but NOT to the born. That stance opens us to the charge of hypocrisy and worse (engaging in unChristian behavior by disobeying the admonitions of Christ). I truly believe we need to discuss these issues, with a view toward where we're doing the right thing and where we're not.
Post a Comment