RSSHuckabee’s Liberal Streak Will Doom His Candidacy
J.J. Jackson* | September 1, 2007
Mike Huckabee has made sure everyone knows that he has a liberal streak in him that is so wide you can drive a semi-truck through it. Despite picking up some support over the past couple weeks as the alternative to the major candidates, Huckabee will probably never crack the top tier due to things like his support for a national smoking ban (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4958.html).
Hey Mike, this isn’t a Bally’s you’re running for President of! It’s the United States of America! And you know, we actually do have a constitution!
Much like every other candidate in the race from Fred Thompson to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to Ron Paul, Huckabee has either never or read the Constitution or just simply has decided to ignore the parts of it he doesn’t like. Article I lays for the powers of what the government can regulate on a federal level and I am so sorry to tell you this Mr. Huckabee, but smoking ain’t one of those powers!
Just because you got away with it in Clintonland (aka Arkansas) doesn’t mean that you’ll get away with being liberal on the national stage. Now get your butt squarely back into second tier status. Keep it up and you can be saying hello to Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul over diner and a nice glass of whine as you all muse about why no one takes you seriously!
Besides, no government will go along with a smoking ban anyway because the power hungry politicos make far too much money off taxes on cigarettes.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
97 Responses to “Huckabee’s Liberal Streak Will Doom His Candidacy”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
We are in the same rut as we always are where we have nothing but the choice of different evils. Among GOP candidates we have a bunch of socialists who support the war on terror and one wishy-washy libertarian who wants to retreat within our own borders and hope and pray the bad guys will leave us alone and abandon the rest of the world.
None of those choices are particularly appealing but they are better than the alternatives.
So your point is that the government should not be allowed to regulate the amount of toxins that are emitted into the air? So why shouldn’t factories be able to dump as much toxic waste into the air and rivers as they want? Why shouldn’t kids be able to buy cheap toys from China painted with lead if they want? Why shouldn’t I be able to build a store with asbestos if that’s cheapest for me? The free market will take care of these things, just like it controls prostitution and drugs, because corporations are really worried about me and not their bottom line. It’s the American way. We should be able to destroy ourselves if we damn well please.
Admin Note: Duplicate comment deleted. Do NOT post duplicate comments. Wait for them to be accepted by the system. This is your only warning.
Mike, don’t try this at home.
Read Article I of the Constitution and find the justification for it before ranting like a lunatic about things you obviously have not studied.
Everything is “toxic”. It just depends on the amount and the dose. If that is your “logic” then the government can regulate even the CO2 you exhale when you breathe. Also you might want to read some of what is actually discussed here by Jeff and others such as like how he has said on multiple occasions that the courts inherently have the ability to hear cases where someone has clearly caused harm to another such as through dumping pollution into the water supply they drink from, etc. but that you do not need additional laws to make that illegal.
But it is just easier to whine than do that research first right? FYI … double posting because you are too hyper and excitable and not able to wait for the system to run your comments through the spam filter is not looked upon kindly.
Smoking bans in “public” places invariably mean that “private” property is regulated. Just ask Jeff about the smoking ban they tried to pass in Allegheny County, PA where “public” meant the bar, the restaurant, etc.
Congress has no authority to do this. Sorry Mike. I guess when you can’t refute the facts the only thing left to do is rant?
The fact is that is smoking is legal, smoking is legal. If it is so bad then it should be made illegal everywhere not just is whatever arbitrary place the government decides it should be made illegal in.
During prohibition the argument that alcohol was bad for you was the reason it was banned. It didn’t work out so well even though it started out the same was as the smoking bans are today. Besides the whole premise for these bans is that smoking causes diseases like cancer and emphasema. That is of course not true. It might be a contributor to those diseases but if it caused them then everyone that smoked would have them. My grandma is 96 and has smoked a pack of cigs a day since she was 22. I dare say she is healthier than you or I.
TriggerMama on September 2, 2007 10:50 am
“That is of course not true. It might be a contributor to those diseases but if it caused them then everyone that smoked would have them. My grandma is 96 and has smoked a pack of cigs a day since she was 22. I dare say she is healthier than you or I.”
This is the truth. The biggest factor is genetics, not whether one smokes or not. There once was a time that liberty meant something.
As a side note I grew up in a house filled with second hand smoke and still don’t have any of the diseases the smoking NAZIs claim are caused by children being exposed to it.
When you have these guys like Huckabee talking about this sort of social engineering, it almost makes Ron Paul look like a sane choice.
Notice however I said “almost”.
If you had paid close enough attention, you would have heard that Mike Huckabee answered the question, “IF CONGRESS PASSED IT AND PUT IT ON YOUR DESK, WOULD YOU SIGN A BAN ON SMOKING?” by explicitly saying that he would, not as a regulation of bars and restaurants, but AS A WORKPLACE SAFETY MATTER!
If you previously had paid any attention to Mike Huckabee you would have known that he has no liberal streak in terms of regulating private commerce, especially from a federal perspective.
Some might call it liberal that he unapologetically asserts that, both morally and politically, if Republicans don’t show concern for the average person as much or more than for the investment class,they are going to lose a lot of elections. And about that he is right.
If your liberally stewed mind can only interpret concern for the average person as a threat of government coercion of private industry, that is your problem, not his. Republicans don’t need interpose themselves into the operation of private concerns, but it is a simple assertion of the most basic morality to call a spade a spade in calling out operations that use the work of employees only to neglect them in sharing the wealth that they helped produce.
Incidentally, I have been a conservative all of my life and have never supported a Democrat.
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 3:09 am:
“If you had paid close enough attention, you would have heard that Mike Huckabee answered the question, “IF CONGRESS PASSED IT AND PUT IT ON YOUR DESK, WOULD YOU SIGN A BAN ON SMOKING?” by explicitly saying that he would, not as a regulation of bars and restaurants, but AS A WORKPLACE SAFETY MATTER!”
Thanks for proving my point about how these become restrictions on private property and NOT public property.
Once again, another person who still has not shown any justification for this under the Constitution which the President is sworn to uphold and lots of yelling and screaming because they know that they cannot.
Larry, here’s a link to the United States Constitution. When you find the section in it that deals with Congress and workplace safety ant their being allowed to craft such legislation get back to all of us ok?
As for the President, it is his duty to veto any legislation that Congress crafts which is outside of their powers. The Constitution cannot be amended by an act of Congress nor by a compliant President. Check it out. You might learn something.
You may want to take special note of Article 1, Section 10 which talks about freedom to contract. That means if Joe Blow wants to have a workplace that allows smoking and you don’t want to work there YOU don’t have to enter into an agreement to do so. This ain’t the Soviet Union bub and private property rights, rights of contracts, etc still exist here. Although not for long if people remain ignorant of the Constitution and their rights.
So get educated before you open your mouth and remove all doubt as to what your knowledge of an issue really is.
Hey, we’re conservatives, right? I mean REAL cite The Constitution, listen to The Founders, insulated, untouchable idealists, right?
You are absolutely right. There is no constitutional license for any kind of federal government intervention of any sort into the private sector, as lobg as that private interest is not actively depriving men of life, liberty or property, in which case stil, whenever possible, authorities well below the federal government ought be the ones acting to defend the rights they are charged to uphold in American states.
You should understand who you are talking to: The last Republican candidate I voted for in a general election was Bob Dole, and I came to repent of that and all other Republican votes save for Ronald Reagan. Why? As I said, I never supported a Democrat. I abandoned The Republican Party because The Republican Party had abandoned THE CONSTITUTION!
If you are mourning the passing of respect for The Constitution, you can sit in your idealistic bubble and whine without ceasing, because you can criticize what government does all day! Congressional representatives, including so-called “conservative” ones, scarcely open their mouths without trampling all over The Constitution! You must be traumatized to a catatonic state.
But, there is something more important than The Constitution: Lean in and listen real closely: It’s called REALITY! A reality with real live breathing people in it… People to whom constitutional talk is barely more comprehensible than classical Greek! Is that unfortunate? Usually, yes it is. Is it contrary to The Founders’ blueprint? Yes, it is. OK: now what?
From behind your abstract constitutionally polarized lenses, ask yourself what it is you think you will accomplish. As I pass into age, it occurs to me that I want to accomplish something more than standing in front of the mirror and winning my solipsistic, self-congratulatory philosophical Mr. Universe contest.
In the extra-constitutional reality that we live in, the federal government, however foolishly, has taken on promises to provide health-care services for a large part of the country, much of it coming into age, with its attendant health care concerns and costs. Now, you are saying that even with these established liabilities, the federal government with its jolly dancing media courier circus, shouldn’t make pronoucements designed to control costs on the front end, rather than pouring out unconstrained treasure in claims on the back end? That’s compounding foolishness with foolishness.
By the way, Mike Huckabee doesn’t have in mind another enormous bureacracy of smoking police and prosecutors. I think what he has in mind is a loud statement from the federal government, WHICH ALMOST EVERY CORNER OF THE NATIONS JUST HAPPENS TO HEAR, that smoking is a bad idea.
The liberal ideology showered on the public for the last 75 years, has America ideologically marooned on on an uncharted island with TRILLIONS of dollars of unconstitutional expenses and unfunded liabilities. And now, are you going to howl about using a sagging totem pole as wood for a boat in order to strike out in a positive direction?
Here, you have a man with a moral soul and a conservative disposition who wants to lead the country, and you use whatever influence you are blessed with to summarily dismiss him…IN FAVOR OF WHOM? Do you seriouslY think that any of these other clowns offers a superior alternative for this lost society?
Keep your eye out and see what outlet for your support these guys put forward this year: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ . And, keep those ideological muscles oiled and that mirror clean, Narcissus.
Larry,
You say: “You are absolutely right. There is no constitutional license for any kind of federal government intervention of any sort into the private sector, as lobg as that private interest is not actively depriving men of life, liberty or property, in which case stil, whenever possible, authorities well below the federal government ought be the ones acting to defend the rights they are charged to uphold in American states.”
So in other words you admit that Jeff, myself and others here are right and you were wrong in your original rant.
So let’s move on to your spin. Cite how a company allowing smoking on their property and in the workplace is depriving anyone of life, liberty or property.
You can’t because no one is required to be there! End of argument. Jeff has talked recently about Occum’s Razor (simplest is best) and it applies here.
Again, it goes back to what Jeff said about freedom to contract. But beyond that it goes to the basic principle of if you don’t like the way a business is run do not patronize it. That is true liberty.
No man who wants to strip basic liberty for the yoke of government is “a man with a moral soul and a conservative disposition”.
A Huckabeebot? THEY DO EXIST!
So many words to basically admit you were wrong while showing that you are not quite ready to accept it yet.
Red Tornado on September 4, 2007 11:37 am
“A Huckabeebot? THEY DO EXIST!”
Tee hee. I thought the same thing but thought better about saying it.
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 3:09 am:
“Incidentally, I have been a conservative all of my life and have never supported a Democrat.”
When are you going to start acting like one then instead of making excuses and spin for Constitutional violations (i.e. like your second comment)?
Heaven forbid that Jeff point out the failings of a candidate you have chosen to. Heaven forbid the truth ever be spoken! Conservatives don’t deny the truth Larry.
That’s why he’s actually respected around here and why tons of people read this site. He holds no illusion that there is any perfect candidate and makes sure that all candidates get their beliefs run through the wringer and that they are chewed up and spit out. So that all of us can make informed decisions come election time.
I tried to be as clear as I could. You are right about The Constitution and are right about freedom to contact (or not), constitutionally. Back many years ago now, when California first passed a smoking ban in private establishments, I said if I were in California, I would leave. California has only gotten wackier.
I was not wrong because I was not making a constitutional case. I was making a practical case, about REALITY. Do you suppose that the federal government should abandon the innumerable unconstitutional activities and liabilities that it has taken on? Even Social Security itself, was an unconstitutional and foolish idea. But to renege on foolishly made promises would be worse than unconstitutional: it would be immoral. Never mind the fact that representatives who perpetrated this default on promises would be summarily disposed of.
If you think you are going to immediately resurrect a constitutional republic, I’ll watch with great interest. But, I won’t hold my breath. Reality: check into it.
I believe we can move toward a constitutional picture by first devolving power back to the states, letting them deal with or dispose of the concerns that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken up. Mike Huckabee makes frequent reference to the 10th Amendment.
Again I ask: who the heck are you FOR? You can idealize all you want, but there is real work that has to be done. I’m not going to support a Rudy Giuliani who doesn’t understand the critical nature to civil society of the first lines of The Declaration Of Independence, or the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution. I’m not going to support Fred Thomson or John McCain, who can’t understand The First Amendment. These guys want to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution? Sargeant Foley in Officer And A Gentleman: “My grandmother wants to fly jets!”
I don’t know what Mitt Romney understands or cares about. His track record is of an administrator, not the engineer America’s battered social foundation needs.
The only real world sense that I can maske of what you are doing is if you genuinely think a President Ron Paul’s foreign policy posture would be prudent in the 21st century. I don’t.
If nominated, I would probably vote for Ron Paul just to give the status quo a swift kick in the teeth. But in reality, I’ll sooner win the Texas lottery, and I don’t even buy tickets!
So, what accomplishment for America are YOU planning to achieve in the foreseeable future?
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 1:07 pm:
“I was not wrong because I was not making a constitutional case. I was making a practical case, about REALITY.”
Ooooookay. So now you are saying that the Constitution is not “reality”? Last time I looked the Constitution was pretty real!
Are you serious? Or are you just babbling to try and sound like you know what you are talking about.
“So, what accomplishment for America are YOU planning to achieve in the foreseeable future?”
You got to admire him. Can’t deal with “reality” so he enters into a tangent.
Larry, why don’t you actually read this site. I would say that Jeff is accomplishing a lot by telling the truth! That is a great “accomplishment” in the past, present and the “foreseeable future”!
First rule of posting here, don’t contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 3:09 am:
“Republicans don’t need interpose themselves into the operation of private concerns”
THEN you say:
“but it is a simple assertion of the most basic morality to call a spade a spade in calling out operations that use the work of employees only to neglect them in sharing the wealth that they helped produce.”
So which is it? They don’t need to impose themselves or they should impose themselves?
As for your last statement, me think you doth protest too much.
As for your second comment that is a mighty bit of spin you have laid out in an attempt to avoid the fact that even you admit you were wrong.
As to your third about reality and the Constitution, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards or any of the far left candidates couldn’t spin any harder.
I agree Oohrah. Show people you are conservative by your words and deeds. Don’t tell us you are because so far we haven’t seen it. Everything he says seems like a lot of “government should” or “there oughta be a law” excuse making to me personally and the Constitution be damned!
FYI, you should feel honored to actually have Jeff come in and respond to you. He doesn’t do that much these days except in cases where someone really just ignores the truth and doesn’t address the facts he has laid out.
LP, whenever I hear this argument about the Constitution versus “reality” I am put into mind of the famous line from Pirates of the Caribbean where Captain Barbosa says to Elizabeth with regards to the Pirate’s Code:
“First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin’. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate’s Code to apply, and you’re not. And thirdly, the Code is more … what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.”
Just substitute “Code” with “Constitution” and I think it applies mightily here to this sort of “logic”.
Guys, this hostility is 1) not necessary, 2) not productive, and 3) usually not accurate:
“So which is it? They don’t need to impose themselves or they should impose themselves?”
There is no contradiction in what I said. Expressing disdain for something is not the same as intruding upon it. It isn’t violating the thief’s rights to call him a thief. This hostility is like a dog who growls at any stranger because the only experience he has is of being beaten by people with a newspaper. In this case, the people are liberals who have dominated the media and the country for many decades. People who call themselves “conservatives” are unconsciously tainted by it. I saw it in The Republican convention process, where I saw my conservative proposition criticized and voted down because of the distortion of passive liberal thinking.
I never voted for George W. Bush for president because he, though honerstly I think, was TOO LIBERAL! He just doesn’t know any better. I spent years arguing with Republicans about what they were supporting. Unsurprisingly, I have been shown to be correct by eith years of a faster growing and more meddling federal government that existed under Clinton.
Republicans in Congress resisted Clinton. But, they rolled over like puppies for an unconstitutional president with an “R” after his name. Most of THEM don’t get it, either. For all their pandering and corruption of power, they got booted out of office.
What’s going on? Why is everyone after ME? If I say I’m conservative (and have been for over 40 years), do I have to have a proctological exam to prove it? And, for the purpose of WHAT?
The Constitution is real. But constitutional American government is not. What there actually is is often or usually foolish, but it’s reality. Why isn’t anyone discussing how the mess America has made of itself ought to be addressed?
“Conservatism” that won’t get its hands dirty to try to rectify an untracked society, but only sits and howls like a dog sitting on a tack, is as useless as tits on a boar hog.
Hostility? Larry, come on now! You are the one that started out hostile if anything using terms like “liberally stewed mind” to describe Mr. Jackson and opinions you didn’t particularly care for.
You are also the one that implied the Constitution was not reality and a bunch of other nonsensical BS.
I love watching people who desire to promote big and unconstitutional government squirm as they fail to find any justification for their ideas! As the wheels spin the hole gets deeper and deeper.
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 2:35 pm:
“What’s going on? Why is everyone after ME? If I say I’m conservative (and have been for over 40 years), do I have to have a proctological exam to prove it?”
Like Jeff is fond of saying “If I say the sky is green and the grass is blue it doesn’t make it true”. I hope I got the quote right.
Larry, you can say you are a “conservative”. Fine. People would take you at your word. But when you start talking about how Congress has a mystical power to ban smoking on private property because of it being to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of other who are not required to be there (and considering that others smoking does not cause cancer, death or whatever you want to claim and only at worst increases the risk of those that freely chose to be around it) you are babbling like a liberal. Beyond that, many times people like myself have pointed out that claims that children are adversely affected by second hand smoke are seriously questionable since many of us grew up around smokers and don’t have any of the diseases claimed to be caused by it. Increased risk? Maybe.
Then you talk about how the constitution is somehow not reality and all the little red flags go off.
You keep calling the grass blue. But you have provided little evidence of it.
I suggest you think before talking - or typing and realize exactly how weird some of what you say really is.
You perceive that people are “going after you” because from your first post you attacked someone without actually providing any reason or evidence to support your claims. Generally this is called trolling.
Then when people call you on it you just go further and further down that old rabbit hole and are on the defensive trying to grasp at straws to defend your original and subsequent statements which people have called into question.
It happens here. We question people. We don’t take them at their word. Especially when their opening salvo is to insult an opinion based on facts.
Larry, maybe you’ll learn a lesson that you shouldn’t “go after” someone yourself unless you are able to take the heat of the fire you start.
There have been lots of legitimate questions made to you based on your own words. There have however been few answers.
If I might, and not being historically very “conservative” myself although I am currently giving up the liberal ghost because I have seen what liberals really are I might be over my head, but some of these comments by you Larry don’t sound very conservative to me either. It sounds like something that would have come from my mouth about six months ago promoting socialism.
What surprises me most is how people who are not regulars here think they are going to beat Jeff on a Constitutional argument. I learned long ago that he is not to be trifled with and when he is right he is right.
But as someone that has been around here for a while I do have to say Larry, you did start this. And as someone that has been around here for a while I do have to say Larry, that if you keep pushing they are going to finish it by making you look silly.
Even Jeff has given Huckabee props when he thinks he deserves them. Like when he posted this:
Best of Mike Huckabee with the comment “Not that I agree with him 100% but Huckabee fans will like this” which to me implies that he likes a lot of what Huckabee says. But that doesn’t mean he can’t criticize the man.
“That’s why he’s actually respected around here and why tons of people read this site. He holds no illusion that there is any perfect candidate and makes sure that all candidates get their beliefs run through the wringer and that each are chewed up and spit out. So that all of us can make informed decisions.”
Has Mr. Jackson ever actually publicly endorsed a candidate for any office? jc
Also question, why is my user name showing up “Arimus” instead of “Artimus” now? Have I been naughty and being spanked?
Arimus Gordon on September 4, 2007 4:30 pm:
“why is my user name showing up “Arimus” instead of “Artimus” now? Have I been naughty and being spanked?”
Software glitch from the upgrades over the weekend to prevent the you know whos from doing you know what like we were tipped off to thanks to our man on the inside. FYI should be fixed now.
This is looking futile. I never said that Congress has “mystical power” or that The Constitution is not reality. The first time someone said that, I tried to correct the misunderstanding. In my last post, you will find me saying The Constitution is reality but constitutional government is not reality. Congress takes and asserts unconstitutional power regardless of whether it is constitutionally licensed.
I could repeat many other things I’ve said and asked about how to deal with the unconstitution activities and liabilities that the federal government has taken on, but it appears that no one is listening or is interested in constructively engaging that reality.
I’m a Christian. There’s a right and wrong beneath constitutional right and wrong. And in the model of Jesus Christ, that standard entails grace in the face of wrong. If a person abuses their body in one way or another, right and wrong can correctly scorn them for what they have done.
But grace gets down on its hands and knees and cleans up the puke and/or crap and holds out a hand: “Let’s see if we can work our way out of this mess.” Grace shows the sick entity that it cares more about dealing with the sickness than it does its own sensibilities about the mess. That’s where I believe my head should be, going forward.
Maybe you guys feel like you can waste more time bitching about spilt milk. Not me. Been there, done that. Conservatism that sits in its little room and thrives on scorning others will not help America or anything else on the planet. I believe that conservative principle is REAL and good and worthy of being advanced beyond an ideological telephone booth circle jerk.
But, you gotts put your hands in the mess. If you can’t collaborate with a principled conservative like me to consider constructive paths out of the woods, it looks to me that your prospects of having any positive influence on a messed up society are pretty much nil. You sound just like the liberals who gather to hoot and scoff about things they have no intention of doing anything about. At least they have fantasies about the government being responsible for handling morality for them.
Arimus Gordon on September 4, 2007 4:35 pm:
“Software glitch from the upgrades over the weekend to prevent the you know whos from doing you know what like we were tipped off to thanks to our man on the inside.”
The huh of the wha at the uh?
Did I miss something?
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 4:39 pm:
“This is looking futile. I never said that Congress has “mystical power” or that The Constitution is not reality. The first time someone said that, I tried to correct the misunderstanding. In my last post, you will find me saying The Constitution is reality but constitutional government is not reality.”
There’s that goofy spin your becoming well known for here. You are right. Arguing with you is certainly futile because in one breath you say one thing then in the next you say the exact opposite.
You attack Jeff in your first post. Make a weird statement in your second. Go off the wall in your third and now you are spinning so hard that everyone’s heads are hurting just trying to keep up with you and your “principled” conservative self.
I must admit I am laughing pretty hard right now especially since you are trying to portray yourself as some sort of victim when you attacked right out of the box!
Libertarian Prince:
“Has Mr. Jackson ever actually publicly endorsed a candidate for any office?”
Not in this primary election (although I believe I know which way he is reluctantly leaning) and he usually stays away from doing such during primaries. Although, like this post, he is more than willing to warn you what you are getting into with each candidate. However as we have seen here and with the Paulbots some people don’t like to hear negative things about their candidates.
You can get the positive spin on any partisan site. Here he rummages through all the dirty laundry and airs it and gives praise when praise is warranted. He’s very even handed I have found which is why I stick around and read this site daily.
He did however publicly and emphatically endorse Pat Toomey in the Republican Primary over Senator Specter and when Toomey lost he emphatically endorsed Clymer (Constitution Party) over Specter in the general election. So he does endorse candidates and tells you why when he does. I’m not sure if any of those posts survived the Great Database Crash of 2005 or not however and to be honest I’m not inclined to go hunting for them.
He also publicly endorsed Bush in the 2004 election over Kerry while still warning people that Bush was not the best conservatives could offer and Swann over Rendell in PA for the same reasons. However I don’t think there were many conservatives that didn’t agree with those choices as the far lesser of two evils.
I think Mr. Jackson’s observations are very valid Larry. I don’t know why you are getting all huffy about it!
Huckabee is the leading second tier GOP candidate and has a real shot at breaking into the top tier. But when he runs around talking about smoking bans in public/private places it only is going to hurt a man struggling to gain a foothold much like Ron Paul’s earmark problem and his loony supporters making false claims about his military support etc. hurt his chances of being of any relevance.
So again, what is the problem?
I remember Jeff getting grilled by “conservatives” on one message board he posted on at the time for daring you remind everyone of how non-conservative Bush could be at times during the 2004 election
It’s amazing how sensitive people can be to the truth.
Very similar to this here.
Libertarian Prince on September 4, 2007 4:40 pm:
“The huh of the wha at the uh?
Did I miss something?”
Did I say something that wasn’t common knowledge? Check your email LP.
Libertarian Prince on September 4, 2007 4:46 pm:
“Not in this primary election (although I believe I know which way he is reluctantly leaning) and he usually stays away from doing such during primaries.”
Oh really? Do tell!
Not because I will base my opinion on what he thinks, but because I have my own theories on the topic.
I agree with Tappy. The original post was a good analysis of how this kind of thinking is going to hurt Huckabee with the conservative base and damage his chances even citing a challenge to find such authority in the Constitution without twisting the meaning of it.
Seems to me someone whose name rhymes with Barry got awfully defensive over that.
I’ll give you a hint PM:
Not Huckabee
Not Paul
Not Hunter
Not McCain
I like Huckabee, but he certainly isn’t my first choice. Still isn’t after this news either.
It isn’t that much to ask that our elected officials actually abide by the Constitution. Not if we actually expect it however. And I consider myself a “principled conservative” in that just because something might not be doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be.
Hey, Jeff was fair! He slammed Mike for something that wasn’t right and promoted his book From Hope to Higher Ground to let him promote his ideas as well.
It’s not like he posted an anti-Huckabee book!
That’s fair and balanced if I have ever seen it!
Jackie K. on September 4, 2007 5:06 pm:
“Hey, Jeff was fair! He slammed Mike for something that wasn’t right and promoted his book From Hope to Higher Ground to let him promote his ideas as well.”
Even I missed that ;D. That sure was nice of him to do that instead of just doing a Huckabee bash. What a sport and what a true capitalist! He’ll let you promote your ideas but you’ve got to pay
I’ll check back later to see if there is anything new that needs commented on!
Careful what you assume LP. The only two candidates I have said I will not support out of the GOP stable at this time are Paul and McCain.
I too think the original post was pretty good analytically address a major problem of all the GOP candidates (their liberalness).
No need for the hostility off the bat from someone who I think has already been beat up on enough except to say that he spends a lot of words trying to defend himself and hurling snarks at other people when he should be just admitting he acted like a bad boy from the start and stop getting all defensive when someone asks legitimate questions based on exact quotes from his own fingers.
Look at it this way Larry, I’ve seen them ban people for trolling for less than this and I’ll be honest at times it sure seems to me like you are trolling but at others it seems like you’re trying to be coherant. They must like you because they have kept your around.
To quote Mr. Jackson, “The constitution isn’t toilet paper. It should be treated with respect and upheld and promoted by people that truly believe in it. If you don’t or if you make excuses for those that do not do so are you really any better than they are?”
That was his response to the first email I ever wrote him taking issue with something he said with regards to Ron Paul. And he was right then and he is right now. It just took me a little while to see that.
Don’t get me wrong. I still support Ron Paul, but I call his office every day asking for a better explanation of some of the things he has done and let them know what I think.
Well, I don’t see him supporting Giuliani and he hasn’t had much flattering to say about Gingrich either.
It’s not like he made anything up in his original post. He accurately portrayed what Huckabee said he would do and pointed out how liberal it was.
Why would any conservative get upset about that? Aren’t we about the truth?
If we don’t spank the hand of the child reaching for a cookie that they have been told they aren’t allowed to have aren’t we just letting the child get away with disobeying a law that transcends their desires and wants?
It was right to spank Huckabee’s hand on this. It was wrong for anyone that claims to be a conservative to whine about it.
See, I keep telling everyone, just comment and the members come out of the woodwork to participate!
Hey, they’re on the list
Are you saying that Huckabee and Hunter shouldn’t be there too?
Huckabee sure has some problems to overcome. They all do. I guess it is too much to hope for that someone actually not just say they support the Constitution, but actually support it. I’m still searching for that candidate to vote for but know that they will not be in this election.
Libertarian Prince on September 4, 2007 6:21 pm:
Are you saying that Huckabee and Hunter shouldn’t be there too?”
“Hey, they’re on the list
I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m just telling you to be careful in what you assume
After reading all of the comments about my having “attacked” the author of the original post, I went back and read it andmy comment, again. “Attacking” was never my intent, nor what I went back and read. Perhaps kid-glove rhetoric is thought to be in order when addressing the high and exalted author of the piece. In that case, I apologize for not registering the obligatory curtsy in the presence of royalty, though through nearly 50 posts that I have read, overt gentility does not appear to be the prevailing standard for everyone.
And by the way, I am not defensive of my own personal image before a group of people that I don’t even know. I am defensive of the long-lost possibility of actually making progress in the right direction.
I cannot in good conscience retract my statements about how The Constitution has become a well worn federal doormat over many decades, meriting only a polite tip of the hat before it is shamelessly and incessantly raped. It shouldn’t have been, of course, but the bruised and battered woman is what we have lying on our doorstep, step over it and talk about abstract high ideals though we may.
I don’t want to just complain about it. I want to do something rash and ACTUALLY MAKE THE SOCIETY BETTER! If we could print and drop 300 million copies of The Constitution on the American public, I don’t think we would progress in the right direction without a leader of character and charisma. I believe that Mike Huckabee is that person who will lead in good conscience, even though I, myself, don’t always scrupulously agree with him.
“Careful what you assume LP. The only two candidates I have said I will not support out of the GOP stable at this time are Paul and McCain.” Interesting that you should mention those two when they are at polar opposites of the most highly discussed issue of the day. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are the ONLY Republican candidates that I would support.
While I believe his foreign policy talk is hasty and imprudent, I don’t think that Ron Paul would be derelict with the information that intelligence, military, and diplomats would hand him as resident. Beyond that important disagreement with Ron Paul, I probably agree with him more than most the rest of you, including not only his domestic constitutional scrupulosity, but his concern for a solid commodity-based currency. But none of that matters, because he will never be nominated.
So all of my chips are on Huckabee. Whatever abilities the others may or may not have, they are not qualified for the job description of POTUS. Even if someone LOVES me, I won’t hire them to operate on me without as knowledge of medicine.
Hey, though the threat of Islamic terrorists is a real violent ideological conflict, I said when Bush was securing approval from Congress that he should have gotten a constitutional declaration of war, which in the context at the time, I think he would have gotten. That would have made all the retrospective second-guessing a little trickier, wouldn’t it have?
Anyway, there have been 3 or 4 references to my “spin.” Are we not agreed that the ordinary use of the word “spin” in such a political context, refers to the effort to jade the evidence to mislead about the facts? If so, I plead innocence in the most emphatic way.
Someone please make a suggestion about how The United States government should deal with the mountains of activities and liabilities that it has taken on. I’m not interested in warring. I’m interested in constructive ideas. We could still discuss it over a beer and a cigar.
Anyone really think that if Huckabee had said he would veto such legislation that it would have helped him?
FYI, Larry has made it clear on his site that he supports Mike Huckabee. I didn’t read everything here and don’t know if he ever admitted that or not. But he is definitely partisan towards him in case you were wondering why he was so forceful in his defense of him.
Porter on September 4, 2007 8:30 pm:
“Anyone really think that if Huckabee had said he would veto such legislation that it would have helped him?”
Sure it would have. A point here and a point there. Conservatives like to hear how someone is going to get government off people’s backs and not pile on with unconstitutional regulations. Problem for Mr. Huckabee is, like he said, he did this while governor of Arkansas which means he would have had some ’splanin ta do!
“Anyone really think that if Huckabee had said he would veto such legislation that it would have helped him?”
“In case he never admitted it?”
Admitted it? I didn’t know that was a secret. I sometimes write about other things, but these days it is 90=% about the campaign. My site has Huckabee signs on it and is listed in the blogroll at the huckabee blog.And I did say that I support Huckabee. I’m not paid. It’s my conviction. And speaking of that…
“Anyone really think that if Huckabee had said he would veto such legislation that it would have helped him?”
I’ll say this: Most people earn the cynicism of political observers. But, Huckabee isn’t calculating. He’s dead serious, regardless of any calculation of whether it would help him or not. And, that’s what big reason I support him against all the posturers and contortionists.
Huckabee thinks that smokiong is one of the large contributors to the high cost of health care. As he says, smoking, overeatin/poor diet, and lack of exercise are the largest contributors to the chronic disease that is 80% of America’s health care cost, which is 17% of our Gross National Product.
So what, the libertarians say? It goes back to the idealismreality conflict that I was talking about. Ideally, it would be none of the government’s business. But, the cold fact of reality is that government has put itself on the hook for medical costs that our boy G.W. Bush saw fit to jack up in the biggest entitlement expansion in 40= years. Who’s not a conservative, again?
Given the liabilities that the government holds and the responsibility and latitude that the people have ceded to government, it’s only elementary prudence to put some focus on health up front, for the sake of both the well-being of the people and containment of the cost to which society is already committed.
By the way, on the issue of diet, for example Huckabee doesn’t propose regulating people or food suppliers. Rather, he encourages insurance carriers to incent consumers to make healthier choices. And in other placessuch as food stamps, another longstanding unconstitutional provision, he has advocated making them more valuable for healthy food choices and less valuable for dietary crap. In Arkansas, they developed a healthy food label for restaurant items that were more healthy. In schools, they did not take away the soda and junk food, but also offered healthier options in the vending machines.
We can say that doing such things is babying people. But people have acted like babies and they and the entire society along with them have paid the price.
One more time: Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can address the mountain of problems that government has made for itself, besides uselessly complaining about an intransigent reality? I wasn’t kidding about talking it over over a beer and cigar…maybe two, but that’ll do.
The problem for too many Republicans is that they are liberals willing to accept that they and government should be doing things that they are not allowed to do. Huckabee is no different and so are people that make excuses for him rather than telling him that he is wrong and to start acting like a conservative.
Huckabee lost points with the base on this, there is no doubt. He may have even doomed his candidacy in the long run because you simply do not screw with people’s private property rights including the rights of business owners to manage their property and contract freely with their employees.
Personally I think that people who claim to be conservative but make excuses for this sort of stuff and dismiss constitutional government as simply idealism are a huge part of the problem. As long as that is the attitude there never will be anything close to constitutional adherence in this country.
They are like the enabler that was described before with the kid reaching for the cookie.
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 11:58 pm:
“One more time: Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can address the mountain of problems that government has made for itself, besides uselessly complaining about an intransigent reality?”
This has already been stated MANY times here and elsewhere on this site. But I understand that you are not interested in hunting those things down so I will boil it down for you:
Stop making excuses for politicians that act counter to actual reality which is that the Constitution exists, it is the law of the land and it is to be followed.
That is the solution. Not excuse making. Not saying well, yeah, but. And definitely not denying what truly is reality.
It is abundantly clear from the responses in this thread who has made the most compelling argument for their case and who was just spinning their wheels.
Libertarian Prince on September 5, 2007 7:29 am:
“Stop making excuses for politicians that act counter to actual reality which is that the Constitution exists, it is the law of the land and it is to be followed.”
OOHRAH LP! OOHRAH!
Larry Perrault on September 4, 2007 7:29 pm:
“After reading all of the comments about my having “attacked” the author of the original post, I went back and read it andmy comment, again. “Attacking” was never my intent, nor what I went back and read. Perhaps kid-glove rhetoric is thought to be in order when addressing the high and exalted author of the piece. In that case, I apologize for not registering the obligatory curtsy in the presence of royalty, though through nearly 50 posts that I have read, overt gentility does not appear to be the prevailing standard for everyone.”
See Larry, this is why you are being treated the way you are being treated and why people see you in a negative light. People tell you how you come off and you just act like you are the victim. People tell you that you entered in attack mode and they are responding to you in kind telling you that they disagree with you and you act like a child by writing this sort of response.
I think the phrase “grow up” is appropriate.
Like I said in my previous comment. It is abundantly clear who has made a more compelling argument and who has not based on how the responses are falling. I simply think that perhaps you cannot handle that. You wouldn’t be the first.
There are reasons why so many people read this blog and why so many people comment here. Those reasons are that Jeff makes his case with facts. He cites the Constitution. He adheres to it. And that appeals to conservatives.
What does appeal to conservatives is excuse making and implying that reality is something other than it is.
STOP THE WHINING!
FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!
When you are a guest in someone’s house you treat them with some modicum of respect don’t you? You should do the same thing on websites. You enter into a conversation with a haphazard and loosely constructed what I suppose we are supposed to consider an argument and you get upset when people look at it? Don’t post if you don’t want to run the risk of having what you said challenged.
The people that are regular posters here are very smart people. They latch on to the weakness of any argument and deconstruct it faster than piranhas in the Amazon. If you can’t take that heat this kitchen isn’t for you.
But for those of us that can take it, it has made us all wiser because of it. We’ve all had things we’ve said taken apart and been tied to the whipping post when our pride and illogic has gotten in the way of reason.
The thing that Jeff, LP and even Ron are best at is boiling things down to the simplest answer available which leads to little room to wriggle and argue about something. I know some get upset by that because they are used to constructing long winded explanations for things. But it usually means that we get to the truth a lot faster.
TriggerMama on September 5, 2007 7:47 am:
“Don’t post if you don’t want to run the risk of having what you said challenged.”
And for the love of Pete, don’t post if you can’t handle having what you have said challenged.
TonyTMan, who was about as flaming a liberal as you could get, survived here for what? 5 years? He was always having what he said challenged. But he was able to take it and admit when he had lost an argument.
Now look at him. Several months ago he came out and renounced liberalism and is definitely getting more and more conservative every time I see him post.
I’ve said enough. Maybe if something new warrants a response I’ll give it, but as far as I am concerned atm I’m off to other threads since this issue is settled.
Trig, that’s good advice that everyone should follow. After all, it’s not like someone came here and said the sky was blue and everyone was telling him he was wrong. And it’s not like it takes a genius IQ to see the obvious failing of the idea that the Constitution is not reality, or is reality but not political reality, or whatever the flavor of justification is today and that if such reasoning were to be applied to the Constitution in order to justify or excuse a course of action or a candidate that we happened to support and their violation of said Constitution then why even have the Constitution right?
By that same thought process it would be easy enough to say that the Constitution is simply not political reality so can we really expect the government to uphold the rights to life, liberty, private property, to keep and bear arms, free speech, etc. and what the heck if those are violated. Who really cares because we simply cannot expect Constitutional government right? And when they are violated … well, that’s just “political reality”. OH WELL! Throw up you hands! Move on and live with it.
It’s a tacit support for tyranny.
Now of course people who promote such a theory will decry this obvious end game as just unrealistic but only because they don’t want to deal with the reality which they are trying to create and justify.
J.J. Jackson on September 5, 2007 9:22 am:
“it would be easy enough to say that the Constitution is simply not political reality so can we really expect the government to uphold the rights to life, liberty, private property, to keep and bear arms, free speech, etc. and what the heck if those are violated. Who really cares because we simply cannot expect Constitutional government right? And when they are violated … well, that’s just “political reality”. OH WELL! Throw up you hands! Move on and live with it.”
Hammer hits nail and seals coffin.
“Huckabee lost points with the base on this, there is no doubt. He may have even doomed his candidacy in the long run because you simply do not screw with people’s private property rights including the rights of business owners to manage their property and contract freely with their employees.
Personally I think that people who claim to be conservative but make excuses for this sort of stuff and dismiss constitutional government as simply idealism are a huge part of the problem. As long as that is the attitude there never will be anything close to constitutional adherence in this country.”
Starting with the end, I simply disagree with that. Practically speaking, I was just where you sound to be not very long ago. I was then challenged by those who plead that I was being impractical and we should pursue “incrementalism.” I still don’t agree with that. I’m not sure how you would put it but, I would agree that ideas become muddled they will fade in the public consciousness and not stand out as a distinct truth.
But I don’t entirely agree that we should be so ideological that we won’t wade into the muck to pull a vehicle out. Heck, how can I be part of the problem? If there were no problem, I wouldn’t be proposing one. I hope I’d be a lot closer to you in defending what oughtn’t be changed.
But the cold hard fact is that it HAS been changed, and I agree with you that it has been unconstitutionally changed, but it has been changed nevertheless: the country stands and sways under the burden of tons of unconstitutional actions and unconstitutionally established liabilities.
The only way to constitutionally undo those things would be to cancel al of those programs and activities, summarily fire all of those government employees, and dishonor all of those unconstitutionallt established commitments. When you get that accomplished, I’ll celebrate with you. But before I die, I want to try to address the personal and social problems that exist and move the vehicle toward getting out of the ditch.
As an analogy, imagine that you have a relative who has gotten buried in credit card debt. They shouldn’t have done that, true enough. But are you going to refuse to help them out of the situation because they shouldn’t have done that?..I think you want to get that person back to productivity and prudent conduct, but on the way there, someone has to feed them and keep them out of crime.
As for “you simply do not screw with people’s private property rights,” I would change it only slightl to, “you SHOULDN’T screw with peoples’ private property rights.” But, conservatives make a mistake when they confuse a moral “SHOULDN’T” with an empirical argument that makes it a scientific-sounding maxim about the behavior of free and indeterminate people.
People who, for example, run businesses in New York City have demonstrated that they will put up with a lot of crap for the opportunity to service a healthy consumption market. Conservatives predicted economic calamity when Clinton raised taxes, but calamity didn’t happen, though of course we can abstractly argue that things would have been better if he hadn’t.
I certainly agree that raising federal taxes to add more girth and private intrusion to a bloated and unproductive federal government is/was the WRONG thing to do. But, in a relatively free society, peoples’ economic activity will turn more on their perceptions about potential and direction than on any SPECIFIC government action.
Because conservatives predicted a calamity that didn’t happen, they opened themselves up for liberals to scorn their economics to the point that in subsequent years they nearly unashamedly and sometimes directly talked absurdly about Clinton taxing us into prosperity.
At bottom, good economics is an ethic about right and wrong, not a science about causes and effects, as though there are not other factors in play. Psychology is a most indeterminate (pseudo)science, because people are free and indeterminate. Economics multiplies psychology by millions. We should be satisfied with saying that unecessary compromises of freedom are wrong and imprudent, without the contemporary impulse to hinge moral truth on empirical data.
I still say that in the (not barely but extremely) unconstitutional state that America is in, it isn’t imprudent for government to try to moderate unhealth behavior when its constituents are on the hook to pay for health costs.
I’m definitely with the majority here. Lots of waffling on one side and hard truth on the other. I chose to side with hard truth, the constitution and what America is laid out to be rather than spin and excuse make.
If there were more truly principled conservatives like J.J., RRG, TM, PM, LP, etc the world would be a much better place by far. Too many other conservative sites only claim to be what these guys and gals really are.
My opinion.
It’s why I read this site daily. Because I know that there is sanity here and no punches pulled.
Huckabee kills his chances with talk like this. Candidates that are doing better in the polls could get away with it, maybe, but not him.
“If there were more truly principled conservatives like J.J., RRG, TM, PM, LP, etc the world would be a much better place by far.”
Yes it would, if there were. But the statement itself implies that therre aren’t.
If there were, I’d be one of them.
The people of Arkansas should have hanged the legislature and Huckabee when they pulled their smoking ban out of their butts.
As the Democrats move further towards being full fledged commies, the Republicans are drifting closer to socialism.
Last comment: I think you guys should enjoy your ideological backslapping circle, because I’d love to be wrong, but I can’t imagine how you are going to engage and animate the rest of the country and see one iotal of positive change in our sick culture in our lifetimes, or anyone else’s for that matter, built on your efforts.
I’m 50. My family is Republican from stem to stern and starboard to port, except for an in-law who was liberally baptized in college. I was a Republican activist and delegate to conventions. I left The Republican Party and the constitutional cluelessness of its lost leadership.
Being called the “L” word (liberal), before. That’s a new one. If I’m a liberal to you guys, you could have a national convention of like-minded people in a high-school basketball stadium. You know my name. You can look me up if you ever want to actually do the culture some good.
Larry Perrault on September 6, 2007 6:42 pm:
Last comment: I think you guys should enjoy your ideological backslapping circle..
I’m 50. ..
If I’m a liberal to you guys, you could have a national convention of like-minded people in a high-school basketball stadium. You know my name. You can look me up if you ever want to actually do the culture some good.”
If you’re 50 you are the most childish 50 year old I have ever met. My niece who is 10 is more mature than you.
Apparently the fact that people simply chose to stop responding to you after you schizophrenic why am I being attacked even though I attacked first, the constitution isn’t reality but ok maybe it is reality but not reality reality ramblings and that you are in the vast minority is something that you can’t deal with.
But then again you have your own pathetic little Mike Huckabee circle jerk of a blog to go back to and maybe find some people who will stroke your ego.
Dare I say you are EXACT problem with the Republican Party. Too many pussies, whims and whiners.
Let’s see if that was really your “last comment” or if you’ll see fit to be a liar too.
Libertarian Prince on September 6, 2007 7:54 pm:
“But then again you have your own pathetic little Mike Huckabee circle jerk of a blog to go back to and maybe find some people who will stroke your ego.”
PFFFFFTTTTTT! That’s coke going all over my keyboard.
ROFL!
“Dare I say you are EXACT problem with the Republican Party. Too many pussies, whims and whiners.”
Seriously.
Semper Fi LP! And Larry, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Apparently yet another bozo who is not capable of dealing with the fact that his candidate of choice is polling at under 5% and wondering why he can’t find vast support wherever he may roam.
There were what? Maybe 2 posters that supported this insanity or Mr. Huckabee out of the 77 comments which include multiples by Larry and others. So what there are about 50 unique posters?
Which puts Mr. Huckabee’s support at about 4% in this thread which LOW AND BEHOLD is about where he is polling in the real world! Math! It works!
Libertarian Prince on September 6, 2007 7:54 pm:
“But then again you have your own pathetic little Mike Huckabee circle jerk of a blog to go back to and maybe find some people who will stroke your ego.”
Does this mean it is safe to say you will not be voting for Mike Huckabee in the primaries?
RonniesRayGun on September 6, 2007 8:12 pm:
“Does this mean it is safe to say you will not be voting for Mike Huckabee in the primaries? ;)”
Not unless the only other choice was Ron Paul. And even then I would be tempted to vote for Paul.
I’d have to decide whether I cared more about smoking my cigars without NAZIs pounding on my door and arresting me for air pollution or terrorists islamoNAZIs blowing me up before I could smoke them because we let them grow like weeds around the world. I could shoot one just as easily as the other I suppose but then I don’t think the smoking NAZIs will come at me with nukes.
Be a tough call.
HA! You’re in rare form tonight LP!
Well, wife’s been out of town the past couple days and I’ve had to play wack-a-mole so I’m a little testy.
BTW watch for my new book: “One Liners, Slams and Put Downs For All Occasions” coming soon to a bookstore near you. It will be on the shelves right next to Jeff’s book “God, You REALLY FREAKING ANNOY ME (With All Your Incessant Liberal Whining)!!!”
Libertarian Prince on September 6, 2007 8:27 pm:
“Jeff’s book “God, You REALLY FREAKING ANNOY ME (With All Your Incessant Liberal Whining)!!!” :D”
Wait, did I miss something? Jeff wrote a book? And he hasn’t been shamelessly promoting it here?
ROFLMAO! He’s joking PM!
Although the title definitely does sound like something Jeff would write
Guys, and gals, can you get any more off topic?
LOL
Well I thought the same thing! I was just having a brain fart I guess!
J.J. Jackson on September 6, 2007 8:38 pm:
“Guys, and gals, can you get any more off topic?”
Sorry, he’s right. TO THE MESSAGE BOARDS WITH THIS!
“…you are in the vast minority is something that you can’t deal with.”
You’re partially right. I’ve been in a decide minority for years. I don’t agree with Republicans OR Democrats. But I’ve been outdone, here…I’M in a minority? What have you guys banished most of the country from citizenship? Alone in a phone-booth, I’m a 100% majority.
Can you “lie” retroactively?
You know, there are obviously some thoughtful people here, but my ego would be in sad shape if it relied on strokes from this sandbox.
Hey, Governor Huckabee held a blogger conference call today, and the smoking question from the Lance Armstrong cancer conference, which I had seen, was raised:
OneMom: There’s some concern about your statements regarding tobacco regulation from the Lance Armstrong forum. As a Public Health Professional, I fully support any and all tobacco regulation, but others felt your comments meant you would be building big government and forcing behavior on individuals. Could you clarify your views on tobacco regulation.
MH: Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a govt have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety … the same reason that the govt regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the work place. In AR I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not. So, in the work place, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. Even though I think it’s an unhealthy habit and is terribly expensive to the country, but when that smoke reaches my nose, that right ends. The responsibility initially lies with the states of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that roll as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety.
Larry Perrault on September 6, 2007 10:12 pm:
“Can you “lie” retroactively?”
That statement, like much of your idiotic ramblings makes no sense. It’s not a “retroactive” lie because you made a statement about your actions and then proved it to be wrong by continuing to post.
As for your “Look what Huckabee said” post, it’s basically the same argument that you tried earlier and got spanked to high Hell and back on. It’s a rehash of your the constitution exists but to Hell with following it when it interferes with something that you want so badly to happen argument.
You seem to have a mind stuck in first gear and stuck in the mud of your own vanity. Apparently it is time to have that fixed.
Then there is this babble:
“What have you guys banished most of the country from citizenship? Alone in a phone-booth, I’m a 100% majority.”
What? Who said we banished people from citizenship? Do you even think before you speak or does this stuff just ooze from every orifice of your body?
You are the King of rambling so far. Apparently you aren’t able to handle life outside of your “phone-booth”.
Libertarian Prince on September 7, 2007 7:16 am:
“That statement, like much of your idiotic ramblings makes no sense. It’s not a “retroactive” lie because you made a statement about your actions and then proved it to be wrong by continuing to post.”
Talk about yet another poor use of words by Larry.
retroactive: extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past;
However your statement clearly applies to a future time.
In order for your statement to have been considered a retroactive lie you would have had to somehow in a future post claim that you weren’t going to post again in a previous one. As is, LP is right.
The problem here seems to be that, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Larry I am probably more inclined to agree with Huckabee on the smoking thing and would have considered at least trying to jump in to defend that position as being the better one being more of a Hamiltonian when it comes to the Constitution. But you made it so difficult to be on your side with the way you have acted. So I decided to stay out. Beyond that issue and my beliefs however Jeff is ultimately correct.
The Constitution doesn’t give government the authority to interfere with contracts which would include workplace safety issues and are between employer and employee.
He’s just so damn good at framing the argument that even if you disagree with him you dare not do so because he’ll trap you.
Like the issue of smoking which I can tell you exactly how the trap works [taken directly from a previous go around we had except I have replaced the original argument with smoking]:
I say: “Yes the federal government should regulate smoking and workplace health standards.”
Jeff will respond: “Can you point out where in the Constitution, Congress has this power?”
I would say: “True, it doesn’t exist. But I believe in Hamilton’s broad definition of ‘general Welfare’.”
Jeff would come back with: “Who did the federalists, who supported the constitution, use to define what they meant by ‘general Welfare’?”
I would have to admit: “James Madison.”
At which point Jeff begins to tighten the trap with: “So it’s Madison’s definition that was used to promote support and ratification and without an amendment stating otherwise wouldn’t that still be the standard since only an amendment can modify the Constitution?”
At which point, if I believe in the Constitution, I am forced to concede: “Yes.”
Argument ends. There is nowhere else to go. The difference appears however that I can admit that I lost an argument. You don’t seem capable of that sort of humility.
I’m in the same boat as you I think Mac./ I kind of fall to the side of wanting smoking to be regulated but accept that is simply is not allowed and would have probably jumped in with Larry on this if only he hadn’t been so, what’s the word, “wacked” out from the start?
This seems a little bizarre to me. There seems to be a consensus about there being something wrong with the way I acted, which is remarkable when we aren’t even in a context where you can hear tone and see expression. Nevertheless, OK. I apologize if I sounded aggressive or whatever it was, even if I don’t know exactly what.
But this is what is bizaree: I NEVER was on the Hamilton side of the Federalism question. I NEVER believed in a broad interpretation of “the general welfare. I NEVER even said anyone was wrong about federal intrusion into private operations being unconstitutional. More than once, I said there was no constitutional license for it.
What I said was that The United States had left The Constitution in the dust, a long time ago. And what we have now is a government that barely has a sense of The Constitution. Hence, Ron Paul’s nickname: “Dr. No.”
And what that runaway federal government has become is one on the hook for many trillions of dollars of unconstitutional responsibility and liability, including many trillions in health care liability. What Huckabee desires is not to institute a smoking prohibition like the one we had on alcohol. What he wants is to discourage smoking, not only because it’s bad for YOU (not your soul like many thought with alcohol (again, I really do like a good cigar sometimes, as well as a drink). But much moreso because the society and the government must control impending costs of health care. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Isn’t that what you read? That’s what I was saying.
And by the way, other people are writing about this on the web. Search the web and search blogs on Google for “Huckabee smoking ban” or “Huckabee ban smoking”
Can we smoke peace pipe? I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t spinning. I was talking about a society that is in constitutionally critical consition.
Larry, I think you should take the fact that the powers that be didn’t ban you when in my mind there were times you deserved it and embrace it and don’t push it. It doesn’t of course mean that you will be in their good graces and that they will want to smoke a piece pipe with you and hug and kiss you, mind you.
Heh, I learned the hard way that you earn respect around here. It doesn’t mean always agreeing with people, but it means treating them with respect.
If they didn’t ban you after some of those trollish comments, they must have liked something about you so like GSM said, take that for what it is worth.
Once again boys and girls … off topic. Don’t make me lock the thread.