Theocrat my ear

I was a bit out of pocket at the end of last week, so I didn't get the opportunity to respond to the religion-baiting based on Mike Huckabee's "easier to amend the constitution" statement from last week.

Take a deep breath, Libs. You, too, squishies. Huckabee's comment (which is either intentionally or ignorantly quoted without context) was in reference to claims by some Republicans that attempting to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not possible, or not wise (or whatever). Frankly, I think that various Republicans have discovered "Federalism" as a Stephen Douglas-like middle ground on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. "I'm not for slavery, I'm just for Federalism." Okay, whatever. But back to Huckabee.

Huckabee thinks that humans in the womb are deserving of protection. This conclusion is based on the sacredness of innocent human life as nobly advanced in the Bible (aka "the living Word of God"). Of course, there are compelling non-Biblical, scientific, secularly philosophical bases for protecting innocent human life prior to birth (bases for which "Pro-Choicers" likewise have no compelling answer). Were Jim Crow laws consistent with the Bible? How about the laws upheld in the Dred Scott decision?

In the context of questioning whether Christians should ignore fundamental values (like, say, the ones that motivated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to demand social change) because they happen to be rooted in the Christian faith or because they may require some hard work . . . the answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Also at wisdomisvindicated.

Why not McCain?

George Will opines about John McCain and provides some perspective for the "wide open" Republican primary race ("Waiting for Straight Talk"). I'm not sure that he can be accused of not "talking straight" for espousing his all-over-the-map political views (historically and even in the present). I think he's just being himself--a career politician with a seemingly undisciplined mind, respected by almost all Americans for his pre-political biography and beloved of the MSM for his propensity to make mischief in the opposing political party.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Paul Supporters Target Fox News . . . and Republicans

This article about how Ronbots were mobilizing against FoxNews caught my eye a week or so ago. Ron Paul's supporters are indeed impressive--for their idealism if not for their ingeniousness. That being said, unfortunately (for Paul's supporters), their candidate's message is not resonating with voters--despite respectable fundraising . . . despite tireless politicking by supporters. Because I have long felt that paring down the number of candidates in debates is essential to have meaningful debates, it is completely appropriate to begin weeding out un-credible candidates.

But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:

"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."

Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Club for Loathing

This video clip kind of reflects the suspect obsession of Club for Growth's Pat Toomey with Mike Huckabee--even the host (Chris Matthews) seems to point it out.

It's one thing to pick between two candidates in a primary so as to advance a group's particular issue (actually, CfG is one of the few special interests who is willing to do this--to their credit) but targeting a single candidate in a crowded field of candidates with inarguably mixed records on economic policy is, frankly, suspicious.



Also, at WisdomisVindicated.

Picking a candidate

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Say what you mean . . . and don't be mean

Byron York reports ("Byron York on Iowa Caucus" on National Review Online) about the Iowa campaigns of Huckabee and Romney and hints at what is perhaps the key to Huckabee's success:

"[Romney Spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along."

I think that Huckabee's appeal actually hinges on his seemingly un-Conservative message and--here's the point, his willingness to stand by those sentiments. His famous line, "I'm Conservative, I'm just not angry about it," encapsulates this quality well.

Now I'm not convinced that his governing philosophy is as un-Conservative as his "soft" rhetoric sounds, but I think that people are attracted to someone who believes what he believes and seems willing to stand by those beliefs, even when it seems in his interest not to.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.