[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think Huckabee is the answer but I don’t think he is a fascist.
[/quote]
I am sure Paul doesn’t either as his full statement was thus – [emphasis mine]:
“It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, ‘when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ Now I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that.”
The Lewis comment was very apt in my opinion. Dr. Paul has stated this same sentiment many times – that he thinks people who use religion for political reasons to be distasteful.
And by the way, Paul is the only Republican candidate defending Romney in regard to his religion:
Huckabee certainly has not and has even implied that Romney’s religion makes him weak politically:
If Paul had been given more that 20 seconds to reply and not been cut off one may have been given a better understanding of his opinion. This was a very cheap shot by FAUX, in my opinion. Why does he need to answer for Schmuckabee’s lame commercial? Could it be they just want to take away from any of Paul’s credibility as a candidate by ignoring the Dec 16 “money bomb”?
It was pretty hilarious to see this idiot news anchor jump to the Schmuckster’s defense…gee, wonder who he’s supporting…
I bet that idiot didn’t even know what book Paul was referencing – interesting that the book he was referencing was about a candidate, such as Huckabee, who made religion an issue while running for president – it was a response to Hitler, a political satyr called “It Can’t Happen Here”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
If Paul had been given more that 20 seconds to reply and not been cut off one may have been given a better understanding of his opinion. This was a very cheap shot by FAUX, in my opinion. Why does he need to answer for Schmuckabee’s lame commercial? Could it be they just want to take away from any of Paul’s credibility as a candidate by ignoring the Dec 16 “money bomb”?
…?[/quote]
He doesn’t have to answer for Huckabee’s ad but it is very telling that his first thought is to make an accusation and then a weak denial of fascism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He doesn’t have to answer for Huckabee’s ad but it is very telling that his first thought is to make an accusation and then a weak denial of fascism.[/quote]
He wasn’t calling Huckabee a fascist – he was making a literary reference to religion and politics which happend to include the idea of fascism. Is it Paul’s fault tha that FOX idiot is not sophisticated enough to see this distinction? He didn’t even get to explain the statement. They just went to commercial when they realized their guy was getting called out for pandering to the bible bangers by an offended Christian.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He doesn’t have to answer for Huckabee’s ad but it is very telling that his first thought is to make an accusation and then a weak denial of fascism.
He wasn’t calling Huckabee a fascist – he was making a literary reference to religion and politics which happend to include the idea of fascism. Is it Paul’s fault tha that FOX idiot is not sophisticated enough to see this distinction? He didn’t even get to explain the statement. They just went to commercial when they realized their guy was getting called out for pandering to the bible bangers by an offended Christian.
Talk about obfuscated journalism…[/quote]
Everyone knows exactly what Paul was doing. He was trying to link Huckabee to fascism and give himself a degree of deniability. It is the lowest form of gossiping.
I think Huckabee sticking the cross in the ad is only to be expected. He is a Baptist preacher. I would be suspicious if he hid this part of his background away. I am glad he is flaunting it instead.
An article in the WSJ Opinion Journal today analyzes the Huck as more religious left than religious right. I hate populism - its adherents tend to be the most ill informed and most illogical, responding to emotional blather.
[i]Mike Huckabee’s New Deal
More God, more government.
BY DAVID J. SANDERS
Friday, January 4, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST
As Iowa Republicans prepared to caucus yesterday, polls showed Mike Huckabee, the Southern Baptist minister-turned-politician, leading in some polls and placing a close second to Mitt Romney in others. The core of Mr. Huckabee’s support, of course, comes from evangelical voters. Couching his policy positions in the language of faith and morality, Mr. Huckabee portrays himself as the dream candidate of the religious right. In October, he boasted to a gathering of conservative Christian activists: “I don’t come to you, I come from you.” The “language of Zion,” he said, was “his mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language.” Echoing the Gospels, he told the Des Moines Register editorial board that the essence of what made him tick was: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” He admitted that his faith shapes his policy, but "if [voters] understand in what way, I think that they will say ‘good, that’s the kind of policy we would like.’ "
But one wonders whether his newfound supporters would really say that if they took a close look at his policies. With increasing frequency, Mr. Huckabee invokes his faith when advocating greater government involvement in just about every aspect of American life. In doing so, Mr. Huckabee has actually answered the prayers of the religious left.
Since John Kerry’s defeat in 2004 at the hands of at least a few “values voters,” the Democratic Party has been trying to take back God, even launching a Faith in Action initiative at the Democratic National Committee. Meanwhile, a small but organized group of liberal religious leaders and faith-based political activists has been trying to convey the message that, as one recent book had it, “Jesus rode a donkey.” They argue that increasing the government’s role in the fight against global warming, poverty and economic inequality is a biblical imperative. They usually de-emphasize the importance of abortion and gay marriage in their agendas, lest they offend the secularist wing of the party.
Democrats have made some inroads with evangelical voters. A recent Pew poll showed that the percentage of Americans who see the party as friendly to religion has increased to 30% from 26% since 2006. But no one has articulated the message of the religious left more effectively than Mr. Huckabee.
In August, he told a group of Washington reporters that the application of his faith to politics must include concerns for the environment, poverty and hunger. “It can’t just be about abortions and same-sex marriage,” he said. “We can’t ignore that there are kids every day in this country that literally don’t have enough food and adequate drinking water in America.”
As governor, he championed the ARKids First, which extended free health insurance not only to children of the working poor but to some lower middle-class families. He pleased teachers unions with his consistent opposition to school choice and voucher programs. He satisfied labor by signing into law a minimum-wage hike of 21%. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”–Mr. Huckabee’s oft-cited scriptural justification for growing government–proved costly for Arkansans, who saw government spending double and their taxes rise about a half-billion dollars during his tenure.
It’s unlikely that Mr. Huckabee, as president, would be able to shepherd a federal marriage amendment through the House, the Senate and the state legislatures, but signing into law a cap-and-trade system ostensibly aimed at limiting global warming (something he has called a “moral issue”) would be much easier. If he wanted to push protectionist “fair trade” policies and a greater federal government role in health care, a Democratic Congress would be more than willing to let him live out his faith on the taxpayers’ dime.
Looking at the past 30 years of American politics, many on the religious right reasonably assume that candidates who speak openly about their faith are conservatives, but that hasn’t always been the case. Jimmy Carter is the most prominent recent example of left-leaning piety. The author Gary Scott Smith, in “Faith and the Presidency,” reminds us that President Franklin D. Roosevelt even offered scriptural justification for the New Deal.
Speaking to the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, in 1933, FDR explained that the “object of all our striving . . . should be to help citizens realize the abundant life Christ said he came to bring.” According to Mr. Smith, "Roosevelt wanted to ensure that ‘all elements of the community’ had an equitable share of the nation’s resources. The federal government’s social planning, he contended, was ‘wholly in accord with the social teachings of Christianity.’ " It is not hard to imagine Mr. Huckabee–standing at a podium in the Rose Garden to announce a raft of government programs–talking in exactly this way.
Mr. Sanders is a columnist for Stephens Media in Little Rock, Ark. [/i]
On the Huck win in Iowa, my thoughts (maybe more like hopes):
There are already signs of a strong conservative reaction to it, and my guess is that conservatives are going to start getting sober about a bona fide conservative candidate who is electable. Who benefits from such a reaction? I’d love to say Thompson - my guy - but hard to say. I don’t think Romney will be the alternative that anti-Huck conservatives rally around. McCain is surging a bit.
I don’t think we should view the Huck win as some bizarre aberration, though - there is a fair amount of people-versus-the-powerful discontent among conservatives that Huck has used to his advantage. Now, as a conservative with a bit of a populist streak, I personally think a Huckabee candidacy would be a disaster, as would a Huckabee presidency, but I think some of the impulses he is tapping into for his success are important ideas the other GOP candidates should connect to (albeit in a different and less extreme way). The GOP brand of profligacy, cronyism, and sloppiness ain’t selling on Main Street (setting aside that Democrats don’t offer Main Street much either).
Conservatives and Republicans need to get serious and galvanize behind a legitimate candidate - in my humble opinion, that is the lesson of Iowa. Huck’s victory - I hope - was a blessing in disguise to remind us to clean house and quit pussyfooting with candidates that aren’t worthy of Presidential attention.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
On the Huck win in Iowa, my thoughts (maybe more like hopes):
There are already signs of a strong conservative reaction to it, and my guess is that conservatives are going to start getting sober about a bona fide conservative candidate who is electable. Who benefits from such a reaction? I’d love to say Thompson - my guy - but hard to say. I don’t think Romney will be the alternative that anti-Huck conservatives rally around. McCain is surging a bit.
I don’t think we should view the Huck win as some bizarre aberration, though - there is a fair amount of people-versus-the-powerful discontent among conservatives that Huck has used to his advantage. Now, as a conservative with a bit of a populist streak, I personally think a Huckabee candidacy would be a disaster, as would a Huckabee presidency, but I think some of the impulses he is tapping into for his success are important ideas the other GOP candidates should connect to (albeit in a different and less extreme way). The GOP brand of profligacy, cronyism, and sloppiness ain’t selling on Main Street (setting aside that Democrats don’t offer Main Street much either).
[/quote]
Good post. But I think it goes well beyond the incompetency of the last seven years not selling. I think, as many people are now writing, that we may be witnessing the breakup of “fusionism,” or the Reagan coalition.
The three wings, religious conservatives, economic conservatives, and national security conservatives (increasingly neo-cons) have less and less reason to get along. Combine that with rising inequality and serious long-term economic questions about the future, and Huckabee and what he represents are way more than a passing fancy.
Good post. But I think it goes well beyond the incompetency of the last seven years not selling. I think, as many people are now writing, that we may be witnessing the breakup of “fusionism,” or the Reagan coalition. The three wings, religious conservatives, economic conservatives, and national security conservatives (increasingly neo-cons) have less and less reason to get along. Combine that with rising inequality and serious long-term economic questions about the future, and Huckabee and what he represents are way more than a passing fancy.[/quote]
They’ve been writing about the break-up of the Reagan coalition since Reagan’s first term. It’s the favorite prediction of those who want it to come true. It may happen - but, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of Reaganism’s death have thus far been greatly exaggerated.
There has pretty much always been a market for a populist message. For some reason, midwesterners seem particularly enamored of populism - and Huckabee wins Iowa. Not a huge shock. We’ll see if he can play that forward - if he can, it will require him to carry the traditional social conservatives in addition to the populists. Reagan brought social conservatives into the Republican big tent, and in a lot of ways it was because of nationalism and buying into the American Dream, i.e., the idea that anyone can make it big. To the extent that gets lost - that’s when the coalition will break up.
There’s no where else for anyone serious about national security to go, and neither do economic conservatives (barring the transformation of the Libertarian Party into something more than a haven for people whose main issue is drug legalization). And this is coming from someone who is an economic conservative.
How about that Democrat turnout? And, you all notice how many independents went for Obama? [/quote]
Yup, and exactly a concern. A long look at Obama - nice guy, bright guy, plenty of upbeat rhetoric…but nothing but a textbook left-liberal policy platform. He isn’t an agent of change, he is offering no particular form of reform or advancing a different policy vision. He has made some amateurish comments on foreign policy and doesn’t have a ton of experience.
And who knows if he will be the nominee, but I suspect Democrats like his appeal to independents and are getting serious about rallying around a winner. There is a general election to be won - and many Democrats may hope Obama is a winner, but feel certain Clinton is not.
Difference is - are Republicans ready to rally around a winner? Are they ready to find someone who represents conservative politics in a way that can hold together/reinvent a center-right coalition?
We will need something more than Huckabee’s rewarmed Jimmy Carterism and Pauls’ Black Helicopter Theory of Government if conservatives have any chance at having someone in the Oval Office with even a remote sense of limited government and peace-through-strength principles.