Choosing up sides

On the heels of Mitt Romney's announcement of his suspension of his Presidential campaign, various conservative leaders are, quite naturally, beginning to announce their endorsements of their choice of the remaining candidates.

Dr. Dobson of Focus On The Family, as reported by CitizenLink, has now endorsed Governor Huckabee. Here is the text of the February 7 email sent out by CitizenLink announcing Dr. Dobson's endorsement (no link):

Dr. James Dobson issues the following statement tonight, speaking as a private citizen.

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States.

(NOTE: Dr. Dobson made these statements as a private citizen. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a reflection of the opinions of Focus on the Family or Focus on the Family Action.)

Dr. Dobson is a man, and a Christian leader whom I highly respect. His unbending committment to and advocacy of strong family values including protecting the institution of marriage, the rights of the unborn, and other conservative values, has reserved to him a special place in my heart which he and he alone, through an abandonment of these values and the advocacy thereof, could possibly destroy. And generally speaking, when Dr. Dobson speaks my ears perk up. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to get me to say anything bad about Dr. Dobson, or to have any ill feelings toward him.

That said, I respectfully disagree with him on his endorsement of Mike Huckabee who himself, in a Fox News interview Tuesday night, proceeded to tell the viewing audience what a wonderful human being and strong conservative qualified leader John McCain is, and how much he respects and admires him for these qualities. This personal view of John McCain, I've concluded, must proceed from the same impulse that informs him of how great and wonderful and assimilable are the Mexican and other immigrants who are invading our land.

This isn't the first time I've disagreed with Dr. Dobson on an issue, and I'm sure it is far from the last time I'll disagree with him. But one wonders whether Dr. Dobson saw the Huckabee interview of which I speak, or if he simply chooses to ignore it. It's one thing to identify laudable qualities in an opponent, or to refrain from engaging oneself in the nasty business of character assassination. This is understandable, and a person of real character avoids doing so, or of giving the appearance of doing so insofar as it is humanly possible. But this is not what Huckabee was doing in the interview. He was, as I've implied, effectively announcing his own endorsement of Senator McCain, at least of Senator McCains impeccable qualifications to serve as President, even as he assured his supporters that he would remain in the race as McCain's real and actual conservative rival.

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing a problem here?

For my part, Dr. Dobson's endorsement of Governor Huckabee is unfortunate and disappointing for the reasons I've mentioned and more. Not that I'm in the habit of prophesying, nor that I particularly care to do so in this case, but I have to say that I have a sneaky suspicion, given Huckabee's statements in the aforementioned interview from Tuesday night, that Governor Huckabee will himself get out of the race shortly under the auspices of doing what's best for the country. And he may truly believe that clearing the path for John McCain as the only choice left Republicans is the best thing he can do for the country, I don't know and I don't presume to know. But on this basis do I think it unfortunate that Dr. Dobson, among other influential Christian leaders, has cast his lot with Mike Huckabee.

Read More

Why Governor Huckabee is not an appropriate nominee

I said the other day that I was impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance at the GOP debate, which I was and still am. But there's ample reason, beyond his "open-borders-for-Christism" not to consider the Huckster when casting your vote on Super-Tuesday, as John Savage points out. That is, if you're a conservative Republican.

Read More

Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More

The corruptive and destructive influence of mass immigration;

Importing Maxims not congenial with Republicanism:

Mr. Auster has a nice post up on the Huckster's latest position on immigration where he (Auster) notes the ambiguity in Huck's language which leaves wiggle room for Huckabee to grant amnesty, or to support the granting of amnesty, to multitudes of illegal immigrants while holding strictly to his promise to oppose amnesty for millions of illegals. Auster's points along with Howard Sutherland's points concerning the term amnesty and what it has come to mean as opposed to what it means fundamentally led to an exchange between Mr. Auster and myself which I've included below.

TM writes:

Good catch. BTW, what constitutes a "special path to citizenship" to Huckabee's mind, I wonder?

Also, thanks to Mr. Sutherland for correctly defining the term "amnesty" for us.

LA replies to me:

I think, though I'm not sure, that "special path" is a term that makes it sound as though the speaker is opposed to legalization, while creating an escape hatch. I have no idea what a "special path" means. If your intent is not to legalize illegals, why bring in the idea of not legalizing illegals by a "special path"? It sounds like weasel language, allowing you to legalize people so long as you don't do it by a "special path."

TM replies:

I agree, it's weasel language. And what kind of people use weasel language?:

(a) conservative Republicans

(b) Republican Statesmen

(c) demagogues/weasels/RINO presidential candidates

One thing we can know is that amnesty is one special path to citizenship according to Huckabee because of the way the sentence reads -- "...to oppose amnesty or any other special path...". So I suppose you're right when you say that we need to use the term as it is commonly understood today. That's certainly the way Huckabee is using it in his sentence, that's the only way it can be understood in context of his statement.

I think you've done it right. By publishing Mr. Sutherland's proper explanation of the term "amnesty" you've acknowledged the term's correct and original meaning. But you've also acknowledged that the term (as with many of today's terms) has undergone a change to mean, in essence, a path to legalization. This is a corruption of the true meaning of the term, of course, and I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but it is this idea that people associate with the term amnesty these days. Here again there are three minimal requirements for having intelligent conversation (debate, discussion, whatever) between minds: (1) a mind capable of transmitting a thought, (2) a mind capable of receiving a thought, and (3) a mode of communication common to them both (a language).

I've noted this many many times in the past, but generally when there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication between parties, it is usually the third element where the problem lies; the terms used between the various parties involves different meanings for different parties involved in the conversation. My point is that there are a couple of means available to us for ameliorating the crisis, either (1) we re-establish the proper meaning of the term amnesty in this case so that everyone understands it in its original meaning, a virtual impossibility particularly in the short term, or (2) we acknowledge that the term has undergone a change in meaning, and we use the term (for the sake of clarity in communication) as it is widely understood now. In the meantime, the original uncorrupted meaning of the term must remain intact for the sake of understanding its usage (particularly in legal documents) prior to 1986 or whenever this term came to mean legalization.

This is one of the huge problems with immigration to my mind. We don't speak the same language as the invaders, and I'm not just referring to the English language. We don't speak the same political language that immigrants do. So how in God's name are we ever to come to understand one-another in terms of the organization of society and government and so on and so forth, except by the corruption of our language, and therefore of our institutions? George Washington once said (and I paraphrase) that it deeply concerned him that we send young people abroad to learn the higher branches of erudition due to the danger incurred of [their] imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism from young Americans living among other political systems who have not yet learned well the value of their own. I have said many times since I first read that statement some twenty years ago that we've imported this very danger to America in a very extensive way. It's no longer a danger of sending youngsters abroad to be corrupted in their political understandings, but of importing the corrupting influences here to our Universities and our public schools.

What kind of a people engages in such self-destructive practices?

Read More