Tuesday, March 18, 2008
He is one of the few politicians who hasn't changed his convictions upon entering Washington. Human events magazine and the American Conservative union called him one of the most conservative members in the senate. He has an impeccable record of achievement. In the coming days, I will try to blog about his candidacy, his opponent(s), and local oklahoma political news.
Stay tuned. In the meantime, check out these links:
About Sen. Inhofe
Sen. Inhofe's Youtube Channel
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
This is a man who has been very much misunderstood and mischaracterized by a lot of the chatter class.
I became a republican in 2001 following the Sept. 11th attacks. Pres. Bush's strong stance on terrorism and pro-life issues really struck a chord with me who was an apathetic voter at the time.
Gov. Huckabee's candidacy actually forced me to step out into politics. For the first time I went to a precinct meeting, went to a GOP county convention, and taken time to get to know some of the leaders in my state.
I definitely will not give up and let the establishment silence my voice. I will fight hard with Gov. Huckabee to ensure that Sen. McCain becomes the next President of the United States.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
As a longtime Huckabee supporter, I think I can say with good confidence that Gov. Huckabee won't become the nominee. I still support him 100%, but losing is part of the process, it doesn't mean the sky is going come crashing down. God is still there, He is still in control. I trust in Him more than the chariots. So, that gives me a sense of calm and confidence.
[UPDATE: I would still love to see Gov. Huckabee be the nominee, but unless McCain messes up somewhere along the line, I can't see Gov. Huckabee attaining it]
Some Reflections on what has happened so far
I think everyone agrees that South Carolina was the turning point on the GOP side when McCain beat Huckabee by a minuscule margin of 3%. Fred Thompson was nothing but the spoiler candidate in the race and he single-handedly made McCain the presumptive GOP nominee. He never attacked McCain while calling others liberal. He wanted avenge for his failures by taking down Gov. Huckabee with him.
Florida came along and having 4 candidates by that time became a nuisance. Giuliani had staked his future on that one state so the media had to pay attention to him. Romney had the money so he couldn't be ignored. McCain just won South Carolina thanks to Thompson and so he had to be considered. Gov. Huckabee who narrowly lost South Carolina also lost a bit of momentum and it hurt his fundraising capabilities. He couldn't play hardball like the other boys and spend his money on a winner take all state like Florida. Some radio commentators started to spread the rumor that Huckabee isn't competing in Florida which exacerbated the situation. Huckabee at the end stole some votes from Romney which essentially stalled Romney's campaign.
Then came super Tuesday and I had the honor of voting for Gov. Huckabee in the Oklahoma primaries. I was a bit disappointed with the overall outcome in my state. On the positive side, Gov. Huckabee did well in states that many least expected him to do well in. Even I was shocked. In many of the southern states that Huckabee lost to McCain, Romney was the spoiler candidate. Huckabee gained more momentum as a result and the media became contrite over its ignorance of Huckabee and started to pay more attention. That was temporary, of course.
Then Romney dropped out, and things looked a bit better at that point. I figured that the media would look at McCain and Huckabee equally, but by that time the media already named McCain the de-facto nominee. The establishment looked at the number of delegates McCain and Huckabee had and decided to back McCain instead of letting him dwindle out there. It's understandable.
Huckabee didn't win any primaries since then and as of today, his most faithful group of supporters are the only ones still beside him - the evangelicals. He had support among other demographics early on, but the media narrative was that Huckabee only got the white evangelicals and nobody else. Regardless of the outcome, he is legitimately making the case that the nomination process has not ended and issues must be debated. I sincerely hope he can pull off a victory in Texas. That will give him more clout, but still he will be short of delegates. I believe McCain will get very close to the magic number of 1191 by March 4th. Gov. Huckabee won't stick around to fight for 20 - 40 delegates. I can see him pulling out on March 5th gracefully.
Where Huck failed
Obviously hindsight is 20/20. I noticed a lot of weaknesses early on with the campaign and noted it here in a blog post back in October. I wish many of those things were corrected but the campaign was so busy that it had no time to look back and learn from the mistakes.
- Failure to expand his constituency: It is clear that Gov. Huckabee only had the evangelicals and unfortunately thats not enough to win a presidency. The Christian Leader Ad, and the comment about changing to constitution to align with God's word made things worse. On the latter, he did try to restate the point he was trying make but that nevertheless caused a lot of damage in expanding his base of support.
- Failure to communicate fiscal conservatism and national security: Gov. Huckabee is an excellent communicator but he never did explain with credibility why he is a fiscal conservative and why he believes in a strong national defense. He chose not to speak the fiscal conservative language, but instead used a populist tone to reach out to the Reagan democrats. Unfortunately the Reagan democrats were most likely turned off by his Christian views and didn't turn out the way that the campaign expected. Conservatives dislike emotional and empty rhetoric, thats should be a major lesson for any candidate in the future.
- Failure to organize his campaign: Yes, Gov. Huckabee probably has run the most efficient campaign in recent U.S. History. He has virtually no debt and is running under a very frugal budget. However, those same positives turn into negatives in the eyes of the public and the media. That's the reality, building an organization is not just imperative when it comes to running a strong campaign, but it also gives you credibility and clout in the eyes of the media. The more media coverage you get, the better your chances will be.
- Failure to provide substance (the meat): Gov. Huckabee has been always reluctant in explaining his policy proposal in detail. He hasn't taken the time to explain his immigration proposal in detail and in all honesty, I don't think he knows all of the provisions in his 9 point immigration plan. He constantly refers people to visit his website and check it out for themselves. He has a tendency to explain complex policy details in very lofty and vague terms. People want to hear substance, they get tired of the milk after a while.
- He brought a new generation of young evangelicals into the political process: One great example of this is HucksArmy.com. Most of the members of the group are under 30. There is a certain amount of frustration among young evangelicals that the government has failed to deliver and failed to understand the importance of social conservatism. Gov. Huckabee's idea of vertical politics inspired many to join alongside him. His ability to communicate very eloquently, and his ability to reach out to liberals inspired many as well. It's very rare to see a staunch social conservative like Gov. Huckabee go on a show like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report and get a lot of laughs. I can promise you one thing: as a result of his campaign, many young evangelicals will step up and follow his lead in getting more involved in the political process.
- Communicating social conservatism with a smile: There are countless occasions where I see him talk to a liberal media host and defend his views on marriage and abortion with ease. It is very hard to argue against him because he makes so much sense. He uses analogies and other logical conclusions to explain his strong convictions. He's able to make a quick witty remark and at the same time explain the truth behind his convictions.
- Making the Fair Tax proposal popular: I would've never heard of the fair tax if it weren't for Gov. Huckabee. He explained why he supported this proposal very well and convinced many people to back him because of it . Regardless of Gov. Huckabee's future, I will still remain to be a supporter of the fair tax. It is THE most fiscally conservative proposal out there in the marketplace of ideas.
- Disproving the notion that you need to raise a lot of money to stay in the race: Gov. Huckabee did show the elite how one can remain in contention without the huge resources and organization. People are much more powerful than what the media or the establishment would like to admit. I got tired of the media pundits who would come on and essentially decide for the people. Each American is smart enough to make an educated choice for themselves. I think the outcome would've been different if Huckabee was treated as someone had a shot at winning. Perceptions matter, and it definitely matters in a presidential contest.
Where am I headed after this?
Good question. Most likely I will become more involved with the local GOP party and get to know the establishment figures. Thankfully OK GOP is very open to newcomers and young republicans like myself. In the long run, I would love a chance to serve the people of Oklahoma in some capacity in the future if that is where I am needed.
As far as other short term goals are concerned, I will be blogging at a different website. I registered the domain LearntoReason.org and I intend to blog about Christianity and current events. I'm still in the process of setting up the logistics and I hope the readers of my blog will continue to follow my progress over there.
Friday, February 1, 2008
However the facts say another thing. This is the truth: A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
With Huckabee out of the picture, you see that a huge majority of voters jump to McCain. I can bet you if there was a poll with McCain out of the picture, Huckabee would be in the lead. Unfortunately the MSM and fox news won't run a poll of Huckabee vs. Romney. You would see who would beat whom.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020 ... se_web.pdf
7. If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the Republican
primary, how would you vote?
30-31 Jan 08
Republicans: McCain 62%/ Romney 29%/ (Don’t know) 6%/ (Would not vote) 3%
Both McCain and Huckabee supporters overwhelmingly don't like Romney. This is mostly Romney's fault because he early on ran very negative and misleading ads against both men while flip-flopping on almost every issue.
Why is Huckabee being kind to McCain? Because 1) He hasn't attacking Huckabee so far and 2) He doesn't want the McCain supporters to have a bad impression of him. He wants the get the McCain supporters once Romney is out of the way. That is why Huckabee has his eyes on Romney.
From my campaign sources, they have clearly told me that they are in it for the long haul (yes that means till the convention if necessary). They are not going to give up. They deserve to be in the race. Any objective person should admit that there hasn't been a campaign in recent history that has been as efficiently run as the Huckabee campaign.
Here's what Gov. Huckabee said today about this very topic. He took a dig at Romney's MBA degree.
“Under anybody’s business model, that’s not a very efficient or effective operation,” he said. “If you have an MBA from Harvard, and you believe in trying to figure out the best way to build market share and you spend an enormous amount of money and you have a competitor spends a very small amount of money, but he’s able to reach the same market share, it may say that that person has a more sellable product than you do. So maybe it would be appropriate to go out of business and merge your business with the one that has the more efficient model."
I love how Huckabee comes up with very shrewd ways to make a point. He is right on the money on this.
There is an audio clip on the website that shows that Mitt wasn't all that against McCains bill. He said it wasn't amnesty, now he strongly says that it is amnesty. I just want the electorate to know that Romney is just as weak on immigration as the other two. There's no need to lie about Romney's so called consistent record on immigration.
PHOENIX -- When Mitt Romney swooped into the heart of John McCain country this week, he brought a pointed message on illegal immigration: McCain's approach is the wrong one.
Proudly touting the endorsement of Joe Arpaio, a sheriff in the state who is known nationally for rounding up immigrants in desert tents, Romney boasted of cracking down on illegal immigrants as governor and denounced an immigration bill that the Arizona senator introduced with Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 2005.
It is a theme Romney has hit hard in recent weeks in his appeals to conservatives, many of whom attack McCain's immigration bill for proposing an eventual path to citizenship for immigrants living illegally in the United States and a guest-worker program to help fill American jobs.
"McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer," Romney said in a well-received speech to conservatives in Washington this month, describing it as an amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.
But that is markedly different from how Romney once characterized McCain's bill, elements of which are receiving new attention in Congress and from President Bush. Indeed, Romney's past comments on illegal immigration suggest his views have hardened as he has ramped up his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
Huckabee supporter Susan Brooks of Colorado Springs, CO, sends over a robocall she got last night from Mitt that wipes Huck out of the picture:
Hello, This is Governor Mitt Romney. The race for the Republican nomination for president is now a two person race. Our party, I believe, is at a critical crossroads, and the future of conservatism is very much at stake. I believe the choice before us is quite clear: Do we support the liberal policies of the Washington D.C. crowd, or do we want to fight for the conservative principles that have defined our party for more than a century? I believe that our policies have to remain rooted in conservative thought. Together, you and I can begin to change Washington. That's why I need your vote on Tuesday.
And my call today is being paid for by Romney for President, Inc., 857-XXX-XXXX
§ 1001. Statements of entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch
of the Government of the United States knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifi es, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fi ctitious, or fraudulent statement
shall be fi ned under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or if the
offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defi ned in section
233i [of 18 U.S.C.]), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.1
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Why do I say that? Because Huckabee is more electable and he is a conservative. He is electable for these reasons:
-Gov. Huckabee received the endorsement of Black conservatives and independents in Alabama. In Arkansas, Gov. Huckabee received 48% of the African American vote in his gubernatorial election - which is unprecedented.
-Gov. Huckabee can get the independent vote and will inspire a new generation of voters to enter into politics like Obama has.
-Gov. Huckabee has won 4 elections in the heavily democratic state of Arkansas. Mitt Romney has only won 1 election and there is no doubt that he would've miserably failed his second term. Just look at the failed campaign of his lieu. Governor after he left.
-Even democrats will crossover and vote for Huckabee based on his sincerity and compassion. I have read countless comments from democrats on various websites that proves that fact.
-Huckabee has faced the Clinton machine in all of his elections. Bill and Hillary personally came and campaigned against him in the gubernatorial elections and miserably failed.
-Huckabee is the best communicator in this election season. He is widely stereotyped but when people hear from him directly, they will come to find out his integrity, eloquence, and intelligence.
-He will not shift to the left like McCain, and he will govern with conservative principles. He will be a strong proponent of Federalism and will streamline the government like he did in Arkansas by instituting the Murphy commission. Huckabee started the Tax me more fund which got praises from Newsmax, and even Rush Limbaugh.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
| || |
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Here are the results (Source: IowaGOP.org):
1781 of 1781 precincts reporting:
Huckabee - 40,841 (34.4%)
Romney - 29,949 (25.2%)
Thompson - 15,904
McCain - 15,559
Paul - 11,817
Giuliani - 4,097
Hunter - 524
Tancredo - 5
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
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.
This is certainly not a hit piece on Bush as the news people suggest. I've pulled out some highlights of this 5 page paper that in on the Foreign affairs website. The article will be printed on their January/February 2008 Magazine.
Here are the highlights:
A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity -- religious, ethnic, racial -- it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the "pure" Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America's culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists' culture of death.
As president, I will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. I will bring our troops home based on the conditions on the ground, not the calendar on the wall. It is still too soon to reduce the U.S. counterterrorism mission and pass the torch of security to the Iraqis. If we do not preserve and expand population security, by maintaining the significant number of forces required, we risk losing all our hard-won gains. These are significant but tenuous..............
Withdrawing from Iraq before the country is stable and secure would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. Iraq's neighbors on all sides would be drawn into the war and face refugee crises as a result of fleeing Iraqis. Iraq is the crossroads where Arabs meet Persians and Kurds, and Sunnis meet Shiites. When we deposed Saddam Hussein, we emphasized the potentially dramatic upside of Iraq's centrality in the region: the country could be a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread from. Today, we face the dramatic downside: Iraq's centrality makes the country the perfect place for terrorists to create anarchy and have it spread. Those who say that we do not owe the Iraqis anything more are ignoring what we owe our own children and grandchildren in terms of security..........
The Bush administration has properly said that it will not take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table. Neither will I. But if we do not put other options on the table, eventually a military strike will become the only viable one. And nothing would make bin Laden happier than this outcome; he would welcome war between the United States and Iran.......
And I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel. The main difference between these two enemies is that al Qaeda is a movement that must be destroyed, whereas Iran is a nation that just has to be contained.
In order to contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. When we overthrew Saddam, whose regime was a bulwark against Iran, we upset the regional balance of power. Now, we must stabilize and strengthen Iraq not just for its own security but for the security of its neighbors, the region, and ourselves. We cannot allow Iran to push its theocracy into Iraq and then expand it further west....
Another way to contain Iran is through diplomacy. We must be as aggressive diplomatically as we have been militarily since 9/11. We must intensify our diplomatic efforts with China, India, Russia, South Korea, and European states and persuade them to put more economic pressure on Iran.
We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran. Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons on my watch. But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I put their son's or daughter's life at risk, I want to do everything possible to avoid conflict. We have substantive issues to discuss with Tehran.
Musharraf's top priority is not the United States' survival but his own, physical and political. Musharraf has done his best to convince the Bush administration that the United States' destiny and his are inextricably interwoven -- after him, the deluge. But this is not true. He has not kept extremists from seizing power in Pakistan; they have not seized it simply because they have not had the strength or the support to do so. He claims that he declared the state of emergency because of the threat of extremism to Pakistan. In fact, he was responding to a threat not to the country but to himself and not from extremists but from Pakistan's Supreme Court, which was about to invalidate his recent reelection.
Whatever happens in Pakistan next, the country's policy toward the United States is unlikely to change significantly. General Ashfaq Kiyani, the deputy chief of staff of the army and Musharraf's most likely successor, is a moderate who wants the military less involved in politics. As prime minister, Sharif would sound more anti-American, and Bhutto more pro-American. But in any event, our problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban will not be magically solved for us. They are our problems, and we must face up to them.
I will assure the Pakistanis that we are with them for the long haul. When the Russians left Afghanistan in the late 1980s, we quickly lost interest in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis fear the same will happen when al Qaeda and the Taliban are no longer around to keep us engaged. They should not. Pakistan, like Iraq, is a regional problem rather than an isolated one. We must use our friendly ties with India to encourage and help it improve its relationship with Pakistan and to push for increased trade and cooperation between the two countries, all to bring greater stability to the South Asian region.
"The process will not be quick," Ambassador Crocker told Congress of the progress in Iraq last fall. "It will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment." Does this sound familiar? To me, the statement could also have applied to the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, or World War II. We paid a heavy price in each of those conflicts, but we prevailed. And we will prevail now. Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
I think it is clear if someone like Fred Thompson were to get the nomination then the election results would be Hillary Clinton - 60% , Fred Thompson - 35%. No one wants to vote for old clown over a woman.
Here's Nuke's response:
Mea culpa, mea culpa
In the spirit of political apologies, I want to apologize for saying that Fred Thompson “just might be as dumb as a box of rocks.”
It isn’t fair for me to blame Fred’s forgetfulness on stupidity.
He couldn’t help it. He just plain forgot. I accept that. It can’t be comfortable for the Thompson crowd to have his lapses of memory to be pointed out and held up for public ridicule. (....Read the rest)
The most noteworthy part:
But Romney's illegal immigrant bashing is of fairly recent vintage.Also I wanted to add that Gov. Romney said that he signed a bill that prevented illegals from getting drivers licenses. For the record, Gov. Huckabee did too, but would Romney mention that similarity in the ad? Nope.
In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal – and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said:
Romney (June 2004): I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state. But equally, perhaps a little more than equally, I do not want to create an incentive to do something which is illegal.
Romney wasn't a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. As we have written, he took no action to punish the "sanctuary cities" that he now rails against. And while he boasts that he authorized state troopers to enforce federal immigration law, that order came at the end of his term, never went into effect and was overturned by his successor.
None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn't exist in reality.
Here's the ad I'm referring to:
By the way, he said that he has a pro-life record in Massachusetts. Apparently in his health care plan, $50 dollar abortions were covered. I'm surprised that many media folk are not truly stepping him and fact-checking him. Also I have posted before about how Gov. Romney ran on a pro-choice platform. He promised that he will preserve the woman's right to choose. If he says he had a pro-life record in Massachusetts, does that mean he denigrated his own promise to the people of Massachusetts? Was he pandering to just get elected? Is he doing the same now?
By the end of his first term in office, Gov. Romney had a whopping disapproval ratings of 59% and approval ratings of 39% (According to Survey USA). Does anyone in their right mind think that he would've won reelection if he had chose to run again? I don't think so.
Here's a news story that talks about his tanking numbers in 2006
The picture below is the chart of Gov. Romney's approval ratings. Click pic to enlarge.
New Poll: Romney's Approval Ratings Tanking
BOSTON (CBS4) ― Massachusetts residents are losing the love for Governor Mitt Romney.
A new poll finds that 70% of Massachusetts residents -- and 64% of Republicans -- say Governor Mitt Romney has been doing a fair-to-poor job. The public opinion survey, to be released Thursday, shows that voters are losing faith in elected officials while nearly half of those polled believe the state is "on the wrong track."
While just 43% of Massachusetts residents view Mitt Romney favorably, President Bush fared even worse. Only 28% of those polled said they have a favorable opinion of the President, and an overwhelming 69% of residents have an unfavorable view.
The picture below is the chart of Gov. Huckabee's approval ratings. Click pic to enlarge.
What's impressive with Gov. Huckabee's approval ratings is that after 11 long years of being Governor (elected twice) and three years before that as Lieu Governor he still registered numbers like 55% approval and 42% disapproval. Usually there is voter fatigue, but it seems like a good number of people in Arkansas still liked him.
PLAYING DOWN AND IGNORING ENDORSEMENT FROM MASS. RIGHT TO LIFE
MORE PRO-CHOICE RHETORIC
P.S. - GOP attacked John Kerry time and time again for being a flip-flopper. Do they really think they can defend Gov. Romney's flip-flopping efforts? Good luck with that.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The media has finally succeeded in trapping Gov. Huckabee in 'bigotry'. Maybe not.
Chapter 3 also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
First, the Huckabee campaign came out with this response:
LITTLE ROCK, AR – A report released tonight cites an upcoming article in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine which quotes former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee asking a question about the content of the Mormon faith. In fact, the full context of the exchange makes it clear that Governor Huckabee was illustrating his unwillingness to answer questions about Mormonism and to avoid addressing theological questions during this campaign.After the debate, Gov. Huckabee personally apologized to Gov. Romney about this situation. He reinstated the fact that there should be no religious test. Period.
“Governor Huckabee has said consistently that he believes this campaign should center on a discussion of the important issues confronting our nation,” said Senior Advisor, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, “and not focus on questions of religious belief. He wants to assure persons of all faith traditions of his firm commitment to religious tolerance and freedom of worship. Governor Huckabee believes that one of the great strengths of our nation lies in its diversity of thought, opinion and faith.”
Here is Gov. Huckabee on CNN explaining the whole ordeal.
You might be asking, hmm.. Gov. Huckabee has a theology degree and doesn't know what Mormonism is all about? Well, his degree was in biblical studies and no it isn't true that you suddenly become an expert in comparative religions when you major in a different field of study. Usually people take outside time in learning about other religions, Gov. Huckabee hasn't spent time investigating other religions.
Second, you might be asking - A NY TIMES reporter knows what Mormonism is all about? How is that possible? Well, Zev Chafets is very unique in this regard. He wrote this article defending Romney and Mormonism in the LA Times in Feb 2007. Read the article for yourself.
Who is Zev Chafets? Well here is a short bio: ZEV CHAFETS is the author of "A Match Made in Heaven: American Jews, Christian Zionists and One Man's Exploration of the Weird and Wonderful Judeo-Evangelical Alliance." Clearly, Mr. Chafets specializes in religion and is no typical reporter.
I hope this clears up any outstanding doubts about this issue. Gov. Romney accepted the apology and Gov. Huckabee has said that he would absolutely not talk about Mormonism and he said that no one should/should not vote for any candidate because of their religion.
Apparently Mr. Chafets is not willing to corroborate the story. He's not willing to admit it, but he's still hasn't rejected the story.
Reached Wednesday in Cooperstown, N.Y., where he’s writing a book on the National Baseball Hall of Fame, Chafets told Politico: “I asked him the question about Mormonism and whether he thought it was a religion or a cult.
“He said it was a religion, and didn’t know much about it. There was a pause. Then he asked his question,” Chafets continued.
“He can spin it any way he wants. It was on the wires and picked up by candidates, and I can’t be accountable for that,” Chafets said, adding, “I hope that the article, as I wrote it, was entirely in context.”
Lieberman [Chafets' editor] said she also understood that Huckabee’s question “was an unbidden response.”
This is how the article presents the story:
So my question is, what happened after that? Did Chafets say anything back? It obviously wasn't a rhetorical question. Did Chafets just smile back and say nothing? Or did he actually go in depth about the Mormon faith which led Gov. Huckabee to ask more questions. Remember that this interview was a 4 to 5 hour conversation over a period of a couple days, so it was not a typical 10 minute interview.I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
Chafets doesn't want to really get in the middle of this and defend Huckabee because they want this article to get more play in the media for business purposes. It's pretty sad, but thats how the media works. The editors look at the columnists notes and also the person's article and try to make additions/deletions as they see it. This one sentence that Chafets used in the article was basically the trigger point for people buy the entire magazine on Sunday. Very unfortunate.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
He defends Gov. Huckabee's foreign policy and debunks the rhetoric spewed by NRO that Huckabee is similar to Jimmy Carter.
Here is the link to the article: THE ARKANSAN AND WAR.
Also, can you imagine Jimmy Carter ever saying this? The NRO folks really need to find some new brains.
The following list of quotes is a bit long, but it’s important to understand where Mike Huckabee actually stands — as opposed to where the NR Editors tell us he stands:
# “We have to help other governments mount an active counterinsurgency wherever the terrorists are to be found.”
# “We can achieve tremendous bang for the buck with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units, as we’ve recently done with the Ethiopians in Somalia.”
# “The administration has quite properly said that it will not take the military option for Iran off the table. Neither would I.”
# “[T]o contain Iran, it’s essential that we actually win in Iraq.”
# “Another way to contain Iran is through diplomacy, while never taking the military option off the table.”
# “I’ve supported and continue to support the surge in Iraq.”
# “War is about will. Whoever gives up loses. We can’t afford to lose. How we handle this will determine the kind of world that our grandchildren will live in or, for that matter, die in.”
# “The administration plans to increase the Army and Marines by about 92,000 over five years, but we must accelerate that to more like two or three years …. We spend currently just around 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense. Under Ronald Reagan, we spent 6 percent in 1986. We need to return closer to that 6 percent figure if we’re really serious about our options in the world.”
LITTLE ROCK, AR – In Iowa today, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee received a major endorsement from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project.
Huckabee said he was honored to receive the endorsement. “No one can question Jim's commitment to this country and the immigration problem. He has mobilized a group of volunteers to go to the border and draw attention to the issue of immigration. All of us want a policy where people come to this country through the front door, not the back door,” said Huckabee during a morning news conference.
Gilchrist added, "Governor Huckabee actually wrote a plan that I can embrace. I found his ‘Secure America’ plan would open the dialogue and help begin the process of solving the illegal immigration problem.”
Gilchrist, who founded the Minuteman Project in 2004, said he appreciated Huckabee’s plan to secure America ’s borders.
Last week, Huckabee unveiled “The Secure America Plan: A Nine-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security.” Huckabee said he believes in adopting the best policy ideas to provide a “tough, equitable and comprehensive approach” to dealing with the current immigration crisis.
Huckabee said his goal is to implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population.
A 30-second television ad, called "Secure Borders," began airing in Iowa Monday to educate voters about Huckabee's call for a new immigration strategy, which begins with securing America 's borders.
A copy of the Secure America Plan and his new Iowa ad is available here.