I’m not a huge fan of Mike Huckabee. If he wins the GOP nomination I’d support him obviously. His social con status is strong and I respect him but I’m unsure he’s fiscally conservative enough and I’m not sure how he stacks up against Obama.
But I couldn’t agree more with Huckabee more with what he said about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.
To recap, Mitch Daniels said that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.
He said of taxpayer funding of abortion, “maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn’t mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.”
I said in a post earlier this week that that was completely unacceptable.
And now it would appear that Huckabee still has some presidential aspirations as he came out swinging against Daniels, as reported by The Weekly Standard:
For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican “leaders” would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.
I couldn’t agree more. I can’t imagine anything that takes precedence over the protection of human life. I hope Mitch Daniels comes around in his thinking because many (including Deirdre respect him.)
June 11, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Perhaps Planned Parenthood is hedging its bets knowing that the Democrats have no way in hell of winning this November. They may either corrupt some Republicans to compromise on this and make themselves just like the Democrats. In so doing, salt would lose its taste and Nancy Pelosi the preacher of the Word becomes just as moral as Palin. The Republicans do not need the pro-aborts to win. But the pro-aborts need to corrupt the Republicans into letting them into its tent so that the blood of the innocents together with the cash will continue to flow like a river. Let us identify these turncoasts now and cast them out like the devil.
June 11, 2010 at 9:09 pm
From lifesitenews.com:
"And Chichester sees a philosophical war emerging as a result. 'What I see at stake in these elections goes far beyond balancing of the federal budget, desirable as it is. What is at stake is whether or not we will still have our republican form of government by the time these troubles pass – whether or not our children will grow up truly free. I see this as a last stand against what is coming. I do not expect to go down to Washington and come away unscathed, or have a long comfortable career. I expect to go to the Alamo, to fight to retain the Constitution during what is to be the Second Civil War: A war against the idea that man has unalienable rights. A war between Socialists who see man as property of the state and those who see property as inextricably bound to individual liberty and creativity. A war between the violent sterility of Socialism and the creative prosperity of a Godly people protected by a Divinely inspired Constitution.'
Chichester believes that those claiming that the current recession is almost over, with economic recovery on the near horizon, are delusional. He likens the current market indicators to the receding waters preceding an economic tsunami. 'As a Catholic, I understand the moral implications of abortion, population control, etc. I understand in greater detail the economic and social penalty to be paid in adhering to behavior that is inherently evil. When a society adheres to a great evil, the impact is obvious. Our world is ready to see the enormous economic and social penalty that has accrued over the years because of our disregard for the life ethic.'"
Gerry
June 11, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Another point about Indiana– We have a robust system of Crisis pregnancy centers in the state and they've got broad support across the political spectrum.
So in Indiana, the abortion issue tends to be framed as "Women only kill their children if they're desperate and lack options. We need to give them options." So the ecomnomy becomes a pro-life issue– if it's strong, people are less desperate and so less likely to ikill their kids.
I think Daniels' problem is that he doesn't quite comprehend how different the issue is on the coasts.
In Indiana he hasn't needed to address life issues at all– even our democrats are pro-life. And the whole mid-western good neighbor thing means that people are willing to chip in and help their local woman's care centers.
I still don't think he'll run– but he's not a sell out and he's not trying to get votes. He just tends to believe that an executive is supposed to deal with money issues and leave tjhe rest to the legislature and localities. (OTOH, you'd probably like his supreme court picks…)
But basically, he's an accountant. The paperclip thing from the article? That's INSPIRING AND UPLIFTING by Daniels' standards.
I *LIKE* Daniels, and I'm pretty clear he could never EVER win a primary outside of Indiana! (Well, MAYBE Iowa… but that's about it…)
June 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Both our economy and morality in our society are in peril but we cannot separate the two. They are both interconnected and we must stand up for both, especially all life.
June 12, 2010 at 9:42 pm
This is the flaw in modernism–one should not be alive unless one can afford it. Mitch Daniels (and Dierdre) both addressed this–people don't won't to have babies, don't think they should, until they have the "means" to care for them. The problem with this thinking is multifaceted. What in modern terms constitutes having the "means" to take care of children. They aren't that expensive really. Milk costs NOTHING the first 2 years when the mother nurses. Day care costs NOTHING if Mom stays home. One or two packages of cloth diapers costs about $25 and will last at least a year. Clothing can be purchased fairly inexpensively at thrift stores and garage sales. Hand-me-downs are free. In most states, immunizations are free to children from low income families. Baby will sleep easily in a cradle by the bed or in your own bed and you'll never have to spend a dollar on a crib. Babies who are nursed usually don't usually eat solid food until about 9 or 10 months and they are quite happy with mashed up peas, carrots, bananas, potatoes, etc. Now there is also this push regarding old people and sick people–economically they are a drain, they can't afford their medicines, living facilities, etc. Better that they just be euthanized or voluntarily commit suicide. It's less of a burden on their families. It's sick, sad, and disgusting. We MUST rid modernism from our society or we will cease to exist.
June 13, 2010 at 10:13 am
I think someone somewhere on the wide world of nets brought up this point already but it bears repeating:
If the economy (and the federal budget especially) is so much more important than social issues (abortion) then why don't we BEGIN by cutting federal funding of abortion? Heck, we even find abortions overseas nowadays. How much per year do we taxpayers get siphoned from our pockets to pay for it?
If we can't protest abortion, then they shouldn't be able to fund it. Talk about taxation without representation!
June 14, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I just read the update from the Weekly standard where Daniels attempts to clarigy his position and seems to say he's not willing to reinstate the Mexico City policy.
Argh.
I guess I agree with you guys after all. Though honestly, I don't think he's doing this to try to be elected- it would hurt his chances more than it would help him, and if he was able to run again in Indiana it would hurt him here, too-
But he IS wrong. And I will be writing him as soon as I can put a coherent argument together!
June 16, 2010 at 4:51 am
Not sure how Huckabee has gotten the label as not being fiscally conservative. You can't get much more fiscally conservative than abolishing the income tax. As a Governor you have to take care of your state. When Gov of Arkansas all he did is things that he felt would make it more competitive which is his job as Governor. People have just misrepresented where he stands on fiscal issues. Listen to what he believes and their is no way he can be considered anything but fiscally conservative.