Posted on 01/20/2008 2:31:40 AM PST by Def Conservative
I've told you before and I'll tell you again. Mike Huckabee talks just to talk. He talks to ingratiate. He talks to win the favor of the grandstand that happens to rise before him.
It doesn't mean anything, really.
I wrote as much last month, then Huckabee went straight out and confirmed it, essentially.
People were making something fretful of an old quote of his to a religious gathering in 1998. He said we need to take the country back for Jesus because the real answers aren't found in government, but the Lord. He said he got into government to inject Jesus into it.
People gasped: Wasn't that mixing church and state?
I contended it wasn't, really. I explained that it was merely Huckabee being Huckabee, a disc jockey mouthing whatever the programming format of the day was.
A few days later Huckabee was on "Meet the Press," and he got asked about this old quote. He explained that the comment was delivered to a religious group and was therefore appropriate to the occasion.
In other words, he only wants to mix church and state when he's talking to people who want to mix church and state. Don't you see? He's not dangerous to constitutional principles. He's just an agreeable talker.
Some people call that a demagogue, but that's way harsh.
(Excerpt) Read more at arkansasnews.com ...
Just the kind of circumspect style the man in charge of American foreign policy should have.
/SARC
And just the embodiment of stereotypical "evangelical" that hands a weapon over to those who believe Jefferson's doctrine of the separation of Church and State was meant to protect the State from the Church, and not the other way around.
Oh, yes. This Rodent Eater is percisely what we need in the White House. He's ready... uh huh.
He talks slowly, too.
That was shown everywhere yesterday. You can bet, if, and I say *IF” the Huckster wins the nomination, the Dims will kill us with that clip.
I’m a regular church goer and faithful Baptist and even I wince when I hear him say the constitution needs to be changed to fit the Bible. That video clip is chilling.
Actually, the Constitution already fits the Bible, since it was written to reflect the Biblical values of individualism and the governments role in protecting the individual.
The role of any government offical is simply to follow the Consitution and that is what he takes an oath to do.
Huckabee’s problem with conservatives is that he is another federal interventionist like Harriet Miers, whom President Bush tried and failed to put on the Supreme Court a few years ago.
A strict constructionist view would have issues like abortion dealt with by the states.
Huckabee likes a federal solution to abortion, even a constitutional amendment.
The same for marriage as well.
That puts him in hot water with conservatives just like Miers was in a few years back when the president backed away from her nomination.
That's basically the same argument Mitt & his apologists make for his pro-abortion, pro-gay rights stance in MA: He "had to" take those positions so he could get elected in leftist MA. It's logical to conclude that he is now just talking like a conservative to get the Republican nomination.
Face it, people. There were only two candidates who had any fixed conservative principles: the better one dropped out yesterday (Hunter) and the other is reeling (Thompson). Probably this country is going to have to endure real disaster, extreme suffering, and the loss of our freedom and prosperity, before the sheeple wake up. But then it will be too late. By then the U.S. will be another Third World socialist tyranny, or even a failed state whose polyglot population engages in tribal genocide. We were given a Republic, and we have proven ourselves unable to keep it.
Huckabee will not last much longer.
He doesn't have the organization and money to keep going.
Iowa was a fluke, just as it was when it nominated Pat Robinson.
Barring a last minute comeback by Rudy, I think it will come down to Romney and McCain.
So, I think conservatives need to look at that alternative very seriously.
There are problems with Romney, but the alternative is McCain, who holds the idea that he is never wrong!
Once in the office that he has sought all these years, McCain would be implacable, taking council from no one.
We could not even hold him in check with the concern about running for a second term, since at his age and declining health, he will not be able to do so.
I think either man would win the General election, since Romney won an election in Mass.
Probably.
But personally would support a global ban on abortions (including for rape and incest) except when life-threatening, so if the option of ending abortion nationally is available, would readily take that option.
Or Americans can work now to put an end to the polyglot population and make the United States ethnically homogeneous. That way, even if the state fails, the nation can still survive.
Seems as if that is becoming the case.
Its a fascinating issue of how to deal with things like abortion, whether the federal government should intervene or it should be left to the states.
Those who oppose federal intervention like Huckabee supports, should be honest and say the Civil Rights laws of the 1964, 1965 were wrong, too.
Goldwater had the gonads to oppose that stuff in 1964.
But can you imagine the big radio talk show hosts saying that on the radio.
Martin Luther King’s birthday is here and its time to pretend he was a “conservative” to get black votes for the GOP.
So do we intervene because of the horrors of abortion or just stand aside and “leave it to the states?”
A debate no one wants to have as far as I can see.
Which is exactly why the Democrats want him to get the GOP nomination.
This might be true, that he talks just to talk and doesn’t mean anything he says. And the writer seems to think that therefore we shouldn’t worry about Huckastupid.
But what if — just for the sake of argument (I realize it’s not going to happen) — he became President.
At that point he’d have the power to do more than just talk.
So then what would he actually DO?
Well, let’s look at his record in Arkansas.
What does that tell us about him?
I want Huck in because too many evangelical voters are suspicious of Romney and where will their votes end up.
McCain anyone?
Its time for tactical voting, political guerrila warfare and a clear “NO WAY MCCAIN” message from somewhere out there.
Vote everywhere for a candidate who will cause McCain to lose because that candidate is strongest in your state in relation to McCain.
Looks like you have nailed it.
Tancredo was the only candidate I know of who actually had the guts to attack our out-of-control, suicidally-foolish legal immigration policy, as well as illegal immigration.
McCain any day over Huck, he is a bad candidate and he won’t win either.
“It’s probably too late for that. The Hispanic population is enormous and growing rapidly. Their culture has no tradition whatsoever of limited, stable, ethical government. Nor does that of the millions of 3rd-Worlders (including Muslims) flooding into the country. The ethnic and cultural divisions in this country between blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians are far more profound than those which have caused centuries of civil war and even genocide between Serbs and Croats, Flemish and Walloons, Jews and other Europeans, and different black African tribes.”
I believe you are correct.
And is it ever #@!&@*$ depressing.
I say no to Washington politicians this year since the Democrats will have one as their candidate.
Our candidate must be from outside DC like Huck, Rudy or Mitt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.