Thursday, September 6, 2007

NOT "THE NOBLEST ROMAN": PORTRAIT OF A HUCKABEE DEFECTOR

TOMORROW (FRIDAY) I'M GOING TO DISCUSS RECENT EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE HURLING SLIME AT RUDY GIULIANI, REGARDED AS AN AUTHENTIC HERO BY MOST PEOPLE WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL FEVER SWAMPS. GENERALLY, HEROES ARE IMPERFECT BEINGS, BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT "AVERAGE."

I urge everyone to read Adam Brickley's superb essay on how he originated the Sarah Palin Movement and how fabulously it's succeeding (also on blogroll): http://www.uccs.edu/~scribe/index.php?article=opinion-3

This morning (Thursday) on CNN there was a story about a 12-year-old Anglo-Hispanic boy who has leukemia and has started a very successful national campaign to find bone-marrow donors. He said, "As human beings, it's our responsibility to look out for others." (Out of the mouths of babes)

Yesterday, D. Roman of Wisconsin, a person who masqueraded for a few months one of the strongest Mike Huckabee backers (see comments at http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com defected, apparently to support someone else. If Mother Theresa converted to Lutheranism, the surprise could not have been greater. I believe D. Roman represents the sickness -- moral, intellectual, and political -- that infects a small portion of the Republican Party, and I'll have much to say about him and his ilk over the next few days.

With his new-found political independence, Roman spent the post-debate period denouncing Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The latter is justifiably an American hero to most people, and the former is on his way to becoming one. Roman is one of those moral and ideological sad-sacks who believes that disagreeing with a candidate on one or more issues means the subject of his venom must be "lying."

On Roman's site, I questioned his Christianity, something I do about once a century. Being a Catholic Christian (or a Protestant Christian) means fulfilling many obligations that we'd rather avoid. It doesn't mean manifesting a kind of "Church-Pew-Piety" apparently designed to make one feel good about himself. Also, it doesn't mean making malicious allegations about people (Huckabee and Giuliani) who hold views other than your own.

Christians are under a strict obligation (Commandment not Suggestion) to love their neighbors, all six billion of them, including "illegal" immigrants and the children (often American citizens) of those illegals. People who hate the Second Great Commandment are free, in a sense, to hate their neighbors, whether that neighbor be Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, or a Guatemalan scaling a fence to get into the land that historically welcomes the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

D. Roman is now denouncing me on various sites, pointing out that MaritimeSentry is one of those "his-and-her" operations and that I mistook S. Roman (his helpmeet) for him. Of course, he ascribes malice to my confusing his wife's screed about Giuliani with one of his. Frankly, he (or she) originally talked about removing "our backing" from Huckabee. I wondered if that "our" was a modern version of Queen Victoria's "royal we," as in "We are NOT amused."

My inference is that the Roman household is not one where spouses or children are encouraged to demonstrate a whole lot of intellectual or spiritual diversity. "We" would not be amused by such deviations.

D.R. takes issue with my view that they (he? she? bicycle built for 2?) "trashed" Mike Huckabee. Here's what they (the "I" version) said about the debate:

"I felt this was Mike Huckabee's worst debate. He struggled in the beginning and topped it off by insulting citizens who want a secure border, but he was extremely strong on Iraq and very articulate on that point. Ron Paul had some extremely good points, but came off as naive on foreign policy. Overall I think that Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo had their best performances and belonged on stage.

Tom Tancredo, a thoroughgoing nativist who once announced he was against "legal immigration," had a "good performance?" Rep. Tancredo is now getting 4% of the Republican vote and is getting a good chunk of his money from organizations that are rather virulently racist. (Note: I have a lot of admiration for Duncan Hunter, but his candidacy seems to have escaped the attention of the American people.)

One of the Romans mourned the lack of an appearance by Newt Gingrich, who campaigns in 1974 and 1976 I supported with money and time. My "break" with Rep. Gingrich reflected in part the fact that his first wife (of many), Jackie, and I were phone friends. Jackie is the one that Newt, after an apparently serious affair, approached in the hospital (where Jackie was being treated for cancer) and asked her to sign divorce papers. Later, of course, the second wife went the way of the first. One of the Romans (both?) denounced Rudy Giuliani for failures in his "persoanl" life. On that basis, they might well reconsider their admiration for "Newt."

Why "their" dismissal of Huckabee? Because he's not conservative enough on immigration or on the possibility of voting rights for the District of Columbia (which would add two Black Senators and a Black House member, presumably all Democrats). Also, strangely and almost comically, because he would sign congressional legislation banning smoking in public places. Personally, I smoke but if I were President I might well sign such a ban.

Most sane people agonize over the issue of "illegal immigration." In the Bible, Jesus doesn't seem to be strong on the issue of border security. Also, which of us -- if we lived South of the border and were facing a bad life for ourselves and our children -- wouldn't choose to climb over the fence?

To D. Roman, enforcement of "border security" -- something apparently only enforced when it involves brown people -- is a case of "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Of course, under Caesar it was illegal to be a Christian, a point the Romans apparently haven't reflected on sufficiently. The line from the Bible goes on to say "render unto God that which is God's.

I've always had the uneasy feeling that God didn't give me any extra points for having the luck to be born in America. Somehow I don't believe God thinks more of me than He does the Hispanics who constitute our modern day "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Living a Christian life is sometimes, as T. S. Eliot said, sometimes "hard and bitter agony."

From everything I see, Mike Huckabee --a Christian who talks the talk AND walks the walk -- agrees with me. In fact, the Family Roman's other bete noire, Rudy Giuliani, also seems at one with with us.

The Huckabee Movement, a strong one that's getting stronger, is lucky to be without the dubious "services" of D. Roman/S. Roman. They'll be much happier with another candidate, but I doubt the reverse is true.

(Note: This is not the last word on this subject.)

Take a look at larryperrault.blogspot.com for the YouTube video of the exchange between Mike Huckabee and the occasionally daffy Ron Paul.

Note: I was extremely impressed as I said yesterday by the marvellous response Sarah Palin made to a question about the supposed need to cut ehtical corners. She said:

SARAH PALIN: "Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."

Of course, some conservatives -- such as The Club for Growth types who also vilify Mike Huckabee and probably now feel the same about Sarah -- believe (wrongly) that it's better to have many servants than to be one. They're wrong. "As for me (and her), we shall serve the Lord."

11 comments:

rhatch said...

I would say this about Gov. Huckabee...that although I don't agree with everything he does...I am without doubt behind him because he represents the best chance we have at a pro-life candidate who can beat hillary...this next election is critical on the social front as this president will most likely have to replace 2 liberal supreme court judges...I know Huck is a wonderful Christian man...And because of that...the fact that I have seen his character over a long period of time...I am willing to follow him on some issues I think he may be wrong on...But I am willing to do this because I know that he gets on his knees everyday and thanks the almighty for Jesus Christ...The one who died on the cross so We could be forgiven...I trust that Huck...I know rather...that Huck is a man of prayer and he will take us where God is leading us...So for that we must put aside small differences to accomplish the larger goal...ending abortion...and gay marriage...and poverty...in that order

Christopher said...

It is disgusting the hatred that some have the Hispanic people. Now I'm one for believing African Americans need to give the GOP another look, but we lost their vote years ago. We're doing a good job of losing the Hispanic vote, gay vote, and the youth vote. How can the voices that want to win elections, be in the minority?

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I think you're absolutely right about Mike being a wonderful Christian man. Anyone who supports him on that basis can be proud of doing so. On the issue of poverty, I'd move it up to number 1 as it's a factor not only in abortion but in the massive crime wave we seem to have accepted as the norm. On poverty, you're well aware of what Jesus said about it in the later chapters of Matthew. Here's what Mike said recently: “The economy looks good when you measure it in macro terms,” Huckabee said Thursday during a stopover in Washington, “but a lot of families are struggling just to reach the next step on the ladder.” We need to give them a helping hand. Thanks so much for your comment.

steve

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Christopher, Hugh Hewitt, sometimes smart, sometimes just a blowhard, has many call screeners on his talk show, and he says, "Why I never get an anti-Hispanic call!" Go over to Townhall and check out HeartlandPatriot and PasadenaPhil and a couple of the other good old boys. Then google the name "Tanton" (a big factor in the anti-immigrant movement) and see what's really happening on the immigration debate. There are 100 million minorities in the U.S. (Census figures), and the vast majority of them think we don't want their votes.

Many people who read this are working hard on campaigns, including you and I on Sarah's. I hope the "just-say-no" crowd doesn't make all our hard work in vain.

steve maloney

Massachusetts For Mike Huckabee said...

I really have to take issue with your post Stephen. I consider the Romans friends, they are some of the most caring people that I have met online and I do not appreciate the way that you are speaking about them.

If they choose not to support Governor Huckabee then so be it,why is that a concern of yours? I really feel that your public smearing of them was totally uncalled for.

If you truly are a Christian, you will apologize to these fine folks for publicly humiliating them.

You hurt your candidate by treating people in a less than kind way.It does not reflect well on Sarah Palin.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Dear Massachusetts for Huckabee: The comments made by the Romans have done great damage to the campaign of Mike Huckabee -- in Massachusetts and everywhere else. No, I do not believe they are "good" people -- goodness is an action, not a friend's fantasy about two very warped individuals. I don't make up their miserable comments, which are there for everyone to see. They attacked one candidate for his personal life and then yearned slightly for Newt Gingrich, Mr. Multiple Marriage himself, to put in an appearance (perhaps with wife number four?) In the Romans, I see no Christian behavior. I just see two angry people, apparently incapable of having an independent thought between them. Did they really spend many months being bloggers for Huckabee and not know the man's stands on issues he's been discussing for years? Mike Huckabee is trying to win a general election, not to be Mr. Feel Good about being a mindless ideologue. No, I don't think you'll see me apologizing to this shrunken souls at any time in the next century. As Jesus said, "I come to bring not peace, but the sword." I couldn't put it any better myself. People like the Romans love candidates who talk the talk -- Mark Foley types, whoom I suspect they adored -- and Larry Craig, a dimwit who always voted the line supported the line suppored by Tweedle-D and Tweedle-S. Now the rest of us are left to clean up the mess.

steve

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Massachusetts for Huckabee: It sounds like a class oxymoron. The only way for any Republican candidate for federal or statewide office to win in that state is for him to masquerade as a liberal, a la Mitt Romney. Someone should write a book on how the Republican Party reached such a sorry state in Mass. and a dozen other states -- all of which seem to be big ones, with lots of electoral votes. An expert (and a Huckabee supporter) who agrees with Mike on immigration told me the Republican Party looks like a loser in FL, NM, AZ, CO and, of course, California, which "only" has 55 electoral votes. If that is the case, then get used to uttering the term "President Hillary Clinton." If we lose even one of those states (plus Ohio, an almost certain loss), then Huckabee in Mass. and Huckabee in every other state is wasting its time. The reason we look like a certain loser in ALL those states is because we ticked off Hispanics by treating them (legal and illegal) like so many "Mud People." Mike Huckabee -- unlike some of his followers -- realizes that if he loses the vast majority of the minority vote (100 million) then he has a great chance of losing all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. I say that, all the pundits say that, and the most prestigious polls say it, but the "Base," secure in its ingorance, listens not. Thus, I don't apologize to the people who, in their ideological rigor mortis, helped create this situation. They make the election of Mrs. Clinton a certainty, which would give them 4 (and probably 8) years to whine about how bad things are. They will be worse than bad, trust me.

steve

OKforHuckabee said...

I agree with MAforHuckabee. I think your post really was uncalled for. It is calling even more attention to the fact the MaritimeSentry is no longer supporting Huckabee. It would have just died away if you'd left it alone.

This is not good for Mike Huckabee. Just let it go.

Jeremy said...

Against my better judgement, I feel the need to comment here.

This inflamed and degrading rhetoric only does damage to your cause. If you are truly dedicated to promoting Palin, you should step back and realize that this post has the opposite effect.

Secondly, you are making accusations based upon assumptions and in the process slandering good people ... never wise. I know D. Roman. The man knows more about being a patriot and serving his country than most of us could ever imagine. I won't go into details here, but trust me when I say that you could not be more wrong in your vile accusations.

The political tent of the Huckabee camp is large and spanning. Let's keep it that way. Debate the issues. Leave the character assassinations to the Dailykos crowd.

Thanks,

Jeremy

Stephen R. Maloney said...

To any reacting to my criticisms of the Huckabee defectors, my column today on defamatory comments made about Rudy Giuliani (and others, including me) will continue my discussion of that subject. I'll try to respond individually to any commenters this evening. I do thank all who take the time to comment, even those who disagree strongly with me on one point or another.

steve maloney

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Jeremy, I'm very much willing to listen to (and to credit either of the Romans) for any patriotic activities they have engaged in. So far, I've heard about none. When people support a candidate (Mike) for many months and then imply they were unaware of his position on certain key issues, I tend to disbelieve them. When they accuse one of the candidates (Giuliani) of lies and cite no examples (not facts), then I think the term of vile accusations holds but should not be directed at me. Right now, the polls show that Giuliani has more evangelicals and traditional Catholics supporting him than is the case with Mike. Perhaps the Romans might consult with some of them. For most Americans, Rudy Giuliani is an authentic hero, based on his performance on 9/11 and afterwards. His performance as Mayor New York, especially in sharply reducing crime and chasing the sex businesses away is exemplary. Yes, he is very bad at the art of marriage, but that's true of many candidates, including some whose marriages are not open to public scrutiny. I believe the Romans did some very evil things. You don't believe so. But why? When they seize the first opportunity to criticize the performance of a man they previously idolized, then something creepy is going on. Then, they say nice words about Tom Tancredo. Frankly, if TT had his way, one of the of two probably would be on a reservation and the other would be on her way back south of the border. (I refer to his famous statement that we have to suspend "legal immigration.") It's not a secret that TT's campaign is financed by Tanton and other racists.

I wrote a column about Huckabee's strategy today, and I hope you'll read it and inform me where I'm (factually or logically) wrong.

Again, any examples of the Roman's patriotism or fidelity to Christina principles would be welcome. One of those principles would by loyalty -- and I'm not saying any. Mike Huckabee isn't the only candidate they've committed to that they later abandoned. I hear they may be having second thoughts. I haven't seen the first thoughts yet, frankly.