Quote of the day
posted at 10:10 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
“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. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists…
As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win. But it is also self-defeating to do nothing. We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts — which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing…
Sun-tzu’s ancient wisdom is relevant today: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Yet we have not had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years; the U.S. government usually communicates with the Iranian government through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries. The reestablishment of diplomatic ties will not occur automatically or without the Iranians’ making concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship…
Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran.”
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Bush never found a way to communicate to the American people.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Even with all of that I’d vote for Huck before I’d vote for Rudy. Neither are my favorite candidates. Since neither Hunter nor Tanc seem to be in any position to win I’d prefer Fred over both and Mitt too.
What you’re seeing is the backlash to the war on Christians that a huge number of people see happening. Doesn’t matter if it’s real or not, they think it is and they have a huge majority in this country.
I’ve heard a lot of talk about Rudy being the only person that can beat Hillary but honestly Huck has a better chance by tapping into the Christian vote. A lot, a whole lot, of Christian Democrats are going to vote for Huck across this country. Everyone knows the Clintons sold their souls to the Devil (or Soros, same thing?), Obama isn’t selling well to Christians (too socialist, secular?)and Edwards is a lawyer (nuff said).
Huck may be our ticket and only chance into the White House for the next 4 years. Do I hear an Amen?
Buzzy on December 15, 2007 at 1:36 PM
The main problem I see with Huck is the dems are absolutely terrified of ‘the religious right’, to a point of absurdity IMHO, and that’s exactly how they will portray and battle against him.
I think Obama is as close as they really want to get to anything ‘religious’, in the traditional sense.
I just don’t see how he can win against any of the top tier dem candidates. And that, for me at least, is the bottom line. We need to nominate someone with an actual shot at actually winning.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 1:38 PM
So where is the big endorsement Huckabee was supposed to get this week? Wasn’t some big-shot super conservative touted as going to come out for his on Friday?
Limerick on December 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that might’ve been the ex-Reagan campaign guy coming aboard.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 1:42 PM
If it turns out to be a Huck vs Obama race and the Dems attack Huck for being a Baptist, don’t you think that would open up attacks on Obama’s church? Obama belongs to a very, very odd church.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I think your right. It was a big deal to political insiders.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Bush seemed to reach out to the Muslim people and try to publicly deflect the blame of Islamic terrorism from Islam itself. He never said what needed to be said. He should flat out state that Islamic ideology is at war with the west and demanded that muslims reform their doctrine and take a tough stand against the extremists in their midst. Instead he has been almost apologetic when he refers to Islam as a “great religion” There is nothing great about Islam and Bush knows it.
Guardian on December 15, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I agree with you on that. But don’t you think the msm will be completely and totally on Obama’s side ‘nuancing’ (God, I hate that friggin’ word) everything he says, while openly ridiculing Huck’s positions.
It really does come down to control over microphones and cameras.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 1:47 PM
I wonder who Huck has advising him on foreign affairs?
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Not sure if the MSM would be on Obama’s side or not, but maybe so. But it wouldn’t take much to turn people off of Obama’s church. So I don’t think the Obama campaign will go there. Hillary’s campaign would though.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Not from here. Liberal Christians won’t make up for the loss
in conservatives who don’t want the government used as a Good Will mission. He’ll split the GOP into about three impotent parts.
a capella on December 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Obama’s church will definitely work against him, at least on the gop side of things. But I really think the msm will get behind whomever gets the nod from the dems and push aggressively in his/her direction.
After the nomination, it’s all about gaining teh Power, ‘by any means necessary’.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Read the Foreign Affairs Article
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Then using that argument, the best candidate for us to put forward would be either Rudy or McCain. The problem is, if we put Rudy up, I think the social conservatives will stay home and we lose anyway.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Thanks techno.
Limerick on December 15, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Yes, well, Old Huck seems to be having quite a few very conspicuous “Road to Damascus” moments these last two weeks.
Your credulity is fascinating.
Lehosh on December 15, 2007 at 2:07 PM
So basically, conservatives of all stripes and colors, from the die hard evangelicals to gay classical liberals need to stop antagonizing each other, stop putting each others backs against the wall and come to terms with what it means to be conservative. We need someone to step up and DEFINE who we are and our basic principles (while maintaining our big tent) or something because, as of right now we’re a party, an ideology, without a rudder and we’re beginning to show our cracks (the cracks that have been there since Bush was elected). To me it seems as if we’re facing candidates who, when you dig enough, betray liberal qualities and that is the LAST thing this nation (forget just us) needs. I sit here frustrated looking at all this infighting because it has so far distracted us from bringing the full force of our hammer on our enemies. I, in some senses hesitate, to say this is a make or break election but it certainly is a step, back or forward, towards what this nation’s identity in the coming years will be. And right now, as a man who is looking towards joining the military and in a few years having kids, the last thing I want to see in the near future is the further erosion of this nation’s resilience and what has made it great. And in my humble opinion that’s been the principles of conservatism that have allowed us to prosper and yet still be progressive. I don’t want to see that go away because the GOP and all other conservatives have chosen “the lesser of two evils” or what is “electable” in today’s political climate. A climate WE should be determining, not the politicians in Washington.
CTDeLude on December 15, 2007 at 2:08 PM
I just think it is odd that people criticize an article without reading it.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:09 PM
For me, this is exactly the case with Rudy and Mitt. Especially Mitt. I take a look at the last few years of Mitt Romney’s political career and it seems to me that he takes positions on things for political expedience. I also look at his promise in 2002 to the people of Massachusetts to govern as a pro-choice governor. He then turned around and vetoed all pro-choice legislation and assures pro-lifers that he is now pro-life, because he governed pro-life. That’s fine, but he campaigned as pro-choice. Then governed in direct opposition to that promise.
As for Rudy, I trust him just as much. I believe he is pandering to social conservatives simply to get the nomination. I don’t believe he will appoint judges as he claims at all.
And that’s really what it comes down to for most people. Do we believe what the politicians are telling us they would do. If people don’t believe them, there is really nothing anyone can say to convince them otherwise.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:11 PM
No thanks. My approach is I try to read as much as I can about each candidate and I vote for the one who I think will serve the office as closely to the way I would like them to. I realize everyone of them has flaws and none of them are me. It inevitably boils down to the worse of all evils, but I think that is what being an informed citizen is.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:12 PM
The issue now isn’t what Huck is saying, but what he really means. He’s now all hawkish after suggesting that Iran is really our best friend and we should be nicer? He’s now all pro-enforcement after calling us racist nativists and shooting money at illegal aliens? He’s not at all a faith-baiter, even though he wants us all to be sure that he’s a “True Christian Leader ™”? Oh please.
It’s the 11th hour of the campaign and Huck is having too many suspicious conversions on conservative bedrock points at the finish line.
Lehosh on December 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM
or best of all evils as the case may be…
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM
If you think Huck is a snake in the grass, there is nothing he can say to convice you otherwise. I don’t think any of the republican candidates are snakes.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Contrasting your record with that of another candidate is not “going negative.” If doing so negatively impacts Huckabee’s numbers, the problem is with his record, not with what the other campaign is saying about it.
No.
Slublog on December 15, 2007 at 2:17 PM
If the Mitt endorsing site: NRO is saying Mitt is going negative, hey, I think Mitt is going negative.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Romney: Huckabee Critique Un-Republican…
Yep, Mitt is going negative…
By the way, I don’t see anything in what Huck wrote that is un-Republican.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:22 PM
The endorsement doesn’t change the fact that record contrasting advertisements are not in and of themselves “negative attacks.”
Slublog on December 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM
It may not be un-Republican, but it’s certainly naive in parts. Plus, the section Romney quoted sounds more like a Democratic candidate than a Republican one.
Slublog on December 15, 2007 at 2:25 PM
At least he has that right.
Ryan Gandy on December 15, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Thanks for the link but I had already read it.
a capella on December 15, 2007 at 2:27 PM
There are a lot of good points in what he wrote.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM
How has Rudy Giuliani been prosecuting the war on terror? Other than being the mayor of New York after 9/11 and helping the city recover and rebuild and refusing a donation check from the Saudis, I believe, how has he been “prosecuting the war on terror”?
I stated that part of the reason for Mike Huckabee’s rise in the polls might have been a reaction from years of Christian bashing in addition to the social conservative-bashing (because social conservatives were not getting behind Rudy Giuliani and thus were being demonized and then told they were not needed.)
I never once put all the blame for Mike Huckabee’s rise on Rudy supporters. I stated they may have played a part in people moving to support Mike Huckabee.
I am an engineer and look at emperical data. Since Oct 1st, the support for the 5 main candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Fred and Huckabee) have all remained the same, except for Huckabee and Fred. Fred has plummeted while Huckabee has risen. Without knowing all the underlying reasons for this data, I simply interpret it to mean that Fred’s supporters moved to Mike Huckabee. The question is why.
Well, some have hypothsized that Fred plummeted, because he is lazy. Could be. Or some of his plummet could be that he has been painted as lazy by the supporters of other candidates and then with that premise out there, everyone went out searching for examples of laziness. And then interpreted everything he wasn’t doing as laziness. Thus that contributed to his fall. Then there were the Fred supporters who had completely unrealistic expectations (“he’s the second coming of Reagan!!!”) for Fred’s campaign. When he did not meet these expectations, but was simply himself and ran an average campaign, focusing on policy and issues, his detractors twisted this into being lazy and uninspiring, etc etc.
So, taking that, social conservatives figured that Fred must not stand a chance (since that was the message being put out there) and thought about just sitting out the election, since there was no one who represented their principles and values. But then this Mike Huckabee character arrived on the scene and made a name for himself, mostly by focusing on everything that social conservatives wanted in a candidate: as AllahPundit rightly sums it up – “Abortion, God and Gays”. This appealed to those who were told that these issues were irrelevant to American culture anymore. So, instead of sitting out, social conservatives decided to put their support behind Mike Huckabee.
But this rise came from ignorance of his policy positions, I believe. I believe that Mike Huckabee will now decline in the polls now that his positions on other policies have come out in the public eye.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM
like what?
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM
floatingRock,
What is this “coalition” you keep referring to? If this blog is a microcosm or mirror of conservative views, he has no coalition, and his support is almost entirely from evangelicals. Moreover, local polls indicate that that is the source of his support also.
First of all, Bush has the BDS infected bleating sheep in the MSM, and celebripundits like Rosie to deal with. These people are literally insane. It doesn’t matter what he did or said, there is no getting through to them.
Secondly, your claim that I am attacking Huck just to advance the interests of my guy(s) is patently false. If I thought Huck wasn’t a nanny statist, global warming hoax supporter, and disingenuous about his attacks on Mitt’s religion, I’d support him. He is a brilliant communicator and obviously is very persuasive. If he is the candidate I will be forced to vote for him. I am not a tantrum throwing evangelical who threatens to stay home on election day.
I read that article you linked to but do not see that it backs up your assertion that issues of poverty are the cause of terrorism. The poverty is a result of tyrants running countries with an iron hand who try to isolate the population from the modern world. The poverty is a symptom, not a cause, just as CO2 is the result of natural warming trends, not the cause of it. Certainly AIDS is not the cause of Islamic fascism or terrorism, yet he mentioned that time and again in his summary.
I agree with you there, but if he had done that the howls of protest would have been never ending. He once used the term “Islamofascism” and had to back down.
What did “bring it on!” do to hurt our cause? Specifics please. Yes, a lot of useful idiots and media “elites” complained about him being a “cowboy” but I can think of no serious advocate of fighting the war on terror who complained about that.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Maybe, I thought Huck would decline by now because of Mitt’s speech hitting some understanding with the American voters. Mitt’s speech didn’t do that though. Instead it just brought religion into the race (which was always a risk) and that was not to Mitt’s advantage.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:33 PM
He has a lot more faith in the State Dept and the CIA than is healthy, taking recent history into account. I wish he had said a bit more on how he intends to depoliticize both those groups so they start to function as they were intended. Having an embassy in Tehran requires staff and gaining intelligence is useless if the CIA continues to use it for political agendas.
On the positive side, I didn’t see any evidence of U.N. worship.
a capella on December 15, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Saying one understands international radical Islamic jihadists does not necessarily translate to the ability to understand domestic political Islamic jihad.
How does Huckabee feel about CAIR, for instance?
Connie on December 15, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Well, the entire first paragraph, to start.
From the start, Huckabee makes it sound as though the goal of foreign policy is to increase the popularity of the United States. His ‘high school student’ analogy is almost ridiculously specious – tell me, to which clique does the United States belong? The jocks? The emos? The nerds?
Although Huckabee does mention Islamofacism, he also seems to be making the argument that poverty breeds terrorism. I’d like to see him make that argument to the wealthy Saudi Arabians financing terrorism.
Is Huckabee suggesting we attack an “inherently unstable country” that happens to be an ally here?
Those are just a few of the things I noticed reading the article last night.
Slublog on December 15, 2007 at 2:37 PM
The “conservative coalition” is not = to “evangelicals”. “Conservative” encompasses many different areas of politics, including fiscal conservatism, “neo-conservatism” as it relates to foreign policy, etc. And there are many who are within this “conservative coalition” who are actually social liberals and many who are fiscal liberals, because they actually are “neo-conservatives” when it comes to foreign policy. Or there are some who are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, but disagree with the war effort, but are still part of the “conservative coalition”, because there is no one in the Democrat Party who aligns with their fiscal and social conservative principles and values.
But to just say that “conservative coalition” = “evangelicals” is not accurate at all. That is why it is called a “coalition” – it is made up of many different parties.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:39 PM
And, respectfully, that is why I think Thompson is our best choice.
I’m reading through that link you posted. Did Huck write this himself, or is this from one of his advisors? The depth of the apparent understanding of issues on the ground in the ME, and his apparent lack of knowledge about Cuba, et al, is a bit dissonent, isn’t it? Whomever wrote that article understands the situation in a very clear-eyed manner. But I’m only about halfway through it.
Thanks for the link.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I don’t know. That’s why I asked who was advising him on foreign affairs.
I like fred too, but unfortunately, I think Fred is way too late to this party.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Amen to this.
I’m so sick of this diversity and multi-culturalism nonsense. I have to deal with this on the job every day and I just sit there and think “Sorry Mr. CEO, when a customer asks why our product sucks, I tell them that it is because our company focuses on diversity instead of excellence”.
Our country rose to prosperity, because people from all over the world came here and worked their butts off to make this a great country. And during and after it became a great country, more people decided they wanted to come here to be a part of America. They didn’t come here saying “hey, let’s go bring some (foreign country X) culture to America”. No, they left (foreign country X) in order to be a part of America.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Excellent post. Completely agree.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Probably true but the same sort of thing could be said of Rudy and Mitt plus they won’t have any support from the Christian Democrats.
I’m not a Huckabee fan, he’s too liberal, too big government, too amnesty, and too preachy for me but I’ve heard the Rudy supporters bleating that only Rudy can beat Hillary so why couldn’t the same be said for Huck and the Jesus Base.
Do we really feel we need to run a liberal to win this time? If so, why even try?
Buzzy on December 15, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM
See how Rudy was attacked by Time Magazine. This was picked up by many of the Left wing blogs to show how horrible he and his policies are, yet they sound, dare I say, conservative, to me.
More than anything else, counterterrorism experts interviewed by Time cited Giuliani’s campaign rhetoric as a cause for concern. He frequently conflates different threats, from Iraqi insurgents to al-Qaeda to Iran, into one monolithic dark force. He routinely compares the terrorism threat to the Holocaust and the cold war. In one 15-min. phone interview in August, Giuliani compared the terrorism threat with Nazism or communism six times. When I asked him if he risked exaggerating the threat, since most terrorist plots against the West are not the kind of attacks that will bring down a nation, he replied, “I’m not saying it would take down a country. What terrorism can do and has done is kill thousands and thousands of people. It’s real, it’s existential, it’s independent of us.”
I am just as p****d off about the “years of Christian bashing” as you are. In my view, Huckabee is just making it worse, and in any case it would not be sufficient reason alone to vote for him. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
Sigh. I know what the conservative coalition is, but it is evangelicals who think that social conservatism is the primary definition of what makes someone a conservative. They are the least able to enter a coalition, except with liberal Democrats which is not exactly what I call a “conservative coalition”! There is no way that you can tell me that Huckabee or liberal Democrats are more conservative than I am.
As for social issues, I want Roe v. Wade overturned. Guiliani (and Romney) would appoint judges who just might do that. There are no guarantees, but we know for a fact that a Dem President would thwart all the progress we have made under the Bush Administration.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I don’t think that is why he is leading in the early states.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Exactly!
As you stated with illegal immigration, back in 2006 he supported shamnesty and considered anyone who was against it to be “nativists and racists”. Yet now all of a sudden he puts out a strong immigration platform? Not buying it.
The problem is that supporters only put forth the things that the candidates say that make them look good and then only put forth the things the opposing candidates say that make them look bad. Not too many people actually look at everything every candidate says to get the full picture.
In my opinion, Mike Huckabee is not trustworthy. He took weak and, in my opinion, liberal/left positions on many issues last year and now when he is trying to win the GOP nomination, he puts out “conservative” positions on those same issues. Again, I’m not buying it.
Politicians say a lot of things and probably most of the time, don’t really mean it. They just say it for political reasons. The key is to find out what they really mean. For me, if I can’t figure out where a politician actually stands on an issue, I can’t trust him/her and I won’t vote for him/her. Simple as that.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Giuliani
A mind is a terrible thing to change. That’s why Rudy decided to double his base by turning himself into two candidates at once.
Some of the most bald-faced pandering is hilarious, as when Giuliani told the conservative Weekly Standard that as he voted for George McGovern he was thinking he should really be voting for Richard Nixon. But Rudy has taken positioning to an entirely new place. He has created a virtual Rudy to run alongside the actual—or at least the historical—version. One Rudy insists that he is still in favor of legal abortion and gay rights, just as he was when he was mayor of New York. But virtual Rudy has found a catchphrase to suggest that those and other positions are fungible: he would appoint “strict constructionists” to the bench, justices like Scalia and Thomas not jurisprudentially inclined toward what the original Rudy—if such a thing can be said to still exist—believes. Like some form of partisan demonic possession, one Rudy will take positions and the other will appoint judges who will negate them. It’s like vetoing yourself.
Maybe this is the age of the political multiple personality and a presidential race has become like “Sybil,” only way longer than any mini-series. Maybe Rudy is on to something. After all, you can’t be seen as flip-flopping if you’re always of two minds.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:04 PM
“Weell”, Ronald Reagan muttered in his grave “remember Peace through Strength” and “not criticizing your own”.
Here’s something to keep in mind, and something the terrorists and others who’d harm this country understand “Bad to the Bone (B-1)”.
This isn’t, and never will be, a popularity or beauty contest. We’re not here to be ‘loved’, nor to be the rest-of-the-world’s garbage collection system. As is we help way too much, all for more criticism, which we take smirking, because we still can. I’d rather we be feared. I don’t even care if they respect us too much any more. Their politically correct, multi-culti, one-world baloney is just a front for socialism on the part of the elites, and an excuse for whining and doing hardly anything at all to improve, while blaming us on the part of their masses. The radicals know perfectly well how to exploit all this.
Mr. Huckabee is too much of a lightweight for these times. He could have fit into the Clinton 90s, when it was assumed that all we’d have to do from now on is form a huge circle-hug and ‘sanitize the globe and love, understand and tolerate each other more, because all wars/conflicts are over’.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Well, I would probably be described as an “evangelical” and I don’t think that way. And I know plenty of other Christians/evangelicals at work and in my circle of friends who are of my mindset as well. I don’t know why you have the opinion of “evangelicals” like this. I believe even Bryan Preston here at HotAir would be termed an “evangelical” and I don’t believe he defines “conservative” this way either.
But for the sake of argument, if someone is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-multiculturalism, pro-diversity, pro-separation of church and state to the extreme, BUT… is fiscally conservative and supports The Long War, how would you describe that person? I would probably describe him as a liberal/leftist who votes in the “conservative coalition”.
There is probably a difference between being a conservative and being part of the “conservative coalition”. Someone mentioned earlier that we don’t have a definition of conservatism out there. It’s kinda like determining who is Republican and who is a RINO. What makes one a RINO? Agreeing on 7 of 10 GOP platform issues? Agreeing on 6 of 10? 4 of 10? Or is it like Joe Lieberman who was kicked out of the Democrat Party, because he agreed with 9 out of 10, but the 1 issue was The Long War?
Are there CINOs? And what makes them such? Who defines conservatism? I think everyone has their own defition and that is why there are so many arguments over CINOs and RINOs.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I can believe the notion that Mitt Romney might, (though not wholeheartedly, since his ‘conversion’ to ‘pro-life’ seems to have come at the same time his asperation for the Presidency started), but I don’t believe Rudy will at all. As MB4 points out.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:15 PM
We have what Rudy says, and what he has done, and they do not match frankly.
Gatordoug on December 15, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Excellent post. I agree. Especially that 2nd paragraph.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:17 PM
From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Yes, “when one of the two must be lacking”, I agree with the clever Niccolo. However, when both can be present, I’d rather the order be fear first, and love second (speaking of America, of course).
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Which would be an arguement for building up our military faster than now planned.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I’m not worried about that – it’s in pretty good shape and much has been learned, and adapted to in the last 6 years. It’s one of the benefits of this WoT. We don’t and shouldn’t know everything either. Good thing. The politics are the problem in this country, not the military and technology within.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Would have to have a draft or end the Iraq war to do that manpower wise.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:47 PM
No draft, but Iraq may be winding down as far as casulties are concerned anyway (and that is what makes kids think twice about the Army, not the Marines though, kids join the Marines to fight hard.)
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Fine. All evangelicals are not alike, and clearly Bryan is not falling for Huckabee’s pandering. I am referring to the evangelicals for whom abortion is their number on issue; who are supporting Huckabee because he is a former Baptist minister; the evangelicals who won’t vote for Mitt because he’s a Mormon; the evangelicals who refuse to recognize that Rudy is conservative on every issue except social con issues; the evangelicals who threaten to stay home on election day if they don’t get a candidate who is solidly anti-abortion, regardless of their other credentials.
For the sake of what argument? Who are you talking about in this hypothetical? Rudy is certainly not pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage despite not being to the right on those issues. He is most definitley NOT pro-multiculturalism and diversity, and he fought the liberals in NYC who held those views. Rudy is not “pro-separation of church and state to the extreme” and he does support the “long war”.
Dittoes for Romney, who has led a conservative life, so your complaints that he is not conservative enough sound disingenous.
In the reverse, Huck has conservative credentials as a Baptist Minister, but his social con positions seem to be where his conservatism begins and ends. Sure, he might be fine on fighting Islamofascism, but what about taxes, his use of government solutions for things like “fighting poverty”, his position on global warming, and so forth. Being a social conservative in itself is most definitely not the definition of a conservative, as Jimmy Carter demonstrated.
As for who RINOS are, look at Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who rarely, if ever, vote with conservatives on issues. Rudy is not a RINO.
You’ll pardon me if I rely on greater authority than MB4 and the left wing sources he usually relies on. His attacks on Rudy are beyond the pale, unreasonable and unhinged.
I trust Rudy and Mitt completely on these issues. I certainly trust them to govern as conservatives far more than I trust Huckabee.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 3:50 PM
hmmmm, they seized our embassy and turned it into some kind of propaganda museum. And held our diplomatic staff hostage for over a year.
George Bruce on December 15, 2007 at 4:04 PM
VDH doesn’t think Huck wrote it, but I don’t know, he could of. Especially since Huck made the obvious mistake that Dr. Hanson points out. Still, I liked Huck’s piece. I think there is a lot of good stuff in it and it is a lot more than we got from Bush before we nominated him the first time.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I’m inclined to agree with VDH. It just doesn’t sound like Huck’s own words. The stuff I’ve seen exerpted and published and commented upon, the weakest of the things that is, sounds exactly like Huck. But the history and the clarity of much of the rest of it, I gotta admit, is dead on accurate.
I think this document has more than one author. But that’s just a guess on my part. Like a piece of music, there are dissonant sections that conflict with one another.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Nothing inherently wrong with that. The President doesn’t have to know everything, just know what he doesn’t know and listen carefully to good advisers. That is what Reagan did, and for the most part it worked out well.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Indeed, but we can agree techno_b, that whoever wrote it, a Mozart they are not :)
Buy Danish, I’m not always “copacetic” with MB on Rudy or the war, but one of his sources is often Real Clear Politics, hardly a leftie entity. He even uses Schluessel as a source. I don’t like either of the candidates to the point of adoring them, but would vote for Romney, Fred, Rudy, even McCain, before I’d vote for Huckabee.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 4:15 PM
What a bunch of hooey. The Mideast states are wealthy beyond belief becuase of the dollars we pump into them for oil, yet their governments use this wealth to suppress freedom to maintain their totalitarian regimes. Huckabee should take his “blame America first” foreign policy to Jimmy Carter, it would be quite a coup to get America’s worst Democrat president ever to endorse him.
bspoogeferd on December 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Yeah, well his source today for his latest Rudy bashing was Anna Quindlen of Newsweek.
RCP is “independent” and links to stories from all sides of the political spectrum.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Read: The Pentagon’s New Map
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 4:25 PM
For the sake of what argument? Who are you talking about in this hypothetical?
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Stop being so defensive. The argument is about what is and is not a “conservative”. You made the argument that “evangelicals” all believe that what defines conservatism is being a social conservative. I presented a description of a voter and asked if that voter would be considered conservative or not. That’s all.
I know many people who are socially liberal, basically anti-religion and pro-separation of church and state to the extreme and who think that diversity and multiculturalism are important (and don’t even get me started on their thoughts on apocalyptic global warming), but are fiscally conservative and support the war effort. They put their money and the war effort above their social interests and vote Republican. But I would tend to consider them leftists, because on pretty much all other issues, they are. I was simply asking what others felt about that.
I believe there are many people like that in the “conservative coalition”, but that does not necessarily make them “conservative”.
But again, what makes one truly conservative and what makes one conservative on a few issues, but generally described as “liberal/progressive/leftist”?
That’s fine. If you trust them, then great. I don’t. If we can agree that neither of us are evil people, because we interpret politicians differently, then things will be fine. Where I get turned off to people with regards to politics is when they call me evil, stupid, ignorant or (insert whatever other insult here) simply because I see the same facts and interpret them in a different way.
If people want to support Rudy, support him. Mitt, support him. Ron Paul, support him. Hillary, support her. Obama, support him. But don’t try shoving stuff down my throat and/or insult me to thereby force me to see things your way about your candidate.
I don’t have any issues with people who vote the way they believe. If someone is a socialist and wants to vote for Hillary, then great. Do so. But where I take issue with people is when they find out what principles and values I have and then try to tell me their candidate adheres to them too, when they clearly do not.
I can respect a politician when they are open and honest about that which they believe, even when I disagree with their stances on the issues. Joe Lieberman is a politician I respect, even though I don’t share his views on many issues. I can also respect a socialist who is open about their socialist views, rather than a socialist who tries to hide their socialism and pretends to be something else for political purposes.
I actually respect Rudy not changing his positions on homosexual marriage and abortion and not pandering for the sake of votes. Even though I am not going to vote for him. Mitt, on the other hand, I believe is pandering.
But I don’t trust them for different reasons. Rudy I don’t trust to appoint judges, because I don’t believe he believes in that. On the judges issue, I believe he is pandering (even though he does not pander on his stance on abortion and homosexual marriage). Mitt, on the other hand, I don’t trust, because I believe he is pandering on the issue of abortion. I read him promise the people of Massachusetts he will keep the pro-choice status quo and then govern the opposite. So when he promises something now in this campaign, I simply can’t trust that he won’t again have some kind of “conversion” in office and go back on his promises.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM
So you’re afraid Rudy might not appoint (wait for it) activist judges? I find it amusing that social conservatives rail against “judicial activism” when that is actually what they really want, just from a more conservative perspective. Rudy called their bluff and said that a “strict constructionist” judge could write an opinion effectively supporting Roe v. Wade, which is true. The intellectual incoherence of the religious right would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Still feels like it’s pulling in two different directions to me.
Agreed. He’s definitely not my guy, but whomever helped him write that book report made several good points. I have real problems with the weaker group hug stuff, and the reliance on diplomacy with iran (which in my opinion has been proven completely ineffective for the past 4 years with the failed EU3 attempts) is foolish. It does support continued sanctions though, too.
The document seems conflicted to me.
techno_barbarian on December 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Don’t forget day care.
ronsfi on December 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Guardian Said:
Oh, I’d vote for him if he won the nomination (God forbid), as anyone would be better than the choice of Dems. I’m not one who beleives you should only vote your principals rather than for the lesser evil. Don’t have to like it though.
bspoogeferd on December 15, 2007 at 4:35 PM
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Really? Is Rudy Giuliani a Constitutional scholar or a politician? I have read a lot of opinions on Roe v Wade and most, if not all, of them consider it ridiculously bad law. Most of the people’s opinions I have read which come out in support of Roe support the politics of it.
I take the opinion of Constitutional scholars moreso than the word of a politician. When Rudy can refer me to some “strict constructionist” Constitutional scholars who explain how Roe was good Constitutional law, then I might listen.
Not every pro-abortion law/case is unConstitutional, but I believe most Constitutional scholars agree that Roe was bad.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 4:42 PM
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 4:46 PM
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Heh. Excellent.
I vote for MB4 for President. Or SoS. Or something. Just get this man in office to beat some common sense into our elected officials.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 4:48 PM
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Thanks for the link. I have placed this book on my xmas list ;-)
bspoogeferd on December 15, 2007 at 4:50 PM
If Michael in MI and MB4 can come together on the main issues, then any coalition ought to be possible.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 4:51 PM
That anyone would be seriously incoherent enough to believe Rudolfo’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Giuliani routine is what is hilarious.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Right, and they were only released after Reagan, a conservative, replaced a president very similar to Huckabee who got us into the mess in the first place.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Heh. I think the main issue on which we disagree(d) is the war effort. I recall getting into it with him in the past on this. But I think that was just a matter of having different perspectives of the progress/success, not really overall goal.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Well can you refute a single point she made.
Guess not, as you have not even attempted to.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 4:59 PM
From a direct reading of the Constitution it’s true that there’s no “right to an abortion”, but that doesn’t mean that the government necessarily has the power to prevent somebody from having one. The argument of Roe, while a little messy, rests on sound Constitutional principles regarding privacy and the limits of government power. It is not as universally panned as you think, and you need to get out of your little echo chamber every once in a while.
In any case, the question as to whether Roe was decided correctly or not is just a distraction from the real principle here. Even those new heroes of the religious right, Roberts and Alito, have been on record stating that the decision deserves respect as settled precendent. They (rightly) defer any judgement on the merits of the law until confronted with a case challenging it. Remember, any judicial decision must be based on the conflict of existing law with the issues raised in a case, and unless that is done, the judges just become appointed legislators. Simple minded activists just want abortion overturned regardless of the details of any case brought before the court.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Ok then, one of you for president, and the other for VP, and all our headaches/nightmares are over. Let’s see how many hotairheads will agree/disagree :)
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Buy DanishRudy la Madre ciega list of approved news sources:http://www.LoveThatCapo.com
http://www.RudyIsMyHero.com
http://www.RudyDressesGreat.com
http://www.RudyHablaEspanol.com
http://www.RudyLovesBabys.com
http://www.RudyLovesGuns.com
http://www.RudyHatesTerrorists.com
http://www.WalkThatDog.com
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Hmm, do you have some kind of spies keeping tabs on my “little echo chamber”? Do you have knowledge of to whom I talk about these issues and what sites I research?
Or are you just making a general assumption about me based on a few comments I leave on a blog?
Settled precedent is a bad argument. If they made it, then that is pretty foolish. There have been many bad decisions made by the US Supreme Court in history that have been overturned later. And we would be worse off had the argument of “settled precedent” been used to not address them and overturn them.
“Settled precedent” strikes me the same way as “general consensus” does in regards to apocalyptic global warming research.
That said, I would need to research how “settled precedent” is used to determine when to and when not to look back at past decisions. The argument I read from the left states that even if it is bad law, we shouldn’t overturn it, because this bad law is part of the fabric of our country now and it would disrupt us too much to change it. Of course, that could have been said for slavery, Jim Crow laws and many other things too. So I don’t buy that argument.
But getting back specifically to Rudy using that argument (that even certain judges would not overturn Roe), I believe that is just a way for him to eliminate one of the issues on which he is weak. Basically he’s saying, who cares about appointing judges, even if you get the judges you want from another candidate who promises to appoint them, there is no guarantee they will judge as you want them to, so you shouldn’t make that an issue in this campaign. Very slick move on his part to try to eliminate that as an issue. I give him credit for that.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I’m not being “defensive”! I think your hypothetical was false since there is no one who fits that description who is a “conservative” voter. A fiscal conservative who supports the war can be a moderate Dem, but good luck finding any in large numbers, and there are very few indeed who vote Republican. I say that evangelicals PRIORITIZE social conservatism. That would be hard to deny.
That’s easy. Those people are Marxists and good luck finding any of them who would take the offensive on the war on terror since they would like nothing more than to see this country weakened and brought to its knees. Name me one “conservative” who is a “progressive”!
Who is on the defensive now?
Sorry, can’t go along with that. It is not “great” to have a Socialist in charge of this country. It is freaking disastrous.
I do not argue that Rudy shares your “values”. I argue that he will act in a manner as President where he will accomplish the same goals as someone who shares your values, with the added benefit of being a sterling advocate in the war on terror, taxes, the economy and so forth. That makes him a better candidate for conservatives than Huckabee.
I don’t respect either one. We have toyed with socialism since the Colonial days of Governor William Bradford. He figured out very quickly that it was an unmitigated disaster and switched to a capitalistic system. Anyone who thinks Socialism is a noble goal despite all the hideous results it has had throughout history does not earn my respect.
As for your saying you don’t trust Mitt, you clearly won’t bend on that no matter what he does. Many people, including Peggy Noonan, have made the point that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t pass muster with social cons today. The idea that Mitt would swing to the Left once elected is absurd, but you are convinced otherwise.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 5:15 PM
My opposition is to the “nation building”, which has been the main effort over the last 4 years, and my great skepticism as to Islam even being compatible with what we in the west broadly consider democracy and what, in the west, goes with it like liberty and to the Sunnis and Shiites even being able to, or even wanting to, unite and if that would even be a good thing if they did.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Michael in MI,
I agree that Roe was bad law and should be overturned, but the issue of “settled precedent” is based on a principle called “Stare Decisis“.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 5:21 PM
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Do you know that two of those actually link to something?
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:16 PM
From that perspective we agree. The initial phase was executed to almost perfection. The aftermath was for a long time a disaster. Can’t leave ‘em alone, and can’t join ‘em.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Yes, simple minded activists do, but most people who understand the issue and are anti-abortion, simply want the issue of abortion put in the hands of the people of the States (like cases of degrees of murder, manslaughter, self defense, etc are defined) instead of law being made by the Supreme Court.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Thanks for the link. I know about stare decisis, I just don’t know how it is applied or if it is abused for political reasons, etc. I need to research it more to find out why some things fall under stare decesis and why some things do not.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I believe that Ronald Reagan would not pass muster with many people who don’t like social conservatives today, too. Considering this was his stated view on abortion and how it related to religious belief, I believe many people today would consider him a radical.
Just goes to show how much our society has changed in the past 25 years.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:32 PM
politics.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »