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.
sanantonian on November 19, 2007 at 9:45 PM

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.

sanantonian on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM

Exactly right.

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!

…if you believe abortion is morally unconscionable but also believe the states are the proper venue to handle it, explain the Thirteenth Amendment.

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.

highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

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.

Indeed. He simply wants to eliminate that right.

Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 7:24 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.

highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

JFK wasn’t an ordained minister.

If Huckabee is POTUS, everything he says or does will be looked upon with suspicion as attempting to further a religious agenda.

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.

That’s what the Civil War was about.

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.

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.

Mike Huckabee recently said in a Fox News interview that he was against letting the states decide…
Popularity: unranked [?]……

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

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.