The Huckabee Yelp

As the Baptist preacher, turned governor, turned Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee continues to rise in the polls, it will be very interesting the imaginative ways the Republican establishment will use to derail his candidacy and still maintain its strangle hold on the evangelicals who are flocking to him. In just two short weeks we have been treated to new revelations concerning the “man who would be king”. There was the “pardoned rapists” story, the unelectable story, and now the release of private letters written by Mr. Huckabee while in Arkansas. The Republican dirty tricks department is in full-throttle mode and as his numbers continue to increase the tricks will get dirtier and the tone is going to get meaner.

As Mike Huckabee gains ground on his rivals for the Republican nomination, opponents have quietly begun highlighting the slew of ethics issues the social conservative faced during his political career in Arkansas.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found Huckabee trailing only Mitt Romney — and by less than the margin of error — in Iowa, where the primary season kicks off with Jan. 3 caucuses.

But opposition research files on Huckabee’s ethics stand at the ready, and their contents have begun seeping into press releases.[1]

The only way for the Republican establishment to discredit Mr. Huckabee and retain the evangelicals they will need is to attack him on two fronts. The first will be to question his ethics and try to expose him as a hypocrite (as if in the Republican Party that would be a deal breaker); using this method it would appear that the candidate self-destructed, he really wasn’t a “true believer”. The second front will be to attack him as being “too liberal” on social issues, this would include immigration, taxes, and social spending. By using either of these two weapons against him the Republicans can smear the candidate, but still maintain the “moral” high ground.

What the Huckabee candidacy has exposed is the lie that has been the lynchpin of Republican politics since Nixon’s campaign, the lie is that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives share commonality of views and issues. The truth is that they don’t and the destruction of the Huckabee campaign will expose it for all to see. While the fiscal conservatives have always needed the social conservatives, it has always been a one way relationship. The fiscal conservative candidate would pay lip service to the social conservative agenda and they would be allowed to speak at the nominating convention, but then after the election the fiscal conservatives would go back to business as usual. That business of course is to turn on the public faucet for the wealthy to fill their pails at the public’s expense. This game has been played out in election after election.

What no one counted on was that a “true” social conservative would ever get the nomination; this is the fly in the ointment. It is ok for Republican candidates to pander to the social conservatives to get their votes so long as the social conservatives remain on the fringes. The problem with pandering to the lowest common denominator is that every cycle requires you to offer more, so if you are pandering to bigots, racists, and intolerant people the line keeps getting lower and lower. The rhetoric has to get nastier to satisfy the mob. Up until now, the fiscal conservatives have been able to feed the “monster” and still remain viable in a national election. Sure there have been the occasional social conservative candidates, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and of course Pat Buchanan; but they have always polled low enough to not raise any alarm. Usually, the fiscal conservatives could present a candidate who could project himself as a “true believer”, but this year is different.

This year you have a pro-life Mayor who committed adultery, a Mormon Governor from a liberal state, and a secular Senator with no ties to the social conservatives; it couldn’t get worse for the fiscal conservatives. The rise of Mike Huckabee should have been predictable for the Republican strategists, but of course due to their arrogance of intelligence they believed that they could continue to roll out the “perpetrators” and continue to keep the social conservatives inline. You keep stoking these fires and someone is bound to get burnt. The Republicans, using the Karl Rove play book, have stoked the fires of the social conservatives with their phony “value” issues until now there is a flame that is threatening to consume the rest of the Party. The social conservatives are now ready to exert a larger influence over the Party than ever before, now they want one of their own, a true believer.

The previous social conservative movements have all been orchestrated by the fiscal conservatives to imitate a real movement, but it was always under the guidance of a fiscal conservative masquerading as a social conservative. Mike Huckabee represents the day of reckoning for the fiscal conservatives. He has recognized the “frailty” of the current crop of wannabes and has rushed in to fill the void. To the chagrin of the Party establishment his message is playing better than the “anointed” candidates and it scares the hell out of them. They know that on the national stage Mr. Huckabee will be vulnerable to all types of attacks and would probably lose in a landslide. The thing about the message of hate and intolerance is that it may play well to the Party base, but it doesn’t play so well to the nation as a whole.

So, as the deconstruction of Mike Huckabee plays out it will be interesting to note the role of the media in his downfall. The Republicans will use their trusty friends in the fourth estate to write the stories that they have leaked. All of this will be done of course in the interest of the public’s right to know, if only they were as forthcoming with all of their candidates.

[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7000.html

Read more!

It’s The Mormonism

Despite his national speech in Texas concerning religion and government, Mitt Romney has a problem. It’s not a new problem, but it is one that will prevent him from becoming President. The reason it will prevent him from getting the Republican nomination is not because of his religion, but because of how he has cast his campaign around his religion. If Mr. Romney had run on leadership and business experience he could have avoided the whole Mormon issue, instead he has pandered to the Right on religious values thus bringing his religion to the forefront. By doing so he caused the same voters he was pandering to, to begin questioning his religion. And from the poll numbers and the rise of Mike Huckabee they didn’t like what they saw.

"Evangelicals like to find someone who shares their faith and their values. Usually you find one or the other; in Huckabee you find both," explained the Rev. Hal Lane, the pastor of West Side Baptist Church in Greenwood.

Romney knows he has a problem making himself acceptable to voters in a state where about 725,000 people are Baptists, like Burdette. That's a big reason that the candidate made a highly publicized speech Dec. 6 in Texas to explain the relationship of his faith to his values and politics.[1]

Unfortunately for Mr. Romney many of the religious right voters he courted, despite their protestations to the contrary, are bigots. They don’t understand Mormonism and you didn’t explain it to them when you had a chance, now you are seeing the true nature of your conservative brethren. They are not going to vote for you. The thing about America is that the polls are inaccurate. The reason they are inaccurate is because very few people will actually say what they truly believe, usually they say what they think they are suppose to say. It is only when they are alone or around like minded individuals do they feel comfortable enough to tell the truth.

The truth is simply this; many of your religious conservative friends do not believe that Mormons are Christians. When Mr. Huckabee ”innocently” asked about Jesus and the devil being brothers he knew exactly what he was doing and his rise bears that out. The fiscal conservatives don’t care what religion you are because their religion is money, but those down home true believers are the ones who are flocking to Huckabee by the boat loads. It is a dangerous game when you mix politics and religion, especially if your religion isn’t their religion.

The sad part about it all is that no one wants to deal with this issue truthfully, because if they do then they will expose the religious right for what they really are. Why do you think Pat Robertson endorsed an adulterer and pro-choice liberal from New York? You, Mr. Romney are not their kind of people. These people sad to say are intolerant of not only blacks, Latinos, and poor people; they are also intolerant of those who do not share their exact beliefs. The Evangelical movement in America has done more to promote disunity of the Church than any other movement in the history of the Church. Because of their narrowly defined views and belief that they possess the only “real truth” from God, they have alienated more than they have united.

The reason Mitt Romney’s speech failed is because he failed the litmus test. He failed the test by not taking it. The voters he hoped to assuage with his speech were waiting for him to explain Mormonism to them and to let them know that he was one of them, he didn’t do that. Instead he tried to play bait and switch, while he claimed that religion was not relevant to the political arena, he let those people know at the same time he still believed as they did.

But he did so, unfortunately, in a typically Romney-like way, with a corrupt little wink-and-nod to his evangelical inquisitors--oh, but don't worry, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind," etc.; just don't ask me about Mormon underwear. It is corrupt not because it is untrue, but because it aims to let him eat his cake and have it, too. He rejected demands to explain his faith, but did so while letting his interlocutors know that he was really one of them. Too clever by half, in the end, because they will not actually believe him, but this is what comes of positions of moral conviction devised by management consultants.[2]

The truth is that we are a nation of hypocrites. We espoused our belief in separation of Church and State but by our very process of electing leaders we violate those beliefs. These are supposed to be two Christians and you see the intolerance, imagine if one were a Muslim or Hindu? I however do not feel sorry for either, they both have used their religions to pander to the forces of intolerance and bigotry and everyone knows what happens if you play with fire. The Republicans are now scrambling to derail Mike Huckabee’s momentum, but they were the ones who opened the door for him to run through by their years of courting religious fanatics and bigots. I for one hope that he is the nominee, they deserve each other.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23368.html
[2] http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/484tthrj.asp?pg=2

Read more!

If You Run On Religious Issues

If you run on religious issues, then your religion is fair game. I am a secularist Orthodox Christian and I believe that a candidate for public office religious background is private, unless that candidate interjects it into the campaign. The problem I have with the Republican presidential candidates who are running on moral issues is that on the one hand they parade their religious convictions when it is convenient and when it causes uneasiness it is all of a sudden out of bounds. It reminds me of the Dick Cheney lesbian daughter deal, it is ok for Mr. Cheney to discuss the evils of homosexuality as long as it is someone else’s homosexuality, it is an invasion of privacy for someone to discuss his daughter’s sexual orientation.

Today, in the closing weeks before the Iowa caucus, Mr. Huckabee is energetically selling his religious credentials, saying voters should pick a candidate who speaks “the language of Zion” as a “mother tongue,” and running television commercials flashing the words “Christian Leader.” He talks eagerly about theology issues in political debates (displaying his TV-trained ability to speak in exact 45-second segments) and cites Scripture on the trail.

In Iowa, where he and Mr. Romney are locked in a tight race, Mr. Huckabee has capitalized on conservative Christian animosity toward Mormons, pointedly refusing to dispute the common evangelical characterization of Mormonism as a cult.[1]

I placed this quote in the diary because to me it highlights this principle in two ways. First it shows how when it is convenient these candidates will seek to be the “great shepherd” of the flock as in Mr. Huckabee’s case, but then when that religion is questioned as in Mr. Romney’s case then it is off-limits. The other interesting part of this quote is how it depicts the heart of the modern evangelical movement in America, Mr. Huckabee is willing to cannibalize another “so-called” Christian for his own political gain. The old my God is bigger than your God mentality. Instead of using his soapbox to promote tolerance and unity of the Church, he is accepting of intolerance and bigotry within the body. If Mr. Huckabee is so willing to sacrifice a fellow Christian in the primaries what will he do in the Oval Office?

For better or for worse, we live in a secular society. The founders of this nation insured that it would be, so technically what an individual candidate’s religious affiliation is should be private. I believe that it is important to know what a candidate does or does not believe, but that belief should not qualify nor disqualify anyone for office. The problem is when you make religion and moral values campaign issues you do more to divide the country than to unite it. We do not have a state Church, nor do we have a monolithic religious body. Instead we have more different denominations and religious orders than any country in the world, so when one group comes along and claims supreme truth it tends to alienate the other groups. This may be fine for the individual group, but when you are running to lead all the groups it can be problematic.

If we have learned anything from the “compassionate conservatism” of George Bush, it should be that what a person says in public is irrelevant in comparison to what he does in private. Too often those who espouse their religious convictions publically are having a difficult time adhering to them privately. We all want to be judged on what we say and not on what we do. It is easy for candidates to espouse certain values publically (Larry Craig) and yet live a completely different way. I don’t really care what you say, I do care what you do. There seems to be this disconnect between speech and actions and it is not just confined to Republicans, they just seem to be better at it.

In his “Kennedy moment” Mr. Romney made the following quote, which I find terribly misleading and self-serving.

“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” Mr. Romney told the invited audience at the at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Tex.[2]

The truth of the matter is Mr. Romney, yes you do define your campaign in religious terms and so to come out now that your religion is being questioned and say otherwise is a lie. When you campaign as a religious conservative and court that voting block then you are casting your campaign in a religious light. It’s funny how when he was leading in the polls he did not find it necessary to divorce his religion from his candidacy, but as soon as he begins to fade now he wants to be treated as a secular politician. I’m sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways.

It seems that once again Mr. Romney wants to reinvent and recast himself to gain political traction. Mr. Romney has no trouble creating himself into whatever he thinks will get him elected. I would have more respect for him if he remained true to his core beliefs, but with these guys they have no core beliefs to remain true to. It is all about getting elected at whatever cost.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06huckabee.html?pagewanted=3&hp&adxnnlx=1196957159-AFoWMyxhWPk2m6xuRuNh7A
[2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/romneys-speech-on-faith/index.html?hp

Read more!

Why Mitt Romney Should Not Be President

I normally do not make it a habit of coming out against a candidate, I have from time to time brought to light a candidate’s inconsistencies or outright lies but rarely have I made the case against a candidate. This will only be the second such case, the first was Rudy Giuliani because he is running on a misleading and often times false set of circumstances concerning 9/11 and his role in the Bernie Kerik fiasco. In the case of Mitt Romney I am willing to once again demonstrate a basic character flaw which is so entrenched in my opinion it should disqualify him from being elected President.

The deadly character flaw that Mitt Romney suffers from is a lack of courage to lead. America is at a crossroad and the last thing we need is a President without courage and leadership, because the direction and many of the steps we will need to take are not going to be popular and will not be consensus builders. For most of Mr. Romney’s adult life he has avoided the courage of leadership, eventhough he has been in leadership positions. It is one thing to be in charge, it is far different thing to be a leader. Someone in charge merely puts into place the positions and ideas of others, rarely venturing out of the box to express or enact any real change. Our country is in desperate need for real change, not someone who has made a life following and maintaining the status quo.

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal — No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. ”)

A handful of students and prominent Mormons — including the Arizona congressman Morris K. Udall and his brother Stewart, then secretary of the interior — called for an end to the doctrine. Some Mormons hoped the pressure would persuade the church to abandon its exclusion of blacks, just as it had stopped endorsing polygamy.

Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality. But neither publicly questioned the church’s teachings.[1]

During the earth-shattering struggles of his time, Mr. Romney repeatedly chose to remain on the sidelines while others took the lead and now he wants us to believe that he is a leader. Where was your leadership Mr. Romney when the country was going through the previous struggles that defined a nation and a generation? An example would be the exclusion of blacks from his Church, Mr. Romney would have us believe that he was against it, yet nowhere publically did he speak out against it, even though being the son of one of the most prominent Mormons in the country he had a platform to do so. But Mr. Romney chose to play it safe and go with flow supposedly secretly wanting the Church to change its doctrine of exclusion.

In this article that I cited Mr. Romney states that how things are done in his church is by God’s intervention, well that’s all fine and good Mr. Romney but you might consider when your “Church” violates a commanding principal of God to maybe join another church? If my church begins to teach the doctrine that women are not spiritually fit to become members it is the time that I as a member must make a decision, to follow God or to follow my church. In this case I am not given the choice of doing nothing, because doing nothing is a choice.

Most of the missionaries, though, were also relieved that their service meant a draft deferment. “I am sorry, but no one was excited to go and get killed in Vietnam,” Mr. Hansen said, acknowledging, “In hindsight, it is easy to be for the war when you don’t have to worry about going to Vietnam.”

Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”

While many Mormons — and eventually, some of his fellow missionaries — enlisted, Mr. Romney got a student deferment after returning from France. When the draft lottery was introduced in December 1969, he drew a high enough number — 300 — that he would never be called up.[2]

The other issue where Mr. Romney again showed a lack of courage was the question of the war in Vietnam. I’m sorry but I just have to ask; besides John McCain was there any Republican politician that went to defend the country they now hope to lead? So the best the Republicans can offer the country is another long list of chickenhawks, defenders of the war only because they or their ilk will never have to fight in it. What a sad state of affairs for our country. Mr. Romney not only chose to take a deferment, he again uses the disingenuous response of I really wanted to go, but. Mr. Romney if you really wanted to go there would have been nothing to stop you. Take for instances the former professional football player Pat Tillman, he really wanted to go and he went. He left all the comforts and privilege and chose to stand up for what he believed in. It eventually cost him his life, so don’t disgrace the memories of all those who did choose to go and fight with that weak kneed answer.

Mr. Romney has never shown the strength and courage of his convictions, even now on the campaign trail he has stood for something different from when he was a governor. Can our country afford another President who says one thing and does another; I for one do not think so. Courage is not something you get from your relatives, either you have it or you don’t and Mr. Romney does not seem to have it. If he does he has not shown it, which in my opinion makes him not qualified to be President.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html?pagewanted=3&hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html?pagewanted=3&hp

Read more!

Are Republican Candidates Racists?

After the debacle of missing the Republican debate hosted by Tavis Smiley at the HBC, Morgan State University by the four front-running Republican candidates it would be easy to dismiss their failure to participate as racism. Many pundits and bloggers have made that connection, with many saying that unlike their good friend Bill O’Reilly these candidates still believe that the “negroes will not be well-behaved” and there is a difference. I think to take this tack is to misunderstand the state of racial affairs in America. With the stakes as high as they are and with the spotlight beaming on race relations thanks to our friends in Jena, La, would any candidate be stupid enough to be so blatantly racist? Maybe, but I doubt it, so what is the answer to them being willing to ignore the black voters of America and not worry about backlash?

I am afraid the true answer is much more frightening than the easy answer. Many people believe falsely I think that the opposite of love is hate or racism, but I disagree. I think that the opposite of love is indifference. Indifference says that I don’t care if you live or die just don’t bother me. In the story of "The Good Samaritan" the other travelers didn't hate the victim; they just didn't care enough to get involved. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of many of the “core base” of the Republican Party and it was expressed by their candidates in their refusal to participate in the debate. It isn’t that they hate, they just really don’t care.

This attitude of indifference is most profoundly directed at Blacks and immigrants, but it is also directed toward anyone that doesn’t share their religious and moral beliefs as well. By their refusal to participate in the debate the candidates and the Party by proxy sent the message that the Black vote is irrelevant; you people don’t matter. Your concerns are not our concerns. We will ignore you and hope you go away. These are the people who want to keep us divided and easy conquered. They use subtle code words to express their displeasure with the way “liberals” have allowed the country to be commandeered by Blacks and other minorities. They would rather we return to some historical nirvana when the “white privilege” went unquestioned, when Blacks and minorities knew their places. When they were seen and not heard.

I am sure these candidates did not want to have to answer questions about Jena, voter suppression drives, and other issues that affect minorities. By not allowing themselves to be questioned on these issues the candidates sent a message to their base that these questions were unimportant and not worthy of their responses.

It is a common belief among Republican pundits and campaign staffers that Blacks will vote overwhelmingly Democratic and therefore to lobby them would be a wasted effort. They speak as if Blacks were some mindless group of voters who are not independent enough or intelligent enough to weigh the issues and vote accordingly. Many also believe that Blacks for the most part don’t vote anyway so the cost/benefit numbers don’t add up. The cost being possibly alienating their “base” and the benefit being gaining a few million votes, obviously these staffers have forgotten how close the last two elections have been. In a country divided as we are, every vote is going to count.

Finally, I think another important element in all of this is what the “base” of the Republican Party must be that their candidates can be this indifferent towards a large group of Americans and it does not bother them. If appealing to your base means ignoring blacks and minorities, then what are the priorities of your base? More and more of the Republican strategists believe that the black vote can be ignored in favor of cultivating the southern and rural white voters, these same voters who split with the Democrats over civil rights and abortion. Obviously, they believe that there are enough of these voters to overcome any impact black voters may have for the Democrats. Besides, these guys are trying to win primaries and let’s face it there won’t be many blacks voting in Republican primaries. I think it would be hilarious if all the mindless black voters switched parties for the primaries and voted in the Republican primaries, wouldn’t that be fun?

It is unfortunate when politicians are pandering to the baser nature of humanity instead of seeking to educate and promote unity among all Americans. The reason racism is still alive and well in America is because no one really wants to end it. Right now it serves too many purposes for too many people, both black and white. Maybe someday the truth of who and what we are will finally penetrate our hard heads, but until then. I can’t wait to see how whoever the Republican nominee will be try to spin this come general election time and what self-respecting black would allow themselves to be used to sell the spin. Our politicians should be demonstrating to all Americans how to embrace the diversity of the country, not how to run from it, because guess what we ain’t going nowhere.

Read more!