In Iowa, Huckabee has message for those focused only on 'liberty' and low taxes

[Peace&Freedom]

And I guess my question, from one Christian to another, is this: Certainly abortion should be legal, but should that be our first priority? Is it even conceivable that the kind of government that will torture and murder could ever protect life? I mean, theft is illegal now and its not like the victims ever actually get compensated. I was reading LRC recently and Bob Wenzel pointed out (I don't care if you love him or hate him, just consider the statement for what it is) that if you call cops after getting robbed, you will almost never get your property back. Can a government like this protect the unborn? Should we even want it to, or should we just want to get rid of it? Would we really care that Nazi Germany did nothing to stop abortion, or would we want to stop it from actually killing people itself before we do that?

Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

 

[Matt Collins]

Anyone else remember this?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I can kind of agree with that. I don't really see the point of the statement though. Does it mean to say that we should not or can not have liberty if everyone was irresponsible all the time?

]

I would say "can not." Liberty is a moral good in and of itself, but I don't think it would be sustainable in reality without responsibility.

And I think Christian morality is a part of the equation as well, or at least Christian culture. I know there are some atheists who are completely dedicated to liberty for whatever reasons, but atheism leads to utilitarianism as a pure default.

Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

I agree that moral decline is part of the issue. But my issue is more where do you start? I don't think allowing the killing of the unborn is the root of the problem. I think the tolerance for aggressive violence is the root of the problem (which includes abortion but isn't limited to it.) So, I think at least a large chunk of the State's institutional violence may have to be removed first. And I do fear that if abortion were banned right now, no abortion doctors would be targeted but it would be used as an excuse to institute a police state. Even still, I support anti-abortion laws on deontological grounds. I'm just not sure that that's the absolute first issue we should be trying to change.

 

[jjdoyle]

Anyone else remember this?

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.

 

[Henry Rogue]

If Huckabee's issue with Liberty is integrity. I have to wonder, how do you go about legislating integrity?

 

[anaconda]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

And are willing to "live with integrity."

 

[Matt Collins]

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

 

[fr33]

Huckaby will never be president.

 

[jjdoyle]

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

The ignorance of the average GOP voter is not to be forgotten. John "Amnesty" McCain won it. Mitt "Healthcare" Romney won it. Mike "Pro-Common Core (that flipped to negative now)" Huckabee is the same.
And as for fundraising, that doesn't matter, as much as a candidate that is hand picked to win it by TPTB.

McCain's 2008 campaign had serious fundraising issues early on, and still won it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ins-campaign-to-report-debt-on-july-15/49978/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McCain had no GOOD record to run on.
Romney didn't either.

Records don't matter a hill of beans, because if they did, Ron Paul would have walked into the White House with 120,000,000+ votes in the general election.

And in 2008, I think Huckabee wanted it to be Clinton vs. Huckabee. Both with Arkansas connections (Governors). Both being able to make that "play" in the general election.
Will Huckabee use it to raise speaking contracts, book contracts, TV contracts? Probably. They all apparently try to do that.

 

[cindy25]

Huck is backed by Fox, so don't underestimate him. he will win Iowa, Rand will win NH. SC and FL decide it

 

[robert68]

“Liberty” to Huck isn’t individual liberty at the outset.

 

[Warlord]

Huck wont win with Rand on the ballot. Rand is too good as a first choice so it's different than 08 and '12. Rand will be onthe ballot and is the one to beat

 

[Warlord]

The ignorance of the average GOP voter is not to be forgotten. John "Amnesty" McCain won it. Mitt "Healthcare" Romney won it. Mike "Pro-Common Core (that flipped to negative now)" Huckabee is the same.
And as for fundraising, that doesn't matter, as much as a candidate that is hand picked to win it by TPTB.

McCain's 2008 campaign had serious fundraising issues early on, and still won it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ins-campaign-to-report-debt-on-july-15/49978/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McCain had no GOOD record to run on.
Romney didn't either.

Records don't matter a hill of beans, because if they did, Ron Paul would have walked into the White House with 120,000,000+ votes in the general election.

And in 2008, I think Huckabee wanted it to be Clinton vs. Huckabee. Both with Arkansas connections (Governors). Both being able to make that "play" in the general election.
Will Huckabee use it to raise speaking contracts, book contracts, TV contracts? Probably. They all apparently try to do that.

The difference Rand is on the ballot this time so a McCain in 08 or Romney in '12 not going to happen as they never had to run against Rand. Once the ads start and Rand sells himself he is the clear superior candidate. Ron was seen as gadfly and mocked by the media and could never pull more than 20% in a primary. Rand is electable. Still lets not be overconfident but the fact is Rand is a superior candidate to any of them

 

[Warlord]

By the way... you only need to be in the top 3 in Iowa so if they decide Huck as their president (LOL) then it;'s not over since Huck has no chance anywhere else.

 

[jjdoyle]

By the way... you only need to be in the top 3 in Iowa so if they decide Huck as their president (LOL) then it;'s not over since Huck has no chance anywhere else.

Huckabee took 8 states in 2008, before dropping out.
The media (some) are already treating Rand as a joke, like they did Ron, especially after his latest foreign policy statement.

And, I look at the media the same now, as I did in 2008 and 2012. What has changed between then and now, to make me think the media cares about open and honest reporting? Nothing.

If Huckabee runs, he threatens to take the southern states. If Christie runs, that's the northern.

 

[jjdoyle]

Huck is backed by Fox, so don't underestimate him. he will win Iowa, Rand will win NH. SC and FL decide it

I would say Huckabee wins South Carolina, based on how close he came in 2008 to winning it. Florida, I honestly have no clue. If Bush runs, I would expect the state to go his way. If Christie runs, maybe to him? Florida went to McCain in 2008 (Romney 2nd), and then Romney in 2012.

 

[Warlord]

Huckabee took 8 states in 2008, before dropping out.
The media (some) are already treating Rand as a joke, like they did Ron, especially after his latest foreign policy statement.

And, I look at the media the same now, as I did in 2008 and 2012. What has changed between then and now, to make me think the media cares about open and honest reporting? Nothing.

If Huckabee runs, he threatens to take the southern states. If Christie runs, that's the northern.

Rand appears on covers of magazines and has slick ads. Ron was never electable because he was seen as a gadfly. There is a huge difference. Just wait and see. Huck is going no where with Rand on the ballot and McCain/Romney never had to face a Rand Paul

 

[jjdoyle]

Rand appears on covers of magazines and has slick ads. Ron was never electable because he was seen as a gadfly. There is a huge difference. Just wait and see. Huck is going no where with Rand on the ballot and McCain/Romney never had to face a Rand Paul

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.

 

[Warlord]

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.

As much as i love Ron he was never going to win. Rand gets attention because his profile is superior. He's an elected senator (has never lost statewide). He is in a strong position with his slick ads and his superior profile not to mention the machine he will inherit from Ron. McCain and Romney never had to face a superior candidate like Rand and if they had to they'd lose to him. wait and see.

 

[osan]

"Let me tell you something," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "... Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity."

And of course the majority of meaners will never ask the $64, central-pillar question to that assertion: what defines "integrity" here?

Huckabee may not be a bad guy... Don't know him so I cannot say, but when he spouts off with ill-defined nonsense like this he comes off as an arrogant douche to anyone in possession of reason.

And why is it that I never see/hear anyone challenging these jokers on such points? I never see it. Of course, I don't watch TV as I am fond of retaining what modicum of intellect the years have allowed me, which admittedly is not that much anymore.

Not to hijack the thread, but it would seem worthwhile to discuss the meaning of "integrity" as it might apply here to Huckabee's imperative.