Huckabee’s Dissent over Evolution

During a debate recently, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee (along with two other Republican worthies, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback) said that he does not believe in evolution. The remark drew exclaim and criticism from many quarters. Many also asked whether a political figure’s personal views held any relevance to his perceived ability or competence to hold the office of the President of the United States.

So, should the personal views of a Presidential candidate hold any signifance for the electorate? Actually, yes. Huckabee’s views, even if they are ones that he holds on a topic that has no political bearing, are important.

This is so because evolution is a matter of science, and not of individual faith. The question of how life originated on Earth, and the process by which different life forms evolved, is as much the realm of science, as, say, the rationale behind how electricity works.

Accepted, the evolutionary theory is itself still ‘evolving’. In addition, it has its critics, even within the scientific world itself. Having said that, it remains the most plausible argument that has been put forward to explain the divergence of life on Earth, so what if not all the loose threads have been tied up yet.

Huckabee uses the argument of intelligent design to support his stand. However, the ’scientific’ theory of intelligent design is full of holes, and infinitely inferior to the evolution theory. In rejecting evolution in favor of intelligent design, Huckabee shows that he lacks a grasp of the essentials of objective reasoning—a lack that could be dangerous in a man running to be the next President of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney Changes Position on Gay Rights

Mitt Romney, the Republican president hopeful, was once a strong supporter of equal rights for gays. In 1994, during the Massachusetts Senate race, Mitt Romney’s views on gay equality ran left to those of his opponent, Democrat veteran Ted Kennedy. In 2006, Bay Windows, a Boston gay newspaper published excerpts from a letter then written by Romney to the Log Cabin Republicans, seeking support in the race against Kennedy. He wrote, “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” He went on to write, “My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.” Of course, Romney lost the round. However, it has to be pointed out that he fared better than most other candidates who had, in the past, contested against Kennedy. 

Following his failure, Romney continued to woo the homosexual and lesbian community. As recently as 2002, when he was vying for governor, he was at pains to declare his solidarity with the gay community. In 2002, he attended the Boston Gay Pride Parade, and along with his running mate Kerry Healey, distributed fliers, which said, “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend.” 

Subsequently however, Mitt Romney flip flopped and radically shifted from his position. He consistently opposed gay marriages and has become an outspoken defender of the institution of marriage, which he says, should be strictly defined as a union only between a man and a woman. Romney, in effect, simply used the gay issue in 1994 to project a reformist face—a strategy that, no doubt, helped him to become governor in 2002. Now, as a Presidential candidate, he has rejected this stand in favor of a more conservative right position that would ensure him his party’s nomination. It is however doubtful whether he will succeed in fooling the voters.

John McCain: About Turn on Ethanol

Republican candidate John McCain has done a volte-face—this time on ethanol. McCain has always made his opposition to ethanol clear. While campaigning in 1999 and 2000, his message was clear: ethanol is not worth it. During a republican debate in Iowa, a major corn growing state, he advocated doing away with subsidies for ethanol. “Ethanol subsidies should be phased out…we don’t need ethanol subsidies. It doesn’t help anybody.” In 2003, he went even further. “Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn’t create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it,” he said. “Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business—tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests—primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.” 

McCain’s voting record has also consistently reflected his views on the subject. In2003, McCain voted against the Energy Omnibus Bill. Later in 2005, he voted against the Environmental Effects Caused by Ethanol Amendment. He also voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Then, around 2006, he changed his stance completely. Speaking, again in Iowa, he enthusiastically supported the use for ethanol. “I support ethanol, he said, “and I think it is vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.” 

So far, while McCain has undoubtedly changed his tone, he has not backed it with any pledge for active support. However, the question arises, why this change of heart towards ethanol?

Huckabee and the Dumond Ghost

Former Arkansas governor, Republican Mike Huckabee’s campaign may be haunted by the ghost of rapist Wayne Dumond. While Dumond died in prison in 2005, Huckabee’s rivals are reviving the controversy surrounding the ’special’ efforts put in by Huckabee to grant parole for Dumond. 

Freeing Dumond was a mistake, as the rapist went on to rape and kill two other women in Northwest Arkansas and in West Missouri. Huckabee himself has however, denied responsibility for freeing Dumond. He has consistently underplayed his role in the affair, saying that the process of granting Dumond parole was started by his Democratic predecessors, namely Jim Tucker and Bill Clinton, and that he merely supported Dumond’s eligibility for being paroled. 

However, media reports, including a 2002 article by Murray Waas in the Arkansas Times suggest otherwise. According to them, Huckabee, along with his key aide, went out of their way to lobby Dumond’s case. Huckabee, it was alleged, was guilty of acting in a manner that deviated from accepted parole practice, including having an unrecorded closed-door meeting with the Post Prison Transfer Board, informally known as the parole board, to make Dumond’s release possible. Some former parole board members have corroborated the facts stated in these stories, for instance that the board. One of them, Deborah Springer Suttlar, observed that Huckabee’s appearance before the board was responsible for causing the voting amongst board members, which was against Dumond’s, to turn in favor of it. Questioning why this should have happened, Suttlar has been quoted as saying, “The board members knew the governor’s position. And Huckabee knows what influence a governor has over a board. Who’s going to turn down a governor?” Seems like Huckabee will have a lot of explaining to do if he is to retain his position in the race for presidentship.

Can Ron Paul Win the 2008 Elections?

According to online polls, Ron Paul’s popularity is on the rise. His supporters claim that Paul is a man of integrity who never votes to support legislation not authorized by the constitution. Paul is a maverick politician, whose beliefs and ideological stands are not always in line with those of his party, the GOP. He has, after all, opposed the Iraq war right from the beginning. He continues to press for bringing troops in Iraq—as also on other US military bases—safely home. He has also advocated abolishing the IRS and, getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

Paul is a libertarian, who has always supported political views based on his assessment of their merit, irrespective of which politician or political ‘camp’ they belong to. Thus, he has readily extended support to Democrat leaders such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John Edwards.

Opinions regarding Paul are divided. His radical views cause many to dismiss him as crazy and eccentric, as one who does not completely understand the ideas he proposes. Many Republicans have even questioned Paul’s decision to run in the elections, conceding that he is not likely to win the nomination for President.

At the same time, it cannot be disputed that Paul seems to be enjoying growing support. His campaign received 4.5 million dollars for campaign funds in a single day, which is a record. The fact is that many Americans, fed up with the Bush administration, are looking for something new. And Paul, seems to be hinging his hopes on this desire for change in the electorate. Already, support for his libertarian views and call for limiting government control over citizens’ lives is growing to assume an almost cult like status. As Paul himself has stated, “This is a revolution in America and the support is growing”. Whether this support will translate into the majority vote by 2008 still remains to be seen.

Huckabee Lies about Tax Hikes

Republican Mike Huckabee, who is running for President in 2008, has a bad record on taxes. Detractors claim that the former Governor of Arkansas may have increased more taxes during his ten-year tenure than Bill Clinton did earlier, when he held the office for twelve years. In fact, for sometime now, the Club for Growth has been running an advertisement campaign to raise awareness among the voters regarding Huckabee’s tax record.

The Democrat-Gazette wrote that the tax burden of the average Arkansan grew from $1,969 in 1997, to $2,902 in 2005. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration has confirmed a net tax increase of $505 million to adjust for inflation and economic growth, a result of legislation passed by Huckabee while he was Governor of Arkansas. This includes a hike in sales tax, as well as taxes on education, gas, nursing home beds, tourist entry to theme parks, cigarette papers, cigarettes, mixed drinks, snuff and other products and services.

Huckabee likes to shrug off tax hike allegations by insisting that he, in fact, cut taxes ninety times. However, as an article in the Democrat-Gazette mentions, these were mainly smaller reductions that did not amount to any overall significant cut on taxes. In this scenario, it is wondered how long Huckabee will be able to continue to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. Americans are not likely to go on swallowing his lies.

Hillary Clinton: Soft-pedaling Immigration

Hillary Clinton could be among the Democratic Party’s most likely candidates to win the 2008 elections. With a number of opinion polls released giving her top ratings—better in fact, than some of the other more senior, experienced candidates in the race—America may be on its way to having the first lady president sworn in, in her history.

Her supporters say Hillary Clinton has what it takes to win: she is smart, exercises discipline, and, as even her detractors agree, she is tough. These credentials are sure to endear her to voters, especially women, who comprise over 54 percent of the electorate, and help them put behind the unsavory memories of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and Travelgate.

What may run against Clinton is her own inability to be sure of what she wants. For instance, earlier in 2003, Clinton had made her strong stance against illegal immigrants public, saying, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants”. She had even suggested issuing national ID cards for citizens to counter the growing presence of illegal immigrants.

But since early 2006, it was a completely different story as Clinton pressed for citizenship for illegal immigrants in the country. She criticized the tough stand on immigration taken by certain Republicans, and their “one-sided solutions that simply sound tough”. Instead, she advocated, the government needed to create a path to help hard working immigrants earn citizenship. The problem is, that a candidate who is so unsure of her own mind, is not likely to instill much faith in the electorate.

Ron Paul Has Nothing for Climate Change

Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s stand on many issues deserves praise. There is his campaign against taxes; Paul stands for abolishing Income tax and doing away, completely, with the IRS and the federal reserve. Besides, he has always stood for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He opposed the war in Iraq, and has called for the total withdrawal of troops. Most important, he stands for the reducing the power of the government to control the lives of Americans.

However, perplexingly, the one crucial issue that Paul does not care to address at all is global warming. In fact, he has gone on record to say that he thinks the issue is “overblown”.

The issue of global warming and climate change is a contentious one. Most politicians talk about it but are inhibited when it comes to taking decisions, for fear of upsetting powerful stakes.

Even so—especially in this day and age—for a presidential candidate to completely reject the pressing need of tackling the issue is, quite simply, preposterous. “There are two sides of the (global warming) argument,” Paul maintains, indicating that he does not hold global warming deserves our immediate concern.

Responding to a question about the role of the federal government in controlling global warming, this is what Paul had to say, “Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China… so what are you going to do, invade China so they don’t pollute? He added, “We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming—by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.”

Fred Thompson’s Hesitancy over Right to Life

Fred Thompson, the Republican candidate running in the 2008 elections, has been endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee. This may seem surprising to those who have been following Thompson’s record on issues such as, abortion, the proposed human life amendment, or Terri Schiavo.

Though it has been claimed that Thompson has a 100 percent record when it comes to voting pro-life, it is only 86 percent in the 105th Congress. Then there is the ‘Meet the Press’ interview, in which Thompson’s response to Terri Schiavo and the right-to-life question sounded weak and unconvincing. As the facts of the case stood, Schiavo’s parents, who wanted to ensure that she continued to receive treatment and nutrition through the feeding tube, had sought congressional intervention towards that end. However, Thompson dismissed it as an end-of-life family matter.

Subsequently David N O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said that Thompson had later assured NRLC that he favored steps to ensure that a patient like Schiavo would legally have the right to receive treatment, food, and water. O’Steen said Thompson “believes that in cases where the patient wants treatment and the families want treatment, it should certainly be provided.”

There are other issues that seriously question Thompson’s allegiance to the cause of the right to live. For instance, his lobbying efforts in favor of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the deposed Haitian tyrant, responsible for ruthless murders and human rights abuse. Or his legal counsel in favor of the two Libyans charged with the Pan Am 103 bombing. Contradicting stands such as these will only serve to make voters wary of supporting Thompson’s candidacy.

Hillary Clinton shaky on Iraq

Will the 2008 presidential elections see Hillary Clinton being elected as the first lady President of the United States? Political watchers say they would not be surprised. She is, after all, an astute political player, has the charm, and, what’s more, enjoys considerable support amongst her Democratic base. 

The question is whether Hillary Clinton will win the votes. She has before her the task of convincing the electorate that she can offer the country a strong, focused, and consistent leadership. However, the complete volte-face that she has exhibited regarding her stand on the Iraq war could well prove to be a prickly hurdle in this attempt. 

In 2002, Clinton resolutely supported President Bush’s call for war on Iraq. About a year later (after allegations of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were proven false), Clinton still stood her ground, saying that America had “no option but to stay involved and committed”. 

By the end of 2005 however, Clinton started to change her tune on Iraq. Had she known what she knew today, she conceded, she would never have voted for war. Earlier this year, she criticized President Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq, saying “I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.” She displayed further uncertainty when, a day after she supported continued military presence in Iraq in an interview on June 19, 2007, she called for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Such uncertainty does not bode well for the likely future President of the United States.