Video: Huckabee makes the case for the Human Life Amendment
posted at 6:59 pm on November 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
For the second time in as many days we find the HLA on our radar. I have no interest in this endlessly rehashed debate but it’s Huck’s best chance to outmaneuver Fred and Mitt as the “true” social con so expect to hear plenty more about it as the caucus approaches. To refresh your memory, Thompson — the NRLC endorsee — opposes the HLA on federalist grounds; Mitt is both for it and against it, favoring the federalist approach in the interim until a national supermajority in favor of banning abortion emerges and passes the amendment. Huck’s counterpoint is simple yet compelling, and one I’ve made myself: if you believe abortion is morally unconscionable but also believe the states are the proper venue to handle it, explain the Thirteenth Amendment.
What Huck’s point doesn’t address is why his position is better than Mitt’s. You’re not going to pass an HLA anytime soon, in which case why not limit it where you can by overturning Roe and letting the red states roll it back piecemeal?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Slavery was not made a federal issue because it was a moral issue.
Jay on November 18, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Huckabee was totally incorrect about the Civil War, though. It wasn’t about slavery, but about the right of states to secede from the union.
The thirteenth amendment places a certain power in the federal government that wasn’t there before - ergo it is an amendment. If Huckabee is arguing for a Constitutional amendment disallowing abortion, that is one thing, but as the document stands, that is a right for the states to decide.
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Yes, and one of the main reasons they wanted to secede was to protect their prerogative to maintain slavery. Let’s not get into a debate about the root causes of the Civil War. If it was only about secession, the Reconstruction Amendments would have been limited to that subject.
Indeed. He simply wants to eliminate that right.
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Isn’t eliminating that right a bit on the nannystate side things?
Jay on November 18, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Eliminating any right could be seen as “nannystate” activity, though. Isn’t eliminating the right of states to legalize slavery nannystatish?
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 7:34 PM
No argument.
This does beg the question, though, would one expect a Constitutional amendment banning abortion to cause several liberal states to try to secede? And what would the response be?
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 7:37 PM
HLA: unearned power to the federal government.
I am pro-life and believe the HLA is not a moral or political solution to murder of babies. People becoming pro-life is the solution.
One day, Roe will go. Then the states, one by one, will outlaw skull crushing. Until then, be pro-life in your life.
saved on November 18, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Interesting questions both. Although presumably, if they ever did reach a consensus where three-quarters of the states were ready to back the HLA, the opposition in the remaining quarter would also be sufficiently soft as not to prompt a crisis.
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Huck can call himself the true social conservative all he likes, so long as he doesn’t try to call himself the true conservative.
Watcher on November 18, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I meant “No argument from me on this”, in case that didn’t come across properly.
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 7:40 PM
There will never be a “Human Life Amendment” - that is pure whistling in the wind. The country would not want it.
Hilts on November 18, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I’m pro-life, but spending time, effort and money on getting a “human life amendment” passed would be a waste. Does Huckabee really believe 38 of the 50 states will pass it?
Better to spend time getting Roe overturned so you could stop abortion in ‘red” states, where it would be outlawed.
Slublog on November 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn’t (I don’t think he’s that stupid). That means he’s flapping his gums in an attempt to win over the social cons. At best, he’s no better than any other politician when it comes to raw political pandering.
Splashman on November 18, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I think the inherent difference between slavery and abortion lies in the fact that Slavery is a federal trade therefore the federal government could outlaw it and regulate it.
Abortion is like assault, rape, stat rape, we could all make the case that under the 13th everything could be lumped under it, being that the federal government knows bestt what the prevailing variations in prison terms and puunsihments between states should indeed be uniform.
this wouls end the need for states and really for local government. where do we draw the line?
Lets leave that for the constitutional law students to scream at each other in moot court
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 8:16 PM
soory for the typos it early over here in the Gulf
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Eric, actually the slave trade was outlawed long before slavery itself. So, the thirteenth amendment, was about telling states they could not keep, breed, sale, etc the slaves they already had.
Jay on November 18, 2007 at 8:20 PM
The slavery argument is fine if you are trying to be purer than Crease’s wife but the reality is quite different. You couldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment in 1859, so by Huck’s logic, you shouldn’t have tried to outlaw slavery anywhere if you couldn’t outlaw in everywhere.
It took a rather large event (and several hundred thousand dead) to get to the right point and pass the 13th Amendment but let’s assume we aren’t going to pass the HLA anytime soon and we aren’t going to fight a civil war over it, what’s the moral thing to do? Do the best you can and outlaw abortion where you can or do nothing for the sake of having a political issue?
I get the politics of what he is doing but it seems the morality is rather weak.
Of course, I am far more anti-Roe (and Casey) than I am anti-abortion so this really isn’t my fight.
Drew on November 18, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Not only will the states not pass it, but it won’t get through Congress which is the first hurdle.
I am so tired of conservatives wasting time and energy on useless proposals which are just symbolic gestures that get people riled up but accomplish absolutely nothing - while detracting from issues and agendas we really could be moving forward.
Elect any of the Republican candidates, get conservative jurists to sit in the majority on the Supreme Court, overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide.
Do not sit on your hands and stay home on Election Day out of “principle” unless you think cutting off your nose to spite your face is a principled act.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 8:31 PM
The HLA will never pass. Huckabee is pandering.
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 8:46 PM
I see some people on here do not support a Human Life Amendment and have stated that the country does not want it. Has the Pro-Life movement gone backwards since 1981 when Ronald Reagan supported a Human Life Amendment?
While I do not support Mike Huckabee based on his big spending, big government, big taxes, pro-amnesty policies, I believe his stance on abortion is quite in line with the efforts of Ronald Reagan. And, if what people are saying is true, that the country is not interested in the Human Life Amendment, it would seem to me that the Pro-Life movement has gone backwards, or at least is not that principled as back in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was attempting to lead the movement.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 9:24 PM
All that I know is that in my state, Oklahoma, we’re slowly moving away from abortion in a bipartisan manner one step at a time. While the people don’t like abortion around here the quickest way to galvanize the situation and draw battle lines is to even suggest a constitutional amendment outlawing it. Guess when it comes down to dust I don’t much care for federal laws at all unless it’s impossible for a State law to cover the situation.
Buzzy on November 18, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I would love it to pass. BUT it is never going to. Sorry to say, but that is reality. Huckabee knows it too. Same with the marriage ammendment.
Sure it sounds nice to hear him say he supports it but in the end it is meaningless.
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 9:35 PM
The reason Helms and Hyde sponsored the “Human Life Bill” was because they realized an amendment to the constitution was not possible. So the pro-life movement has not moved backwards, nor has it become less principled. However, if politicians such as Huckabee think it’s possible, then they have perhaps become less pragmatic.
Slublog on November 18, 2007 at 9:37 PM
That would be child’s play compared to getting TWO THIRDS OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS to vote for it.
This is nothing but an argument in favor of fairies dancing on the head of a pin. Anyone who takes this issue seriously is a highly compassionate idiot - in other words, a liberal.
logis on November 18, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Actually, for me anyway, nothing sounds nice coming from a politician unless they mean what they say. I can respect someone, even politicians, who will say what they mean and mean what they say. I don’t respect someone who says they are against abortion and want them to be “safe, legal and rare”. That’s a copout.
I can respect Mike Huckabee if he actually believes what he is saying on this issue, especially if he knows it will sink his campaign, since, as you say, “it is never going to” pass.
It is important for these issues to be brought to the forefront and to be discussed. There are many people who don’t even realize that overturning Roe v Wade will not outlaw abortion. So that is why it is so important for people who are passionate about their pro-life/anti-abortion views to come forward and discuss this and discuss all the options on the table.
That is one of the reasons that many people wanted to see Tom Tancredo in the Presidential campaign so he could focus the discussion on illegal immigration policy.
If Mike Huckabee truly believes in this, I say good for him for getting out there and discussing it. However, if he is just taking the stance for political gain, then, you are right, it is meaningless.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I understand pramatism, but I really don’t understand all this talk about “it will never happen” and “this is ridiculous, it’s too hard” etc. Weren’t the greatest movements in this country (civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc) considered “never gonna happen” when they were started?
Personally, I look back at all the movements in this nation’s history and then look at what people say about the Pro-Life movement and it just seems like people today are not as bold and willing to take risks as people were back during the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements.
Heck, 30 years ago, if someone told you that we would have protections for every sexual deviant lifestyle and were thinking about trashing traditional marriage and redefining it for same sex and possibly polygamy, what would people have said? ‘That’s impossible’. But, look where we are now, because the homosexual movement did not accept ‘pragmatic’ and moved to get what they wanted. I would say they are closer to getting homosexual marriage than we are to getting Roe overturned and abortion outlawed in certain states. Heck, there are already a few states which have civil unions right?
I think pramatism over principle actually hurts the movement. But, then again, I would have to go back to how the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements developed to find out if they started out pragmatic and then pushed and pushed and took chances as their momentum grew.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Good point: reality is very highly over-rated.
And how, exactly, is an insane threat to federally criminalize abortion going to make voters understand that conservatives don’t want to force anything down people’s throats?
It’s also the reason a lot of
peopleidiots wanted to see Ron Paul in the Republican Primary.The people who are politically polarized decided their positions years ago. The race will come down next November (as it always does) to the people who frivolously pay more attention to their lives than to politics. And giving those voters a choice between Democrat craziness and Republican craziness is not a recipe for a landslide victory.
logis on November 18, 2007 at 9:56 PM
So are you saying that victory is more important than principle?
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Also, Ronald Reagan wrote Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation in 1981, his first term in office, and won a landslide victory in 1984. So apparently it can be done and he was not seen as a Republican crazy for his stance on trying to get abortion outlawed.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Jay
so it was the regulation of that act.. There wasn’t a need for the 13th just after the war and to not refight it they passed it
the Slaves were freed without the war
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 10:06 PM
In a sense, it is. After all, what good is principle without the means to turn those ideals into law?
Slublog on November 18, 2007 at 10:08 PM
My point was where do you stop. Murder is regulated by the states but the manslaughter for drunk driving varies greatly - this is the argument shouldn’t we regulate that and shouldn’t the rights of citizens to not ne run over by drunk drivers be regulated etc etc etc
at some point the states and their citizens need their own government
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I believe he is sincere! But overturning Roe V Wade IS the only way we are ever going to end the barbarity of abortion. Remove that and States can restrict abortion, ban it, etc. The HLA is a pipe dream.
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Listen, retard, somebody already explained to you about ten minutes ago that Ronald Reagan never supported an abortion Amendment.
And now here you are bringing up the exact same lie once again.
Why is that?
logis on November 18, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I understand, but I also am getting the feeling that our politicians know this sentiment as well and are pandering to it. They know that certain groups (pro-life, pro-immigration enforcement, etc) know they need certain politicians in office in order to even have a chance. So the politicians know they don’t really have to do anything with regards to the groups’ positions, because they know the other option in the other party will not give the groups any chance whatsoever.
Just look at our choices in the Presidential race right now. Hillary and Rudy pretty much know they are locks right now, because the sentiment among the bases of the respective parties is ’s/he is the only one who can defeat him/her’. So they really don’t have to take stances on anything, because, in the end, who is really going to leave Rudy to place a principled vote for say, Mike Huckabee, when they know that may just end up ushering Hillary into office. So Rudy can just sit back and relax as the front runner, not worry about anything and know that the majority of people are choosing party victory over principle.
I personally believe that if we had everyone voting based on principle, we would actually have politicians do what they promise.
People complain about RINOs all the time, but really, aren’t we responsible for the RINOs? Politicians really don’t have to do anything if they are under no threat to lose their positions of power. And they will have no challenge from a conservative if they know that people are simply going to end up voting for victory over principle anyway, to keep the other party out of power.
So we are now at a point where politicians, specifically Republicans, don’t have to do jack squat, except just be less worse than the other party, Democrats.
See what I mean?
That’s why I am getting more and more wary of this “victory over principle” sentiment. I don’t see how it helps us achieve our goals. If we simply tell an incumbent RINO that if we notice that his conservative challenger doesn’t stand a chance against the Democrat challenger, we’re just going to end up voting for the incumbent RINO to defeat the Democrat challenger, then what incentive does the RINO have to stop being a RINO? He just has the incentive to make sure he can win elections, which means raising the most money, getting the most face time and gaining the most support. And we just end up with endless terms for RINOs with no threat to their defeat.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Maybe because he expressed his support for an Abortion Amendment in 1981. Unless this paper he wrote in 1981 was a lie?
If you tell me that he reversed his position that he stated in the paper, then I will retract. But his position in the paper in 1981 was support for an Abortion Amendment to outlaw abortion.
And thank you for the retard compliment. Added a lot to the discussion.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 10:45 PM
The analogy to the Civil War is apt, because that’s what it would take to ban abortion nationally by constitutional amendment.
What Huckabee is saying, then, is tantamount to an endorsement of the status quo; demanding the impossible is a way of demanding nothing. It’s all just as well, I suppose. Republicans don’t actually want the abortion issue to go away. There’s too much political milk in those tits.
paul006 on November 18, 2007 at 10:51 PM
I dunno, Gatordoug. I still like to look back in the history of this nation and believe that nothing is a ‘pipe dream’ if the cause is just. As I said earlier, the best movements in the history of this nation were, at one time, ‘pipe dreams’, yet the people who wholeheartedly believed in them, sacrificed everything in life to see those dreams come to fruition.
If the HLA is not right, then it should not be put forth. But people shouldn’t stop working towards a HLA if they believe it is right for this nation.
I too believe that Roe needs to first be overturned in order to see progress in the Pro-Life movement. But I also believe that one day this nation should stand for the sanctity of life and there should be a Human Life Amendment in our constitution.
And to the argument that these things are being ‘forced on the nation’, well, lots of things in history were forced on the nation, including, I believe, abolition of slavery, civil rights and desegregation (someone correct me if I am wrong here, please). But looking back, we don’t wish that those things were not forced on us, because we believe they were right. And it just took some time before others finally believed in their righteousness of it as well.
Racism did not end with the abolition of slavery and with the civil rights movement, but that didn’t stop them from moving forward. And just because everyone does not believe in the sanctity of human life does not mean we should not push forward with the movement.
The only reason we should not move forward is if we do not believe that abortion is wrong and do not believe in the sanctity of human life.
Kind of an aside question: was there some pragmatic solution to slavery and civil rights? Did people talk of trying to solve those issues with pramatism? I’m honestly asking here, not trying to be slick. Because, growing up in the 1980s never even thinking of being racist or thinking of others as having less rights than me, I can’t even fathom what a pragmatic argument would be for allowing slavery and anti-civil rights laws to exist in some states and not others, instead of having the Constitutional Amendments banning it from our entire country.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 10:56 PM
He’s not taking this position because it’s going to sink his campaign! He’s taking it to appeal to the emotions of certain voters - idealists like you who are not realistic about the chances of this passing.
Your example of how things have moved to the Left beyond all expectations only serve to demonstrate how it is more, not less difficult for this to pass at this point in time than it was in 1981.
That does not mean that we are giving up on conservative ideals, just that we have to do things which will actually result in some progress, even though they may not be exactly what purists want.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is a reasonable and attainable objective and our energies should be focused on that, not diverted by pie in the sky ideas that, which while admirable and principled, will never happen.
Moreover, your implied definition of a RINO assumes that all conservatives are first and foremost social cons, which is simply not true. It also removes independents from the mix who we have to have in large numbers to win.
For instance people like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are RINOS because virtually every position they take is what a liberal would take, whether it be Shamnesty, being wobbly on the war on terror, taxes, and so forth.
It’s not just the issue of abortion that defines us as conservatives, and I guarantee you Rudy Giuliani is far less of a RINO than those gals are, and he is in many ways more conservative than Mike Huckabee. Most important? He would appoint strict constructionist jurists and lo and behold, we could actually see tangible results in numerous areas which are of concern to us, instead of holding out for the perfect candidate who doesn’t exist. If Hillary is elected every issue that concerns conservatives will be in peril and we may never recover from the huge expansion of government she would usher in.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Michael in Mi,
One more thing. I’m not saying that Rudy is the only candidate I could support, or that he is the only one who could win. I only bring him up because he is the one that I hear a lot of people say they won’t vote for him “on principle”, and you specifically brought him up as a candidate you oppose.
I think Romney is great and could beat Hillary. Fred could have broad appeal too if one just looked at where he stands on the issues, but he is running a lackluster campaign and I don’t see him suddenly becoming an exciting candidate.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Given the fairly extreme measures needed to pass an ammendment it is as close to a pipe dream as there is.
Now, in regards to your question about slavery, it would have ended of its own barabic natue I think.
Jeffeson Davis, Confderate president, believed that slaves should be educated, and given every tool necessary to be free one day. He, as well as his brother Joseph, did their best to prepare slaves for freedom. They both knew that slavery WOULD end, and believed it incumbent upon the White man to make skaves ready to compete and be free.
Slavery was a very complex issue. Many Northern states forbade blacks living in them, so it was not a simpe matter of just setting them free.
It should be noted that the War Between the States was NOT fought over slavery. It also might be noted Lincoln freed no one, seeing as how General Grant’s wife owned slaves AFTER the war, and Union General Thomas owned slaves as well.
Some other historical notes include Stonewall Jackson running a school in Lexington, Va. that educated Blacks. As well as Lee’s despisal of slavery. Many Southern generals wanted the slaves freed if they served in Confederate armies. It is hard to believe these men would sacrifice their alledged cause(slavery). In truth they fought for the the right to secede, not slavery.
I have read many Confederate soldiers letters home, and they rarely if ever even mentioned slavery as their cause.
Sorry, I have studied the War Between the States for 33 years, and it easy to get carried away. I had dozens of ancestors who fought in the Confederate ranks, so maybe it is in my blood.
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Buy Danish - I can understand your point, but I have to laugh a little, because I can remember only a few years ago when it was taboo to mention working to overturn Roe v Wade and THAT was pie in the sky. Now all of a sudden Roe is the objective? How did that happen?
Seriously, what happened within the last 5-10 years where now we can talk about overturning Roe? Is the general public now more educated as to the fact that overturning Roe will not outlaw abortion, so now we can seriously work towards overturning it? Whereas before we couldn’t talk about that, because people thought that meant outlawing abortion?
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Buy Danish - Just so you know, my definition of a RINO comes from the 2004 Republican Platform. That platform is pro-life and I believe pro-amendment for traditional marriage (whatever it was called, I can’t remember now). I know that is only PART of the GOP Platform, but it is still a part of it. I don’t see how someone can be called a RINO ONLY when they oppose the fiscal GOP platform or the foreign policy GOP platform, but not when they oppose the social GOP platform.
A RINO is a RINO. If they are not in agreement with the GOP platform, then they are RINOs, right? Or are there certain things on the platform that a Republican can oppose and still not be a RINO?
That’s a serious question too.
Because it ties into the 2008 GOP Platform. If Rudy is the nominee, does the GOP platform change to pro-amnesty, pro-abortion/choice, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-gun control? Or does the GOP just nominate a candidate who is in opposition to the GOP platform? How does that work?
I’ve asked that in many places and have yet to get an answer. And I haven’t been able to find the answer in my research yet either.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:22 PM
This is arguable. I have read in different places that he appointed very liberal judges in New York. So I don’t know what to believe. And when I can’t trust or believe someone, I tend not to support them. Right now, I see no difference between him and Hillary on the social issues. He panders, but I don’t believe he will follow through. I honestly believe he is just saying the right things to get elected, but when it comes down to it, he knows he just has to be less bad than Hillary. Which isn’t saying much.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Rudy is a joke as a Conservative!
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Yeah I don’t support Rudy simply because he is pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage. He is basically running as the 9/11 major and nothing else. If he were running as a Democrat, that would be great. He is more in line with the Democrat platform, I believe. Other than he may be fiscally conservative and says the right things on the war effort. Though he may be just as bad as President Bush as far as DHS is concerned. I think he would be a great Democrat candidate, but I really don’t understand how he is the leading Republican candidate. The only rationale I can figure is that he is supported simply to beat Hillary. So we basically choose a liberal Democrat (Rudy) over a socialist borderline-Communist (Hillary). And that’s fine if people are honest about it like that. But don’t tell me that Rudy is a Republican.
As far as the others, anyone can win if they are supported. Right now, I can’t tell you how many times I have read people on message boards and blog comments say “I actually support _____, but he probably can’t win so I am supporting Rudy”. It makes me wonder how the chances for these other candidates would be if their supporters actually, you know, supported them.
For me, I don’t trust Romney. And I am very disappointed with Fred’s campaign. I like a lot of what he has to say, but he just does not seem into it. It doesn’t seem like he really wants to be President, he’s just running to run. So right now, I really don’t have a candidate. But I’m getting discouraged by general talk that people are more interested in winning than principle or party over principle.
I would really be interested to know where Michelle Malkin stands right now in her decision making about supporting a candidate. If she came out and supported Rudy, I would be really disappointed, because he is basically on the same page as President Bush, with whom she has major problems (as do I). So for her to endorse him (Rudy) would say a lot.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:35 PM
No need to apologize. Thank you for the history lesson. My ex-girfriend majored in history in college and was big on the civil war and she explained similar sentiments to me in our past discussions on the subject. We also saw Gettysburg together and then went to see Gods and Generals at the theater and those sentiments of the South generals, especially Stonewall Jackson, praying for the slaves to be freed was expressed in that film too.
There is a lot that I still need and want to learn about our country’s history and that is why I ask a lot of questions. Some may come across as setups or something, especially since that seems to be the SOP of blog comment sections, but most of the time (not all, I am guilty of being a snarky jack@ss at times too heh) I am genuinely trying to learn from people who may be more informed than me.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:40 PM
IT DOESN’T SAY THAT, RETARD!!!!
As has been explained to you three times now, Reagan was talking about an Act of Congress, not a Constitutional Amendment. There is an extremely large difference.
Any other questions?
Oh, by the way, the word “retard” is short for “mentally retarded.” Like many words, it has a meaning. What it means is that you are clearly incapable of understanding even the most ridiculously simple and obvious fact, not that someone else besides you isn’t adding something that you want to hear to the conversation.
It wasn’t actually intended as a complement; nevertheless, you’re welcome.
logis on November 18, 2007 at 11:43 PM
“Gods and Generals” was INCREDIBLY accurate. Stephen Lange brought Stonewall to life!
Gatordoug on November 18, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Okay, explain to me then what he meant by this statement:
If that means that Ronald Reagan did NOT support a Constitutional Amendment, even when, in his own words, he states explicitly “I have endorsed … the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and will give these initiatives my full support,” then fine, I will consider myself a retard.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:53 PM
So AP, you’re coming around to the point James Dobson made months ago when you were dumping on him…?
jgapinoy on November 18, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Considering you apparently do not grasp sarcasm, nor the proper usage of complement and compliment, I don’t think I will be taking language advice from you, thank you.
I have been attacked and called much worse from brave anonymous people hiding behind the security of the internet in the past. I could care less.
And considering you cannot discuss matter without calling people retards, this will be my last acknowledgement of any of your comments here. Take care.
Michael in MI on November 18, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Yep, I really enjoyed that movie. Very powerful. Plus, it was the first movie that I saw in a theater where they actually gave us a 10 minute break in the middle, because it was over 3 hours long! It was also interesting that my ex-gf and I seemed to be the youngest people in the theater (she was 23 at the time and I was 27). But that just made it better to enjoy the movie, since it seemed everyone there was there to enjoy a great depiction of history, so no one was talking or disruptive.
Michael in MI on November 19, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Roberts and Alito.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Michael in Mi,
I had a whole long response for you but I hit the logout button by mistake and lost it. Literally and figuratively!
I suggest reading this piece on Rudy Giuliani which is very accurate about what he did as Mayor of NY. He is not a liberal and he really did save NYC.
As for Romney, I don’t have the energy to get in to it right now, but I fail to see what is untrustworthy about him. He is not a liberal either - just look at how he leads his life.
In the case of Rudy and Romney, they can both be depended on to appoint conservative jurists, aggressively pursue the war on terror, keep spending and taxes low, and so forth.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 12:48 AM
The HLA will get passed one day and abortion will become illegal in all 50 states. I’m 24 years old, and I expect to see this become the law of the land within my lifetime. It can happen, and it WILL happen. And I applaud Huckabee for standing by this issue 100%.
Jared White on November 19, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Huckabee and empathy are a difficult mix for me to swallow
Ever since I read his snarky quote that he had never met a person who had ever lost a job to an illegal I have lost any trust in his alleged sensitivies
He had to depersonalize a lot of human beings to be able to sling that shot
I am pro life. The pro life argument is that all human life has value including early, late stage and less than perfect life.
For some reason Huckabee has a clear vision on this, but can’t find a displaced cement worker even in his dreams
entagor on November 19, 2007 at 3:36 AM
I have a problem with a minister being elected to the office, frankly. We have endured so much obstructionism already. If Huckabee is POTUS, everything he says or does will be looked upon with suspicion as attempting to further a religious agenda. I’m a Christian and in my own perfect little world, this wouldn’t be even be a question, but I do have to bring it up. If a candidate was an imam, everything he/she did would be suspect. Rightfully more so, of course, but still something to consider.
Connie on November 19, 2007 at 10:50 AM
HLA is a stupid idea.
I’m rabidly pro-life and think that abortions are morally indefensible (except for the usual exceptions for health of the mother etc.) but this idea is going nowhere.
Far better to get Roe v. Wade re-argued on the basis that, in 2007, the biological father should have a say before the biological mother can kill off the effects of having had unprotected sex at an inconvenient time in her life.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Huckabee is advocating Civil War to achieve his goals. No wonder Republicans have a reputation. Like Bush, he’s willing to inflict any harm to do what’s right for the country.
jaime on November 19, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Didn’t they use that same argument against JFK? To elect a Catholic would be handing over the keys of America to Vatican City? Moreover, was this “ministers are unfit leaders” argument out there when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton were running for office? Did anyone question John Danforth’s work at the UN because he is an ordained priest?
I guess what it comes down to is that I don’t see the incongruity of somebody with a deep faith holding elective office.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Huckabee has to be right. Chuck Norris cut an ad for him.
Valiant on November 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM
JFK wasn’t an ordained minister.
Connie on November 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Ahh! A very interesting (and correct) way to phrase this.
Because the core of this debate really is whether or not abortion is a constitutionaly protected right.
The Constitution does not directly give us the right to abort our children, but the Supreme Court has ruled that such right does exist in very around-about way. But neither the Supreme Court at the time nor the majority of society in general has ever fully agreed with the Roe vs. Wade decision.
So Huck is correctly illustrating the reality that we most likely will require a constitutional ammendment if this debate is to ever reach a political/legal end.
Lawrence on November 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I tend to agree with Connie, and of course she is right about JFK not being an ordained Priest.
There is a huge difference between someone like Huckabee who uses religion to justify expanding government programs (and hints that if you disagree with his positions you are a sinner!) and someone “of deep faith” like George Bush who believes that there is a place for faith based programs as an alternative to government programs, and who believes that Christianity is a positive agent of good in the world because of its principles of liberty, an so forth.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Real simple, AP. The thirteenth amendment exists because the individual states went through the act of ratifying it, and because enough individual states supported it, it is now part of the constitution.
This really inflames my passions, in large part, because it is not possible for the constitution to be “overamended,” as so many of my conservative brethern here seem to think. Every part of the constitution, including all of its amendments, has the equal force of foundational law. Foundational, as in, the foundation for the rest of our laws, federal state and local.
Let’s get real, people — to go back and reargue Roe Vs. Wade would be the same kind of ridiculous judicial exercise that RvW was in the first place. If the courts weren’t the proper venue to make abortion legal, I’d question the propriety of getting RvW overturned there on the same grounds.
gryphon202 on November 19, 2007 at 7:14 PM
I don’t understand the logic here!
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Hickabee is NO conservative: Think in terms of, say, Hubert Humphrey, who was a pro-defense, pro-gun, pro-life (if memory serves), and pro-union Democrat. I LIKED Humphrey in his day, but, then again, I was a Democrat back then! I am happy that the Hick is pro-life, but I like Fred and Rudy far better as consistent REPUBLICANS. I’ll even take Mitt over the Hick. Hick just oozes too much of the Carter/Clinton snake-oil affect for me.
sanantonian on November 19, 2007 at 9:45 PM
And, I might add, that Thompson’s “Federalist” approach worked rather well until the abortion laws of all 50 states were overturned in one fell swoop by the nakedly activist judicial travesty known as “Roe v. Wade.” If memory serves, of the 50 states, only HAWAII had permitted abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, there would be pro-life laws on the books in a number of states by next week.
sanantonian on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Exactly right.
Gatordoug on November 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I’m thinking Fred/Huck lately…
amend2 on November 20, 2007 at 12:18 AM
which in the debates @ Hill/Bara (which it will be) will be be a win/win with the standard voter
amend2 on November 20, 2007 at 12:21 AM
History of the HLA Movement
Connie on November 20, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I still haven’t heard anyone say what, besides the issue of abortion, Huckabee is “conservative” about.
…And think about it: even on that one issue, he STILL wants the federal government to centrally dictate everything.
By my accounting, that makes Huckabee right around 99% liberal. But that’s supposed to be OK because he’s really REALLY conservative about one proposal that everyone knows can’t possibly succeed anyway?
Man, somebody’s been handing out the crazy pills.
logis on November 21, 2007 at 11:47 AM