Thursday, February 07, 2008

Now we have 3...

Mitt Romney just jumped ship on us...
So I am now 0-4 in my candidate selection.

Who's left?
John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
McCain has by far the most delegates, and will likely win the nomination.

I now find myself in the akward position of supporting Mike Huckabee. Since my 3 least favorite contenders are all that's left, Huckabee is the best of them, in my opinion.

More on that later.


Daweed said...

Was this sign from Arkansas?

BCBCFriend said...

Actually, there's 4, or perhaps 5. You could do an Ann Coulter and support HillBillary, depending on what happens in June. Stranger things have happened in American politics, but we're having to go back further and further to find them. Also, Republicans could end up with a brokered convention with Newt as the nominee. Keep an eye on the uncommitted delegates, and where (or if) Romney gives his endorsement to somebody in the weeks ahead.

Gino said...

Ron Paul.
the only true conservative in the race has not dropped out.
he's more like reagan than any of these pretenders out there.

he has never wavered on pro-life, gay marriage,property rights, conservative judges, or border security. he's served in the military for over 20yrs.
and if you are sick and suffering from chemotherapy, he wont send the cops into your home to steal your medicine.

Jeana said...

Ya know, PB, I saw Romney's dropping from the race as gaining your support for Paul. Instead you support Huckabee! This disappointment has put me in a really foul mood. You certainly ought to be glad that I don't know you personally, 'cause if I did I would be on the way to "re-educate" you! ;P

However, I have done some thinking I have decided to grant you one point. If, by any chance, Paul should allow your previous favorite (Romney) to run with him as VP, I will still vote for him. For your sake. :D

Gino said...

and the huckster isnt even a conservative.
he's a jesus-winger.
he want to use the govt to do what he thinks the bible says.

and has already said he wanted to change the constitution to reflect the bible.
no thanks.

i'll take up arms first.
jihad is jihad, ragardless of who is doing it. some jihad with bombs. others use democracy.
i'll fight them both.

Palm boy said...

David... nope. :D

Jim, I'm not really interested in telling my kids I voted to put a Clinton in the White House. :D
Still think a brokered convention is possible?

Ron Paul is farther from Reagan on 1 issue then any other canididate in the race. Simple isolationism is a terrible policy, and I cannot support Ron Paul because of that stance.
The rest of the issues pale in comparison if the rest of the world turns into absolute darkness while we busily engage ourselves in ignoring the threats surrounding us.

Jeana... you gotta be kidding me. As much as I don't like Huckabee, he has always been preferable to Ron Paul for me.
Hey, sorry about your mood... but I'm glad we're no where near each other, because your correction sounds mildly painful.
Romney as a VP for Paul? haha... :D

Gino... thats why I am only begrudgingly supporting Huckabee. He's a far cry better then the liberal maverick Mr. McCain.

Kingdom Advancer said...


"I will stop Islamic jihad! And I will stop people from protecting innocent, vulnerable babies!"

That's basically what you said. What an impartial hero you are. Or,

"I will stop the advancement of Islam by the sword and the institution of Shariah law! And I will keep the people of the United States from making a democratic decision to protect a God-ordained, nature-confirmed, and tradition-upheld institution!"

That doesn't sound too rational to me. It sounds too much like Rosie O'Donnell.

It's amazing that, when somebody wants to dislike a certain candidate, they will take one statement by that candidate way out of context and run a marathon with it.

Tamar said...

I'm surprised Romney quit so easily. Thought he had a final push left in him.
Kudos to Huckabee for resilience--never had the funds of Romney, and he's still in.

under_the_mercy said...

Palm boy:

Your consistant use of the term "isolationism" as opposed to "non-interventialism" suggests the possibility that you may have heard the straw man arguments presented against foreign intervention. If you haven't heard a comprehensive argument for non-interventionalism, I highely suggest one. I believe the topic warrents more than just a cursory examination.

Our founding fathers also held to a non-interventionalist foreign policy, George Washington's final address comes quickly to mind.

Gino said...

under the mercy beat me to it.

to call a non-intervetionist an isolationist is akin to saying you want to bring back slavery because you oppose minority set-aside programs.
its dishonest.
its a straw man.
and its a lie.

non-intervetion used to be the default position of the GOP, until 1988. and it was held sacred right up through the cold war.

what the GOP is doing now, foriegn policy wise, was actually a democrat policy dating back to wilson, to justify getting us involved in WWI.

kingdom advancer: what the hell are you talking about?
many here dont know me, but i got more real-life, blood sweat and tears 'cred' when it comes to protecting the unborn than you will ever know.
i've done things, seen things, snd suffered things i dont talk about in detail. why? cause it was never about me. it's about the babies.
and i didnt need any bible to tell me that. pro-life is NOT a christian issue, and i wasnt a christian for most of my activities.
besides, the bible is woefully inadequate to provide a logical reasoning for opposing abortion.

Palm boy said...

KA, I'm a bit confused by your last comment. I'm almost tempted to think someone else used your account, 'cause it seems very out of character for you.

Tamar, thanks for being here.
I certainaly thought Romney had more fight left in him, and I didn't think Huckabee had this much. So far, we're on the same page. :D

The world we live in is a vastly different one from that in which this nation was founded upon.
One simple reason: Transportation
From the time of Moses, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Vikings, Columbus & Cortez, even through the founding of this nation, the rate of travel by human beings was largely the same. Sure, you could ride a fast horse. But most horses are the same. Sure, you could sail. But wind only takes you so far.
From the time of Andrew Jackson until the present, our world has experienced an unprecedented change in travel. The Steam engine altered the face of the east and the missisipi, the Locomotive helped claw living spaces out of the West, steam-powered ships began to span the globe at unheralded speeds, and with the development of airplane and automobiles, we can cross the globe faster then anyone 300 years ago could fathom.
But you already know all of that.

So how does it affect our forign policy? Things change, and they can change fast. The reason the British Empire was as successful as it was for two centuries was because of it's navy, and the ability to project it's power quickly and decisively where it was needed.
While the US does not have colonies or much of the sort, there are reasons to have a presence in world affairs. National security, US economic interests, trade, and supporting our allies.
If the free nations of the world do nothing, then what will become of the world?

Gino, World War I was as bad as it was when we entered because we stayed out of it for so long. If we just watch our allies wither away in wars, how many allies will we have left? And the Great War did indeed break the backs of the British and French empires, leaving they're colonial system in shambles.
Likewise, World War II became as bad as it did because we did not enforce the Treaty of Versalies, and stayed out of the war for years.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I didn't mean to blow up, Gino and Palm Boy. My point was this:

Huckabee's comment about the Constitution and the Bible was in the context of marriage and abortion. Gino equated that to Islamic Jihad, said that he'd "take up arms first," and that "jihad is jihad, regardless of who is doing it." I took serious offense to that.

I just don't like when people take comments out of context, and use that as an excuse to oppose a candidate. A site called "" downgraded Huckabee because, when asked what he'd follow first as president, his faith or the Constitution, Huckabee said that the Constitution comes first. Well, that's a loaded question and you have to look at that answer in context, too.

And, although I would agree that you don't have to be a Christian to see the logic of the pro-life movement and the absurdity and brutality of abortion, ultimately, if there is no God, we have no intrinsic duties to our fellow man and no foundation of absolute moral truth.

Again, though, I apologize: I shouldn't have allowed my emotions to become so intense. I let them skew my comment. You've seen this once before, Palm Boy, during an immigration debate, when I first started visiting PBI. When I harness the passion, it's for good, but otherwise, I can do damage with it.

under_the_mercy said...

Palm boy:

Non-interventionalism, staying out of other people's lives is a principle. The way we act on this principle is termed policy. Policies change to fit the time and circumstances, principles does not.

I believe this is the second time you have mentioned the evolution of transportation to be the defining factor against non-interventionalism, but I still see no explanation as to how exactly a fast paced world changes this principle. Could you please explain?

The U.S. does not have colonies or much of the sort???

Our colonies include: Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific. We have military bases in: Germany, Greenland, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, The Netherlands, Panama, The Philippines, The British Indian Ocean Territory, Cuba, and Spain. How many foreign countries have military bases in the U.S.? How would you react to such a proposition?

I have posted a list of American foreign intervention involving the deployment of military personal on my site at "" please take a look at it and notice the trend of American citizens or companies going to other countries at their own discretion, getting in trouble, and our military saving them. Is there any way you can say that our involvement is not excessive to the extreme?

You seem to believe that the freedom of the rest of the world is the responsibility of the American government. There is absolutely not constitutional basis for anything of the sort. The individual can campaign for such if they so desire but who is the American government to use my tax dollars toward such an end.

Concerning Allies, America is the only super power in the world, we do not need allies to defend ourselves. The only use we have for allies is offensive moves. If we had enforced the Treaty of Versailles then Germany would still be nowhere near a recovered state. The treaty took 13% of Germany’s national territory, all of its overseas colonies, 12.5% of its population, 16% of its coalfields, half its iron and steel industry, 10% of its total industry, and 15% of its agricultural land. They were prohibited from manufacturing, importing or exporting any weapons, possessing tanks, military aircraft or artillery, and were required to accept full responsibility for the war and pay for all damages. That treaty was a major slap in the face and actually was a big contributor to the cause of WWII.

Palm boy said...

Policies change frequently, to match the changing demands of a changing world.
Principles change too. For thousands of years, it was good principle to believe man could not fly. Then suddenly, things changed, and man could fly.
Old principles that fail in the face of the current reality are harmful and less then useless.
Believing that if/when we withdraw from the rest of the world things will continue on their present peaceful course, or the global US situation will even improve is absurd.

Puerto Rico is not a US colony, it is a self governing protectorate of the United States, similar to Nebraska or California before they became states.
American Samoa is different, in that it's members are not automatically citizens, and do not have a congressional representative. This could be viewed as a colony.
Virgin Islands are also a US territory, whose members are US citizens and enjoy a representative in the US House.
Guam is mainly a military installation, and it's members are likewise US citizens. This could be viewed as a colony, but it is a very liberal usage of the word.
CNMI is a self governing commonwealth with US citizenry. Again, with a very loose usage of colony, it could be deemed a US colony.

Military bases in other countries:
Most of the base's in europe, we've earned by right of conquest. If we had chosen to at the end of WWII, we could have held onto most of europe. Rather then that, we gave the land back, and asked for a small portion in return.
With that portion, what did we do? Defended the free nations of europe from the Soviet Union, and kept the Cold War from becoming hot.

Cuba and Spain? We beat them in a war around the turn of the previous century, and gave very generous terms of peace.

I looked at the list. I can't agree with you. Our involvement in many of those cases were justified.
I would also argue that we did not do enough to stop evil before it became powerful. The Treaty of Versallies you present is a wonderful example of where our enforcement of treaties fell woefully short, to the point of disaster.
Likewise, as the free people of China were being over run and Japan strengthening itself into an empire with clearly hostile intentions, we stood and watched complacently.

I do not believe the freedom of the rest of the world is the responsiblity of the US. Our interests lie first with ourselves, second with our Allies, and third with the rest of the world.
Simply put, free nations do not fight each other. Our electorates simply will not allow it.
Tyrannical nations do fight with each other, and with free nations. This is not limited to open war, our world is not so clean, cut, and dry as that. Covert operations and terrorist support can do damage as well, often times with less cost.

America is the super power of the world.
Yet, how was the second world war won? Was it the military might of the United States that held the german dogs at bay in 1939? No.
It was other free nations fighting military aggression, while we sat complacent and isolated ourselves from the world.

I thought it was pretty clear how transportation affected our forign policy.
No longer are we protected simply by the vast expanse of ocean bordering us. We won the revolutionary war because the British Empire had such a difficult time communicating, resupplying, and reinforcing it's army due to the months long voyage crossing the atlantic.
It doesn't work that way anymore. Communications are instantaneous, ship travel is far quicker, air travel even more so. This is a different age we find ourselves in.
When the country was founded, europe could embroil itself in wars and it would not affect us, (Although, not the war Jefferson waged against the Barbary pirates).
That reality ended when World War I began. No longer could a war be limited to the continent of europe, it spread throughout the world.

under_the_mercy said...

Man cannot fly is a principle??? Principles are values, rules of conduct, morals, fundamental doctrines...whether or not man can fly has absolutely no relation. I don't really even know where to begin with that statement.

The "colonies" that I mentioned are all U.S. territories whose inhabitants do, in fact, enjoy American citizenship (with the exception of Samoa).

Your use of the phrase "earned by right of conquest" is rather interesting; do you attribute the same moral "right of conquest" to Germany? And if the “right of conquest” exists, then why did we have to protect other “free” nations from the Soviet Union? Furthermore, we don’t exactly have a history of protecting these “free” countries. We have had wars with India, Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and Finland, all of which have functioning democracies. What do countries do with military bases abroad, they further their own interests at the expense of others. The idea that we are all over the world to protect non-American freedom is na├»ve in the extreme.

Free Nations do not fight each other? That statement is only true if you recognize only a couple of proper “free” nations, in which case the statement is not in the least impressive. There are plenty of dictatorships that have never fought each other. Assuming a normal definition of the word “democracy” the following is a list of the major exceptions to your rule.
1. Greek Wars, 5th and 4th Centuries BCE
o Democracies: City-states such as Athens, Syracuse et. al.
2. Punic Wars, 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE
o Democracies: Rome vs. Carthage.
3. American Revolution, 1775-1783
o Democracies: United States vs. Great Britain
4. American Indian Wars, 1776-1890
o Democracies: United States vs. various Native American Indian tribes.
5. French Revolutionary Wars, 1793-1799
o Democracies: France vs. Great Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands
6. Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
o Democracies: United States vs. France
7. Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
o Democracies: United States vs. Great Britain
8. Franco-Roman War, 1849
o Democracies: France vs. the Roman Republic.
9. American Civil War, 1861-65
o Democracies: United States vs. Confederate States
10. Occupation of Veracruz, 1861-62
o Democracies: Great Britain vs. Mexico
11. Spanish-American War, 1898
o Democracies: United States vs. Spain
12. Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1901
o Democracies: Great Britain vs. Transvaal and the Orange Free State
13. First World War, 1914-18
o Democracies: France, Belgium, Great Britain, the USA, et. al. vs. Germany.
14. Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923
o Democracies: France vs. Germany.
15. Second World War, 1940-45
o Democracies: Great Britain, United States, et al. vs. Finland.
16. First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49
o Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
17. Iran, Guatemala and Chile, 1953, 1954 and 1973 respectively.
o Democracies: United-States-backed coups in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.
18. Lebanese Civil War, 1978, 1982
o Democracies: Israel vs. Lebanon.
19. Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
o Democracies: Croatia vs. Yugoslavia.
20. Border War, 1995
o Democracies: Ecuador vs. Peru.
21. Kosovo War, 1999
o Democracies: The countries of NATO vs. Yugoslavia.
22. Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
o Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
23. Israel-Lebanon War 2006
o Democracies: Israel vs. Lebanon

Please understand that there is a drastic difference between isolationism and non-interventionalism. The term isolationism actually refers the combined philosophy of non-interventionalism and protectionism (the idea that there should be legal boundaries to control trade and cultural exchange with other countries). I am personally a proponent of unrestricted free trade, but this does not prevent me being a non-interventionalist.
Again I stand by my statement: principles themselves do not change, only the mode of their application. Europe can still embroil itself in wars and we need not be involved. The only thing we have to watch is that we avoid taking sides while still holding a formally neutral stance. The German attacks on our ships were actually fully legal actions by international law. Ever wonder why the Lusitania blew up when it was torpedoed, because it was filled with 5,500 cases of ammunition for Great Britain. Economically, we were in the war almost from its start. Seriously, no country in its right mind would attack the U.S. without extreme provocation. We took out the Iraqi army in three hours.