http://www.jackcentral.com/2008/01/17/huckabee-campaign-infused-with-religious-dogma-and-chuck-norris/ The Lumberjack online! Tue, 13 May 2008 00:02:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 http://www.jackcentral.com/2008/01/17/huckabee-campaign-infused-with-religious-dogma-and-chuck-norris/#comment-1039 tm244 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:22:31 +0000 http://www.jackcentral.com/2008/01/17/huckabee-campaign-infused-with-religious-dogma-and-chuck-norris/#comment-1039 Arbitrary celebrity endorsement is what liberal politics is all about. You can ignore Huckabee’s record on tax increases, you can disregard his soft stance on illegal immigration, you can even forget his inclination towards large government spending, but when a presidential candidate dumbs himself down to the social status quo and garners support from a celebrity with no business in politics, you know without a doubt you have a liberal on your hands. He may not be a social liberal (it was Chuck Norris after all, and not a Baldwin), but not a true conservative either. You’re right, there is far too much emphasis on the superficial differences between candidates, and there should be more debate on fundamental policy differences instead. Between the Democratic and Republican nominees, I am of the inclination that the Republicans have far more diversity among them than the Democrats. Both Hillary and Obama are for national health care, withdrawing from Iraq, some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts. If you take a look at the republicans (even a quick glance will suffice) you see that not everyone is for the war in Iraq (Paul), or against amnesty (McCain), or for keeping the bush tax credits (Huckabee), or even for maintaining the status quo on the international stage (Romney). Hillary may be the first woman nominee with a definite chance at the white house, and Obama may be the first black man with any considerable possibility of being our nation’s president, but the four white guys running for the Republican ticket are far more diverse on what really matters... the issues. Arbitrary celebrity endorsement is what liberal politics is all about. You can ignore Huckabee’s record on tax increases, you can disregard his soft stance on illegal immigration, you can even forget his inclination towards large government spending, but when a presidential candidate dumbs himself down to the social status quo and garners support from a celebrity with no business in politics, you know without a doubt you have a liberal on your hands. He may not be a social liberal (it was Chuck Norris after all, and not a Baldwin), but not a true conservative either.
You’re right, there is far too much emphasis on the superficial differences between candidates, and there should be more debate on fundamental policy differences instead. Between the Democratic and Republican nominees, I am of the inclination that the Republicans have far more diversity among them than the Democrats. Both Hillary and Obama are for national health care, withdrawing from Iraq, some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts. If you take a look at the republicans (even a quick glance will suffice) you see that not everyone is for the war in Iraq (Paul), or against amnesty (McCain), or for keeping the bush tax credits (Huckabee), or even for maintaining the status quo on the international stage (Romney).
Hillary may be the first woman nominee with a definite chance at the white house, and Obama may be the first black man with any considerable possibility of being our nation’s president, but the four white guys running for the Republican ticket are far more diverse on what really matters… the issues.

]]>