Rachel and I had dinner with a conservative Christian woman that we know from church on Sunday night, and the conversation turned to the election. Now, this particular woman is a typical "Christian conservative" in most respects, even down to her prediliction for "mainstream" candidates such as Fred Thompson. She is vehemently opposed to all things Clinton (ironic, considering Thompson's history of voting to acquit him), and is firm on many of the social conservative stances held by traditional conservative candidates.
After a long discussion about Ron Paul, with both Rachel and I pointing out that Ron Paul's stances on these issues are the strongest in line, over all, with everything this woman stands for, she chickened out at the last minute. What was it over? The issue of bringing the troops home. Like many conservatives, she will talk about supporting the lesser of the two evils, but as happens in so many cases, she irrationally throws that out the window on a subject that is really not one that we can afford idealism on.
Both of us pointed out to her that what she wants is a candidate who will keep the troops there, but use them very effectively, and then get us out of there quickly once we can leave. That is what most conservatives want, but where Rachel and I part ways with her, and pretty much all conservatives like this woman, is that we accept the fact that this candidate isn't running in 2008 for President. You have two choices: bring the troops home, and have them kept there by a President who will not use them wisely due to politics.
What you can learn from discussions like this is that Christian conservatives will invariably chicken out on their principles at the last minute, and choose the lesser of the two evils when choosing good is still an option. They are defeatists, political sloths and spoiled brats by nature; when they aren't automatically dismissing the best candidate in favor of the one who sucks the least, they stay home and shut their mouths because they didn't get their ideal candidate (invariably because they dismissed him during the primaries).
Huckabee, a man who seems to be the ideological and personality spawn of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, is already gaining a lot of support from these voters. This is despite the glaring warning signs that the man is cut from the same cloth as the last two presidents. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me so how many times I have lost count, what does that make?...
All I know is this. I just got my voter registration card, and plan to call the State Board of Elections to find out how to vote in the Republican Party's primary in Virginia for Ron Paul. I, for one, don't intend to keep repeating this stupid cycle.
Good for you! It's a shame more Christians don't inform themselves better.
I wore my Ron Paul Revolution shirt to the dentist's the other day. He asked me about Ron Paul's "Nazi connections". I tried to assuage his fears, but I'm not very hopeful that he'll pull the lever for Paul.
Ah, well; what can you do.
I need some help with this. I keep hearing that Huckabee is cut out of the same mold as Clinton and Bush.
First of all, I'm not much of a Bush fan, but how are Clinton and Bush cut out of the same mold? What is the mold and how does Huckabee fit into this mold?
I'd recommend that you start here for some of the negative information about Huckabee. This blog post lays out a lot more information that you will probably find to be problematic about him (a lot of big government man in Huckabee). There are also ethics issues surrounding his time as Governor of Arksansas (heh... where have we seen this play out before?)
Huckabee is not as bad as Hillary Clinton, and probably not as bad as Barack Obama when you get down to many issues. However, at this stage in the game we can afford to support candidates like Ron Paul.
How are Clinton and Bush cut from the same mold? A few things worth considering:
1) Both of them believe that it is the government's place to "improve society" and do nation-building.
2) Both of them take wishy-washy stances at best on basic constitutional rights.
3) Both of them are internationalists when it comes to border security and international bodies.
Huckabee shares a lot in common with both of them on at least 1 and 2. Sure, he's 100% pro-gun and pro-life. He's also the sort of man who believes that the federal government can ban smoking nationwide. Things like that should give you pause about the man's stances, and make you realize that there is a high probability that he is going to continue the nannystatism of his predecessors.
In the past a fairly prominent conservative, Joseph Farah, has quite publicly dropped his principles and pushed for a "lesser of two evils" Of course it isn't just him, but so few write a daily column where there thoughts are recorded for the world to see. But at least Farah has principles and has attempted to stick with them (from time to time) too many conservatives seem to be proactive about dropping their principles in order to support the so-called electable candidate.
Sure, he's 100% pro-gun and pro-life.
And that's it. That is the entirety of his conservative credentials. In all other respects, he's a leftist.
Even on those two issues, I still trust Ron Paul to accomplish more towards protecting gun rights and the unborn than I do Huckabee.
Just remember, Erik, that not all principles are made the same. There are core principles/values, and there are ones on issues that really aren't that important. I would, for example, support a state candidate who wants to ban smoking in all public places, but who has solid credentials on property rights and other issues if they were the better candidate.
"Even on those two issues, I still trust Ron Paul to accomplish more towards protecting gun rights and the unborn than I do Huckabee.
First of all, it's my understanding that Ron Paul doesn't want to do anything "towards protecting.. the unborn." He wants the federal governments hands out of it. It's my understanding that Paul would have these issues decided on a state by state basis. If I understand this correctly, he is doing nothing about abortion, which is clearly against the constitutional right to life, as stated in the due process clause.
Obviously, I'm still not even completely certain on Mr. Paul's stance on the subject, but this is how I understand it.
"That is the entirety of [Mike Huckabee's] conservative credentials. In all other respects, he's a leftist."
A short list of Huckabee's actual Conservative credentials. (just off the top of my head.)
He's Pro-life, pro-gun, pro fair tax, pro border control, anti amnesty and pro traditional marriage.
I would not come on this page and tell everyone that He is the only real conservative in the running, (As I’ve heard others claim.) He has his issues, but we should at least give him credit where credit is due.
Why is this wrong on abortion, but right with murder? Some states have weak enforcement of their murder statutes. Those damn handful of bleeding heart states clearly make a case for why the rest of the union's legal systems should be overridden... Doesn't sound so good when it goes to another area of crime, eh?
There is no explicit constitutional "right to life." There is a negative rights clause that speaks about criminal proceedings, and puts limitations on them. That is what the due process amendments state. Abortion is not legally considered a state action, and it isn't. It is a private medical procedure that amounts to murder. The Constitution does not prevent any state from revoking its laws on any violent crime, it merely says that the state itself cannot engage in violence against a person without due process of law.
There have been plenty of people pointing out on blogs that the man has been known to play the race card like a left-liberal, therefore I question his immigration credentials. Much of his rhetoric is populist, and populism does not respect things like constitutions when they get in the way of the "little guy." He is to the right enough that he is not a blatant leftist like your average Democratic candidate, but he is hardly a true conservative in his own right.
As I said, if you want a real conservative, you should try to do your part to help Ron Paul get the nomination.
"Why is this wrong on abortion, but right with murder? Some states have weak enforcement of their murder statutes."
Not the same argument. Murder is Illegal in every state. Different states have different punishments, but It's against the law to murder no matter which state you are in.
If Abortion is handed over to the sates for control, one might decide it is illegal while another may decide to allow it. This accomplishes nothing, because A woman who wishes to abort her baby in a pro-life state can simply travel across the state line and have the proceedure done there.
Don't get me wrong, overturning Roe v. Wade would be a wonderful thing and the all important first step towards Abortions non-exsistance.
So, as long as murder is illegal, that's all that matters? Doesn't matter to you if a state has a reputation for letting cold-blooded murderers off in less than ten years?
So, the federal government only stays out when every state unanimously agrees to outlaw murder?
That is categorically untrue. The poor will be unable to have abortions as a general rule if this takes effect. If the majority of states outlaw abortion, the cost for abortions in general will go up, making them no longer a viable option for many women. The result is a reduction in the rate of abortion, and a large swath of America where abortion is no longer legally possible. There is nothing legally stopping the federal government from passing a law saying that a woman may not legally cross state lines in order to get an abortion; this was done with prostitution.
And Ron Paul is the only candidate who would seriously push SCOTUS candidates who would agree with you that it is unconstitutional. If abortion is your issue, then Ron Paul is your best choice, bar none, to get an effective anti-abortion candidate into office.
I like arguing... I mean debating with you. :)