Sophia: oh, yeah, this “pro-life liberal” thing has been going around for a while. It’s distressing on a couple of levels. First of all, as you note, it’s not true. He’s a social conservative and an economic moderate (by this country’s standards of economic moderate, anyway). Second of all, they’re slinging the phrase “pro-life liberal” around like it’s an insult. Some of us think that’s a pretty damn fine thing to be.

Jonathan: thanks for the comment. You bring up a lot of interesting points, and I hope to do a few posts on this subject.

A Democrat in the White House, with a Democratic Congress, allows the best chance for an overall pro-life atmosphere. The current “pro-life” politics is hostile to every aspect of life except for the unborn child. Under Democrats we will almost have a mirror image of that. Pro-choicers’ main argument is always, “If you were REALLY pro-life, you would be against capital punishment, against war, in favor of a social safety net for poor mothers . . .” Under a progressive Democratic administration, this argument would be de-fanged. I think many people who are leaning pro-choice can be persuaded to join us under those circumstances.

True, a Democrat in the White House in 2009 does not guarantee a progressive administration, but it’s always the “lesser of two evils”.

Not that I am being critical. For those of us supporting Consistent Life there is a lot to dislike and not much to praise in either party’s slate of options. Reading this blog tells me more who you wouldn’t vote for than who you would. I wish there were a Consistent Life Party, but until that happens it seems that we should still participate by voting.

I respect your opinion and would love to hear you endorse someone and explain your process at arriving at that choice from the values you discus here. Of course, I can also understand boycotting the Democrats and Republicans and hoping a 3rd party might produce a more acceptable choice, but that also is an interesting strategy that would make for interesting discussion.

You needed worry about those who visit this blog running like lemmings to vote for someone blindly just because you endorse them. You sort of have to be a free thinker to end up Consistent Life, or Pro-life Liberal, or whoever else frequents this blog. Since we’re all here a discussion of how to vote in an imperfect world could be quite constructive. (Either that or we should go ahead and start our own political party. It would have to start pretty small, but hey if that Huckabee can surge in American politics anybody can, right?)

Merry Christmas

Huckabee deserves neither of those complements.

He is anti-gay (and therefore most likely anti-GBLT altogether) therefore not liberal.

He is pro-death-penatly — therefore neither liberal nor consistent about being pro-life.

He is pro-Iraq-war — therefore neither liberal nor consistent about being pro-life.

And the list goes on and on.

The fact that your site has attracted a crazed right-wing hater is something that, I think, counts for progress.

And the fact that you’re responding to a post by an ACTUAL secular liberal saying, “Wow, I seriously disagree with him on all kinds of things” doesn’t shake up that view at all?

That said, his biggest problems are generated by his own policies. One in truth cannot fit water between his policies and those of secular liberals.

On the basis of both, or either, the questions we asked are both fair and logical. Indeed, it would be UNfair not to question him on both of these points.