I'm embarrassed to admit it but I'm guilty of being a "sheeple."
The portmanteau created by combining the words "sheep" and "people" is, according to Wikipedia, meant to imply that "as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them."
I have to confess that I'd always associated sheeplishness with the Left. Liberals, according to my stereotype, are more prone to collectivism and--despite what they might claim--invariably not a part of the "reality-based community." Conservatives, I foolishly believed, were different. We relied on facts and based our opinions on sound arguments. We did our own homework and didn’t rely on other people to do our thinking for us.
I know, I know, it's a silly delusion. Had I given it even a moment's thought I'd have recognized the fallacy of my own bias. But until recently, I didn’t give it much thought. It was only after the pundits started repeating erroneous claims about a topic I knew something about that I realized that they really were, as their liberal critics often claimed, regurgitating the same talking points.
What caught my attention were the claims made about Governor Huckabee, a subject I have had to become well-informed on as part of my professional duties. (This isn't about Huckabee; I suspect anyone could provide their own examples of this phenomenon.)
I don't consider myself an expert on the Governor's record. In fact, I'd say that my knowledge is the bare minimum that would be required of a pundit. Which is why I'm so surprised to find that they haven't done even the most basic research. For instance, one of the most irritating claims is one that is repeated by almost every conservative pundit in America: Because he raised taxes in Arkansas, Huckabee is obviously a fiscal liberal.
On its own, this assertion could be dismissed as a matter of personal opinion. If the pundit believes that anyone who raises taxes is a "fiscal liberal" then by that standard Huckabee would qualify. What is peculiar is that the same standard is not applied to other candidates, particularly Governor Romney.* Either they are misrepresenting the facts (which I doubt) or they simply don't know the truth (which I whole-heartedly believe to be the case).
The indisputable fact is that Governor Romney raised taxes much, much, much more in his four years than Governor Huckabee did in over a decade in office. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation Romney raised fees and taxes roughly $740 million to $750 million per year – an increase of roughly 2.8 billion during his tenure. In contrast, Huckabee increased the taxes $505 million ($300 million of which was mandated by the Supreme Court) in a 10.5 year period. If Governor Huckabee is a fiscal liberal than Governor Romney is a flaming fiscal liberal.
So why don't more pundits criticize Romney? Obviously, some are simply too wrapped up in primary-season partisanship to ever admit the truth. [Think I'm wrong? I'll put money on it: I'll give $200 to Young Life if my buddy Hugh Hewitt would admit (without spin) on both his blog and radio show that Romney raised taxes more than Huckabee.] But what excuse do the pundits have who don’t have a preferred candidate? I don’t think they are conspiring against the Governor. Instead I think they are either ignorant of the facts or too lazy (or, more generously, too busy) to develop an informed opinion.
Ignorance probably accounts for the economic issues. Laziness seems to be the excuse for the foreign policy gaffes. For the past few weeks Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs has been denigrated as naïve and uninformed. Again this would make more sense if Governor Huckabee's position was not basically indistinguishable from that of Rudy Giuliani (who is never criticized for the exact same positions).
Indeed, most pundits who have criticized the article show no evidence of actually having read it. Take, for example, this criticism by Sen. Bob Dole: "We are engaged in a global war on terror which will not disappear because you [Gov. Huckabee] imply a willingness, without any preconditions apparently, to sit down with the enemy. "
The only "enemy" that the article suggests sitting down with is Iran, which makes it obvious that Sen. Dole missed this section: "The reestablishment of diplomatic ties will not occur automatically or without the Iranians' making concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship."
(It's embarrassing that a Republican Senator would have the gall to criticize an article he hasn’t even read. But it's even more shameful that he couldn't find anyone who had read the article to proofread his letter.)
Unfortunately, Dole is not the only one. Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president and current senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote a weird rant in NRO and went on MSNBC to criticize Huckabee's criticism's for being the "kind Al Gore or Jimmy Carter would make." (Note: The quickest way to make yourself sound stupid is to poison the well by using an ad hominem of the form, "[Person being critiqued's] claim sounds like something [insert despised political rival] would say." Mr. Wehner is better than that.)
Wehner added that the article claims "President Bush is at war with the world, which is not true." Actually, what the article said was that Huckabee's administration would recognize "the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists." Perhaps Wehner is unaware that President Bush once said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
But the most interesting part of Wehner's critique is when he says that Huckabee's position is that we are not "nice enough" to other countries. Oddly, Fred Barnes used those exact words on Fox News. And tonight I heard Bill Bennett refer to Huckabee's foreign policy using the same word: "nice."
Anyone who had actually read the article would wonder how they could come to such a bizarre conclusion based on the text. The truth is that they didn’t. They cribbed it from a sub-standard, unsigned editorial at NRO. The Editor's wrote, "The former governor’s bottom line was that we should be nicer to other countries."
When the NRO editorial came out the Huckabee campaign wrote a rebuttal but decided against sending it. We figured that since such an absurd conclusion could not be gleaned from a careful reading of the text that there was no need to respond. We figured that despite how they felt about Governor Huckabee conservative pundits would have an allegiance to the truth and would feel the need to correct NRO's hasty and sloppy analysis. In never occurred to us that the pundits would feel qualified to opine on a topic that they knew nothing about.
Now I know better. And I won't be fooled again.
*I'm only using Romney since the comparison is so striking. I could have used Giuliani, but it's harder for people to claim he is truly a "fiscal conservative." In truth, he was a "fiscal disaster" who bankrupted NYC and left his successor with a $3 billion deficit, not including costs associated with 9/11.
I agree with you Joe. I've been so disappointed by conservative pundits, and they have so distorted the truth. Hugh Hewitt has gone over the top with his support of Mitt Romney. I don't even want to read NRO or HotAir anymore. Crazy.
Andrew Levy said something during the Live Desk show on Fox. "Huckabee isn't running as a conservative, he is running as a Christian." You know there is something to that, but I'm not thinking about it in the way Levy did. For far too many people they think Christianity = Conservatism, but there is much about conservatism that isn't Christ-like. I think Governor Huckabee is trying to be Christ-like in the way he runs his campaign and governs, and puts him in what seems to be a more moderate position. Though when one really looks at his positions that isn't entirely the case - like with taxes, healthcare and immigration.
Perhaps what is being championed as conservatism isn't true conservatism? Just some thoughts going through my mind when I should be in bed.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas, did you make it back to D.C. for it or did you have to stay in Arkansas?
Yes. It hurts to be misrepresented.
But, hey, your example isn't so bad. I mean, some "conservative" sheeple posing as experts will write off the most conservative person as a "crack pot" without even engaging the person's record, misrepresented or not.
You have my empathy, and welcome to the slightly-disillusioned-but-now-wiser club. I say that sincerely.
Well, now that your candidate is getting blasted in the media and elsewhere as being in league with the Reconstructionists, maybe you'll have a little more sympathy for Ron Paul who is made guilty by association through similar smears. The big difference to me is that Ron Paul has actually repudiated what the truthers and others stand for, but has said that he'll take their money to use it to further his agenda.
I have continued to be impressed with the Christian stance that Mike Huckabee has taken. I was discussing with a coworker, who is a Fred Thompson fan, and he tried to tell me that Mike Huckabee raised taxes and is as you say a fiscal liberal. I am glad to be able to be more informed on this issue. I am trying to learn as much as I can about the candidates. Thank you.
Glad to see you recognizing and rejecting authoritarianism. I knew you were on the right path when you made your statements against supporting torture.
When will you be making a stand for supporting the constitution and preserving our democracy by calling for the impeachments of Vice President Cheney and President Bush? Now that you have severed your ties to the elite neocon wing of the republican party certainly you are now free to be intellectually honest and call for impeachment.
Well, that's progress, Joe.
I have a standing bet with another winger that Romney will be the nominee because he's wired to do so.
Hewitt, a paid shill for the Republican party and Prager, and most of the other Salem Radio Network/"Town Hall" types are on Romney's side - so much for the "Evangelical/"Christian" media won't promote Mormons" idea.
Huckabee's never ever going to get my vote, because I tend to vote against people who don't share my morality, but at least, perhaps you can start to see how money makes the world go round, and in that framework, Huckabee won't go anywhere because he challenges serious money, the real money that put Bush in office.
He was just pretending he was one of you.
I've read Huckabee foreign policy editorial, thanks to blackfive.com. He does sound like Jimmy Carter.
But the funny thing is that he sounds even more like George W. Bush. And now those Conservatives like Hewitt, who has never left a shrill tone unvoiced in his support for Bush, and in his attacks against his detractors, now criticizes Huckabee relentlessly for holding the same supposed virtues that he defends in Bush.
"Andrew Levy said something during the Live Desk show on Fox. "Huckabee isn't running as a conservative, he is running as a Christian."
Yes. And I don't want another Christian President. I want an American one. Someone who feels beholden to more than just a single part of the electorate. A President for all Americans, not just Evangelical Christians.
There are other people here you know, in the United States, besides Evangelical Christians. If Huckabee thinks of us at all its with that blindly arrogant Christian paternalism of the self-righteous "saved" looking at "sinners". He does not think our lives important, but we do, and we also deserve a President that treats us with respect.
I don't know why Christians would vote for a candidate who so loves to wave the Christian flag on his sleeve anyway. Its obvious he is already been supremely corrupted by the ambition for worldly power. It makes for neither a good Christian nor a good President.
Let's look at the article that NR allegedly mischaracterized:
"The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised."
Hmm, sounds like Huckabee thinks the US, under Bush is a mean, stingy nation, and a braggart to boot; otherwise why bring this up? It also sounds like he believes that our problems in the world are largely our own fault, because of our lack of generosity and big mouth.
American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.
Let's set aside the obvious allusion to another world leader known for spending his last days in a bunker and explore this alleged "bunker mentality". Now, to my mind a "bunker mentality" is when you hide behind your defenses and cede the initiative to your opponent. Does anybody really think that Bush has yielded the initiative in this war to Al Qaeda or its sponsors either militarily or diplomatically? What about Iran or North Korea? You may not like his actions, but it is hard to assert convincingly that he has not been very active around the world. A "bunker mentality" would not have lead to Afghanistan or Iraq, instead we would have been more likely to follow the Clinton model of launching a few cruise missiles at some empty buildings or terrorist camps and that would have been the end of it.
The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood
How many Americans read Mein Kampf during WW2 or the Communist Manifesto during the Cold War? So how were we able to beat Nazism and Communism? Simple, by destroying their ability and will to wage war. It is not necessary to have even a working knowledge of Nazism or Communism to know that they are evil ideologies, "By their fruits you shall know them". What are the fruits of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda? That should be enough to know that they must be vanquished.
I could go through the rest of the article, but its pretty much the same all the way through, the problems the US has are self inflicted and a Huckabee presidency will make everything all better by being nicer. Joe, if that article is an accurate representation of Huckabee's foreign policy views, it is not NR that is misrepresenting them, it's you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You have summarized exactly what I, and a host of others in the blogosphere, have been writing about the irrational smears aimed at Gov. Huckabee by those who, heretofore, I have believed to be reasonable and balanced conservative voices. It is unfortunate that the credibility of the likes of Hewitt, Limbaugh, Dole, and Hannity is being diminished because of their unwillingness to do the requisite research to draw a reasonable conclusion about Gov. Huckabee's record as compared to their darling, Mitt Romney.
It must be a really confusing time for some when the grassroots conservatives are at odds with the conservative media spokesmen allied with the corporate elite wing of the republican party.
Also, Its going to be hard for millions of well meaning christians when they see the establishment conservatives smack down Huckabee because then they will begin to realize that the republicans have just been using them all these years.
You wrote: "I'll put money on it: I'll give $200 to Young Life if my buddy Hugh Hewitt would admit (without spin) on both his blog and radio show that Romney raised taxes more than Huckabee."
I'll match your $200 to Young Life and raise it another $100-- $500 total if Hugh does it.
JohnW --
If Huckabee wins, conservative small-government Christians will just have another example of how they're used to elect candidates who campaign one way and govern another. Huckabee is what you get when you splice Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush.
Like they say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
the irrational smears aimed at Gov. Huckabee
No irrational smears were necessary for me to decide I wasn't voting for Huckabee. I decided purely based on Huckabee's own words... his "Character Matters" book about himself. A friend of mine, who is a Republican party operative and was behind Huckabee long before it was cool to be behind Huckabee, gave me that book thinking that well, since I was a conservative evangelical, Huckabee was the guy for me. It backfired. We homeschool and HSLDA endorses Huckabee so I thought my friend was on to something and I would be swayed. However, I came away from that book with a creepy feeling that this guy was Clinton-lite. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to vote for a guy just because he's an evangelical. He needs to have some discernible vision as to what's wrong with America and what he as President could help do to fix it...and I never got that from his own words. He simply came across as a political insider who sees politics as a game to be played. Compromise is good! Big Government is good as long as it's doing...Christian stuff!!! No thanks. Didn't we try that with GW Bush?
Joe,
You had me going until I got to this paragraph:
Wehner added that the article claims "President Bush is at war with the world, which is not true." Actually, what the article said was that Huckabee's administration would recognize "the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists." Perhaps Wehner is unaware that President Bush once said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
Joe, if Gov. Huckabee is saying that our main fight today is not against the world, then the clear implication of his words is that today, in some sense, we are engaged in some kind of foolish fight against the world.
So when Wenner says that Gov. Huckabee says, "President Bush is at war with the world", then Wenner is quite correct. That is the clear implication of the quote.
And you yourself do not deny this. You merely point to Pres. Bush's quote, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
But there are two problems with using Bush's quote in this context.
The first is that Bush does not say we are at war with the world, he says that the world needs to choose sides, that each country in the world needs to choose sides. You're either for or against the terrorists -- neutrality just works to the benefit of the terrorists.
And lo and behold, what did Gov. Huckabee himself say? He said that, "... [our main fight] pits the world against the terrorists." Hmmm, great minds thinks alike, at least once you take a look at what they actually say and don't say.
The second problem with using Pres. Bush's "for us or against us" quote is that Pres. Bush was and still is right to try to force countries to take sides. We don't want to give anyone the luxury of sitting back or even playing footsie with terrorist groups while we do the thankless and dangerous job of hunting and tackling and dismantling the terrorist groups.
Joe, if you're going to complain about lazy or overwhelmed pundits, you need to edit your own material better, please. Otherwise you will come across as a hypocritical and very un-self-aware windbag. And I know you can do much better than that, amigo.
I don't know Joe.
I believe you on his fiscal conservative values. But preaching at Cornerstone as well as other churches and saying that the preaching is not about politics (saying it doesn't make it so) has really turned me away from him.
I can't vote for a man who uses the cross as a subliminal prop in a political commerical...
Joe -- Recently a friend gave me a sermon on CD that he said was fantastic. It had been done by a pastor he knew personally and liked a lot. I listened to the sermon: good but not especially more insightful or moving than many you hear. The point? People tend to find favorable the things said by people they favor. The corollary is that they tend to find disfavorable the things said by people they disfavor.
So, while some people are ignorant of Huckabee's record and some may want to prevent his success from interfering with their candidates' success, my guess is that others simply don't like the kind of person Huckabee appears to be -- southern/conservative/compassionate/Christian -- and consequently choose to interpret his comments and actions in the most detrimental ways.
Years ago one of the leaders of the student takeover of Columbia wrote about Humphrey: "I've got lots of political differences with the guy, but basically he makes me sick." I'd say today that many people are made sick by Huckabee, and therefore they find lots of political differences.
I suggest not wasting time offering Hewitt any Young Life contributions in exchange for honesty. He's got lots of ego invested in this race, and I'd not be surprised if he hopes to get major access in a Romney administration.
my guess is that others simply don't like the kind of person Huckabee appears to be -- southern/conservative/compassionate/Christian -- and consequently choose to interpret his comments and actions in the most detrimental ways.
G2, I don't really have a horse in the race, yet, but my problem with Huckabee is that he doesn't appear all that conservative (though, that is not a condition unique to Huck) and, honestly all that Christian. Yes, I know he is a Baptist minister and all that, but looking at his term as governor raises a fair amount of ethical questions. Setting up wedding registries for he and his wife of nearly 30 years shortly before leaving the governorship and his attempt to take furniture from the governor's mansion (http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2006/
11/13/week_in_review/news/saturday/
news09.txt), for example. What other recent Arkansas governor with a history of ethics problems did that? I am said to say it but Huckabee looks a lot like Clinton if Clinton could keep his pants on.
For the past few weeks Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs has been denigrated as naïve and uninformed. Again this would make more sense if Governor Huckabee's position was not basically indistinguishable from that of Rudy Giuliani (who is never criticized for the exact same positions).
So in other words, you can't defend your guy's foreign-policy positions by describing how he's right; your only defense is "another Republican said the same thing." That's pretty lame.
When the NRO editorial came out the Huckabee campaign wrote a rebuttal but decided against sending it. We figured that since such an absurd conclusion could not be gleaned from a careful reading of the text that there was no need to respond.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you. A campaign organization's job is to set the record straight about its candidate and make him/her look as good as possible. If anyone in your guy's campaign felt he/she had a credible rebuttal to a damaging article, he/she would have shot it off ASAP; that's what campaigns are for. The only plausible reason not to do so would be lack of a credible rebuttal.
In never occurred to us that the pundits would feel qualified to opine on a topic that they knew nothing about.
Oh please -- you so-called conservative Christians do this all the time, and now you're acting like the picture of wounded innocence when someone else (allegedly) does it to you?
Your lack of specific rebuttals to all but one of the points made against the Huckster (and that a mere semantic quibble), speaks volumes about the substance of your campaign.
Let's see...who should I trust more, an old and nationally-known conservative publication, or a guy who can't see a meaningful distinction between gays and pedophiles? Wow, such a tough choice. Not.
Joe,
I think the problem with folks being "sheeple" stems from posts like yours.
You make claims about Romney and don't spend the time backing up those claims. You merely link to Time's article which is a response by the McCain campaign.
What's the matter, you don't have the time or the bandwidth to make the complete argument, you expect us all to be sheeple like you've admitted to being?
Depending on where you go you get different facts. For example, this one:
Here are the facts: As governor, Mitt Romney erased a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes. By cutting the waste out of government and reducing taxes, Romney led the way to a $1 billion surplus.
Who do we "sheeple" choose to believe?
All of us are left to do the research on our own. Most of us will choose not to because we just don't care that much. We pick the authority we find most compelling and we choose to believe them.
If you really care about folks being sheeple (I don't believe you do, you're just smuggling in another argument for Huckabee) then take the time and have the patience to do more than just link to accusations made by another campaign. Demonstrate how what you are saying is true.
From what ive studied of Governor Romney, it seems to me on the surface that you are wrong and their characterization of him is inaccurate if not an outright lie. But it fits into a soundbite, which is all you get in the news media these days.
I expect better of blogs.
Baggi,
What's the matter, you don't have the time or the bandwidth to make the complete argument, you expect us all to be sheeple like you've admitted to being?
No, I expect you to check the facts yourself. But since you don’t have the time I'll do that for you. This is from FactCheck.org:
This is from a report by the CATO institute (p. 26):
From what ive studied of Governor Romney, it seems to me on the surface That you are wrong and their characterization of him is inaccurate if not an outright lie. But it fits into a soundbite, which is all you get in the news media these days.
I expect better of blogs.
Wow. Imply that I'm lying without even bothering to check the facts? I suspect that now that you have been presented with evidence you'll apologize for your hasty conclusion, right?
If you look at those issues in isolation, they seem like poor support for the arguments that Huckabee is a fiscal and FoPo liberal. But in reality, I think that HuckHaters latch onto these examples because they communicate in concrete terms what is plainly clear from The Huckster's rhetoric on the stump.
It's difficult to point to any individual stump speech statement as irrefutable proof of a candidate's views, since they are more discernible in aggregate than they are individually. For people who aren't die-hard political junkies, and don't have the time to follow a candidate's every move, no particular statement stands out, and the overall message is easily lost.
But listening to Huckabee talk about the economic situation in the United States sounds strikingly Edwardian in its populism, progressivism, and open criticism of traditionally conservative values. He is using the class warfare rhetoric of the left to position himself as an outsider, arguing openly that "the Republican party needs to be changed." Given his verbal repudiation of fiscal conservatism, it's really not unreasonable to examine Huckabee's record with a critical eye as to his conservative bona fides.
On foreign policy, the Foreign Affairs article is notable because it is more thought-out and widely-read than his off-hand campaign statements. But the article itself has to be read in the context of what we know about Huckabee's foreign policy views. We know that he has zero experience, his supposed degree in theology notwithstanding. And we know that he has proven consistently clueless about what is going on in the world.
His ignorance of the NIE report on Iran is troubling, but not by itself wholly damning. But when you add that to his response to the Pakistan crisis, it really gives the impression that Governor Huckabee just doesn't have a clue about Foreign Affairs. Apparently unable to speak knowledgeably about the subject, Gov. Huckabee wondered aloud whether martial law would be ever be lifted, even though it had been lifted two weeks previously. He later attempted to spin it into an illegal immigration debate, of all things, claiming, according to CNN, that "there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border." (Never mind the fact that doesn't even register on most statistics that track nations of origin for illegal immigrants.)
When a candidate for President of the United States lacks a pretty basic familiarity in world affairs, and responds to complex international crises by making false claims about unrelated domestic policies, I seriously question his qualifications as Commander-in-Chief. The superficial depth of analysis and understanding in his Foreign Affairs article do not assuage my worries at all.
Joe wrote;
Wow. Imply that I'm lying without even bothering to check the facts? I suspect that now that you have been presented with evidence you'll apologize for your hasty conclusion, right?
Joe also wrote:
The indisputable fact is that Governor Romney raised taxes much, much, much more in his four years than Governor Huckabee did in over a decade in office.
Joe's proof...
Romney: I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to raise taxes. As governor of Massachusetts, I made it very clear there, and I did not raise taxes.
Technically, this is true, but it's also misleading.
Care to retract your statement Joe?
Technically its true? That's another way of saying, "Yes, Romney is telling the truth, he did not raise taxes."
Ahh, but he closed loopholes in the tax law. Ummm.... yeah, so? That's not raising taxes, that's enforcing the law. I'm all for that. And if the law taxes too much, those taxes should be lowered.
Unless you support cheating on your taxes? If not, I cannot see how closing loopholes, in your mind, is the same as raising taxes, Joe. Care to explain?
Care to explain how the very evidence you present admits that Governor Romney did not raise taxes in Massachussettes?
Let's compare apples to apples here, shall we?
If we do, we find that Huckabee raised taxes more than Romney did.
Now, did Romney raise fees more than Huckabee did? Good question. I'll have to look into it and see what sorts of fees Huckabee raised (or lowered) during his tenure.
But let's not compare apples to oranges, call apples oranges and then expect everyone to agree with you.
Huckabee raised taxes more than Romney did, didn't he Joe?
Oh, and in case you didn't already know, allow me to explain the difference between a tax and a fee, Joe. A tax is mandatory. A fee is paid as a charge for services rendered.
I'm sure there's some way to make an apple into an orange on this one though.
But before you try, think one more time about being involved in politics, Joe. It's really disappointing to see my favorite Christian philospher go down this road.
Ever notice, when somebody is starting to pull ahead in these presidential races or begins to "shine" brighter, the candidate is misquoted or slandered or generally crapped on?
Steve
So true.
I hope some folk Digg this article.
Great post! I totally agree with you, Joe.
FYI:
Joe, your trackback seems to be down.
There's no alternative to reading everything very carefully and talking to knowledgeable people about it.
I have to say, though, that what passes for a "conservative" these days would have been tagged as a Bolshevik eighty years ago.
Yeah, sheeple, so what? Scripture assigns the same to believers in general, simply because they are sinners. Now, as we walk this line, the fact is that all your blogging will mean nothing. People will vote populism on two accounts, familial, and associational. The first, simply because they are part of the crowd and recognize the name as one of them, the second because the name is associated with a cause, rightfully or not, the assumption will be made along no informed lines, simply by populist associationalism. The reality will not be an informed public, that is hardly ever achieved. Sing the right song, resonate with the sheeples, sell the right grass and they will follow to eat their favorite meals.
A small percentage will even bother with informing themselves. And, it will not do them a bit of good to test the track record, even if it is professed in book form. Still, others will want to know the philosophical and ethical belief systems of the individual. They will want to know their politics, and not just their association with a parties platform, but what makes them to be either for, or against it. And, what makes them truly either for it or against it.
Neither Huckabee, nor Romney fit their own criteria for truth. And you could look down the line and not find a candidate that fits his own image. Take time to analyse their position statements, then. Huckabee, is at best a theological liberal viewed from a historic orthodoxy, with tendencies to fundamentalist reconstructionism and a social gospel bent. And Romney is simply a liar. We could argue that they are both unfit, and I am sure that we could find unfitness in any candidate proposed. You who write these blogs are no better than the media in general when you concentrate on track records. As has been demonstrated here, one can take any decision that any candidate has made while in office and spin it to mean what ever one wants. Researching a candidate is not going to happen by ninety percent of the electorate. So, here at least discuss what will affect the ten. And those things are a matter of political philosophies which will more likely determine the course of the candidate in office. Huckabee's track record, does reflect his motivation, but even if they didn't, it would be what he says he believes and not what he has actually done that gives us the best indicator of what he will do in the future.
Huckabee for example proposes stiffer penalties for business hiring illegals. But, sufficient statutes are now in effect. The are just not inforced. He could, if he had the heart, to just say that he would enforce, by executive order if necessary, the existing law. Huckabee shelters his social gospel under the guise of preventative health. His "kid's first" programs and social redistributionism is clear in his agenda. Since when is it the Federal Governments job at all? Where is the constitutional authority that he is appealing to? The conclusion is that he is a centralist, not meaning that he is a moderate, not he is a liberal in the Carter clan of the SBC, by centralist, I mean that he believes is the power of centralized governmental control. Do not be deceived into believing that his non-fed-mandated health programs will be any less intrusive simply by calling it preventive health care. Or, take education: "I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy. As I traveled the country and the world over the last decade bringing jobs to Arkansas, the business leaders I met weren't worried about creating jobs, they were worried about finding skilled and professional workers to fill those jobs." Where in the constitution is it the feds right to control local school districts? But, that is exactly what he infers. He says: "I am a strong supporter of public school choice." But, he does not say he is a strong supporter of private education, i.e, private sector, and that means vouchers. It is strange that a conservative would even begin to suggest that the mess that topdown control of schooling has created can be corrected by more topdown control. And being only 52 he most likely has no clue as to what the schools were like before the federal take over of the 1960's. If he really wants quality education, give it back to the local districts. No more federal dollars, please.
Or, how about the Second Amendment: "No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do. Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment." Will he do away with the National Guard and reinstitute State Militias? Will he return to the States their sovereign military rights afforded by that amendment?
Then there is: "My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." I love a man who will say the first thing, but when he attaches it to environmentalism, it is horrifyingly familiar ground to part of the precursor of the Father Land image of the groundswell populism of the 30's German Church. And, I do not by this mean that he is anything like the fascists. But, I do not want federal control outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in settling disputes between the States over issues concerning states rights and private property rights of individuals. There is no authority, constitutionally outside of the Court. If anything, legislation should be pushed supporting the plantiff's right to defend themselves against big dollar interests, much in the same way that defense is assured to the poor. So, in general, his reconstructionism is not of a kind that is easily defined, because he does not believe in a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, from what his postition statements reveal, anyway.
My vote will be with Huckabee despite not being much of a conservative, simply because, though he may not know what he really stands for, he is at least not a knowledgeable liar like Romney. Since there is probably no chance that anyone else will be considered on the ticket past these first few primaries, we will be stuck with him. We should consider then, what might happen with a third candidate in the general. A strong conservative voice like Ron Paul can defeat any strengh the Republicans are gaining from the trash bin of the Democrat party line-up. If that does not materialize, then again, when the media is in favor of one Republican candidate over another, the best thing to do is vote in the opposite direction, since the majority of people are sheep, the reality of elections will come down to the informed voter and that does not mean steeping them in trivia about their history, but a serious look at their political philosophy.
Joe, I am immensely surprised that the campaign did not respond to the NR editorial. That's astounding. The piece was so profoundly sloppy -- well, good God.
Sigh.
I appreciate this post. As a Christian, I take my vote very seriously and work hard to be accurately informed. This is the reason Governor Huckabee has my vote and my prayers.
I only read so far as your discussion on taxes between Huckabee and Romney. Who knows who raised taxes more based on your figures. They need to be broken down by percent increase per citizen. Maybe Arkansas has fewer citizens than Massachusets. You've used a standard liberal ploy where about the last Bush tax cuts, where they commonly said something to the effect that it was a big give away to the rich. Well sure, the rich experienced a larger savings because they were already paying a lot. And also the amount of taxes colleceted now is far greater than in prior years, so the tax break is also huge. Prove your point about by breaking down their tax increases on a per capita basis, or on a percent of current tax revenue basis.
mothers day my sexy mom | son fucks his mom | exploted moms | gay date my mom | mom punishment petticoat | moms over 50 | free exploited moms
http://nobodyshome.co.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=55540
http://astra.com.cy/forum/viewtopic.php?p=149812
http://www.xox-movies.nl/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7024
http://www.xox-movies.nl/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7009
http://www.hecomputing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=462367
http://finanzaspublicas.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?p=50398
Hello
I am 24 years old from Virgin Islands
I like this forum very much.
I try to contribute with something soon.
I just wanted to introduce my self, don't have anything else to write.
Best regards,
dotappara
--------------------------------
[url="http://specialdeals.jennyholmes.info/etnies-skate-page-TIyUZ.html"]etnies skate[/url]