Rensen's blog

Huckabee weighs in on the Bailout

in

From HuckPac blog:

Mike takes no prisoners.. sounds pretty peeved, as should we all be.

http://www.huckpac.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1899

BAILING ON OUR PRINCIPLES
 
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”
The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.
Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.
What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?
Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.
If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.
Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

 

Fallout of the Bailout: The Death Knell for UNIVERSAL Anything?

I've been wondering why some democrats have been sounding positively conservative in their wrath at the thought of the mother of all government handouts, when it would seem to be right up their 'help save the world' street.

I heard Donna Brazil on 'This Week' with George Stephanopolus, reccommend that the democrats in congress NOT rubberstamp this bill, because the taxpayer money used to fund this bailout could tie the Obama hands on universal helathcare and any other (socialist) agenda that he may want to push through in his administration if he wins.  (If she went on the record with that comment, we all know it's a concern for the New Democratic, read socialist, party)

How very interesting.. but true. How do you fund universal anything with the tax payers money when they are already paying almost a trillion dollar's worth of rescue money to the financials? Only with a tax hike so massive that EVERYONE would have to pay the price, including the middle class Obama's trying to court so desperately. 

It will be very interesting to see if the democrats move a bill this potentially damaging to their cause through congress without trying to load it up with conditions, add ons or excessive showmanship designed to damage republican chances downticket this November.

I guess this bailout will put limits on both candidates.. will McCain be able to keep his word about extending the Bush taxcuts?

We are living in interesting times.

Pin the Credit Crisis tail on the Donkey

Why is this info not in every stump speech McCain makes? The democrats scuttled GOP congressional efforts to regulate these organizations!! and they have the gall to call us the responsible party for this mess??

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

 

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

 

And the democratic response??

 

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

<!--#articleBody-->

Social conservatives pleased with Palin pick

Beyond their deep personal commitment to life and traditional family values, there are countless other reasons camp Huckabee is energized by Palin.

If we couldn't have Mike, she was the next best thing. She too is the 'authentic' voice of Middle America, the Sam's Club republican who can relate to our middle class values base. We wish her only the best.

Morally conservative activists worked hard to pave the way for the nomination of a traditional values and pro-life candidate such as Sarah Palin. I am sure that other elements in the base will also have their specific reasons for being energized by her presence. I'm just glad that McCain was able to find someone who would satisfy us all. For a while it was touch and go there.. LOL

Moral conservatives feel very blessed to have someone  who so closely reflects our values  as our veep prospect.

I look forward to what the future has in store for Mike Huckabee, political or otherwise. If his purpose was nothing more than to awaken in the faithful a recognition of thier civic responsibility, and to help us reengage in the political process when the 'religious right' was purportedly on its deathbed, we are eternally greatful. (The GOP's future in many ways depends on the continued engagement and activism of that base)

We were at the edge of a cliff, and it seemed no conservative hope was in sight (Look at who our 'top tier' were!! *shudder*) We had to scream holler and bang on political pots in our efforts to encourage John not to abandon the traditional heritage of the GOP platform in his selection of a running mate. Sarah is evidence that he listened, on multiple levels, to our multiple calls for a return to our conservative roots.

We now have a 50/50 chance as a nation to make a choice about where we want to go, and the choices couldn't be clearer.
 

Hopefully we all get on board and make the right choice.

A Democrat's Nightmare

Crossposted with authors permission from:

http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!1171.entry

I don't get how people don't get it. Hopefully Mccain will.

 

It was reported last year that the Republican candidate who most worried the Democrats was Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. The Democratic Strategists must be relieved that his name hasn't been mentioned on McCain's short lists. But let's take a look at the type of thing that the Democratic consultants are probably very afraid of.

 

Friday, August 29th 4:30 AM

Dear Diary,

I just woke up from the scariest dream ...

 

When I went to bed last night, I was in a great mood. Our conference was awesome and the party was starting to come together. Barack gave an incredible speech. And the polls showed we were getting a good bump out of the convention.

 

And then I went back to the hotel and fell asleep. And I dreamed that I was watching television and watching McCain announce his running mate. We had been preparing for Romney (we put together the coolest ad). But we also were ready for the other members of the short list. For each of those people, we had talking points about why they were horrible picks and would continue the Bush tradition. I dreamed I was staring straight at the screen when they unveiled McCain's Veep.

 

And then I saw MIKE HUCKABEE with John McCain. Aw, shucks. The guy we weren't expecting. And I screamed for a minute like I was Howard Dean. I was really scared.

 

But then I thought to myself - "yes we can." We can deal with this. And so I went to the office to prepare some talking points on Huckabee. But that was even scarier.

 

I searched through all of Huckabee's comments to find something bad he said about McCain so that we could put out our own ad just like the Republicans did to us last week. But I came up empty. He never said anything bad about McCain.

 

Then we tried to connect him to the Bush Administration so that we could show why he'd be part of a second Bush term. But that was even more frustrating. He ran a state and didn't have anything to do with Iraq, the deficit, the national debt, or our image abroad. We looked around for how much he voted with Bush. But because he was the only person running who wasn't in the Senate, he didn't even have the opportunity to vote with or against Bush. Arrggh.

 

We tried to make some arguments about how McCain/Huckabee would not help Americans with health care. But even that didn't work. Huckabee created a program that offered health insurance to poor children. He cut the number of uninsured Arkansans so that it was a quarter less than the national average. He even lost a hundred pounds and saved money on drugs himself because he didn't need diabetes medication anymore. This dream kept getting worse by the minute.

 

We were going to make an ad to attack all Republicans because of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But even that didn't work because Huckabee took money out of his own state's treasury to help house the evacuees from neighboring Louisiana. He even gave free dialysis machines to the evacuees who were sick.

 

We tried to point out how the Republicans haven't reached out to black voters. But we couldn't even do that because Huckabee got half the black vote in Arkansas, even with Bill and Hillary Clinton helping his opponent. And then a bunch of black Pastors and church groups got together and (tremble) said they were going to vote for him.

 

Since Joe Biden has been in politics for so long, we wanted to compare our Veep against their Veep and show how much experience our guy has. But then someone pointed out that Huckabee was the only person who had actually run a government and has a longer tenure than any governor of either party. We were hoping Biden would be able to beat the Pub's Veep in a debate. But Huck won the debates easily. He even told funnier jokes.

 

We tried to talk about all the personal scandals that Republicans have been involved in over the past couple of years. But when we tried to pull up dirt on Huckabee, we came up ... empty. EMPTY!? He's been married to the same woman for 34 years, his kids love him and he's stayed out of trouble.

 

Our last hope was that those talk show radio hosts would help us out, the way they did during the primaries. But it turned out that even though their guy didn't get picked, they still disliked our nominee so much that they started being fair to Huckabee.

 

And because McCain and Huckabee seemed to have so much fun campaigning together, McCain started looking happier and more relaxed on the stump.

 

I started to cry. I knew we were probably going to lose the election. And then I woke up.

 

Gosh! I'm still shaking. I'm just glad they haven't realized that they've been ignoring the best candidate. That was TOO close. I'm just glad it was just a dream.

 

Biden WAS a Game Changer

in

I was slammed by some members here for suggesting that the Biden pick and McCain's approach to campaigning against him would potentially put Huck back on the table as a veep pick.

I never said that he would just get the pick, but that he would probably get a second look.

It appears others now agree with me.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmNkNzdjYjhkMjY3NjdkZTdlYTYyMmY0NjJmMWVjOTQ=

Huckabee as VP Rich Lowry

There's no indication that Huckabee is being considered, so consider this idle speculation like the Hillary chatter prior to Obama's pick. But wouldn't Huckabee make a lot of sense given the things we've learned the last two weeks? 1) McCain might have a "wealth problem," and certainly Democrats are going to try to hit his wealth for all its worth in their play for working-class voters; Huckabee doesn't have a problem on this front, and has lots of working-class cred. 2) The pro-choice trial balloon hasn't been well received, and it's clear that a pro-choice nominee would create a major disruption; Huckabee is pro-life. 3) Obama picked Biden who is going to a vivid presence (for better or worse) on the stump and could be formidable in debate; Huckabee is a great campaigner and might be just the guy to puncture Biden in a debate. 4) (This is a less important point.) The McCain folks have made a huge deal about differences between Obama and Biden during the primaries; McCain and Huckabee didn't have much in the way of differences and went out of their way to praise each other. The other upsides are the press likes Huckabee (for now), he's a different kind of Republican, and his selection would be such a shock, it might even be considered bold. The downsides are—as I've noted many times before—he doesn't have much in the way of national security credentials and has a big seriousness gap, obviously not trifling matters. But if McCain can't do Lieberman, and isn't thrilled by Pawlenty or Romney, Huckabee might be worth a last-minute second look.

The New York Times thought it was a valid enough question to share Lowry's thoughts with their readership.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/a-look-at-huck/?scp=1&sq=A%20LOOK%20AT%20HUCK&st=cse

 

Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic Blog was also interested enough in the discussion to publish one of his reader submissions that made the case for Huckabee.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccains-veep-di.html

McCain's Veep Dilemma
26 Aug 2008 09:44 am

A reader writes:

I agree with everything your reader said on Romney but ... Biden would CHEW Pawlenty up, vomit him, make mincemeat of him and rechew him up. Which is why people are right when they say McCain is boxed in with his VP pick.

For whatever flaws Obama's choices had, none of the choices of McCain make sense. Lieberman's downsides are obvious. Meg Whitman would be smart politics but completely deprive him of the whole "inexperience" thing that is clearly at the core of his "official message" against Obama. Romney is a catastrophe. Pawlenty is a pathetic lightweight. Interestingly, Huckabee does seem like someone who makes sense (in a way that kind of crazy makes sense for a Republican) and sure enough, Ambinder says he is the one Obama people fears. But we know he is - like a certain lady - saving himself for 2012 and is not being vetted - or is he?

McCain-Huckabee? Is Pawlenty that reminiscent of Quayle?

Musing about Huckabee's prospects as a veep pick at this stage of the game should not be news, because in my opinion he should always have been a part of the discussion. The same sense of disrespect  and frustration that Hillary's people feel with Barack, is resonating in our camp regarding how dismissive of Huckabee the right has been.

Even before the Biden pick, I think he should have been considered as a viable option, or at least been kept in the mix. With the Biden pick, and the chosen method of campaigning against him, Mccain has painted himself into a corner. He now needs a veep with blue collar appeal, one he does not have a torrid primary history with, one who won a significant number of votes and thus is worthy of being on the ticket, and who also has the debating skills and knowlege base to take on Biden.

Pawlenty may have been acceptable against a Kaine or Byah, but against Biden the Bombastic  Bully, McCain needs not Huckabee Lite, but the original to seal the deal.

I may be wrong, but I don't know where else he goes with this.

For the Sake of Country, Let it be Huckabee

Crossposted with permission of author, from a forum comment at hucksarmy.com. ‘Justgrace’ speaks for us all. It’s about more than a man, it’s about our concerns for our country and its future.

We are not 'self righteous,' fanatics, or bigoted.  We have just learned the lessons of history. When America moves away from the moral boundary stones set by our spiritual heritage, we get deeply and tragically lost. Mike Huckabee has awoken in us a desire to be the somebody, who does the something to make a difference in getting our county back on track. I hope John McCain will give him the chance to influence that many more lives.

 

I know we Huckabee supporters can get a little upset over the mistreatment of our candidate, and it is important to ask “why?”

Is it because he is such a nice guy, and we do not want him to be mistreated?

Is it because we have spent many of our hours and dollars trying to boost him in the polls, trying to get the word out about why Gov. Huckabee would be a great leader for our country, and so we are upset that our time might have been wasted and our sacrifices have been in vain?

Is it because we see the unfairness of how Mike Huckabee was overlooked by the Christian Right, and scoffed by the left, ignored by the media, and forsaken by the talk-show hosts?

I think the reason needs to be deeper for our support, and I believe in most cases it is. I also think that our disquiet is not motivated so much by anger at mistreatment as it is by anxiety for the future of our country. We are concerned about our children and grandchilden’s future.

Huckabee supporters are deeply concerned with the changes in the United States of America we see, statistics that reveal a decline in almost every area: our schools, our children’s moral training, (rises in) juvenile delinquency, our social problems among the black population where the father is largely absent and the little boys with no father presence in their lives eventually end up in prison. We see the decline, where little girls grow up to be abused and not honored as ladies, where husbands forsake marriage vows, and where now wives are doing the same. Most of the time, it seems no one is home, keeping the “home fires” burning, since we have to (or choose to be) absent as parents. The family is in shambles, the schools often are also, the burden of taxation is almost unbearable, and atop that we wonder just how secure we are from terrorists threats. We see too-little and too-slow a turn-around in abortions and practices where human life is allowed to be cheapened.

Along came a remarkable candidate, a governor from Arkansas, who we saw had been successful in addressing and changing many social and economic issues in his own state. He brought hope to the people of his state through honest, responsible government and an “I care” and “We can do” attitude. He was able to procure our faith in his words, and reawaken our dreams for the America we used to be so proud of. While we still love our country, there is also a regret and deep sense of loss that conservatives see in looking at how our country is declining in many areas.

I think one of the most basic reasons we “Huckabeans” have been captured by the message and the man called Mike Huckabee is because we have been so frustrated and deeply concerned with the direction politics in this country has gone. Now that we have gotten acquainted with this unusually fresh, honest, self-sacrificial, caring candidate, we are not ready to let go of the idea that “he is the man our country needs. He is the man for the season!”

If you will, we see in him the “real change” in politics everyone is talking about; he is the one who understands the wrong direction in which our nation is headed, left vs. right, downhill verses up, and he wants to head it in a new direction: “vertically.”

So when people say, “You Huckabee fans are just disgruntled fanatics,” we know better. Yes, we are frustrated. The path that Gov. Huckabee has taken has not been the easiest, not paved with streets of gold or the accolades of the GOP or much of the press, but it is still a positive, hopeful race. We just don’t know how God in His sovereignty will allow turns of events, but we pray that the time will come soon for Gov. Mike Huckabee to lead this nation forward. We want to give him the chance to lead and put his ideals in place. We want him to follow his dream, and we want to be right there, cheering him on and helping make a change for the good of America and the world.

We conservatives are often people of faith, who are quite distressed to see a nation built on Judeo-Christian principles turning its back on the very things that made this nation great — “faith, family, and freedom.”

These are the standard American principles for which we were historically known, the things for which the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the original thirteen colonies stood and died. These were the principles our country grappled with and rediscovered, even through the dark blotches on our character, for which we have had to make amends — such things as the Salem witch trials, the mistreatment of the Native Americans, and the toleration of slavery in certain states of our country. Even during these dark times of our history, there were good people who did not lose sight of the vision of America as the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Deeper than momentary disappointments of “party” or efforts lost, we have a greater reason for our urgency in praying that our man wins. For the “sake of our country,” we want Mike Huckabee to win the nomination for Vice President and later for President.

To this end we pray often. For the country we love. For our families whom we cherish. For true freedom with responsibility. For the beacon of light America can be to the world.

 

 

Obama Chooses Biden: Does that change GOP gameplan?

It's Biden, so Now what?

I say BHO may have stumbled into a pick that could help more than harm him in the longrun. I know that goes contrary to popular opinion, but pundits and political junkies think very differently from the rough and tough rural voters that both candidates will be fighting for. They like their candidates to have 'straight talk', this is why Hillary and McCain are popular.

Biden is brash, but real..your average Joe Amtrack passenger, 'one of the guys' and he will totally play that up to attract that blue collar vote. (Already today in his first speech he was striking distinctly populist / stand up comedy tones) And he has significant experience in areas that Obama is weak.

He could be potentially difficult for T-Paw to handle in veep debates, and although Mitt could probably go head to head with him in debates, I think Biden has stronger 'Hillary voter' / blue collar appeal than Mitt does.

I may be biased, but I think Biden just put Huckabee and possibly Portman back into consideration. Both could handle the debate format with Biden, both have at least a decade of governing /legislative experience to draw on in debating policy. I think Huckabee is the better counterweight to Biden's blue collar appeal though, and would generate more 'instant' excitement in some quarters of the base. 

BTW... Mike has done extensive travelling to Asia, Africa and the Middle East since withdrawing from the race. His trip to Israel received lots of buzz locally, and possibly shored up his ability to reach out to our local Jewish voting bloc.

He's scheduled to do a Colbert report taping this month???? (From Colbert's facebook group) He hasn't done a late night stop since he was campaigning!! Why now?

Also, the level of security around Huck has been increased. A Huckabee supporter on Huck's Army posted that in trying to get a postcard to Huck at a recent event, the security detail would not let her get close, and she had to open the envelope and expose the contents before they took it to him. This was last week. At the time we wondered if he was getting threats because of the inntensity of the 'bigotry' discussion going on in the media and blogosphere. Huck has never had security beyond the few assistants who went everywhere with him on the campsign trail. What's up?

And for the first time ever, Huck declined to comment about his or anybody's  veep prospects on Greta tonight.. no humorous comment about not having given anybody fingerprints?

It's still a long, long shot.. but the next few days will be very interesting.

I don't think McCain has finalized his choice, and this Biden pick could be a game changer, to the extent that the WAY McCain decides to go after Biden could affect his own options regarding his own running mate.

There really doesn't seem to be any clear cut choice. Hopefully McCain will make a choice that does more good than harm.

The scoop on Huckabee's new Fox show

In a recent 45 minute podcast interview with CATALYST, the former governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee chatted about a wide range of subjects from his experiences in pastoring and politics, to his plans for the immidiate future. The full interview can be heard at the link, and plays on Windows media.

http://catalyst.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=365878

Of particular interest to fans and foes alike, should be the innovative format of his new show on Fox, scheduled to begin airing at the end of September, (just in time for the start of the general election campaign)

According to Huckabee in the interview, the show will feature a live studio audience, and a format that allows for participation on the internet as well.

Huckabee has relaunched his personal website www.mikehuckabee.com with a new look and format, completely separate from the site that his PAC operates, HuckPAC. It appears that this site will play some role in the interactive net component of his show.

The news of these plans may come as a bittersweet pill for many to swallow. It would seem to indicate that Huckabee REALLY isn't waiting around for that veep phonecall, a dissapointment to many of his hardcore supporters. But one could argue that a show with such an unprescedented format in our reality tv. obsessed nation, at the height of the political silly season, has explosive potential.

Huckabee promises that the show will not showcase the usual punditry of the talking heads, but rather an open an honest discussion with and about the concerns of the American people. Essentially, a live town hall meeting once a week for as long as the show is a Fox staple.

I would suggest that those waiting for Mike Huckabee to fade quietly into the long, dark political night, have a long wait on their hands. Huckabee's light is just starting to shine.

In Huckabee's own words on his future in politics, from the interview, " I think there's some fight left in me!"

You go Gov!

Pass The Accusation: A rebuttal of today's Washington Times hit job on Huckabee supporters

Crossposted from The Values Voter Blog:

http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!1107.entry

I couldn't say it better myself. I was outraged and scandalized at the spin and unsourced baiting that was present in the article that inspired this rebuttal.

Pass the accusation

Do you want to play a game?

Here are the rules. Find somebody that you do not think is being honest with you about their opinions on issues that are really important to you. This person has to be somebody whose actions over the years has made you feel uneasy about either their judgment or their values. What's more, this has to be a person who you feel you're really being pressured to like - almost as if they were being "sold" to you. Then this person asks you to put them in charge of your future and the future of your children. You say no.

Oh - I forgot a very important point. This person whose values you are unsure of, whose actions over time make you doubtful and who you feel like you're being told to like, belongs to either another ethnic group, another religious group, or is of the opposite gender than you. And when you say that you won't put them in charge because of those reasons, their supporters accuse you of bigotry. And then it's somebody else's turn to be rejected and to accuse. I call this little game "Pass the accusation." We'll play it in a few minutes. It's not that much fun to play this game, but it is very educational.

But let's first have a little one on one talk ...

 

I am one of those Huckabee supporters who is an Evangelical Christian and who has a problem with the candidacy of Mitt Romney. But you need to know more.

A number of people in the media and in the LDS community are of the opinion that fact that many Huckabee supporters have a problem with Mitt Romney is a clear example of anti-Mormon bigotry. The Washington Times article "Evangelicals warn against McCain-Romney ticket" is the clearest evidence of this to date. In it, the writer makes the claim that "Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be 'rabid' in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith." This unsupported claim has sent a devastating shockwave though the support communities of Hukabee and Romney alike. I don't believe that this is the case with most people who have a problem with Mitt Romney and I know it's not the case with me.

Let's make this personal for a moment. I know what it's like to have others form outrageous opinions of you on the simple basis of your demographic identity. I know what it's like to have to deal with stupid presumptions  - made by people who don't know you at all. I know this both from the perspective of racial prejudice as well as religious bigotry. It hurts. It's universally wrong. And I wouldn't do that to anybody else.

In fact, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When the 2008 election season began last year, I was seriously considering supporting Mitt Romney. Long after I knew he was of the Mormon faith. I never really cared. He was clearly a pretty smart guy. He had a nice presence and seemed self-deprecating in his humor. I had been of the impression that he held socially conservative views and - based on that belief - was impressed that he could win in a place like Massachusetts. He initially had a pretty good shot of getting my vote.

I remember hearing a talk show on a local news radio station one day during which the question of the hour was "would you be willing to vote for a Mormon?" I assumed that most callers would call in and reply "Yawn! Of course. Dumb question. Let's talk about the surge in Iraq." But a number of callers called in stating that they wouldn't ever vote for a Mormon. Which got me mad. I tried to call in but never got on. But I kept thinking to myself that because we're voting for the President of the United States and not choosing a personal church leader, that the whole question should have been irrelevant. It didn't seem right. I was angry about the tone of some of the callers.

Over the course of last year, though, I began to learn more about Romney and found myself less and less interested in him as a candidate the more I learned. But it had nothing to do with his religion. I learned how much he had shifted - more than once - on the issue of abortion, which is extremely important to me. And then learned that he had also been a supporter of gay marriage. I started to wonder if he really meant the things that he said on the stump. Then I really was turned off by the way he seemed to be aggressively attacking his rivals. First Giuliani, then Huckabee, then McCain. It was like whoever polled closest to him was going to go down. And then I picked up what seemed to be desperation on his part - as if "please like me" was written all over his face. It was Hillary-like. He gave me the strongest impression that he was willing to say whatever it was that I needed to hear in order to get my vote. Any level of trust I had ever had in his sincerity evaporated.

If my feelings toward Romney had turned negative, they only became worse the more I saw the conservative media bashing my favorite candidate and continually plugging him. I began to also distrust some of the conservative media, which seemed determined to push candidates whose positions on abortion were either ambiguous or liberal. And then I was amazed when statements he had made repeatedly - about him seeing his dad marching with MLK and him being endorsed by the NRA - turned out to not be true. I simply didn't trust him. At all. And the more I heard people in the media tell me that all of my instincts were wrong, the more determined I became that I would never vote for him.

I've never disliked people of the Mormon faith. I've never even known that much about the Mormon faith. I never was particularly concerned about Romney's religious affiliation. But I've always disliked people of all persuasions whom I thought were lying to me about who they were.

 

image

Okay, so I promised a game. Let's pretend that a Romney supporter, an Obama supporter, a Clinton supporter and a Huckabee supporter are all sitting in a circle. You're the Huckabee supporter and you have to explain why you don't like the candidate whose supporter is sitting next to you. You're up first.

You don't like Romney as a candidate. The reasons for your rejection of his candidacy have nothing to do with his religion. However, because there are some people in the country who disapprove of him because of his religion, his supporter sitting next to you calls you a bigot. Now it's his turn and he has to tell the Obama supporter sitting next to him why he won't support Obama.

The Romney supporter has what seems to him to be valid reasons to not support Obama. He doesn't think Obama is being honest about the issues that are important to him. He doesn't trust Obama's judgment and values because of his words and actions over the years. And he doesn't like the fact that it seems like the media is trying to force Obama on everyone. He politely explains to the Obama supporter why he could never vote for Obama. But the Obama supporter, aware that there are some people who won't vote for his candidate because of race, assumes that the opposition is because Obama is black. He supporter accuses the Romney supporter of being a racist. To him, it's an open and shut case.

Now the Obama supporter has to explain to the Clinton supporter sitting next to him why he won't support Clinton. He explains that he doesn't think she honestly cares about the issues that he's passionate about. He says that he doesn't trust her because of things that she's done over the years. And he doesn't like the fact that he's been feeling pressured to vote for her and that she was considered the "inevitable" candidate with deep establishment support. The Clinton supporter blasts him and accuses him of sexism. What other reason is there for him to be opposed to such a great candidate?

The Clinton supporter doesn't feel that Huckabee shares her values on issues that she cares about. She has been uncomfortable with some of the positions he's taken over the years. And she has been turned off by his constant media presence. The Huckabee supporter accuses her of being an anti-Christian who opposes people of faith.

And it goes on and on. This is obviously a game in which everybody loses. Because no matter what color, religion, or gender you are, other people may dislike or distrust you for reasons that have nothing to do with your ethnic, gender, or faith identity. And for every accusatory finger you point at somebody else, others can use the same logic to point one right back at you.

 

Prejudice is cruel. And there are prejudiced people who live in this world and in this country. There are people who would never vote for a person of the LDS faith. Or a black person. Or a woman. And, yes, there are people who would never vote for a self-proclaiming born-again Christian. None of it's fair. But it's out there. But I strongly believe that in this great country today, these people are in the minority. Most people of all persuasions are willing to be fair. And to make decisions about other people not because of what "groups" they belong to but because of what they do.

I wish I could give more comfort to those who believe that most people who have a problem with Romney oppose him because of his faith. I know that it's horrible to believe that people are opposed to you for reasons unrelated to your character. But I will offer them my strongest belief that for the most part, it's not true -  just like I don't think that most people who oppose Obama oppose him because he's black or that most people who opposed Hillary opposed her because of her gender. I think that most people make decisions about who they want to vote for because of what candidates do. There certainly are exceptions. But most people want this country's problems solved and don't care how the person who solves them identifies themselves.

I've learned to live with the fact that everybody who dislikes me doesn't dislike me because of the color of my skin. And that everybody hates being accused of things that they're not guilty of. And the fact that when people dislike an individual from our "group" it may for the same reasons that we dislike an individual from another "group." Honestly, we all need to learn to give each other a bit more credit.

 

Syndicate content