The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Uh, Winston, let's NOT defend Mike Huckabee please?
Normally, I wouldn't respond to a post with another post (in fact, I don't think I'm supposed to do so), but I feel I have to do it because Winston's post has repercussions I don't even think he anticipates.
Winston obviously has a problem with Dr. Paul, in no small part because Dr. Paul doesn't believe the Iranian people's struggle against tyranny is any business of the Western world. Personally, I'm with Winston on that one; Dr. Paul is terribly wrong. However, Winston is very wrong in assuming that Paul was slamming all Christians as fascists. Perhaps some context might help here (Jim Geraghty at National Review Online):
Ron Paul Charges Huck Implies He's The Only Christian
Hot Air has the video; here's the transcript, of Ron Paul's reaction to Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad, given a short while ago on Fox News:
STEVE DOOCY: Mike Huckabee has started running an ad in Iowa, where you're at right now, also in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in the back, it's a windowpane but it also looks a lot like a cross. And, and, we had a guest a little while ago who said it was inappropriate to be using religion for political purposes. Congressman, I'm just curious what you think?
RON PAUL: Well, I haven't thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair, uh, Lewis once said, he said 'when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' 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, uh, I don't think I would ever use anything like that.
It's abundantly clear that Paul's beef (and note: he did not apply the fascist label to anyone, he just dropped the Sinclair quote) is with Mike Huckabee, not Christians in general.
Why do I think that is important enough for a post? Because IMHO, every single person who blogs in this space should have a problem with Mike Huckabee (apologies to Yoshi, who seems to know this already). He is every limited-government conservative's worst nightmare. Again, Jim Geraghty says it best:
What it is enormously frustrating to the true anti-Huck folks like Ace of Spades and Dan Riehl is that the evangelicals will vote for, as Fred Thompson put it, a "pro-life liberal." These guys look at Huckabee and see conservatism on one area - social issues - and see not much elsewhere: populism on economics, a thin resume on foreign policy, some squishiness on crime, and an open-hearted view toward illegal immigrants that they conclude amounts to amnesty.
Now, I'll admit, I've dedicated an entire website to exposing this guy for what he is (and "pro-life liberal" is about as precise a description as they come). So perhaps I'm a little oversensitive here, but I do not want anyone north of the 49th thinking Huckabee is some conventional Republican that Paul just decided to put in his crosshairs today. Huckabee (or as we call him, Mike Dukakabee) is a real problem.
Oh, and Winston, here's Dukakabee's view on Iran (Townhall):
Before we put boots on the ground in the future, we’d better have a few wingtips there first. And when President Bush included Iran in the axis of evil, everything went downhill pretty fast. As the only presidential candidate with a theology degree, along with several years of political experience, I know that theology is black and white, politics is not. My enemy today on one issue may be my friend tomorrow on another. Bottom line is this, Iran is a regional threat to the balance of power in the middle and near East. Al Qaeda is an existential threat to the United States. I know that we cannot live with al Qaeda, but there is a chance we can live with a domesticated Iran.
Here was Michael Rubin's response: "I would put him in the Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Uh, Winston, let's NOT defend Mike Huckabee please?:
When I think of Sinclare Lewis and Huck I think of Elmer Gantry. Huck is nothing more then the good old boy back room deal politician, using misguided Christens to promote his agenda. He is being funded by Hillary's inner circle from Arkansas and hyped by the liberal media. The American people are being manipulated again. Huck will not stand close scrutiny and he will not get it until he is the nominee. A vote for Huck is a vote for Hillary.
Posted by: Elaine McKillop | 2007-12-19 8:21:59 AM
Agreed. I am with you on that and I don't think Huckabee is a good choice either. But my dislike for Ron Paul is not just his politics, it is his supporters and things he says.
Posted by: winston | 2007-12-19 8:31:30 AM
I hope Huckabee doesn't get the nod, as was already mentioned, he's a liberal Republican, not a true conservative. Then again, it's pretty hard to find a true conservative these days running for office. Duncan Hunter is, unfortunately he doesn't have the support.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-12-19 8:52:42 AM
This may all be a moot point. The GOP may as well nominate a box of Sunkist Grapefruit with the current president's numbers and legacy likely to affect voters in 2008.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2007-12-19 9:06:58 AM
Does it really matter whether or not Huckabee displays a cross in his advertisements? After all, the USA is a democracy and it's the people that will decide who their leader will be. Whether Ron Paul's statement was a slam against him is also moot. I personally don't care for either one of them but that's also beside the point. In a functioning democracy anyone has the opportunity to say anything they please. Let's keep this in perspective.
Posted by: atric`` | 2007-12-19 9:25:32 AM
Winston is one of my favorite posters here, not only for his content, but also because he brings to the table actual life experience within and among the hugely problematic Middle East (Iran being one of the biggest problems currently).
I intended to comment on Winston's posting about Mr. Paul, just to encourage Winston to resist the "media" tactic of creating a headline that thrusts the reader forward in a particular direction (which may or may not turn out to be correct), rather than just allow the reader to draw his own conclusion from actual facts presented. Of course with respect to pure political opinion, I say, let fly without any restraint about whatever you believe, but in "reporting" don't loosen or remove the shackles of facts.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 9:39:19 AM
I like Ron Paul's position on Abortion (he is anti abortion and he has decades of medical practice delivering babies without ever performing an abortion). This is very significant to me, because if one does not place protection of innocent human life above all possible "POWER" of government, then the people governed exist under Totalitariansim, they just don't know it.
I detest Ron Paul's position about America's current military action regarding the War on Terrorism, but I'm respectful of his opinion and am pleased that he can present it in the political discussion "at the higest level" of Presidential politics.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 9:45:22 AM
I hope (and am confident) Ron Paul doesn't win as either Republican nominee, or as third party candidate, but I'd rather have a truly pro-Life isolationist naive man as President (recognize that we in America have considerable checks and balances against Presidential mistakes), than have a pro-Abortionist (or an "unsure" or recently "converted" guy) of ANY pedigre.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 9:57:14 AM
Mr. Huckabee seems to be a phony from phonyville.
VERY unfortunately the liar McCain created legislation which perverted our electoral campaign process so as to concentrate undue power to communicate information into the hands of the main stream media and undisclosed organizations such as George Soros' group. But fortunately just average ordinary people are VERY SMART and shrewd in recognizing lies versus truth.
I'd vote for Colorado congressional Representative Tom Tancredo or secondarily for California congressional Representative Duncan Hunter on issues, or former Senator Fred Thompson on prospects for actually winning the election, as our campaigning is presently structured.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 10:01:26 AM
Rudy looks like best choice. He shows all the humans weaknesses of most people, but shows great strength when it comes to remaining cool in a crisis.
He know how to manage and he will kill our enemies. He is tough on crime and proved it in NYC.
So what if had more than one wedding. That's normal these days. So what if his son hates him, lot's of kids hate their parents.
All the others
McCaine - too old,
Romney - too professional, glib and quasi-religious,
Ron Paul - loon,
Mike Huckabee - new Jimmy Carter (Agreed) and goofy name to boot.
Fred Thompson - who cares?
I can't even think of the other names in the running.
Rudy is the best choice even though he doesn't have enough hair to be a real president.
Posted by: John West | 2007-12-19 10:05:49 AM
I originally posted the above four comments as one (evidently, too long) comment. My comment was blocked from your blog with an explanation that it appeared to be "spam" in your spam filter. I decided to break up my original comment into "acceptable" bite sized pieces in order to determine whether I had used any particular language which somehow triggered the spam filter rejection, but it seems, as proven by that test, everything I wrote was "OK" except that it was too long in one posting.
I think it is great that you use automated systems to manage your business. And you seem to know what you are trying to produce.
You might provide guidance, such as "maximum number of words is xxx" so that folks better understand what's happening on your blog.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-19 10:13:27 AM
Lots of comments are getting hung up in the spam filter. I'm working on it. Apologies and thank you for your patience.
Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2007-12-19 10:21:39 AM
Latest poll: Liberals - 32%, Conservatives - 30%
Ok. Back to discussions of American politics.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-12-19 11:02:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.