Rudy doesn't like the sunshine
If there is one thing that I despise more than anything else in public life, it is attempts by people in government to make government less transparent. Nowhere does this phenomenon take place more than in local and city governments. Although reasonable people may disagree about what needs to be public knowledge and what does not, if a public official moseys off with the records from their entire time in city or county government instead of leaving all of those records behind for the benefit of public examination, it ought to send off bright red flashing lights about that person's real performance while in local government-let alone their suitability for higher office.Apparently, taking the official records of his tenure as Mayor of New York is exactly what Rudy Giuliani did upon leaving Gracie Mansion. Keeping to form, Rudy hasn't been truthful with voters outside New York about his record on open government as mayor:
In a Republican presidential candidates' debate last week, Giuliani asserted: "My government in New York City was so transparent that they knew every single thing I did almost every time I did it. ... I can't think of a public figure that's had a more transparent life than I've had."
But the public record, as reviewed by The Associated Press, shows a City Hall that had a reputation of resistance — even hostility — toward open government, the First Amendment and the public's access to simple facts and figures.
The litany of questions Giuliani has faced in recent weeks about undisclosed business clients and furtive billing practices for police security during trysts with then-girlfriend Judith Nathan are reminiscent of the dozens of lawsuits filed by news organizations to obtain public records, of the numerous state Freedom of Information Law requests that nonprofits like the Coalition for the Homeless were forced to file, of access to City Hall steps denied to protesters.
At times, the number of working water fountains in city parks was hard to ascertain without making a formal request. Under Giuliani, it became more difficult to determine the number of complaints filed against the city's home care program, the number of firearms discharged by police and the number of inspectors in the housing and buildings departments. Even details about the city's recycling program were hard to come by.
Does Rudy Giuliani really believe that Republican voters in the heartland of America-the epicenter of conservative Republicanism-are going to tolerate attempts to pull the wool over their eyes in this way? From the beginning of this all-too-early Primary season, I've been consistent in saying that Giuliani's brand of so-called "Republicanism" may pass muster just fine in New York, but that once the folks out in the country really got a taste of what this man was about his campaign would begin to implode. Not only are his numbers falling, but the plummet comes as people are getting a taste of just how dictatorial a leader Giuliani can be.
In the name of heightened security, Giuliani all but cut off public access to the steps of City Hall, long a civic soapbox. New security cameras scanned anyone entering or leaving the building and kept watch on the grounds. Rules were eased somewhat after a judge found that the city had unfairly restricted access.
We have enough problems in this State with getting our public officials in both major political parties to keep the affairs of government transparent, open, and free. It is a daily battle for citizens who really are concerned about ethics in government to ascertain what is actually happening when the citizenry are not looking. In spite of those difficulties, I have never once heard of public officials in Tennessee closing off public access to a building where the business of a city or county government takes place.
If this is how Rudy runs local government, God help us if he takes the presidential oath.
Labels: Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 4:32 AM
21 Comments:
David,
I know this post isn't about Huckabee, but I really, really want to get your feelings on this story:
According to the National Review, which got the information from a San Antonio meet-up website for Huckabee, he will be appearing at the Cornerstone Church, John Hagee's Texas megachurch, on Sunday. He'll be speaking at two separate Sunday services.
The National Review says the following:
"...But Hagee has been particularly outspoken beyond his Cornerstone Church, as a supporter of Israel and a prolific writer. His activism has brought some attention to his views on the Catholic Church.
In Hagee’s “black history” of the Catholic Church, for example, Catholics were far from only guilty of sins of omission when it came to the Nazis, they also gave Hitler his blueprint, according to Hagee. In a speech this year, Hagee pointed to the Catholic Church as having provided the jumping-off point for the Holocaust, claiming: “That was really drawn by the Roman church. [Hitler] did not do anything differently. He only did it more ruthlessly, and on a national scale.” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has long been concerned about Hagee’s rhetoric, calling him a “veteran bigot,” accusing him of distorting Catholic teachings and misrepresenting Church history. The League has cautioned that, “Tone matters … and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.”..."
I agree with what you've said before that many (most?) Evangelicals are respectful of Caholicism and are willing to work with Catholics on a wide range of issues. I also have no problem with Evangelicals holding different points of view.
However, the absolute LEAST Huckabee could do is distance himself from pastors such as this -- who are obvious in their anti-Catholic point of view -- especially if I am expected to vote for him should he earn the Republican nomination.
Obviously, this doesn't make Huckabee anti-Catholic on a personal basis (we don't know that for sure, really) -- but it's no better for him to lend support and to appear at the church of a known anti-Catholic pastor.
How any Catholic in good conscience defend something like this is beyond me, but...
what say you?
David, Matt,
What Huchabee is doing is PANDERING. Plain and simple. The folks that attend Hagee's church hang on every word he says mo matter how vile, stupid or whatever. His allowing Huchabee to come and speak there is a simple but unstated endoresment. Hackabee is speaking there not because he agrees with Hagee, or even knows (or cares) what Hagee believes, he's there to get votes. Plain and simple.
SteveMule
SteveMule,
I wouldn't disagree with you.
But does that make it right? Of course not.
Would it be defensible for someone to pander for votes at a KKK rally? How about a neo-Nazi rally?
At some point, a candidate -- any candidate -- has to stand up for what's right, and that includes taking on bigotry and intolerance in whatever form it may take.
I really don't care if Huckabee shares those views or not -- you're known by the company you keep -- and if he's willing to go speak there (twice), then he must not find Hagee's vitriol towards Catholics very negatively.
Aside from the issues, this is an example of the #1 reason why I support Fred Thompson over everyone else. He doesn't pander. He is who he is, take it or leave it. He doesn't insult anyone, he doesn't shape himself for whatever situation he's in. He's in it for the issues, and if you aren't going to vote for him because of where he stands, he's not going to alter himself to get your vote.
The difference between Fred and everyone else is this -- Fred wants the job duties of the President so he can help his country. Everyone else just wants the job title, and they're willing to do and say whatever it takes to get it.
We need to stop electing people like that. We need people who can DO the job, not just GET the job.
I may be an idealist, but I'm a realist too. One of these days, we're going to elect one too many of the "electable" candidates (as the current definition of electable exists) and we'll wake up to a completely different country.
And then what do we do?
Pat Buchanan spoke to the crowd at Cornerstone in '96. No one called him an anti-Catholic-especially since he is a daily communicant and a staunch defender of the Church's teachings.
I can guarantee you that if Fred gets the nomination he will go where he must go and speak to whoever will listen to him, whether he agrees with all of their views or not. Fred models himself after Reagan in that regard, because that is exactly what Reagan did.
Fred did that before when he ran for the Senate twice and won by such huge margins. You don't win by those kinds of numbers (especially in the South) without going everywhere and speaking to everyone-in and out of church or wherever else. If I am running for President of the United States, the votes of people at Cornerstone Church or St. Patrick (my parish) are equally important to me. I'm certain they are to Fred.
You can't expect politics to somehow be less political just because you don't want it to be-both Fred and Mike Huckabee understand that. These men are campaigning for President. Just as Fred thinks it might be important to speak to the VFW, Huckabee wants votes at Cornerstone. You can't blame him for that or accuse him of being an anti-Catholic just because John Hagee is.
I wouldn't use the word "pandering" to describe Huckabee's appearance there, because I wouldn't think it to be pandering if Fred appeared before a church group or any other group. When trying to win an election (as opposed to just running for the Hell of it) you go where the votes are first-you go right to those people.
There are people in this country who really disagree with Catholics theologically, some are quite public about that. There are those who don't like the Church, and there are those who are just bigoted. I wouldn't call Hagee or his followers bigots because they hold the theological views they do-those negative views are commonly held, JFK had to deal with them very directly, if you will recall.
Obviously, they aren't views that I share in the least, but if Cornerstone were in an electoral district where I happened to be running, I wouldn't shy away from an appearance there.
I'm Catholic and I am proud of that-if the Cornerstone crowd would choose not to vote for me for that reason, that is both their choice and their problem.
Alan Keyes also spoke to Cornerstone, by the way-another Catholic-he wore (and still wears) his miraculous medal in public, and did when he spoke there. He was there to campaign, not to give them a theology lesson.
So, you think that Hagee's views on the Church's involvement in the Holocaust aren't a problem. That's just wonderful.
You know, Daivd, I honestly think I just lost all semblance of respect I ever had for you. You probably don't care about that anymore, and that's fine, but it's very disappointing for me.
At what point do you stop being an apologist? At what point do you stop putting your politics abvoe everything else -- including your faith? At what point do you decide that you cannot vote for a Republican -- or even admit that one has done something wrong?
Do they have to kill someone, or would you find some way to apologize for that, too?
To be succinct, you whore out your vote and your values. You've got no courage OR conviction. You put your faith in a party, not a person, and for that reason, all the people who vote for the WRONG reasons (such as "likability") instead of for the issues control your vote.
Of course, I can't say that I'm surprised, even that you would minimize Hagee's views about Catholics. I'm thoroughly disgusted by it, but not surprised. Some time ago, I learned that what you used to tell me about change and wanting good people for this country was nothing more than lip service.
Even if you do want that, you don't have what it takes to stand up and make it happen. You just think change will come to you.
Anyway, I guess groups like the Catholic League are just as stupid as I am for being upset. I guess the National Review shouldn't down on this. You know more than all of us.
Also quite frankly, I don't care if Buchanan and Keyes spoke in this church. While nobody should give legitimacy to the views of Hagee, you need to be smart enough to recognize the difference between a Catholic speaking there and a Southern Baptist pastor who already has support from other anti-Catholic evangelicals.
Of course, if Fred went there, I'd be equally as outraged as I am with Huckabee.
Oh well. You'll probably say that I'm full of hate for saying all this, or you might just say that it's all vitriol. Of course, that's not true. This isn't being said with hate at all. I'm just very, very disappointed and sad. It's kinda like being a kid and finding out Santa Claus isn't real.
Still, you'll likely either ignore me or tell me that I'm crazy or that I just don't know how things work...that my feelings hold no legitimacy. You'll tell me that you don't care about how I feel or that you're just too important to have time for it all. It's not like I haven't heard all of that in recent times.
It makes one wonder how important things ever were with you to begin with...
Matt, David,
The word I used, "pandering", was my objective evaluation (vote getting) plus my subjective feelings about it. Whether is is right or wrong depends on your take on the situation and I leave that to you.
The 'conflict' (I couldn't think of a better word - I'm usually not up this early on a Saturday) between Evangelical/Protestant and Catholic Christians is rooted in two things:
1) Left over garbage from the Reformation. Both sides called each other heretics, AntiChrists and so on ... Both were left with a juandiceid and incorrect impression of the other. With few exceptions little was ever done to fix that.
2)Theological differences. Particualy those that pertain to questions of Soteriolgy (Doctrine of Salvation)and Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church).
The first difference leads to accusations of heresy and so on, the second leads to accusations (primarily directed to the Catholic Church) of being the one world church of the AntiChrist and so on.
JFK dealt with his issue of being Catholic by invoking absolute seperation of Church and State. Therefore as president it didn't matter what his faith beleifs were or weren't and on the basis of this he became an acceptable candidate for the office.
What has happened in the years since is that politicans pandering to religous social conservatives in order to get their vote and support, have blurred that principle to the point that someone like Huckabee just might get the nomination and someone like Romney has to give a "Mormanism is just OK" speech to even be considered for the nomination.
SteveMule
Matt;
Hagee's views are not relevant to me because they aren't mine. This is America, and he and his congregants are free to take whatever views they like. There are a whole lot of people in this country, nee a whole lot of people in the State of Tennessee who have religious views that I don't agree with in the least, yet does not stop me from asking for their vote in an election. I can't be angry with Mike Huckabee or anyone else for asking for the votes of whatever groups they believe they need to win. I do not think that validates John Hagee's religious views (not on the least), nor does it invalidate them-he has them. It is my personal belief (as well as Catholic doctrine, by the way) that the Almighty is the one who ultimately decides whose religious beliefs have validity, and who is full of crap. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League (as often as I agree with Donohue) do not decide this, and neither to politicians by their appearance or lack thereof in a church (Democrats don't validate or invalidate a church when they appear in African-American churches, which they frequently do).
Neither my fundamental beliefs nor my principles nor my ideas have changed in all the years you have known me-I'm just a pragmatist. I believe strongly that before we can ever get things to the place where we would WANT them to be, we have to accept that things are as they are and work within the system. Change does not come to those who run their mouth about how awful this or that might be...it comes to those willing to step up to the plate and get active and take action.
As for the "I've lost all respect for you" talk, I am really sorry you feel that way. I have a lot of evangelical friends and a lot of Catholic ones. I believe the Catholic Church is not only the true faith, but that its teachings are absolutely and totally true, that its leaders (even the "bad apples") are chosen by God for His own divine purposes, and that the Holy Catholic Church is God's one and only organizational representative in this world. Period. I believe every word of the Nicene Creed-I take it literally.
In the United States of America, that makes me a decided minority. Few agree with my view of faith (at least evangelicals will respect me for it-I get more trouble for my faith out of fellow so-called Catholics!) You don't win elections by convincing people of like mind to vote for you, you convince those that might otherwise not vote for you to do it.
Huckabee is already reaching out for the Catholic vote (see MSNBC's First Read). Perhaps he feels the need to shore up his base, I don't know. But I'm not overly concerned just yet, we don't know who the nominee will be and we shall all cross that bridge when we get there. I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude, and I am committed to dealing with whatever reality the nominating process dishes up-I'll leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.
Steve;
I've never been a fan of strict separation of church and State, you are probably aware that the idea AS WE USE IT TODAY is totally contrary to Catholic doctrine.
I do not believe, however, that we need to have some sort of national church or official denomination or religious group. Mitt Romney's being a Mormon doesn't bother me in the least-I am more troubled by his seeming inability to follow the tenets of his own faith than I am by the fact that he does not share mine. If he is the nominee, however, I will give him my support.
Note to all interested: I will have much more to say next week about Huckabee and the possibility of his being nominated-and it is not likely to be overly flattering...
-DMO
"At what point do you stop putting your politics above everything else -- including your faith? At what point do you decide that you cannot vote for a Republican -- or even admit that one has done something wrong?
Do they have to kill someone, or would you find some way to apologize for that, too?
To be succinct, you whore out your vote and your values. You've got no courage OR conviction. You put your faith in a party, not a person, and for that reason, all the people who vote for the WRONG reasons (such as "likability") instead of for the issues control your vote."
Matt, if that is honestly what you think about David, then I am utterly and completely disappointed in you. You obviously do not know David as well as you thought you did or you would never, not in a million years, believe that any of what you have said about him is even remotely close to the truth.
David stands up for what he believes in. This very blog is proof of that. He has said many things here that are unpopular and among both republicans and democrats alike. He isn't afraid of pointing out the truth and laying down the law when he feels it is necessary. His friends and those who are not so friendly both get equal treatment here. All opinions are respected, but when someone is wrong, no matter who that person may be, he is not afraid to call them out. To me, THAT is the measure of a man with strong values. Those values don't change and if you knew David the way you claim to, you would not feel the need to question that.
You asked for David's opinion on Huckabee's actions and you got it. Why do you have to turn this into a personal issue? Why do you have to launch an all out personal attack on his character? With friends like you, who needs enemies?
David,
It's not Hagee's religion I am troubled with. HE SAID THAT CATHOLICS WERE BEHIND THE HOLOCAUST. That's not a "view", that's slander. You won't even repudiate that, and I can't help but wonder why.
And I did NOT say that Huckabee should just give away the votes of that congregation, but why does a candidate have to whore himself to get the votes? Surely there are other ways to reach those people. And you may not think his appearance gives Hagee's bigotry legitimacy, but they do.
As I asked before...would you be equally okay with a candidate going to a KKK rally to get their votes? If not, what's the difference?
The problem isn't that he wants the votes; the problem is how he (and other candidates) go about it.
As for your other comments -- fine, continue to play the game as it is now. I stand by what I said before -- one of these days, you're going to wake up and notice that we played this way for one election cycle too long and the game will be completely over. You've known me for 13 years, and I've been saying so for that entire time.
A Huckabee (or a Giuliani) Presidency would be no less a disaster for our country than a Clinton, Obama, or Edwards Presidency. The only difference would be that it would also be suicide -- utter suicide -- for the Republican Party.
Of this, I am 110% positive.
Gaits,
First, I honestly don't know what to think. My comments are personal, but they're not a personal attack. I don't hate David, nor do I wish ill tidings for him. However, my frustrations are borne of several different things.
Regarding my friendship with him, he excoriated me over a situation in which he had no business interfering, he questioned me for becoming angry over that situation, then became very distant and indifferent -- going so far as to indicate that other people meant far more to him than I did. He has since effectively ignored my attempts to reassemble the friendship, and he has not paid one grain of attention to my statements about how much the friendship has meant to me and how torn up I was over the whole situation.
How would all of that make YOU feel?
I know how it makes me feel. Abandoned. Unimportant. Sad. Disappointed.
I didn't ask to be in this place; I certainly didn't want to be.
I think I have every right to be a little angry and frustrated.
If he doesn't understand that, then who is really the one with the problem? And if he doesn't care, then what does that say about him?
I'm not remotely close to being a perfect man or a perfect friend, but I have always loved David like a brother. And I'm not one of very many close friends, so it cuts deeply when it appears that I've lost one.
Regarding the political side of all of this, you are right about what this blog has always seemed to represent -- with one exception, and that exception is Mike Huckabee. David has talked in very loose terms about not liking certain things about Huckabee, but he's never expounded on those. And he's also VERY quick to defend and diffuse any outside criticism of the Governor.
Most times, it's over minor things -- but I don't consider this situation to be minor. If, as a Catholic, you can't repudiate anti-Catholic bigotry, then what can you repudiate?
I won't apologize for or back off from my statement that there are some things above politics and more important than strict adherence to a political party. Defending oneself and one's faith against a man who says that our Catholic brethren were behind the Holocaust is one of those times.
"...going so far as to indicate that other people meant far more to him than I did. He has since effectively ignored my attempts to reassemble the friendship, and he has not paid one grain of attention to my statements about how much the friendship has meant to me and how torn up I was over the whole situation."
That right there is an out and out lie. He tried numerous times to apologize to you and you either refused to accept that apology or flat out ignored it, I'm not sure which.
Are you trying to say that comments such as "you whore out your vote and your values" and "You've got no courage OR conviction" are not a personal attack? If someone calling themselves a friend said those things to me, I would have to seriously question their friendship. In fact, any chances of a close friendship would be dead after such comments.
The difference between you and David is that when he has been hurt and greatly disappointed, even when it feels like someone he thought was a friend is intentionally trying to rip him apart, he is able to forgive and move on. He tried to do that with you, and don't you dare say he didn't because we both know the truth. YOU are the one who refuses to put it behind you. YOU are the one who keeps the wound fresh.
But alas, Matt Daley can do no wrong so who am I to say anything? You will probably take what I say and try to twist it to mean something different but at this point I could not possibly care less. The truth is all that matters to me...not what you or anyone else tries to make of it.
Steve;
As you know, I am quite aware of how the delegate selection process works.
As I know you also know, in most States delegates are selected on a "winner-take-all" basis-including this one. (NOTE: I don't like that system and never have). Further, that means that whoever wins the most delegates via the Primaries wins the nomination.
In practical terms, that means that whoever wins the Primaries nationally, wins the nomination
Gaits>
I say that I am not a perfect man or a perfect friend. So where in the world do you get the idea that I think I'm never wrong?
Could it be that I have strong principles and convictions that I won't lay down for ANYONE or ANYTHING? Or could it be that I won't allow myself to be a doormat by letting people treat me in any capacity they wish?
Honestly, I struggle every day with depression and self-confidence issues, for reasons you wouldn't have the first clue about -- so such a statement about me is patently offensive. Maybe people would rather me be medicated 24/7 or be a complete mess all the time, I don't know.
But if you're interested in the truth -- there it is.
As for David's apology, you're right. But you know, while I'm a forgiving man, I'm not going to just accept an apology for the sake of accepting it, especially if there is no respect behind it.
You said that David is able to "forgive and move on", and that's very much the problem -- he tried so quickly to move on when this first began. He tried to sweep it under the rug, and despite my attempts to show him otherwise, he tried to pass it off as "no big deal", even though it was a big deal to me.
He's entitled to his opinion, obviously, but I had done nothing to him at the time to cause him to disrespect me, and I took his ambivalence as very disrespectful. That disrespect made any apology effectively meaningless. An apology is worth nothing if there's nothing behind it.
Also, you said that I'm the one keeping the wound fresh. Again, that's true. But again, that's part of the problem. Wounds need closure to heal, lest they perpetually fester. And because David was so quick to want to "move on", I had no opportunity to close the wound.
Maybe had David been more open to my view of the situation -- maybe if he had taken the time to understand why a wound existed at all -- then it could have been closed quickly. Instead, his actions said "I'm moving on, with or without you. I don't care."
I'm willing to accept whatever responsibility i hold for what has happened, and I'm sure it's plenty. If you're as interested in truth and honesty as you say that you are, then I would hope you could say the same regarding David.
Gaits>
(I wanted to address this separately)
As for the comments above that you say are a personal attack (i.e., "you have no courage or conviction), all I can say is that I stand by those.
When I asked David about this latest problem with Huckabee, I already knew in my heart what his answer would be. And in that regard, he did not disappoint. I guess my purpose for asking was that I was hoping beyond hope that I was wrong.
For what reason, I can't fathom, David won't say that Huckabee is wrong. This is true even though Huckabee has a VERY disturbing pattern, where he paints himself as the "True Christian Leader", appears very ignorant about Mormonism, and then visits a church run by someone very anti-Catholic.
He won't even repudiate the utter nonsense spouted by the anti-Catholic running the church -- David talks as if this guy's statements are legitimate "views".
As a fellow (and lifelong) Catholic, it's beyond disturbing. David has said on this very blog that he refuses to vote for any Democrat (meaning that he'll vote for ANY Republican put in front of him) and that he uses a religion test. Given that, the only conclusion I can come to is that David's politics come before all else.
Maybe my statements were a bit over-the-top. I can admit to that. But then again, as you've indicated, David's blog doesn't take any prisoners. He'll tell the truth, regardless of what it is -- so why should I be repudiated for telling the truth as I see it?
I apologize to other readers, because I don't make a habit of bringing my personal difficulties with others into this forum. I will not start today. If others choose to do that, it is quite up to them. In keeping with our policy around here, I won't censor anyone unless they post something I deem to be indecent.
You could always call me, David. I would much prefer that, but I'm going to do what I have to do. And if it has to be public, so be it.
By the way, I'm still waiting to do that end-of-the-season college football Talk-cast that you said you wanted to do at the beginning of the month...
The Rev. John Hagee -- I can't beleive I'm seeing/watching/reading good conservatives/Republicans beat each other the head about this lard butt blowhard. :-)
Depending on your point of view the man is either:
1) the voice of GOD on earth
2) a useful tool of zionist/Israeli propaganda
3) a complete charlatan/faker/con-artist
4) a religeou$ loony-tune
5) a total moron
6) 2 thru 5
He's really not worth agruing over.
SteveMule
Steve,
I'm not interested in arguing over his own personal faith. It is what it is, and he's entitled to it. But he's not really entitled to judge me, and when he accuses my brethren of conspiring with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, I take severe umbrage with him.
By the way, news reports regarding his appearance at Cornerstone are out now, and Huckabee was NOT there to stump. He delivered a 30 minute sermon (in which he defended his subliminal Christmas ad) and in which he embraced Hagee and called him one of the great Christian leaders in our country.
Anyone still want to claim that he was there just to stump?
And does anyone still want to claim that he's not going to lend some legitimacy to Hagee's anti-Catholic bigotry?
By the way, Huck's appearance on Face the Nation today was incredible. He said "I want to change the Republican Party", and he also said that his fair tax would bring drug pushers, pimps, and prostitutes out of the dark so they could charge taxes for their services. He further said that the folks who wrote negative articles about him for the National Review and Weekly Standard were either his opponents or operatives within his opponent's press corps. And he continued to take the John Edwards "class war" tack by talking about the "chattering class" of the East Coast.
As another blogger said, it's like Huckabee is running towards a gasoline dump with a lit match and no one else is able to stop him.
Our duty as conservatives ought to be to stop him (if at all possible) before he gets the nomination, lest he blow up and get beaten by a Democrat.
Matt, David, et al ...
"...when he accuses my brethren of conspiring with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, I take severe umbrage with him,."
First of all this isn't the worse that the Catholic Church has been accused of. Secondly, consider the source - it's HAGEE!! A certifable loony-tune! Don't be so thin skinned. Someone of Hagee's type shouldn't bother you so much.
"By the way, news reports regarding his appearance at Cornerstone are out now, and Huckabee was NOT there to stump. He delivered a 30 minute sermon (in which he defended his subliminal Christmas ad) and in which he embraced Hagee and called him one of the great Christian leaders in our country.
Anyone still want to claim that he was there just to stump?
Uh ...well, ... YES, I do - that's how you stump in Evangelical Churches. You can't actually stump the way you would if you were at a Chamber of Commerce gathering or a political rally. If you do that at a Church, from behind the pulpit you will cause the church to lose its Tax Exempt status. So ... you 'preach' a sermon that shows/tells that your beliefs, views, policies, ... whatever, are in step with the congregation's leaving it up to them to figure out that they should vote for you (who is like them) as opposed to the other guy(s) which aren't like them. It's somewhat subliminal - but it works.
"And does anyone still want to claim that he's not going to lend some legitimacy to Hagee's anti-Catholic bigotry?
I can't and won't argue that altho I see it as lending legitimacy to Hagee in general not just one aspect/topic of his nutty beleifs.
"By the way, Huck's appearance on Face the Nation today was incredible. He said "I want to change the Republican Party", and he also said that his fair tax would bring drug pushers, pimps, and prostitutes out of the dark so they could charge taxes for their services.
The whole 'Fair Tax' thing is a big scam - it looks and sounds very good until you actually start looking at how to implement it and start crunching numbers and then it's pretty easy to see what a farce it is. This is part of Huchabee's nuttiness. Oh well ...
"He further said that the folks who wrote negative articles about him for the National Review and Weekly Standard were either his opponents or operatives within his opponent's press corps."
There may actually be some to this - the GOP establishment (not necessarily conservatives) is all in a dither about the prospect of Huckabee winning the nomination. It as if they've realized that the Social Conservative movement they've created and manipulated for their own political gain has slipped its leash and become this uncontrollable enity with a will of its own. Horrors indeed!
And he continued to take the John Edwards "class war" tack by talking about the "chattering class" of the East Coast".
Again some of it might be true, read my previous comment. Huckabee has come under fire from real big guns in the GOP media establishment. Go figure.
"As another blogger said, it's like Huckabee is running towards a gasoline dump with a lit match and no one else is able to stop him.
Our duty as conservatives ought to be to stop him (if at all possible) before he gets the nomination, lest he blow up and get beaten by a Democrat."
Yes, that would be awful, awful I say! ;-)
SteveMule
Post a Comment
<< Home