Huckabee and Giuliani

A friend of mine asked for my thoughts on this article about Huckabee (and to a much lesser extent, Giuliani). I’ve been meaning to post on both of these candidates for a while (I even have the Huckabee post saved in my drafts, just haven’t gotten anywhere with it), so I figured now is as good a time as any… The article I reference is a short one and helpful for some of the context of my e-mail. My e-mail was as follows:

[Start of e-mail]Of course George Will sees Huckabee’s transgressions from party doctrine as more offensive than Giuliani’s. Will, who I for the most part like, is still a Northeast Republican, in that he is fiscally conservative but not socially conservative, same as Giuliani. His assertion that abortion is a “recent Republican stance” is rather odd to say the least. And while gay marriage may be an actual recent stance it’s only because it’s become an issue recently. I think if you asked Republicans of 20 years ago what they thought about gay marriage they would have answered the same. It’s a recent stance because the issue is recent; the principles used to arrive at that stance have remained consistent.

That being said, I find Huckabee and Giuliani almost equally objectionable. I think they both would destroy the Republican coalition for the upcoming election, if not well into the future. Conservatism is three core principles: Strong National Security, Sound Fiscal Policy (e.g. Limited Government, Low Taxes, etc) and Social Conservatism (Value of life, Family Issues, etc.). A candidate who disregards one of these three pillars as irrelevant is not a candidate for me, which is why I have trouble with either of the two. Unfortunately, we see more and more an attitude that Religion=Big Government and Fiscal Conservatism divorced from moral values. Admittedly, if your view of politics and proper governance is all that informs your worldview, you will divorce yourself from religion and moral values because those are primarily private matters and matters for churches and individuals. Conversely, if you don’t recognize that there’s a difference between what you as an individual or you as a church should do and what the government should do, you will start seeing roles for the government to fill where they have no business.

My problems with Huckabee stem primarily from the latter. He is a “Compassionate Conservative”… I, however, am not compassionate. Somehow the fact that I have given well over $1000 in the last few months privately to people that I knew needed help, without wishing the government would help them and pushing for further social programs, that all makes me uncompassionate. The fact that I think if you want to do something unhealthy and die (be fat, smoke, etc.) you should be able to without government unduly restricting your ability to do so; this too makes me uncompassionate. Governor Huckabee has confused his responsibility as an individual (and in his opinion, the responsibility of the church) with the responsibility of the Government. The two are not similar. In fact, I would argue the two are almost diametric opposites. What the church and individual should do, in most cases the government should not do. What the government should do, in most cases the individual and church can not do. I understand the realities of this day and age. Yanking public welfare and social programs is not practical. However, expanding them in the name of compassion is foolish and dangerous. This is who Mike Huckabee is and I can’t support that. Setting social policy aside (and the necessary high taxes which must attend to it), Huckabee’s a nut job on foreign policy. He’s worthless on immigration. His understanding of the world and the war on terror is frighteningly similar to the Left’s. His statements about Bush’s “arrogant bunker mentality” are wrong and disrespectful.

Personally, I find Huckabee to be manipulative and divisive. His “innocent question” about Mormons believing Jesus and Satan are brothers is as retarded as asking if you support gay marriage because you believe you’re married to Christ (CLARIFYING ASIDE: Eph. 5:25-27 and other passages portray the church as the “Bride of Christ”. As members of the church, one could argue we are “married” to Christ. Mental gymnastics to be sure, but no more than required and no more disingenuous than Gov. Huckabee’s “question.). He has attempted at every turn to prove that “he’s the real Christian” and his politicizing of his faith is getting a little old. All the while, he refuses to release his old sermons and distances himself from it when it’s convenient… (While Romney is running somewhat as a “candidate of Faith” there is a major difference between his campaign and Huckabee’s in the role that they have placed their faith in, which I may detail in a later post.)

I have my own set of problems with Giuliani… His personal life is, shall we say, distasteful. I still believe “Character Counts” and so have a problem with him solely on this issue. His stance on abortion is certainly not mine; however he has stated that he is a strict constructionist of the constitution and would appoint likeminded judges. The Court is likely the only way abortion will be overturned and I don’t think we can hope for better than strict constructionists. I’m not totally informed on his stance on gay marriage, but my understanding is that he supports some weak form of civil union but that it’s an issue best left up to the states, which is not that dissimilar from say Fred Thompson’s position. His record on the 2nd Amendment is a serious issue for me. While he says he’s changed his ways from his time as Mayor, I’d like to see more evidence of that… [End of e-mail]

While I have fairly equal distaste for either candidacy, I see Huckabee as a larger danger, personally. For one, his nomination appears far more likely than Giuliani’s at this point. Second, I see Huckabee’s policies as, in some ways, more dangerous than Giuliani’s. Giuliani is at least honest with his positions, something I’m not sure we’re fully getting from Huckabee. Giuliani probably would be the run away leader right now had he come out in the beginning of the campaign and said he’d had a “Come to Jesus Moment” and revised his position on abortion. Even hedging around it would have earned him a number of friends. But he was and has been completely honest and for that I applaud him. As I said in the previous paragraph, possibly Giuliani’s most dangerous issue in my mind is that of the 2^nd Amendment, but I don’t think even he would or could appreciably affect that issue on a national level. So, while I support neither candidate these are the reasons why I reserved most of my ire for Governor Huckabee.

The Real Global Warming Agenda

I have previously poked fun at the Global Warming agenda here, here and here.  Unfortunately, it’s quickly becoming clear this is no laughing matter.  The people that are pushing the global warming issue are deadly serious and they’re after one thing.  Reduced carbon emissions, right?  Saving the earth?  Averting global disaster?  How about redistributing wealth?  How about taking the first step to making the UN a viable organization with taxing and global governance abilities? 

 

Emma Brindal, a “Climate Justice Campaign Coordinator” with Friends of the Earth, had this to say about one of the meetings at the recent conference in Bali: “Another point was that as this current economic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  “This economic system” of course referring to a free-market, capitalist economic system.  Redistribution of wealth and resources; that sounds great, where do I sign up?  Even Al Gore agrees carbon taxes and trading is the way to go.  Such a scheme by its nature is a redistribution of wealth from the developed nations to the undeveloped nations.  Rural Kenya doesn’t have near as many power plants as New York City, so guess where we’re going to be buying carbon credits from?  In 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol, “the first component of an authentic global governance.”  Once the UN exerts their authority to tax and redistribute wealth over climate change and execute “environmental justice” what stops then in another arena? 

 

Senator Tim Wirth, from Colorado, had this to say about Global Warming: "We're got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."  So is it about the truth or is it about “doing the right thing”?  Do you believe, like Mr. Wirth and countless others on his side, that this is a chance to right past wrongs brought about by capitalism or is this a chance to study the issue honestly and fairly?  And while we laugh at the idiots flying to their Climate Change Conferences in their private jets while they rail on me for driving to work, and while we get annoyed with their endless propaganda and just change the channel, let’s remember they, at least, are serious about this and unless we stand up to them, they’ll get what they’re after.  And it sure seems to be a lot more than controlling climate change…

 

And before you buy the line about “scientific consensus”, consider this letter written by over 100 scientists questioning the view that global warming is manmade and the efficacy of the UN’s efforts to fight it.  “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”

Our New Baby

Just a couple of pictures of our new baby... Brought her home Thursday night and she seems to be fitting in quite well. She's a mix between a Havanese and a Bichon Frise; a "Havachon" I'm told. Apparently the politically correct term in Designer Breed as opposed to mutt...

Fireworks in Florida

The Florida Legislature has created a Task Force on Consumer Fireworks to study the issue of further legalizing (or banning altogether) the use of Consumer Fireworks in the State of Florida. If you are a resident of Florida or interested in this issue, please check out the Task Force website here. There are a number of presentations on injury and use data, as well as some draft solutions on the website. Currently in Florida, consumer fireworks can be purchased at “wholesale” for a number of exemptions, including agricultural use and signaling for railroads. Such exemptions are not verified beyond signing a simple affidavit which is never audited or followed up on. Needless to say, large quantities of fireworks are sold every year for personal consumption, surprisingly unrelated to agriculture or railroads… It really is a terrible situation because no one enforces the law and there is an implicit endorsement that nobody cares if you break the law, as long as you’re not too much of a nuisance. Here is the comment letter I submitted.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Task Force:

Thank you for serving on this very important committee and I appreciate the opportunity to make my voice heard.

First, I must say that I find it imperative that something be done to address this issue, one way or the other. The condition that exists now is unacceptable because it is a system that implicitly encourages flouting of the law. We are a nation of laws and those laws must be respected and enforced. While fireworks may seem like an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, I believe the current situation breeds an unhealthy contempt of the law due to lack of enforcement and the “wink and a nod” system at the stores. That being said, I don’t believe it’s the job of the fireworks stores to police their customers. Make a law that’s clear (which, personally, I believe the current law to be) and enforce it.

Given that I think we all agree the current situation is untenable, I’ll move on to why I think further restrictions for firework use are not necessary. Everyone talks about the injuries and deaths caused by fireworks. I know y’all saw injury/death statistics in the November meeting, so I’ll try not to belabor this point too much. I did want to point out a few things from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 2005 (the latest edition I could find) Fireworks Annual Report. There were four deaths reported in 2005 due to fireworks. Two were caused by people improperly transporting fireworks in a car, one was caused by a person using a professional class shell illegally and the final one was caused by somebody holding a mortar tube while he launched the firework. The imprint of the base was on his chest afterwards. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid… I don’t mean to sound callous, but really, more regulation isn’t going to help people that are using professional grade fireworks or placing a launching tube on their chest. As for the other two deaths that occurred in a car, no information is available as to how the fireworks were ignited. Let’s assume that these are tragic accidents in which there was no misuse or stupidity involved. An average of 9 kids a year die from furniture tipping over. Can you regulate that? It seems we have a much more serious problem with that than from fireworks.

A popular position I’ve heard, even from one of your task force members, is being “anti fireworks that explode or launch”. According to the CPSC’s 2005 report, in the busiest one month period for firework usage, fully 20% of firework related injuries occurred from sparklers, fountains and novelties, not items that explode or launch. Over 55% of the injuries that occurred to children under age 5 were caused by sparklers. In fact, mortars, cakes and roman candles combined didn’t cause as many injuries as sparklers alone. Those who advocate this position are deeming the level of risk posed by sparklers and fountains to be an acceptable risk, while saying a lower risk level posed by other types of fireworks is not acceptable. How can this be explained consistently?

The fact is, used as is, legally or illegally, correctly or incorrectly, fireworks aren’t that dangerous… Or should I say, everything is dangerous. People get injured and killed on bikes, in cars, with toaster ovens. I’ve taken my 5 year old son to the emergency room 3 times. He broke his arm running down the driveway. Mandate rubber pavement? He busted his head open on the corner of a wall. Require padded rooms? Is it tragic when people get injured by fireworks? Absolutely. Are there people that abuse fireworks? Obviously. So go after those people and let us responsible users enjoy a safe product.

The practical reality of this world is a more tender matter, I understand. This is an emotionally charged issue and I realize when emotions become involved logic usually suffers. I would be open to a “Consumer Licensing” or permitting program, as it seems y’all are considering, provided the cost was not prohibitive ($25-$50 seems reasonable). I guess I wouldn’t oppose a “County Approved Area” where items that explode or launch could be used, provided it was mandated that every county has at least one such area. Surely you won’t relegate all fireworks to such an area. Thank you for your time.

Romney for me Please

I think I’ve finally made a decision. For a while now, I’ve been undecided on the Republican Primary. Part of me wants to vote for Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter because I believe their ideas to be most in line with mine. Unfortunately, they’re unelectable. I’m also not sure they’re the best men for the job because I don’t think they are effective enough to get their message across. I like some of Huckabee’s agenda, but that gets less and less with every liberal social program, each folksy witticism (“weapons of mass instruction”, “I can’t part the Red Sea, but I can part the red tape”) and his brand of “compassionate conservatism”. Fred Thompson’s starting to come around, but for me, it’s too little too late.

What I’m looking for in a Presidential candidate is a “Complete Conservative”. By Complete Conservative, I mean both fiscally and socially conservative. A Conservative should stand for three main things: Fiscal Conservatism; Strong National Defense and Social Conservatism. Fiscal conservatism consists of limited government, low taxes and eliminating wasteful spending. Strong national defense requires a strong military and secure borders. Social conservatism is morals, supporting families and taking a stand for a culture of life, in all phases. Giuliani is a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense, but he is certainly no social conservative, being pro-choice. Huckabee is a social conservative, but on national defense and fiscal issues he’s a nightmare. Both of them have issues with border security. Both of these candidates have a real chance of tearing apart the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement due to their weakness on one end or the other. In my mind, Romney is one of only two viable Complete Conservatives; the other is Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson was a wasted opportunity in this campaign. Fred has the established conservative credentials that the other main candidates lacked early on. It’s taken a while for me to be fully of convinced about Romney. Fred didn’t have to worry about; he walked in #1 for a lot of Conservatives. His policy proposals have been detailed, well founded and good. However he hasn’t demonstrated himself to be effective connecting with people. His performances in the debates have been mixed. His campaign has seemed lackluster and somewhat half-hearted. He seems to be coming into his stride now, but Iowa’s less than a month away and he languishes in third.

Romney is the only legitimate candidate who has shown himself to be an effective communicator, a consistent Conservative, strong on defense and who has strong leadership experience. His business executive background and mentality will serve him well as he works to control spending and government waste. His faith and values (I know he’s an evil Mormon, but still) lead him to promote a culture of life and support a federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Romney is a strong opponent of Judicial Activism and will appoint strict constructionists; not judges that will make policy or further curtail Constitutional rights like the 2^nd Amendment or the Kelo case. Mitt is also against amnesty for illegal immigrants and believes in enforcing our immigration laws and punishing “Sanctuary Cities” and employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Romney truly does have a “Strategy for a Stronger America” and he has the vision to lead and the ability to communicate and inspire others with that same vision. For that reason, I support Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. For more information on Mitt’s vision for America, go to his website at http://www.mittromney.com/.