Huntsman doesn’t need Iowa, which he’s almost certainly not going to win anyway. He needs name recognition, and being the moderate in a field of social cons despised by the media is a shrewd way to get it.

It’s even better for Huntsman that that. Being relatively socially moderate from Utah is interesting and will create buzz for him.

Your Yoda grammar is weak.
“Until President Huckabee we have, over will it be not.”

Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM

If Yoda so strong in the Force is, why a proper English sentence can construct he not?

The courts in the US are attempting to change a human institution. The characteristics “members of opposite sex forming a unit in order to reproduce” are present as separate and special categories in every human society since the beginning of time.

When courts routinely attempt to change the primary characteristics of human institutions, it’s time to leave and form a new nation. It’s not about morality, it’s about sanity.

It’s high time that these black robe types are put back in their place.

So what did you expect from him? To ignore the laws of his state in order to pursue a personal belief? Let’s get real here.

What other methodology is there? When there’s a dispute about constitutionality, the judicial branch has the authority to resolve it.

RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM

No, they don’t, they can and should only send it back for a do over if they can’t agree. They aren’t our sages that make up law as they go, ONLY the legislature can do that. The legislature is accountable to the people, judges are not. The judicial commission does not extend to “resolving” issues by making law and imposing rules of their own devising. It is the idea this is acceptable that has freaky judges and wannabes looking at other countries’ legal systems to include Islamic Sharia for “solutions” to our problems that they hope to impose directly on us without our consent or right of protest. Judicial activism is absolute tyranny disguised as wise compassion. Conservatives that think this breach of the Constitution is okay when the judges are in their favor are wrong and only strengthen those that would radically reform our society in this manner when they gain the upper hand.

Judicial activism is an abomination that our Founders would condemn in the strongest of terms. We should do the same.

“Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?”

The next time this comes up is next year’s general election. So the people of Iowa have a chance to get around the Democrats who control both houses of the Iowa Legislature and pass an amendment much faster than the usual procedure.

RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

You need to read history. Slavery was abolished by consitutional amendment. Over turning judical activism by the courts. That is what will happen again.

And I doubt Mike hit you on the head with a crucifix. He’s a Baptist.

I do think Jindal has about the right governing record. I hope he runs. But then there are the same people in the party who hate Palin and Huckabee who would see no reason to support a “Creationist” like Jindal.

bcm4134 on April 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM

I don’t know the correct words for all the “Christian” graven images but I do know that Huckabee is the reason I dislike Huckabee and it has everything to do with his heavy and hate filled use of his “Christian Leadership” Huck’s brand insists that all other believers are second class Christians or Christians not at all.

I for instance am in his eyes and more particularly in his deeds a cultist of the basest sort to be scorned and ridiculed and in former times burned for heresy I assume or perhaps a ruler such as he would choose witchcraft.

That attitude should be kept in the middle ages where he lives his life.

Jindahl is fine even though I find creationism rather suspect for a scientific theory, I’m sure it must have some value as it is a search for truth, but it doesn’t matter because religion is learned at home. And because I have a hard time believing that my school district would choose to teach it. And my grandkids live in California and Washington certainly not likely to give in to something such as that without a fight.

Palin is fine. She has not proven herself completely in my eyes but she has possibilities.

All of this is silly considering that it is 3.5 years before I must settle on a canidate for President. I most often don’t choose until at least half way through the Primary.

Mike, you’re done. Palin can quadruple your response rate, just by telling her daughter’s baby pa to stfu.

No Huck, no Mitt, no Rudy, no Newt.

Not yet, anyway.

Your Yoda grammar is weak.
“Until President Huckabee we have, over will it be not.”

Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM

The Force is not great with me. Sorry. I’m a “Star Trek” fan anyways! :p

No Huckabee.
No Romney.
No Gingrich.
No Christ.
No Steele.
No Cantor.
No McCain. (Never, never, never.)
No …etc.

ncjetsfan on April 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM

You hate most Republicans AND Jesus?! Tough crowd.

I’m not a big fan of his “fair tax” proposal because I do not think it is fair at all. Such an increase in the National sales Tax would adversely effect the poor and middle class and slow down the economic growth. A flat tax is the best form of tax reform I have heard.

Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM

You have a point. I do like the Fair Tax. But a friend of mine who has his masters and tested the Fair Tax said that they need to lower the percentag rate. Then it would be Fair. So although I do like the Fair Tax, it is important that it is fair for all.

I’m not a big fan of his “fair tax” proposal because I do not think it is fair at all. Such an increase in the National sales Tax would adversely effect the poor and middle class and slow down the economic growth. A flat tax is the best form of tax reform I have heard.

Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM

FairTax is one thing Huck has right. Objections like your clearly show you have not given it a thorough review. I encourage you to check out the FairTax.org site and read Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder’s excellent books on the subject.

But I digress…

Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 8:14 PM

I meant that even though many politicians superficially oppose abortion, they don’t oppose it forcefully enough to push judges through who will agree with them. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t have included gay marriage in the win column, despite some progress in a few states.

The question is, will the rest of the field tack right on this issue too to compete with him for social cons in Iowa or will there be a “civil unions yes, marriage no” contingent?

I was blogging earlier on the Iowa decision and filled an entire post critiquing just the background section–the opinion should be remembered as one of the premier examples of progressive, elitist literature, right up there with the 100+ page Pennsylvania ID case. (Talk about a judge full of himself!)

AP, you really are high on weed if you think a civil union approach would pass muster under the gaze of the Iowa Court’s “Equal Protection Death Star.”

Please, please, AP, I beg you: Take a moment, step away from your Huck-bashing platform, and explain to me what exactly is right about the Court’s decision today. Yeah, sure, you may think civil unions are the best thing EVAH, but is that not a decision for Iowans to make by statute or constitutional provision? This is simply another power grab by the judiciary, nothing more or less.

(And don’t hide behind your thinly-veiled sarcasm on this one–it’s fairly obvious you think opposition to gay marriage is the “extremist” position here, notwithstanding what the law actually says.)

Where discrepancies in interpretation exist, it should NEVER be the judges who decide whose interpretation is right, especially when the people have made their opinion known at the ballot box.

You would not be defending the methodology if you were on the other side of the coin.

bcm4134 on April 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM

What other methodology is there? When there’s a dispute about constitutionality, the judicial branch has the authority to resolve it.