Posted on 01/12/2008 3:57:15 PM PST by tcg
The real story of the night was the unexpected fight which emerged, out of right field, between Senator Fred Thompson and Governor Mike Huckabee. It was started by Thompson and aimed squarely at stopping the growing momentum of Huckabee.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - In one of the most watched debates of the 2008 Republican primary campaign, the wide open race for who will be the standard bearer of the Grand Ole party just got wider.
Like a scene out of the film “Awakenings”, Fred Thompson, a candidate who has been all but asleep since he entered the primary race, came out of his slumber and attacked Mike Huckabee in the last debate. With the South Carolina primary looming large and his standing in the National polls all but imperceptible, the conservative candidate decided it was time to make his move.
What he said and what it may mean for both the ongoing Republican race and the future of the Republican Party, will be discussed later. First, let’s consider the broader context of this much watched debate.
Senator John McCain, buoyed by his comeback from near oblivion with the help of New Hampshire voters, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has had his claims to invincibility damaged by two consecutive losses, continued their verbal sparring. With the Michigan primary on Tuesday, a loss for either of them could shake their campaigns.
Most observers gave this round to McCain. He stayed above the fray, kept his cool and emerged without any visible injury. Furthermore, in a contest where polls have become suspect after the debacle of calling New Hampshire for Obama in the Democratic primary, new polls show McCain leading in both South Carolina and Michigan.
Governor Romney “two stepped” a solid question from Carl Cameron from Fox News, who sponsored this last debate. Cameron asked him whether his inclusion of “abortion services” in his much touted health care plan in Massachusetts, would be a part of his federal plan if he were to be elected. Romney was obviously uncomfortable and tried to blame the inclusion abortion as a “medical service” (paid for by Tax payer dollars) on the Massachusetts Court.
I wish Cameron had followed up on the question. No-one has nailed Governor Romney on this issue. With his relatively new embrace of the pro-life position, he really should have to answer this question. His pride and joy, his Massachusetts health care program, includes abortion for a $50.00 co-pay, financed with public monies.
The former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, a one trick pony who is attempting to ride his tough guy image all the way to Pennsylvania Ave, did his usual smiley guy routine. He avoided anything related to his unacceptable positions favoring abortion on demand as a “right” and the redefinition of marriage to give equal legal status to homosexual paramours.
He also touted his tax cutting and budget cutting plan, right out of the playbook of the ‘Club for Growth’, as if he were selling something new or unique. At least one if not two of his fellows on that stage tout the same economic theories of the Club for Growth, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. He also sidestepped giving a solid answer to Carl Cameron’s long overdue question, “Why are you a conservative?”
The other sideshow in this recent debate concerned the enigmatic candidate, Senator Ron Paul. The increasingly strange comments being made by this Libertarian turned Republican are hard to comprehend. He seemed to ramble even more than he has in past debates, seeking to reduce most of his answers to every question to economics, touting his adherence to the “Austrian theory” he espouses with his friends at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
Aside from the now expected hoots from his cheering section in the audience, his comments elicited facial responses from some of his fellow Republican contenders which, if reduced to words, would have sounded something like “what planet is this guy from?”
The marginalization of Senator Paul is, in my opinion, unfortunate. He once had promise, standing as the only Republican candidate who is both pro-life and anti-war; he could have begun a much needed future debate in the Republican Party on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military intervention.
However, his candidacy has not gained any traction, his manner of presentation has become increasingly odd, and reports of his past writings (or, if his account is accurate, writings of others attributed to him) now expose some, shall we politely say “ problems” in past positions which call for a serious scrutiny..
I say it was unexpected for several reasons, not the least of which is that it showed a “fire in the belly” in the Senator which many have regualrly commented has been lacking throughout the primary campaign.
However, it was the content of this attack which is most interesting.
Senator Thompson accused Governor Huckabee of being a “liberal” on economic policies. Yes, he used the “L” word. Here is the real story of this recent debate.
With all of these candidates trying to claim that they carry something of the mantle of the last truly popular Republican President, Ronald Reagan, Governor Huckabee dug down even deeper to explain his claim.
He reminded the listeners that Ronald Reagan brought together a coalition which included, for example, single mothers who struggled to make ends meet. In other words, Ronald Reagan, like him, was a populist. Reagan had managed to open the Party once perceived as the haven of the affluent to a cross section of all Americans.
In the interest of full disclosure I must admit, I am one of the people to which the Governor referred. I was born into a lower “middle class” family from the inner City of Boston. We were, as a family, ‘blue collar’ Democrats. Yet, I was brought into the Republican Party by the positions and the appeal of Ronald Reagan. Most importantly, it was because Reagan heard the cry of the ones whom Mother Teresa called the “poorest of the poor”, children in the womb.
When my own Party decided to stop their ears to the cry of these children, as a concession to the new “liberals” who tout license as liberty, I began to question whether I could remain. Then, when they censored the last champion of both the poor and the working men and women in the Democratic Party, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, by not allowing him to even speak at their convention, I knew what I had to do.
I am one of those folks to whom the “Gipper” regularly referred, a Democrat who did not so much leave my former party but experienced the Democratic Party as having left me.
Not only did Senator Thompson try to derail Governor Huckabees momentum by questioning his ‘conservatism” and then deriding his populism, but the questions which followed from the panel concerning his religious convictions were astonishing.
Huckabee is regularly marginalized by commentators as the candidate of the “Evangelicals”. His response to their borderline religious bigotry during this recent debate was excellent. Noting that religion is always “off limits” until it comes to his candidacy, he addressed the issue squarely.
Without denying his deeply held religious convictions, he spoke of a growing coalition gathering around his campaign and assured the viewers throughout America that he was running to be the President of all Americans.
Then, one of the panel members from Fox News dragged out an old comment he made when he was a Baptist preacher concerning the relationship between husband and wife in a Christian marriage, using it to attempt to reflect upon him negatively. He took full advantage of that invitation as well.
First he referred to his own marriage without any hesitation, revealing his transparency. Then, he gave a wonderful exposition on the importance of marriage as a “100%/100%” partnership and the place where we learn to love.
It was not only good theology but excellent policy and politics.
So, the affable candidate from Hope Arkansas not only answered Senator Thompson’s attacks, but with a good humor and great verbal skill, he came out the victor in the exchange.
Huckabees religious support extends way beyond Evangelical Protestants. For example, he has a growing base of Catholic support. He also draws people from across economic and even party lines. His message is that of a populist, not unlike Democratic candidates John Edwards and Senator Barak Obama.
The HUGE difference, among several, is that Huckabee hears the cry of the poorest of the poor, children in the first home of the whole human race, their mothers womb.Neither of the two Democrats do.
Whether he takes the Republican nomination or not, Mike Huckabee may be the emerging leader of a new issue focused alliance of voters. These folks are not capable of being pigeon holed. They are quite capable of exercising their prudential judgment, placing the multitude of political, economic, social and policy issues which form the backdrop for this campaign, within a hierarchy of importance.
These voters cannot be lumped under the assorted vacuous verbal political labels used by the media such as “religious right”, “conservative”, “right wing” or “neo-conservative”. Oh, do not get me wrong, these folks also do not fit the contemporary American use of the word “liberal” either.
Huckabee uses a phrase,” Vertical politics” to explain his message and his direction. He speaks of calling Americans beyond the old horizontal labels to a higher ground and a better future.
The religiously inclined among his supporters do not like the effort to marginalize their intelligence or dismiss their deeply held religious convictions by using disparaging labels to lump them together such as “fundamentalist”, “evangelical”, or even “traditionalists.”
In fact, it seems to me that continued efforts to do so are eerily reminiscent of past anti-religious bigotry such as the "no-name" anti-Catholic party of America’s past.
These voters place the dignity of every human person and the right to life from conception to natural death at the head of every concern. It is not a “single issue” for them but a framework through which the entire race must be seen.
They argue that without the right to life there are no other rights and that persons must always take precedence. They will never accept the idea that a society should allow the killing of it’s young in the womb and, worse yet, celebrate it as a “right” when it is wrong.
They value marriage and family as the first cell of society, the first school, first economy, first church and first mediating institution.
They reject the misguided notion of “freedom” hidden behind the smiling mask of the new libertines who seek to redefine several aberrant chosen sexual lifestyles as the equivalent of marriage and then use the power of the State to enforce their new cultural revolution. Marriage is what it is to these folks and it serves the common good.
They reject an approach to the market economy which forgets that it is a servant and not a master. These folks care about those who have not experienced the benefits of the engine of freedom that is supposed to be the market economy; the poor, the marginalized, the forgotten.
They see a proper role, limited though it may be, in the exercise of “good” government in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
They are not “anti-Government”, whether in the mode of Ron Pauls libertarianism or Senator Thompson’s “true conservative” claims. They believe that we are, in a real sense, “our brother’s keeper” and want to serve the common good by not only caring for their own families but reaching out in solidarity to the poor and the needy.
They want to elect leaders who will help to promote “good” Government; in two senses of the word” good”. They want Governance to be efficient, closest to the smallest group being governed, and good, in the sense of moral, concerned for the poor and promoting the common good.
These folks are also concerned about a lot of other issues. However, they are able to order those issues in a hierarchy through the exercise of prudential judgment.
The continued efforts to marginalize the Huckabee candidacy by throwing charged words such as “Liberal” at him, as Senator Thompson did in this last debate, will not stop hurt his candidacy. People are tired of them. We have all lived through word games too many times in the last few decades.
I have had the “L word” thrown at me as well because I embrace the totality of the Social teaching of the catholic Church.
I have regularly called for moving beyond "liberal" and "conservative", insisting that faithful Catholics who understand, believe in and seek to apply the full palate of Catholic Social teaching, in order to effect genuine social justice, are not "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative", in the political sense of those limiting words.
This is what I now hear from this other Governor from Hope Arkansas.
His message is appealing to a growing number of voters. The movement growing around it may also frame the future debate in both major political parties.
What can one say to a person thinking about voting for Huckabee but uncertain because of claims that Huckabee denied the cross in his ad and that the atheistic NEA had endorsed him?
Given the prevalence of false prophets, especially in politics, what would one say to convince this person that Huckabee deserves his vote?
Huckster’s a lesbian ?
I should say “the fact that Huckabee denied the cross in his ad and the fact that the atheistic NEA had endorsed him.”
has huckabee even DENIED he is a liberal?
Exactly. He is a prolife populist NOT a conservative!
William Jennings Bryan, perhaps.
But Ronald Reagan he ain't.
It has always puzzled me Fred only goes after Huckabee and leaves McCain unscathed who is also a Liberal and has cause much headache to the Republican party CFR (which ties the hands of Right to Life ads 60dys before the election)
and immigration etc.
BTW Fred also endorsed that CFR Bill.
So is Fred really helping McCain to win the presidency?
If the person supports a pro life liberal, Mr. Huckabee is the right person to vote for! There are other Republican candidates who are pro life, but that are also conservative.
How was this fight at all unexpected?
"Lesbian"? I didn't think a Catholic organization would use that word....
LOL, GEEZ When I saw the title that is the first thing that came to mind. Guess it doesn’t say much about my mind.
because Huckabee’s the closest thing to a Democrat in the race, and beating the Democrats is the name of the game. You energize Republicans by attacking Democrats.
Has anyone told this typical Massachusettes liberal Catholic that Ron Paul is a Congressman or that Huckabee spoke in a mega Church in Texas that disdains Catholicism?
Typical Liberal Catholic dumb turd!
That’s what pisses me off a bout the church here.. politics ALWAYS triumph over real Catholicism!
So is McCain ever seen McCain nose so close to Kennedy butt!
Thompson must have the South. Who would you target?
“If the person supports a pro life liberal, Mr. Huckabee is the right person to vote for!”
Based on Huckabee’s contradictory words and actions during this campaign, we cannot trust that anything he says is true or that he believes anything he says.
If Huckabee is a pro life liberal, why does he claim to be a pro life conservative? Either he doesn’t know his own status, or he’s lying!
*snicker*
Language you speak, know I not.
Without denying his deeply held religious convictions, he spoke of a growing coalition gathering around his campaign and assured the viewers throughout America that he was running to be ***the President of all Americans***.
Mike, you’re running to Preside over (only) the executive branch of (only) the federal government (not all the people) of the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.