MORE CHILLY WINDS FROM SOUTH AMERICA

More news about the ever-brewing Cold War. One theater of this looming threat is in South America, where Hugo Chavez has brought unapologetic Stalinism back to the region that Ronald Reagan liberated from tyranny. Consider this to be an expansion of Cold War? I Blame Global Warming!

Unfortunately, that liberation occurred two decades ago. The Clinton administration, with the usual Democrat/Liberal liking for Marxist dictators, allowed Chavez to ascend to power in Venezuela. Matters were made worse due to the War on Terror, which took American attention off the threat to our South. Soon, the assets of American corporations were nationalized, media outlets critical of this pint-sized thug were closed, sometimes violently.

Chavez has succeeded in getting the Kennedy clan, in the person of Joseph Kennedy, to gain popular support in the US, using oil from the state owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PDVSA. With smarmy adds, Joe Kennedy uses that tried and true Liberal vision of soup kitchen America, and gives away heating oil to "the poor", all thanks to the "people of Venezuela".

Of course, "the poor" here in America are far better off than the middle class in almost every other nation in the world, but why let mere facts get in the way of a good shibboleth? And does anyone think that giving oil away in America does the actual people of Venezuela any good? Let's go further, are the people any better off if the government sells the oil, let alone gives it away?

From my observations of Marxist "paradises" of the past, I think not!

Venezuela has deepening ties with such lovely nations as Communist China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. Indeed, Venezuela has teamed up with China and Cuba to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, a rich oil field that our Democrat friends, along with John McCain, have placed off limits for American oil companies.

To give you an idea of just how out of touch with reality our Friends on the Left are, let's look at their alleged "Energy" Bill, which recently passed the House of Representatives. Michelle Malkin points out that this travesty of legislation would produce no new energy, yet would raise taxes on American oil companies and give breaks and subsidies to PDVSA. In other words, we would make hamstring the development of domestic oil supplies even further than the enviro-weenies have done already, while giving a competitive advantage to a state-owned Communist front company.

But that's not the really bad news yet. Let's look to Venezuela's neighbor, Columbia.

Colombia has had a hard time of it in the past. They are the world's leading source of cocaine and other drugs. Despite their best efforts, and the help of the United States, they have had little success weaning their peasants from the relatively lucrative crop of coca, in favor of more conventional crops. To make matters worse, they have their own Marxist insurgency, an insurgency that has taken over much of the cocaine production from the cartels and is funding its revolution against the Colombian government with profits from the sale of the drug. They supplement their income and their revolution with kidnappings and murder.

These murderous little darlings call themselves the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, and have been supported by the Soviet Union, the Chinese, the Cubans and other Stalinist states for over four decades. Now, they are supported by Venezuela.

On March 1st, 2008, Colombian forces staged a raid against a FARC camp just over the border in Ecuador. Killed in the attack was FARC leader, Raul Reyes and sixteen other of his terrorist "soldiers". This did not sit very well with neither Mr. Chavez nor Ecuador.

Chavez is now amassing troops and armor on the Colombian border, as is Ecuador, another relatively Marxist state. They are now threatening one of our allies in South America. Outright war has become a distinct possibility in South America. This would be the sort of entree that Russia and China would love to exploit. And Chavez, with his decidedly anti-American worldview, would absolutely welcome their support.

What is needed now is to revisit the policies of Ronald Reagan, which had rolled back the Marxist threat in South America, giving nations like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras a chance to be free. Currently, the trend in the region is toward Stalinism, which must be stopped with great alacrity.

John McCain might be a good president for these uncertain times. However, as I have exhaustively outlined in Montag's World, he just ain't gonna win the election.

So how would Hillary or Saint Obama fair? Think Carter. Think Soviet expansionism. Think of Iran. If they play to type, we will see a Marxist Columbia, with all efforts to curb the growing and exporting of cocaine ended.

Why would I say that? Let's consider each of the leading Democratic candidates.

Hillary's signature campaign issue is nationalized health care. Her biggest supporters have long sung the praises of Cuba's health care system. Michael Moore, for instance, made a movie extolling the benefits of Castro's top-down, government run system. And I guarantee that, when the vote comes up in the Senate, Hillary will vote to give Citgo the breaks that will be denied to American oil companies. The Democrats, especially the modern Liberal Democrats, are historically incapable of defining, let alone defending, America's interests. Hillary will be just another in a long line of Democratic appeasers.

But what about Saint Obama? After all, hasn't he promised to get tough with Pakistan? Yes, he has. But Pakistan is an American ally, and he's already promised to surrender in Iraq and meet with all our enemies for unconditional talks. This will do ... what? How will diplomatic talks keep Columbia from succumbing to a Marxist assault both from within and from their neighbors?

Again, the policies of the Reagan era are what's needed today. We need to confront these Marxist thugs diplomatically, as well as covertly from within. We need to identify groups whose interests correspond with ours and give them all the aide they need to bring their nations back into the democratic mold. Neither Hillary nor Saint Obama are capable, or even willing, to do what is necessary to stop this cancer from spreading.

That being said, let us also remember what old Jimmy Carter made possible: a quarter of a century of Conservative leadership in America. A Democratic win in November will unite and energize Conservatives, while the Democrats will self-destruct, just like Carter. The damage done by the Left to America and her interests will almost guarantee such a Conservative Renaissance.

This is not at all the future that I would prefer, but we got stuck with Juan Pablo McCain, as Billy Cunningham has taken to calling him. Therefore, we Conservatives are left with the Conservatives-in-the-wilderness gambit.

I am always an optimist. For all the trouble I have with McCain, the glass is still half full!

Copyright March 2nd, 2008

COLD WAR? I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!

No, this isn't about the climate change nonsense. Although, I must point out that NewsMax reports that the Arctic has regained almost all the ice lost over the past year and the Antarctica has a third more ice than in the past. Then again, the Drudge Report notes heavy snow in Greece and Jerusalem, so maybe we can work out the Global Warmism angle after all.

It is, however, becoming apparent that the announcement of The End of The Cold War was a bit premature. The signs are ominous as they are almost omnipresent.

• Kosovo has just declared its independence, prompting Russia to try and block said independence in the UN, with an emergency closed-door meeting of the Security Council.


• Russia's premier, Vladimir Putin has been quietly ratcheting up his belicose rhetoric while simultaneously clamping down on the rights of the Russian people.


• China has been playing chicken with American fleets, at one time surfacing a submarine in the middle of a US carrier fleet. Russia has recently taken to buzzing our operations with their aircraft.


• China has been launching large numbers of missions into space, including the planned destruction, last year, of one of their own satellites. Clearly, they are planning for a potential war in space.


• The American announcement that we will shoot down one of our own satellites has been met with concern from both China and Russia, who, after China's demonstration of this capability, now want the US to ban all research into militarizing space.


• Russia has been aiding and abetting Iran's nuclear development, as well as selling large amounts of conventional weaponry to both Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, both Russia and China are blocking all attempts to isolate Iran for their intransigence.

These are just a few data points, but the trend is clear: both China and Russia are gearing up to blunt American influence in the world. China and Russia, despite the efforts of Richard Nixon, are teaming up again. Both are looking to increase their sphere's of influence. And both have taken stances in opposition to the United States.

Many of my Friends on the Left would say that this is a good thing. Many of them actually believe either a) that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 or b) the attacks were an inside job by a president who never really won the election.

But those of us in the Real World know that the world is a dangerous place. There really are folks who would do us harm, just because our system of governance, our national interests, and our cultures are different from theirs. We, in the Real World, also understand that if America doesn't stand up for herself and for our allies, there really isn't anyone else who will.

Of course, our Friends on the Left will say that we can't be the policeman of the world, that we have no right, that it will only fan the flames of hatred for America.

That, put plainly and simply, is utter nonsense. The surest way to open America up to attack and retreat is to adopt the defeatist attitudes of the Left. Do you need Real World examples? Well then, here are two, both within the lifetimes of many of us:

• With the wholesale retreat from Viet Nam and the collapse of the Republican Party following Watergate, the US adopted the retreat and appease policies of Jimmy Carter. Simultaneously, we had the radicalization of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Only the latter was corrected (by Ronald Reagan) and we are still paying the price of Carter's fecklessness in Iran today.


• Bill Clinton's pitiful performance vis a vis Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda. First, he sent the message, by retreating from Somalia, that we will cut and run when things get tough. Then, despite repeated al Qaeda attacks, he refused to actually treat bin Ladin's actions as the acts of war that they were. Indeed, he refused several opportunities to take bin Ladin into custody and, somehow, he was always unavailable to give the go-ahead to our operatives to assassinate him.

I'd give more examples by -- THANK GOD! -- the Left hasn't had so many opportunities to undermine our nation. Of course, should the election in November go the way I suspect it will, we'll see a repeat of these glorious days of Liberalism run amok.

And just how do we know that these things will come to pass? Consider Michelle Obama who said yesterday, “Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life [ italics are mine], I am proud of my country." Does this mean that she and, by extension, Barak have been ashamed of America until now? And how can we expect a president who isn't proud of America and all we've done for the world, to defend us, since we, ostensibly, don't deserve to be defended?

Yes, Friends! The world is indeed a very dangerous place. And there is only one nation that folks can turn to for Liberty, wealth, and defense with no strings attached. That nation is the United States. No, we never asked to become the "policeman of the world". But we did have that responsibility thrust upon us. We dare not turn our backs on that responsibility.

I do not, honestly, know enough about military and diplomatic matters to formulate a cogent opinion as to solutions to the conundrum we face. But I do know that we retreat at our own peril.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Roman Empire turned its back on much of the world, allowing much of civilization at the time to collapse, all in an attempt to keep the last sparks of Empire alive. Well, the barbarians came anyway, and first Rome then Byzantium were destroyed.

The barbarians will come for us as well, should we turn our backs to the world. Do we dare repeat the insanity that was Rome?

In the 1980's there were three people who stood tall against Communism: Ronald Reagan, Pope John-Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher once famously said to Reagan, "Don't go wobbly on us, Ronnie!"

Timely advise for us to remember in the 21st Century.

Copyright Feb. 19th, 2008

NO COMPARISON

Now it is all but official. John McCain has little, or nothing, between him and the Republican nomination. The rest of the primaries might be nothing more than formalities.


Mitt Romney has stepped aside, leaving Mike Huckabee angling for the Number Two spot in McCain's inexorable drive to the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, playing to part of the "crazy uncle in the attic that no one likes to talk about", is still in the race. Of course, that is merely for comic relief at this point.


Having read the speeches today of both Romney and McCain, I thought that a comparison would be in order. The two candidates show remarkably different attitudes toward Conservatives.


John McCain finds himself in terra incognita. His is one of the only campaigns that, having secured the nomination (or all but the signature on the document) he has to go back and secure his base. Ever since Richard Nixon, Republican candidates had to make more Conservative noises to gain the nomination, and then had to move "toward the center" to secure the election itself. Similarly, Democrats had to appease their most Liberal base for the nomination and move to the center in the general election. John McCain finds himself with broad support among Liberals, Democrats, moderates and Independents.


Unfortunately, the base of the Republican Party -- Conservatives, that is -- have been left cold by his penchant for "reaching across the aisle". McCain correctly notes that the Gold Standard for Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, often "reached across the aisle" to Democrats. This is supposed to allay Conservative fears, I guess. But Conservatives know that this is misrepresenting what Reagan was about.


Sure, Ronald Reagan "reached across the aisle" to the Democrats. However, he did so to bring them over to his point of view. Reagan didn't move his policies to the Left when he "reached across the aisle", he moved the Democrats to the Right. On the other hand, McCain has made a two decade career of siding with the Democrats on issue after issue.

• He explained his vote against the Bush tax cuts with Democratic rhetoric, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".


• He has sided with the Democrats over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, urging the closure of the base and the inclusion of enemy combatants in American civilian courts and prisons, presumably giving them access to the same rights as American criminals. He would also deny our interrogators the tools they need to quickly elicit information from detainees that would prevent further terrorist attacks.


• He has sponsored the most serious breech of the First Amendment in American history, teaming up with Russ Feingold to create campaign finance "reform", which neither gets money out of politics, nor empowers anyone but the Legacy Media and the unions. Does anyone seriously believe that he would ever appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would rule against McCain-Feingold?


• Speaking of judges, McCain led the infamous "Gang of 14", that left the Senate with the ability to block any judges they disliked with a minority of dissenting votes, rather than the majority demanded by the Constitution.


• McCain-Kennedy, meanwhile, made a mockery of the rule of law, failing to secure our borders, while simulaneously creating all sorts of incentives to violate American immigration law. He claims it isn't really amnesty, but it didn't provide for any real enforcement and totally ignored border security.


• And what Conservative in his right mind would suddenly decide that Global Warmism can be averted with Cap & Trade laws that would, incidently, stifle the American economy? And yet, here we have the putative nominee of the GOP cosponsoring the economically devastating McCain-Leiberman Bill.


• McCain is claiming the Pro-Life mantle, while voting for embryonic stem cell research, and opposing a Constitutional amendment to define, once and for all, marriage as a state between a man and a woman. So why vote for Barak or Hillary, when we've got McCain?

Now, today, with the nomination all but sewn up, John McCain speaks before the Conservative Political Action Committee, or C-PAC. Suddenly, he's a Conservative. He tells this august body of Conservative thinkers and activists that he has "a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November." So, where was he for the last 25 years?

He also makes this spectacular claim: "I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles..." Of course, in "reaching across the aisle", one should never let those "most basic of principles" get in the way!

Lest you might confuse him with being blind to his controversial nature, McCain acknowledges his "occasional" lapses from Conservative philosophy: "Surely, I have held ... positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives." Looking back at the above list, one could be excused for exclaiming, "Well, DUH!" Apparently, the Senator from Arizona has been hiding a mastery of understatement.

Of the November elections, he says that, rather than debating small differences between the Parties "We are arguing about hugely consequential things." OK! But where, exactly, besides the surge in Iraq, does McCain really differ from the Democrats?

In summation, McCain says that he is the Conservative candidate because he says he is. Therefore, all us Conservatives need to get over any belief that "...I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative..." and get behind him as the Republican nominee.

This is condescending at best. This is almost as insulting as Dorothy Rabinowitz calling Conservative critics of John McCain and his record "semi psychotic". As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "semi psychotic" is this inane effort to recast Conservatism as John McCain. Such an effort is Orwellian.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown what a class act he really is. Yes, he dropped out of the primary race. But he did so for the best of reasons: he wants to see whomever the Democratic nominee is to go down in defeat in November. Hence, although he has garnered enough support around the nation to continue, especially among Conservatives, he would step aside to prevent the sort of internecine bloodletting that would all but hand the White House over to the Democrats.

Of the need for Conservative values, he said "We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future."

And of failure to embrace these Conservative principles? "I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

Truer words have never been spoken! One of France's biggest problems is that it is losing its culture thanks to unrelenting Muslim immigration and an overexpansive welfare state. An Obama or Hillary administration (or McCain, for that matter) will send us ever onward down that slippery slope.

Romney warns us of the perils of electing a Liberal to the White House: "Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Don't forget that John McCain belittled Romney's business experience saying "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit", as if there was something unpatriotic about being a businessman.

Friends, put the two speeches, both delivered to C-PAC on the same day, side by side and compare. Clearly, Mitt Romney showed himself to the true Conservative. John McCain tried to obfuscate his record in Congress, while wrapping himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. (A comment posted on a news article about McCain said "I don't want to see what's under that mantle!")

Romney only had to speak of his beliefs, he needed no props. McCain had to trot out all those old photos of him with Reagan.

McCain kept claiming to be the Conservative candidate.

Romney merely spoke about what that Conservative stands for.

The distinction is clear. And the Republican Party didn't get the best man.

Copyright Feb. 7th, 2008

NOW IT'S A HORSE RACE!

Alright! Now we've got a horse race! The results of the Florida primary are in and we've narrowed the field. John McCain narrowly defeated Mitt Romney, while Hillary trounced Barak Obama. These results prompted Rudy Giuliani to drop out of the race, throwing his support to McCain, while John Edwards threw in the towel and has not endorsed anyone at this writing.

Unfortunately, for both winners, this was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Hillary may have won in Florida, but to what avail? The Democratic National Committee had already declared Florida's primary null and void, since the state moved its primary date up before February 5th. In true Clinton form, Hillary is now trying to back out of that agreement and wants the delegates awarded to her.

Let's say that Hillary succeeds in her bid to aquire the Florida delegates. Add this insult to the injury of playing the race card against Obama. How will the black vote, reliably Democratic, be affected? Would it be unreasonable that many would think that the white candidate effectively did an end run around the black candidate? What would that do to Hillary's image as the wife of "The First Black President", as Toni Morrison so famously dubbed Bill? Don't forget what Hillary did to Carl McCall in New York, effectively ending his burgeoning political career for her own Senatorial aspirations. Once again, it seems, the Democratic Party is going back to its segregationist roots to marginalize a viable black candidate.

Apparently, the Democratic Party is incapable of truly representing the black vote, taking their near monolithic support completely for granted. They can only lie about Republican policies and make ever emptier promises to do better than the last time blacks supported them. One can only hope that, sooner or later, people wake up to the institutional racism of the Democratic Party. I, however, will not hold my breath. I'd thought I'd seen the cracks before, only to find out they were minor and quickly healed.

And where does John Edwards (he of the silky locks and womanly charms) throw his support? After all, he is the leading candidate of the Trial Lawyers. Granted the Trial Lawyers will be happy with any Democrat. But would they be better off with Hillary or Obama? This will be very interesting to watch.

For the Democrats, we have the spectacle of watching two of their premeir identity political groups facing off against each other. It's kind of fun watching the Feminists cry foul when Ted (It took nine hours to open a lady's car door) Kennedy endorsed Obama. Similarly, we find the Old Guard of the Civil Rights Movement line up behind Hillary, while Oprah stumps for Obama. Perhaps it's time for me to revisit "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Speaking of Uncle Ted, it's been said that his word is gold among Hispanics. Would this hurt Hillary's chances further than an erosion of black support? Don't you just love when Political Correctness and identity politics run into themselves in such a spectacular fashion

Many on the Left seem to be tiring of the nefarious methods of the Clintonistas. Even the Legacy Media has taken to pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary. Bill's astounding claim that he never supported the Iraq war was too much even for those Liberal sycophants. His red-faced, finger wagging tirades on the stump for his putative successor are getting rightful criticism from all sides as well.

Still, the Legacy Media downplays the internecine fighting, the callous gender and racial attacks, to focus on "The Demise of Conservatism". To help that along, they have shamefully attacked the Mormon faith on every show, from newscasts to historical documentaries. Then they downplayed Mike Huckabee's Christianity, since his Liberal ideals are more in tune with their own.

Meanwhile, ponder this: if Conservatism is on the decline, why, then are both McCain and Romney trying to claim the Reagan mantle? Why, in his victory speech, did McCain preposterously state that he "is the Conservative who can unite the Republican Party"? Furthermore, his aides are telling anyone who would listen that McCain is going to "do outreach" to Conservatives. Why would that be necessary if Conservatism is in decline?

Let us consider CNN's exit polls, as interpreted by blogger Joshua Trevino:

Romney won pro-lifers.
Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won
the very religious--less than one-fifth of the pool.)
Romney won the Protestants.
Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters,
Thompson voters . . . and McCain voters.
Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between
$100,000 and $200,000 annually.
Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified
very conservative.
Romney won the values-oriented voters.
Romney won the white voters.
Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same issues Conservatives are most concerned about? How, then, can McCain claim to be "the Conservative Candidate"?

Here's another question: Why is Mike Huckabee, with no money and not even placing in the primaries, still in the race? Mark Levin makes a convincing case that there is a deal in the works. Huckabee siphons off enough of the Christian and social Conservative votes from Romney and, in return, McCain makes Huckabee the Vice Presidential candidate in November. I can find no fault in this reasoning, since Romney's and Huckabee's votes (as evidenced by CNN's exit polling) combine to be a decisive defeat for McCain in Florida.

Rudy Giuliani has become a real disappointment to me. Beyond the fact that his campaign strategey (putting all his eggs in the Florida basket) was flawed, he further showed that his Conservative bleatings on the campaign trail were nothing more than pandering. This is demonstrated by his immediate endorsement of McCain. After all, Rudy and McCain share much the same disdain for Conservatives. I point you to their careers in elective office. McCain voted against every tax cut that came before him. Rudy supported Mario Cuomo and Mike Bloomberg in New York, two very prominent Liberals. McCain wanted to turn America into a "sanctuary city", just as Rudy did with New York City. Both have been very Liberal on social issues, swinging to the Right only in this election cycle.

Similarly, the disappointing Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse McCain. I guess that Arnold, being a Kennedy by marriage, has finally drunk the Kool Aide. I would be surprised if, in the near future, Arnold leaves the Republican Party, a la Mike Bloomberg.

Speaking of Bloomberg, there are still rumblings about his possible third party candidacy for the White House. Hmmm... It's almost as if there were a conspiracy out there...

Well, perhaps there is! After all, the Republicans have their elites, just as the Democrats. These "blueblood", so-called "Rockefeller" Republicans are better known among Conservatives as RINOs, though they would probably prefer the title "Establishment". They were never comfortable with Conservatives, as evidenced by the 1976 primaries, when they blocked Ronald Reagan and we got stuck with Jimmy Carter. These are epitomized by folks like Christie Todd Whitman, who famously wrote the whiney tome. "It's My Party Too!" Both of the Bush's are of this ilk, as seen by their rather more Liberal policies. These folks aren't comfortable with any true Conservative. They are the purveyors of "Comprhensive Immigration Reform", expanded entitlements, higher taxes and Democarat-Lite social policies. Hence, their support for McCain and their disdain for Romney.

So what do we have? We have a Liberal Republican garnering the support of the "Rockefeller" wing of the GOP, using a Liberal evangelical Christian to siphon off votes of the more Conservative candidate, to drive a stake into the true base of the Republican Party, the Conservatives.

I dunno! I think I may have to rethink my party affiliation!

Copyright Jan. 30th, 2008

A HYMN FOR HUCKABEE

OK! I've got to write this fast since he might drop out of the presidential race at any minute. At last look, Mike Huckabee was in deep financial trouble, having only won one primary vote and heading into Florida and Super Tuesday.

What can we say about Mike Huckabee? Well, the former Baptist minister who turned politician in 1992, is the Legacy Media's second favorite Republican candidate, right behind John McCain. He has authored several books and he was the governor of Arkansas from 1992 until 2007. Time Magazine named him, in 2005, one of the five best governors in America, while the CATO Institute gave him a grade of "F" for his spending and tax policies.

Mike Huckabee is betting on his ministry in the Church to bolster his electability with evangelical Christians. Unfortunately for him, I doubt evangelical Christians are as one dimensional as they'd need to be to vote for him. Huckabee is, for instance, quite strong on the Life issue, calling for an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion. Yet he allowed a convicted rapist to be released, only to find said rapist went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri.

He tries to talk tough on immigration, yet he, for all intents and purposes, tried to turn Arkansas into a sanctuary state.

He cites Ronald Reagan and touts his own tax cuts, but the simple fact is, under his stewardship Arkansas spending went up 65.3%, according to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, while taxes rose more than half a billion dollars.

Mike Huckabee poses a number of problems for Conservatives, of which evangelical Christians form a subset. He is trying to remake the Republican Party in his own, more moderate image. Unfortunately for Huckabee, Conservatism is the bedrock of the GOP. Without Conservatism, Republican candidates tend to lose, and lose big.

Examples of this abound in elections past: Al Damato, in New York, was reelected like clock-work, until he moved away from his Pro-Life stances. George H.W. Bush lost his presidency by moving to the Left on taxes. Even Mitt Romney lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy only when he tried to move to the Left. The Democrats that got elected to Congress in 2006 were running to the Right of the Republican candidates.

Conservatism wins every time it is run on. Which will also serve to explain why Mike Huckabee is the second favorite Republican candidate of the Legacy Media.

First, the Legacy Media likes Huckabee for his Liberal stances on some issues: taxes and spending, social programs, immigration, and the like. The Legacy Media has been in the tank for these Leftist causes for decades, and, despite the inroads made by the New Media, show little sign of changing their minds.

Second, the Legacy Media knows that, should Huckabee get the nomination, they and their allies in the Democratic Party, can portray him as a religious nut, who is out of touch even with his own constituency, the evangelical Christians.

Would some evangelicals like to see an antiabortion amendment to the Constitutions? Sure, they would. But would most of them? Not likely, folks! The Pro-Life Movement will be happy with merely overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the matter back to the states, where it belongs. Besides, the Pro-Life Movement wants real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will never garner the supermajority they need in Congress, let alone among the state legislatures. A Right to Life Amendment stands no chance of approval at either the congressional or the state level.

And they would certainly be opposed to opening our borders to anybody who can walk across from Mexico. With polling ranging from 60% to 75% opposed to open borders and sanctuary cities and states, I doubt few folks will go along with a Huckabee presidency.

And then there's the issue of health and the government's role in protecting it. Mike Huckabee used to be overweight, until just a few years ago. Upon losing his weight, quitting smoking and going on an exercise regime (all admirable endeavors, to be sure) he decided that he would do for everyone what he had done for himself. Unfortunately, that means a highly intrusive government. He would legislate against fatty foods, smoking, sedentary lifestyles, and anything else he thinks is unhealthy. He has been noted in the media to have proposed banning tobacco everywhere in the United States. These are not at all Conservative ideas.

Taxes and spending, alone, ought to finish Mike off. The Conservative base is looking for someone to wear the Reagan mantle. Huckabee is definitely not that guy.

All in all, while I believe that Huckabee is superior to anyone in the Democratic field, I would hope he is defeated for the Republican nomination. He agrees with the Democrats on far too many issues. And, as has been observed in the past: "When given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the people will take the Democrat every time!" Of course, that was said by Harry Truman about Conservative Democrats voting with the Republicans, but you get my drift.

You can't beat the Left by moving to the Left. Mike Huckabee is just a bit too Leftish and, as such, deserves to lose the nomination in the Republican Party.

Copyright Jan. 23rd, 2008