CONGRATULATIONS TO WHAT HOWARD COSSELL USED TO CALL "THE NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS."
Hi everyone. Welcome to today's visitors from Hobbs, NM, Omaha, Concord and Camirillo, CA, Knoxville, Ewa Beach, HI, Venetie, AK, Wasilla, AK (hi Sarah!), Juneau, AK, Washington, DC, Rome, Italy, Chesham, UK, Southfield, MI, Rome, GA, Gaithersburg, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Winston Salem, NC, and Beggs, OK.
Please visit the John McCain for POTUS site at: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=240445
LATER TONIGHT (SUNDAY), I'LL PUT UP MONDAY'S COLUMN, WHICH WILL DEAL WITH THE (LONDON) ECONOMIST MAGAZINE'S VERY POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN.
Also, read the terrific opinion piece by Jack Kelly on "McCain is NOT the Enemy." You can find it by going to: http://post-gazette.com/forum. If you have a blog, please recommend this fine essay to your visitors.
I wrote the following to a radio friend (J.) who asked me about the Bill Russell campaign and expressed the view that John McCain’s immigration approach amounted to supporting “criminal invaders” of the U.S. My problem is that a term like “criminal invaders” is talk-show demagoguery. It’s just plain evil. It doesn’t distinguish an impoverished Guatemalan mother sneaking across the border from, say, Muhammed Atta. If I lose J. as a friend, well, maybe that was a friend I don’t need. Here’s what I said:
I support Bill (and gave him 400 bucks) but he appointed a new campaign manager and the strategy seems to be to wait for a miracle. Bill Russell is a good guy and maybe a great guy, but he doesn't seem to want to wage the hand-to-hand combat necessary to make real inroads into Murtha's big lead. Sad to say, but I'm trying to tell the truth a lot these days.
In politics, J., half a loaf is the equivalent of a five-tiered wedding cake. There are no perfect candidates, and those who claim to be send up a "hold-onto-your-wallet" signal.
There are also some fine "conservative" (sorta/maybe/coulda/woulda) candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore (now a trivia question) who attract more flies than voters. Hunter was a good man with status in the House and a presence in Moneyland, USA. He raised $1.8 million and never got up to 1% in the national polls. Murtha has probably raised more money by now.
And then we had the "ideal" conservative, Fred Thompson, the laziest man in the history of American politics. Besides having a stomach problem and belching four times per minute, he finished behind Ron Paul in every state except South Carolina (where Fred finished a weak third).
Is immigration really the issue that most staunch conservatives believe it is? Gee, how did Tom Tancredo (who also came out against legal immigration) do? How did Duncan Hunter do? How does immigration rate (about sixth or seventh) on the issues people care about?
Immigration -- "criminal invaders" notwithstanding -- is a non-issue, J. Ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the next President, "resolve the issue?" Check out the Dem debate, and you'll find exactly what their commitment to border security -- nonexistent -- is.
A lot talk show hosts (not referring to you of course) got rich on immigrant-bashing, but it is not an issue that is going to play any significant role in elections. Some of the Republicans who were the most anti- lost badly, including Hayworth in AZ and Santorum in PA. People in PA (outside Hazleton) don't care about immigration. They care more about getting Hispanic votes, which McCain, Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) Obama did in FL.
Ann Coulter has come out and endorsed Hillary, and, perhaps for the first time in her life, she's being honest. (Now that I say that, about her honesty, I don't believe it). She's a political whore who makes money by saying offensive things about other people. The big-time talk show people are squealing now because it's become clear that they are irrelevant -- they're profoundly stupid, relentlessly glib individuals.
I hope they follow Ann's lead and endorse Hillary. I sure as hell don't want them on my side.
Showing posts with label Tom Tancredo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Tancredo. Show all posts
Saturday, February 2, 2008
McCain: Talk Show Critics
Last night, I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the Club For Growth indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
Friday, September 7, 2007
What's Mike Huckabee Up To? Escaping from the Evangelical Death-Grip
"MIKE IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO WIN THE NOMINATION AND THE GENERAL ELECTION, AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WILL NEVER FORGIVE HIM FOR THAT." (from a political analyst I borrow from regularly)
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory." (Apocalypse Now)
Note: Treva of http://thinkaware.blogspot.com is a very insightful mother of three and a ferocious blogger for Mike Huckabee. See her comments (and my responses). She asks me if I think "evangelicals are stupid?" My short answer is that I'm an evangelical Christian, and I don't regard myself as stupid, nor do I regard her as such. Are some evangelicals stupid? Yep, and I provide her a couple of examples in the comments. Mike Huckabee is very bright, and his strategy (discussed below) is brilliant. She also suggests I "distressed" Mrs. R. Frankly, anyone who distresses said person might just cause her to confront reality -- if only for an instant. (Read the Flannery O'Connor story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find.") People who live perpetually in a cocoon of smugness never stay distressed for long.
Sarah Palin's one known comment about Mike Huckabee was that she didn't know very much about him. I hope Mike will rectify that situation very soon.
One of Mike's strongest supporters recently said, "It's time for him to take some risks." He said a mouthful, because it's unlikely Gov. Huckabee will get the nomination without engaging in some unconventional steps, such as naming individuals (perhaps three, including Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and an Hispanic) that he'd consider choosing for a vice-presidential slot.
Ever since I got deeply interested in the Huckabee campaign -- about five weeks ago, largely because of the influence of Larry Perrault, I said that Mikes greatest asset -- his evangelical Christian supporters, particularly those in the blogocracy -- was also his greatest liability.
What supposed offenses has he committed that have led to major defections?
Mike suggested that he might look favorably on full voting rights for DC, which could eventually result in two Black U.S. Senators and a Black House member. He also suggested he'd sign a congressional ban on smoking in public places. He has talked favorably about union members in the U.S. He has supported a humane resolution to the Immigration issue. He has fired a mild shot at some narcissistic pro-lifers, with his statement that, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." He is an advocate of the traditional family and tradfitional marriage, but he refuses to engage in unChristian gay-bashing.
Also, he has played "country music!" Moreover, he has used humor, which to some people means he lacks the grim seriousness they associate with evangelicals.
All these things -- or at least some of them -- have led to defections among his erstwhile supporters, such as the Romans. The various defectors insist that Mike must be selling out to the Establishment. Perhaps he's really a RINO in disguise. Also, of course, he supported tax increases to improve the infrastructure of the (relatively) impoverished state he governed, so he might be a liberal-in-disguise!
Also, why did Mike, alone among the Republican candidates, address the National Urban League, a (moderate) Black group? Perhaps because he has won a significant number of Black votes in the past and realizes that when Republicans lose 92% of the Black nationally, it leads to certain losses in big states (including Pennsylvania and Illinois). Yes, he is a smart enough politician to know that you don't get something -- Black votes -- for nothing --a wave and a smile.
But why would he -- again, alone among Republican candidates -- address the left-leaning Machinists Union? Perhaps because, as the head of the union revealed, 35% of the Machinists are registered Republican.
And why isn't he foaming at the mouth -- a la Tancredo -- about "illegal immigrants?" Perhaps because (almost certainly because) he recognizes that there are 45 million LEGAL Hispanics in the U.S., and they are the fastest growing minority in the country. Two generations from now -- in your grandchildren's lifetime -- Hispanics will be a majority in the USA. Goodness knows, I hope they don't deport my relatives back to Ireland!
(Let me breathe a dirty little secret that I believe and that Mike -- Heaven forbid -- may also: The defeat of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIR-- the final proposal with the $4.3 billion additional for border security -- had NOTHING TO DO WITH BORDER SECRUITY.) It now appears very likely the final word on immigration will be given by the Democrats and President Clinton in 2009.
The "great victory" achieved in the right-wing's defeat of CIR came with a big price tag. One Huckabee supporter who's an expert on "immigration politics," says the defeat of CIR may very well cost Republicans New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado (where Tancredo is polling at 4% among Republicans), California (of course), and Florida. Aside from California, which is a goner from the get-go, the loss of even one of those states -- and Mike knows this -- probably would cost Republicans the election.
Mike also knows he doesn't have the evangelical vote "sewn up." Right now, Giuliani (take a look at South Carolina) is getting as many votes from evangelicals -- if not more -- than Mike Huckabee.
I'm one of those dreaded pragmatists (meaning I must lack some Gadarene-like "principle") who believes Mike wants to win not the Mr. Congeniality title among evanglicals, but the presidency of the United States. He realizes that he can't even come close to doing so merely with the votes of Republican-leaning evangelicals.
He doesn't want to be the most ideologically pure of the candidates. He wants to become President because he believes he can lead the country, the entire country, not just those who say "y'all." To achieve that goal, you have to win the votes of those who say "youse" (Brooklyn), or "Yinz" (Pittsburgh).
Let me repeat myself: what you get in politics by giving nothing to huge segments of the population is electoral defeat. As Mike surely knows, it's too hard -- there are too many personal and familial costs -- running for President as some sort of symbolic effort.
In politics per se, moral victories, as one Pittsburgh Steeler coach put it, are for losers.
The key -- and Sarah Palin apparently has that key -- is to be a moral person without offending the majority of the electorate. I hope Mike's supporters won't forbid him from taking the steps necessary to have a decent shot at the presidency.
Oh, and Mike, please give HER a call in Alaska!
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
As promised, I will write about Giuliani and the slime hurled at him, but this is enough for today.
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory." (Apocalypse Now)
Note: Treva of http://thinkaware.blogspot.com is a very insightful mother of three and a ferocious blogger for Mike Huckabee. See her comments (and my responses). She asks me if I think "evangelicals are stupid?" My short answer is that I'm an evangelical Christian, and I don't regard myself as stupid, nor do I regard her as such. Are some evangelicals stupid? Yep, and I provide her a couple of examples in the comments. Mike Huckabee is very bright, and his strategy (discussed below) is brilliant. She also suggests I "distressed" Mrs. R. Frankly, anyone who distresses said person might just cause her to confront reality -- if only for an instant. (Read the Flannery O'Connor story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find.") People who live perpetually in a cocoon of smugness never stay distressed for long.
Sarah Palin's one known comment about Mike Huckabee was that she didn't know very much about him. I hope Mike will rectify that situation very soon.
One of Mike's strongest supporters recently said, "It's time for him to take some risks." He said a mouthful, because it's unlikely Gov. Huckabee will get the nomination without engaging in some unconventional steps, such as naming individuals (perhaps three, including Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and an Hispanic) that he'd consider choosing for a vice-presidential slot.
Ever since I got deeply interested in the Huckabee campaign -- about five weeks ago, largely because of the influence of Larry Perrault, I said that Mikes greatest asset -- his evangelical Christian supporters, particularly those in the blogocracy -- was also his greatest liability.
What supposed offenses has he committed that have led to major defections?
Mike suggested that he might look favorably on full voting rights for DC, which could eventually result in two Black U.S. Senators and a Black House member. He also suggested he'd sign a congressional ban on smoking in public places. He has talked favorably about union members in the U.S. He has supported a humane resolution to the Immigration issue. He has fired a mild shot at some narcissistic pro-lifers, with his statement that, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." He is an advocate of the traditional family and tradfitional marriage, but he refuses to engage in unChristian gay-bashing.
Also, he has played "country music!" Moreover, he has used humor, which to some people means he lacks the grim seriousness they associate with evangelicals.
All these things -- or at least some of them -- have led to defections among his erstwhile supporters, such as the Romans. The various defectors insist that Mike must be selling out to the Establishment. Perhaps he's really a RINO in disguise. Also, of course, he supported tax increases to improve the infrastructure of the (relatively) impoverished state he governed, so he might be a liberal-in-disguise!
Also, why did Mike, alone among the Republican candidates, address the National Urban League, a (moderate) Black group? Perhaps because he has won a significant number of Black votes in the past and realizes that when Republicans lose 92% of the Black nationally, it leads to certain losses in big states (including Pennsylvania and Illinois). Yes, he is a smart enough politician to know that you don't get something -- Black votes -- for nothing --a wave and a smile.
But why would he -- again, alone among Republican candidates -- address the left-leaning Machinists Union? Perhaps because, as the head of the union revealed, 35% of the Machinists are registered Republican.
And why isn't he foaming at the mouth -- a la Tancredo -- about "illegal immigrants?" Perhaps because (almost certainly because) he recognizes that there are 45 million LEGAL Hispanics in the U.S., and they are the fastest growing minority in the country. Two generations from now -- in your grandchildren's lifetime -- Hispanics will be a majority in the USA. Goodness knows, I hope they don't deport my relatives back to Ireland!
(Let me breathe a dirty little secret that I believe and that Mike -- Heaven forbid -- may also: The defeat of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIR-- the final proposal with the $4.3 billion additional for border security -- had NOTHING TO DO WITH BORDER SECRUITY.) It now appears very likely the final word on immigration will be given by the Democrats and President Clinton in 2009.
The "great victory" achieved in the right-wing's defeat of CIR came with a big price tag. One Huckabee supporter who's an expert on "immigration politics," says the defeat of CIR may very well cost Republicans New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado (where Tancredo is polling at 4% among Republicans), California (of course), and Florida. Aside from California, which is a goner from the get-go, the loss of even one of those states -- and Mike knows this -- probably would cost Republicans the election.
Mike also knows he doesn't have the evangelical vote "sewn up." Right now, Giuliani (take a look at South Carolina) is getting as many votes from evangelicals -- if not more -- than Mike Huckabee.
I'm one of those dreaded pragmatists (meaning I must lack some Gadarene-like "principle") who believes Mike wants to win not the Mr. Congeniality title among evanglicals, but the presidency of the United States. He realizes that he can't even come close to doing so merely with the votes of Republican-leaning evangelicals.
He doesn't want to be the most ideologically pure of the candidates. He wants to become President because he believes he can lead the country, the entire country, not just those who say "y'all." To achieve that goal, you have to win the votes of those who say "youse" (Brooklyn), or "Yinz" (Pittsburgh).
Let me repeat myself: what you get in politics by giving nothing to huge segments of the population is electoral defeat. As Mike surely knows, it's too hard -- there are too many personal and familial costs -- running for President as some sort of symbolic effort.
In politics per se, moral victories, as one Pittsburgh Steeler coach put it, are for losers.
The key -- and Sarah Palin apparently has that key -- is to be a moral person without offending the majority of the electorate. I hope Mike's supporters won't forbid him from taking the steps necessary to have a decent shot at the presidency.
Oh, and Mike, please give HER a call in Alaska!
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
As promised, I will write about Giuliani and the slime hurled at him, but this is enough for today.
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
