Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Is This Man The GOP's Future?

If the GOP nomination stays on its current course, this could be the first election since I've been of voting age that I will not be able to cast a vote for the Republican candidate for president. A Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is emerging as the front-runner in Iowa and inching upwards in other early primaries. Huckabee is standing by a statement he made in 1992 that all persons who test positive for the HIV virus should be isolated from the general population. According to the Washington Post, Huckabee's thinking would be in line with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Huckabee's narrow-minded thinking extends to other Christians. In an upcoming New York Times Magazine article, Huckabee is quoted as saying, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Huckabee, as governor, also had a proclivity for releasing dangerous criminals from prison who declared Jesus as their savior and who returned to the streets to kill. And let's not even start with his tax and spend record as governor.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a respectable record as a one-term governor to run on, but he's devoted his entire campaign to running away from the moderate positions he held on most social issues to appease the religious right. While he no doubt is offended by Huckabee's bigoted views of his religion, his deliberate effort to inject religion into the presidential race only serves to draw more attention to his Mormon faith. And Romney is hardly without sin as he engages in immigrant-bashing to beat down Huckabee's surge in Iowa. Let's just forget that he has employeed illegal aliens to tend to his palatial home.

Even former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani has turned in a failing performance as of late. Long a champion of gay rights, Guiliani's overt attempt to satisfy the thinking of the Rev. Pat Robertson produced the most absurd statement he has ever uttered. As he explained to NBC's Tim Russert, there is nothing sinful about being gay as long as you don't engage in sex. As he spoke it, "My, my moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality as a, as a way that somebody leads their life is not—isn’t sinful. It’s the acts, it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the—not the orientation that they have." Never mind that Guiliani lived with a gay couple in a committed relationship a few years back when he was in-between marriages. His inept handling of ethics questions on Tim Russsert's "Meet The Press" this past Sunday concerning his hiring of the mob-connected Bernie Kerik as New York City Police Commissioner, detailing New York police to provide security for his girlfriend and questionable lobbying ties related to his law firm left much to be desired and provided plenty of fodder for salivating Democrats.

And Fred Thompson and John McCain have turned in such incompetent performances as candidates, it's not even worth discussing them. I can only hope that Democrats choose Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. He may just be the least offensive among this year's crop of presidential candidates, and that's not saying much.

24 comments:

Wilson46201 said...

Oh well -- there's always Illinoisian Alan Keyes running for President on the Republican ticket ... you did overlook him by accident, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

Altho I'm a strong D, I gotta say, I hope your party nominates a good candidate, Gary. A strong election process is vital. And right now, all of our candidates are better than any of yours. That's rare.

Until your party stops pandering solely to the Christian right, this kind of stuff will continue.

We're not a Christian nation. We are a tolerant and consdierate nation which welcomes all faiths until and unless they turn into violent killing machines. Even then, we tolerate the religious side of the person's belief, if we criticize or prosecute its vengeful side.

Our nation may be Christian-majority, but that does not mean we should be tagging our money, opening legislatures with prayers to one God, and similar ridiculous panderings to one diety.

Angry Republican said...

In 2000, I voted for McCain (even though I knew it was pointless.) I liked his generally maverick style. But, his cozying up to Bob Jones University and his sudden shift to the far right has concerned me. Mike Huckabee, who strikes me as a genuinely congenial guy, is too conservative (socially) for me.

Of the Republican group, I suppose I'll vote for Guiliani - though, as AI pointed out, his recent comments about gays are somewhat disconcerting.

There are three Democrats I like: Biden, Dodd, and Obama. If any of those guys would become president, I'd be okay. I happen to think that Biden is the best of them, but people had best not look past Obama - he's a sharp guy, and I think people (read: Senator Clinton) are focusing on his "inexperience."

All in all, so many people running for president, and not ONE of them can I say, "THAT is the person I want as president."

Sigh.

AR

Anonymous said...

Do you think Huckabee will move an Indiana-made trailer on to the White House lawn to remind us of his roots?

Wilson46201 said...

Someplace out there is an "Angry Whig" awaiting for the Whig Party to return to its true roots and select a decent candidate worth voting for again ... in the meantime, make the best of what's out there!

Anonymous said...

I find it disingenuous that a blog with the modus operandi: ...all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust..." written in their banner would use sophomoric tactics of showing an overweight Huckabee with his middle-America family so people can look at him as some hilljack rube.

If you don't like his policies, address them directly. But, in the classic fashion that most moderate Republicans, progessives, and people who carry the "equality" banner, the only equality that exists is for your narrow interpretation of what equality is.

You say don't have "religious tests." but in reality that means don't have test as long as your religion isn't Christianity. All the while people like you view individuals from middle America as intolerant simpletons because they don't live in an urban setting, listen to whatever album Starbucks is pushing this week, and subscribe to your take on what the GOP should be.

If you truly believed in a "big tent" you debate the issues and discuss them in the public square (which is what I thought this blog is), but no, you use the same tactics of those you supposedly are at odds with while calling it "fairness."

Advance Indiana said...

"I find it disingenuous that a blog with the modus operandi: ...all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust..." written in their banner would use sophomoric tactics of showing an overweight Huckabee with his middle-America family so people can look at him as some hilljack rube."

The photo is an official family portrait from his days of being governor. If you think it makes him luke like a rube, then blame him and not me. I think it is a form of cruel and unusual punishment for a dad to make his teen-age sons dress up like dad for a family photo.

"You say don't have "religious tests." but in reality that means don't have test as long as your religion isn't Christianity."

Sorry, but I am a Christian. I don't believe anyone of my religious faith, however, should seek to impose or advance Christianity using the authority and powers of government.

Angry Republican said...

Wilson said:
"Someplace out there is an "Angry Whig" awaiting for the Whig Party to return to its true roots and select a decent candidate worth voting for again ... in the meantime, make the best of what's out there!"

Well, I don't know if I'm waiting for the Whig party to come back, but certainly the old Republican party - the one whose president freed the slaves and the one that believed people ought to be able to live their lives generally free from government interference. Maybe that's what you were getting at, Wilson?

It's ironic, don't you think? Once the party was taken over by the ultra-social conservatives, the party went straight to hell.

As to the other poster - no, there shouldn't be religious tests. I could care less if someone is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or anything else. It's using religion as a means to sanction government discrimination to which I am opposed.

AR

Anonymous said...

AR:

Your party went to hell well before the rise of the social conservatives. You're just late to the party. There are only 4 types of Republicans left: the social conservatives/relig right, the chickenhawks who send others abroad to die, the Rockefeller types, and people like you and advanceindiana, who have succumbed to (been intoxicated by?) a very thin rhetoric about minimal government.

It ain't too late for you to atone: the Democratic party has all types, is committed to racial equality, economic justice and liberty. You're not a social conservative, nor committed to advancing the word of some God through policy. And, here's the bad news: you're not a rockefeller republican. They're laughing at you and AI in the country clubs.

Come on over to the party that genuinely believes in the separation of church and state, the most vulnerable amongst us, and liberty and justice for all.

varangianguard said...

The whole process is geared to bringing the cream to the top. Well, what does that say?

Anonymous said...

Is Gomer Pyle still alive?

Anonymous said...

"The whole process is geared to bringing the cream to the top. Well, what does that say?"

That shit likewise rises.

Anonymous said...

As I look out across this entire field of presidential candidates I shake my head and ask myself, is this the best this country can do?

Not one, not a single one of these candidates is worth a tinker's dam. Lots of choices but no choices. If this group candidates is the best our country can produce then we are indeed in deep trouble a nation.

IndyLawStudent10 said...

AI,

I will agree that Huckabee has horribly misplayed the AIDS quote. He could have kept it from having any signifigance, but instead was too worried about looking like a flip-flopper to just admit that it was a ridiculous statement that illustrated his ignorance at the time. Now all it does is highlight his possible ignorance in the now. I think he's a genuinly good person, but he's not nearly a strong or well-rounded enough candidate to be president. He would be crushed by any Dem nominee.

What's sad, is that once McCain's campaign filtered out some of the people who encouraged the mistakes from the beginning of his campaign (embracing BJU, etc), he's actually started to get back to who he really is; and who he really is, that's the candidate that the party needs. Unfortunatly, it may be too little, too late.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Fred is more competent in his little finger than Huckabee is in his entire body.

The only reason Huckabee is surging is because the left-wing media see him as the easiest Republican to beat.

Doug said...

In order of preference of the major candidates, I suppose I'd go something like:

Edwards
Obama
Clinton
Romney
Huckabee
Giuliani

I think Edwards would push hardest on middle class economic issues, Obama is a mix of Edwards and Clinton, Clinton is o.k., but stinks of dynasty, has too many ties to big money and the DNC. Overall, I think a Democratic President is needed to clean the stables left behind by the Bush administration.

Of the Republicans, I think Romney holds his right-wing beliefs most lightly and would probably be mostly a care-taker President, focusing on business more than social issues. Huckabee's social positions (quarantine HIV sufferers?!?) are far away from mine, but he's probably mostly honest. Giuliani strikes me as a corrupt, power-seeking fascist and narcissist. Of the 6, he strikes me as the most capable of doing long term harm.

Anonymous said...

Wilson, I like Alan Keyes but he hasn't a chance at being elected or even considered. Unfortunately, America is at a crossroads and the American People are divided. We as an American people are divided instead of melding into a strong electorate and we have become divided by personal issues and not looking forward for the benefit or preserving the American Way of Life.

It's rare that someone identifies themselves and says, I'm an American, it's I'm a Black American, Hispanic American, or Gay American, etc.

We have let personal issues, divisive politicians, secular progressives steer us away from the national good.

I hear Libertarian radicals say Ron Paul or no one. Then it will definitely be a vote for O'Bama or Hillary.

I'm not enamored with any of the front runners and there in lies the problem. America needs a candidate to galvanize the country into what it once was. An America for the People by the People.

We have allowed ourselves to become self centered and it's what the country can do for us Not what can we do for our country. Even JFK would role over in his grave at the terrible condition that America is in.

Mike Huckabee on the surface looks OK but looking at some of his late statements, past actions and beliefs would not make him a person that I would choose to lead the country. I like Fred Thompson but he hasn't lit the fire that I thought that he would or could.

I hope that someone steps forward (and Not Al Gore) to become the candidate of the people.

Anonymous said...

Now THERE'S a point to consider: which candidate will do the least harm?

If only we'd applied that test in 2000...oh well. Who knew W was an idiot?

Anonymous said...

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, I heard one of everyone's faves, Greg Garrison, belittle Huckabee as a liberal. A LIBERAL! Or maybe he said "Marxist"... Crazy!

Interesting article out there about the "Huckabee High" - think it was Slate or Salon. How he lulls you into his cocoon of warm and fuzzy social programs, appeal to African-Americans-- basically his Clinton (Bill)-esquness. And you start forget about his nutjob positions on religious and gay rights.

Anonymous said...

Almost half the country-- and the majority in FL!

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is the only answer for 2008. I can't believe idiots like Fred Thompson are mentioned in casual conversation, yet Ron Paul isn't. He's everything the Republican party should be. Check him out.

Anonymous said...

Atheist here, Romney? Are you serious? Sorry Gary, Mormons are in the same bed as Scientology!! Cult! I happen to actually like some of what Huckabee says, and the last person I want is a right wing christian conserv in there but he is appealing. Ron Paul is my fave for now, (doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell!) But oh well. I think Huckabee made those comments during a time when it was very fashionable to be anti-gay, aids, and liberal. People grow up, not giving him a pass, but hey anybody willing to eliminatethe IRS has my ear. I'll pay a flat tax!

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul, only one practices what he preaches, including seperation of church state, minimal federal government.Look at the money hes raised and the fact that his biggest supporters are police/military even though his stance on Iraq is it was wrong to go there or continue to be there. A true patriot to be reckoned with that this idiocracy we have in this country doesnt even want to acknowledge