Huntsman to Drop Out of GOP Race, Endorse Romney
**Written by Doug Powers
What’s Mandarin for “I’m dropping out”? We’ll probably find out tomorrow:
Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican presidential race on Monday, a campaign spokesman told ABC News.
Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller said the former ambassador to China was “proud of the race that he ran” but “did not want to stand in the way” of rival Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the nomination.
Huntsman plans to endorse Romney at an 11 a.m. press conference Monday in Myrtle Beach.
Things were looking beyond grim for Huntsman in South Carolina and Florida while Newt’s been closing the gap somewhat on Romney. So, if you’re Romney, why not promise Huntsman a China ambassadorship (yet again) or maybe a post as Harley Czar in order to get his five percent and stretch the margin a little?
The editorial board of the South Carolina paper The State would have liked to have had this information before they published their Huntsman endorsement this morning.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
A 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Elizabeth Warren touted Cherokee heritage in 1984 collection of recipes
May 17, 2012 10:26 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
Because his father is too old to be president.
On January 16th, 2012 at 1:15 pm, Ilovemytapeworm said:
Are you that stupid?
Point one:
Who was president and showed the Dali Lama out of the White house via the Back door with the trash?
Hint: He is a Sock Puppet
Second Point:
You really should learn what MLK’s Niece has to say
Third point: If MLK were alive today and looking at the state Of African Americans today – he would not be part of the Dirty Democrat machine that keeps African Americans on the Demorat Plantation.
Fourth point:
What do you think of African Americans that are Conservative? I bet that Liberal Racist gene will pop out in full glory but then, most if not all Liverals are Racists anyway.
Reagan put a not-very-promising but liberal Republican in the VP slot to unify the party – as, I think, is usually the case. On the other hand, the VP slot gives those “untried but promising conservatives” a lot of media exposure. That can work out very well as a means of ascertaining their potential – exposing the absolute silliness of a Biden, for example. I’d be very pleased to see Rand Paul, or any of a number of other up-and-coming conservatives, in such a high-profile spot.
We need him where he is, supported by more conservatives and fewer Dems and RINOs. We’re doing our part here, where Ted Cruz will be replacing KBH.
In a word….yes.
If Ron Paul did win the nomination, I now believe he would defeat Obama easily. This would be a sea change in American politics and would go a long way to establishing the change implied by Phil’s great quote of Friedman. Generations of rot could actually be reversed.
Levin’s new book on “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America” is a must read and a great primer (along with Liberty and Tyrranny”) for all students of America and freedom.
This is not just another business as usual political cycle. This is literally for the preservation of the Republic. Obama and the Democrats must go, for good.
I just think it’s funny that your party is clearly hostile towards people of color, yet you try to convince yourselves that MLK would be a republican.
What do you think he would say about the Arizona immigration policy where they police can ask for your birth certificate if they think you’re not American?
When your commentators like Ann Coulter say “our blacks are better than their blacks” – how do you think MLK would react to a comment like that?
Ageism is the new racism!
On true at all. The Democrats have used the been playing the victim and race vote for some 60 years. What good has it done the black people who keep voting for them? They are being used. What conservatives do is say that race is not important. Look are black tea partiers are so well received. They are one of us. But Democrats divide America. They depend on victim hood to justify big government. But it is only to increase their own power. Never is it meant to actually improve the lot of people at all. I say this as I have an inter-racial marriage.
He would agree. I’ll bet he would take our Lee Elder, William Weeks, or Michale Massie over your Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan any day of the week.
Look, age gets to us all eventually. It is not a disgrace. Don’t cling to victimhood just like the Democrats. When Ron Paul said that Bachmann hated Muslims, he lost me.
Mister P, you’re wasting your time. ILMC is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. (Rush-ism).
Michale = Michael (slap!)
I doubt that he would approve of blacks being held slaves by the liberal welfare state. In fact, he didn’t approve of it. That’s why he was a Republican.
I don’t know, but he probably wouldn’t be in favor of Mexicans and OTMs taking jobs that would otherwise be going to blacks and other domestic minorities.
Probably the same way most of this board does – Ann Coulter has little to no credibility here. She’s free to express her opinion, but that doesn’t make it our opinion. On the other hand, conservative blacks are definitely better than liberal blacks for the same reason that conservative whites are better than liberal whites. It isn’t a matter of race, it’s a matter of ideology.
I am tired of trolls who hijack a thread just for the sake of stirring the pot. I hate trolls. PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
***
HI I_LOVE_MY_COUNTRY–#106. Dust off your American History book–if you ever had one. No need to wonder if the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been a Republican–he was! He would have received a rope necktie from his local democratic party.
***
The 1800′s to 1990′s “democratic” party was the party of slavery, the party of Ku Klux Klan enabling and members, and the ruling party in the Jim Crow era Deep South. They fought all efforts to give disenfranchised Black and other minority people the rights to vote, eat in any public place, ride, work, live, marry, etc. just like White People did.
***
It was republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) who ordered our Military to protect and escort Black students into the segregated high schools long ago. With bayonets, rifles, and machine guns. These Black Students rights were guaranteed by republicans and soldiers of all races. Despite the racist democratic governments of the time.
***
Wake up and smell the coffee, clown!
***
John Bibb
***
Bain owns Clear Channel.
Interesting.
Romkneejerk: I’m the bains in this outfit, and don’t you forget it!
Now, why don’t the rest of the field drop out as well so we can have a clean slate of contenders. Voting the lesser of the evils has morphed into sifting through the morally bankrupt, partially corrupt and hopelessly clueless to run against the most Anti-American piece of $@%*# on the planet.
I normally do not comment directly to ILMC, since ILMC is a bigot. But in this case since he threw up a hanging curveball, how can I resist.
First it is obvious you were not of age when MLK was alive. So you are at a disadvantage, becasue the Left has totally distorted MLK’s legacy for their own Marxist purposes.
Conservatism and MLK’s philosophy are totally in lockstep, because MLK was a Christian. There is no group salvation in Christianity. Salvation is an individual thing. It comes from an individual relationship with God. Christ is your personal Savior.
Conservatism is similarly focused on the individual. The focus is on individual initative, and fredom and the application of those within a framework of individual responsibility.
MLK would find the following comment repugnant:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.
That statement is utterly un-Christian. It’s Marxist; it’s black liberation theology.
ILMC, MLK’s worldview and the worldview of conservatism’s is the same. An individual is a creation of God, unique, and prescious in his sight. Every soul is worth saving. In the Marxist world there are expendable people;
ILMC, don’t be lazy intellectually. Don’t listen to what the Marxists say about Dr. King. Study his life, read, his speeches, study his writings. Then you will truly understand MLK’s legacy.
P.S. On F & F this morning King’s niece said if he were alive today, Dr. King would be a pro-Life social conservative. oooops!
You really need to get out of the basement….here’s a video, since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem, amongst others, but maybe another time.
Video: MLK niece says her uncle would have been a pro-life social conservative today
That is one of the ways in which the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr challenges us. How do we see “the Dream” today, and how can we best ensure that people will be valued not for the color of their skin but for the content of their character? How do we value them at all if we throw away millions of Americans before they even have a chance to enter our world simply for being inconvenient?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/16/video-mlk-niece-says-her-uncle-would-have-been-a-pro-life-social-conservative-today/comment-page-1/#comments
Well said Fly.
Even ILMC’s.
Especially ILMC. To the Marxists you are a useful tool, until such time you are no longer useful or an inconvenience. Take abortion for instance.
Yeah. I’m really going to rely on the John Birch Society for political news.
IMLC: Flyoverman has put it in the best possible words.
The problem you’re having is still seeing folks in groups and not individuals.
If you have been reading, conservatives are different. One person wants Paul another wants Santorum and others want someone else. The reason, everyone is an individual and sees things differently.
When you see folks as individuals, instead of belonging to a “group”, then you’re on your way to examining your life. Much more to it than that but it’s a starting point.
What do you have against the Birch society. As far as I can see the predictions they made in 1970 is spot on.
Wow – if this was a class it would be called Tortured Logic 101.
Thanks Conservatives, I knew you wouldn’t let me down.
Tortured Logic 101. My guess is that must be an Alinsky class taught by Obama.
No. McCain wasn’t conservative.
He probably would have found BHO’s character lacking as well. Would have really tested his committment
Flyoverman #118,
I just love that ! VERY well said !
He certainly would not have been for Obama. Obama is a Democratic Machine product who maintain the status quo in Chicago keeping blacks in ghettos. Take a walk down 63rd street if you don’t believe me. King understood that race cards needed to be destroyed not used to harness votes.
Well done.
Racist conservatives? Don’t think so. I still like Herman Cain’s message;
Allen West (no one is perfect), Condi Rice, JC Watts come to mind. Libs are the ones who do the name-calling if the candidates don’t toe the DemocRat party line.
Attention, everybody:
Some people are beyond redemption. It doesn’t matter how many good points Flyoverman, txvet2, rocketman or anyone else makes. ILMC is so stupid, so closed minded, so wrapped in his hateful ideology, that NOTHING you say to him penetrates. It’s as simple as that. You’re dealing with a brainwashed fanatic. Don’t waste your time anymore.
ch #131,
Yes Dear !
So! Looks like it’s time for the corrupt GOP establishment to follow the advice of Sarah Palin and Jim Demint and start listening to Ron Paul people. That poll says that we are looking at a three-man race between Obama, Romney and Paul.
It’s like Donald Trump says, the GOP cannot win this year with a 3rd party challenge but the right 3rd party candidate could win the election.
(Hey! Look at that! I mentioned Paul, Trump, Palin, Romney and Obama in one post! Must be confusing those of you who confuse mentioning someone as an outright endorsement.)
Looking forward to your expounding on why my post was tortured logic.
Your serve.
conservative hispanic,
Pardon my edit.
Phil…I am not confused about you at all. You are a fanatic who drones on and on ad nauseum without saying anything new. Your posts are all repeats of each other. And you never come up with tangible, REALISTIC solutions. So why should anyone listen to you?? Don’t bother answering that, as I’m not interested in another rant from you.
I am ready for some creative name-calling now. Bring it on.
Apparently you don’t grasp the concept of “I never read Pasadena Phil’s comments any more”. Duh! Yes you do! Stop it! Skip over my comments already! I really don’t care what you think! I really don’t!
Happy, as a life long Packer fan on the day after I offer myself up for any creative abuse you might wish to vent.
We Giants fans aren’t like that. We’re always humble about big wins because after decades of experience, we know that next week the roof will fall in.
That’s all you’ve got? You’re losing your edge. If I happen to have a few spare moments, I read your posts, just out of curiosity to see if you might actually have something new to say. So far…nothing. But I will check back occasionally. Maybe you will surprise us.
Tell me about it. I am a Vikings fan. We lost 4 Super Bowls. And OUR roof did fall in, literally!
Sorry bout that.
I’m a Bears fan living in Texas (Yes, I voted with my feet) and my wife and I were both pulling for the Pack. They had a great year, nevertheless.
“You people” think you have it bad. I’m a Bung… Bengal fan. I read where we couldn’t fill the stadium.
Try having Mikey ‘Boy’ Brown as your owner.
I’m an independent because neither party has represented my beliefs or core values. Politicians say what will get them elected and then do what is in their self interest. Those who can’t make up their minds are the undecided, not independents.
I’m not defending the provocative context of ILMC’s posts, but one would have to be willfully ignorant, if not delusional, to think that MLK wouldn’t support Obama as opposed to the modern GOP.
Facts:
-You must concede that MLK was regarded as such a leftest, the FBI kept tabs on him as a likely communist sympathizer.
-MLK wanted to infringe on state’s rights with federal government
intervention. What’s republican about that?
-MLK was a clearly a pacifist, who strongly opposed the Vietman War, and there’s no reason to opine that he’s support the Iraq War, or most any war. His claim to fame was Gandhi-like pacifism. What’s republican about that?
-As you’re aware there are prolife Democrats, just as there are pro-choice republicans.
-MLK was in favor of the agenda that subsequently became the “Great Society”. What’s “republican” about the Great Society?
-Countless black Americans switched to the Democratic Party in the late 60′s and never looked back.
-MLK voted for Kennedy over Nixon, and regardless of how “moderate” Kennedy was, he was clearly to the left of Nixon.
-There’s no reason to opine that Kennedy would have supported Nixon over Bobby Kennedy, assuming both had lived. This isn’t even debateable, and the 1968 version of Bobby Kennedy was clearly a Leftest–clearly–compared to Nixon.
-MLK was close friend with noted communist sympathizer, Harry Belafonte, Jr.
-This isn’t worth mentioning, but clearly the fact that Sharpton and Jackson are race-baiters, and MLK may reject them, it doesn’t mean anything regarding being a Democrat. There are Democrats today, black, brown, white and yellow, who reject the tactics of Jackson. Hell, Obama distanced himself from Jackson and Sharpton.
-MLK WAS STAUNCHLY PRO-UNION, AND WAS PLANNING TO PROTEST IN FAVOR OF A UNION, ON THE DAY OF HIS MURDER. What’s republican bout that?
I simply think the evidence is overwhelming that MLK has more in common with the modern Democratic Party, than the modern Republican Party.
This pro-union, state’s rights infringing upon, pacifist, has little in common with the Republican Party.
With all do respect, this isn’t even a close call. Try to refute each point I made, one by one.
Look, most everybody luvs MLK and wants to “claim” him. But, this isn’t even a close call. If MLK were alive today, there’s nothing to support the fact that he’d be a Republican or Conservative. He’d be a “rich man’s” John Lewis. With all do respect, the facts in favor of my position are clear and overwhelming. You’d be better off being honest like Highriam, and admit that MLK was likely close to being a commie.
The problem that many of you are having, is conceding that a GREAT MAN, was a leftest. Get out of your ideological box, and just concede that one can be a
goodgreat human being, and be a leftest.Happy MLK Day.
Wow, Huntsman was one of the sane ones left that could have actually defeated Obama as his fiscal conservatism as based on his actual governing record are impeccable. However, when the base you’re vying for wants to scrape the bottom of the barrel, what can you do?
I’m not defending the provocative context of ILMC’s posts, but one would have to be willfully ignorant, if not delusional, to think that MLK wouldn’t support Obama as opposed to the modern GOP.
Might want to keep repeating that since conservatives keep talking about how MLK was a Republican. Uh-huh.
Yep. And the word is WAS republican, like, before he voted for Kennedy over Nixon. Lots of Blacks folks WAS republican – The Party of Lincoln. WERE/WAS.
LOL.
We’ve been had, we are all lying. Hell yes, MLK was a Democrat, he believed in slavery and suppression. He used to cut holes in sheets and go to Klan meeting with Robert Byrd. His ideal politician was Al Gore Sr on his stance of Jim Crow laws.
You’re the dipsh!t that was arguing he was most certainly not a Republican, I just aligned him with the champions of your party and it’s bigoted political views.
ModerateSuccessfulDem and Ota Benga,
You have no grasp of history, whatsoever. The best comment that encapsulates my point is this quote:
If I were to laundry list the domestic and foreign policy views of JFK and matched them up with comments both of you have made in the past, you would characterize JFK as a radical right wing, war mongering, hate monger.
The Democrats of my youth are gone. Yes, they were more liberal than their GOP counterparts, but they were AMERICANS first. They believed in liberty and the Constitution. The Progressives and Marxists who run the Democrat Party would put people like JFK, Sam Nunn, Paul Tsongas, Ed Muskie, Mike Mansfield, Tip O’Neil, Sam Rayburn, etc. in reducation camps as enemies of the people.
MLK would be horrified of the Democrat Party today, because MLK believed in individual freedom, liberty, the Constituion, and ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
Yes, Ota Bengs, God. Deal with it.
***
HI FLYOVER_MAN–#153. And OTA_BENGA–#146. Good comments. MLK wasn’t perfect–but when he was right–he was really on target. I listen to his I HAVE A DREAM speech every year on his day. It seems like the messages that God gave a Prophet to deliver to the ancient Israelis to make them change their evil ways and start doing what The Lord wants. He was the real deal–not another race hustling politician.
***
Maybe Ota Benga forgot the /sarc off tag on his post. Somehow I don’t think that a real Christian Minister like MLK would ever back a candidate–or a “compassionate” president like Comrade Obama–who supports ABORTION as a way to “keep from punishing his daughters with a baby”. I think MLK would have drawn the line in the sand right there. He respected life and people and wanted something better for us all–and died trying to get there.
***
John Bibb
***
Ota was just betting on MLK siding with Obowmao because of black brotherhood above all else.
Mr. Bibb, you seem to speak in platitudes and generalities, and of course, wishful thinking.
You do realize that there are Christian ministers who support Obama, right? You do realize, that there are pro-life democrats, don’t you? Of course you do. I addressed specific ideoligical points attributed to Dr. King, one by one, that can’t be rebutted.
I most certainly admit that MLK used to be a Republican. Lots of Black Americans left the Republican party during the Kennedy years, and beyond.
So quote your bible, and speak in wishful thinking and platitudes, but the fact of the matter is, MLK was a leftest.
Do you think Harry Belafonte Jr. is a leftest? Well, MLK was extremely close friends with him.
MLK was a communist sympathizer. Even the Kennedys knew that, and the Kennedys were clearly to the left of Nixon and the GOP of that time, in general.
Look, I listed several points, one by one, and they can’t be rebutted. For whatever reason, you’re too stubborn to admit that a great American hero, was a leftest. That’s your problem. I’m specific, and the facts back me up.
Again, one by one:
-You must concede that MLK was regarded as such a leftest, the FBI kept tabs on him as a likely communist sympathizer.
-MLK wanted to infringe on state’s rights with federal government
intervention. What’s republican about that?
-MLK was a clearly a pacifist, who strongly opposed the Vietman War, and there’s no reason to opine that he’s support the Iraq War, or most any war. His claim to fame was Gandhi-like pacifism. What’s republican about that?
-As you’re aware there are prolife Democrats, just as there are pro-choice republicans.
-MLK was in favor of the agenda that subsequently became the “Great Society”. What’s “republican” about the Great Society?
-Countless black Americans switched to the Democratic Party in the late 60′s and never looked back.
-MLK voted for Kennedy over Nixon, and regardless of how “moderate” Kennedy was, he was clearly to the left of Nixon.
-There’s no reason to opine that Kennedy would have supported Nixon over Bobby Kennedy, assuming both had lived. This isn’t even debateable, and the 1968 version of Bobby Kennedy was clearly a Leftest–clearly–compared to Nixon.
-MLK was close friend with noted communist sympathizer, Harry Belafonte, Jr.
-This isn’t worth mentioning, but clearly the fact that Sharpton and Jackson are race-baiters, and MLK may reject them, it doesn’t mean anything regarding being a Democrat. There are Democrats today, black, brown, white and yellow, who reject the tactics of Jackson. Hell, Obama distanced himself from Jackson and Sharpton.
-MLK WAS STAUNCHLY PRO-UNION, AND WAS PLANNING TO PROTEST IN FAVOR OF A UNION, ON THE DAY OF HIS MURDER. What’s republican bout that?
I simply think the evidence is overwhelming that MLK has more in common with the modern Democratic Party, than the modern Republican Party.
This pro-union, state’s rights infringing upon, pacifist, has little in common with the Republican Party.
You can’t deal with those, one by one. You just speak in general terms. And you try to mind-read and hope away, the fact that King was a leftest; a leftest who loved his country and helped it change for the better.
Lastly, I have a dream, where I one day will spell leftist with an “i” as opposed to my general inclination to use an “e”…for whatever reason.
I don’t really care about grammar and spelling on message boards but my “left
eist” thing is chronic.And yes, someone will cutnpaste that previous sentence out of context, to make a crack. Whatevs…
lol. late
You make your case fairly well. Only one problem with your post: No one – and I checked every single post – no one on this board claimed defnitively that he would be a Republican today. What was argued, and I think fairly persuasively, is that he wouldn’t have supported today’s Democrats including Obama. I think he would have been disgusted with them for all the reasons mentioned.
I honestly don’t know whether he would have gone so far as to support Republicans instead, but he probably would be less put off by them than by the Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong, MLK would be disgusted with Obama. MLK would likely be like Dr. Cornell West, and his friend, the great Harry Belafonte. Based on the SPECIFIC policy points I made, it’s more likely that MLK would be a full-blown socialist today. He’d be utterly disgusted with Obama and the democratic party.
Why don’t you think MLK was like Goldwater, an non-racist who wanted to see racism addressed within the framework of the constitution, with individual liberty and state’s rights protected? Goldwater was for limited government. MLK was for an expansive federal government infringing on state’s rights. Goldwater has much in common with the modern GOP, and MLK and Goldwater are virtually polar opposites, ideologically.
MLK was to the left of the Kennedys, who were clearly to the left of Nixon. Nobody could make the case that Nixon is to the “right” of the modern GOP or conservative movement in general.
Like a “rich man’s”, John Lewis, if MLK were alive today, the far right, including this blog, would look upon MLK as a Civil Rights hero, who lost his way.
Would any person on this blog attack John Lewis for what he did for America in the 60′s during the Civil Rights Movement? Nope, not if you’re fair-minded. Would anyone attack John Lewis for being a leftist today? Absolutely.
Spend some time on Google looking up MLK’s ties to socialist ideology and communism.
MLK is also way to the left of me. MLK was a communist sympathizer, and that has, um, very little in common with the GOP- past or modern.
Hey now. lol
But not just for being insufficiently Communist (or keeping Gitmo open or troops in Afghanistan or whatever). There’s also the other aspect of King’s worldview that a bunch of us have been referring to in this discussion.
Other than social conservatism. That sort of thing wasn’t much on the radar screen during King’s time – certainly not like it is now.
For being insufficiently socialist. Click on the link for number 160. He could have gone the Goldwater route. He didn’t. Did you hear the man say he wants to “redistrubute political and economic power?” Get real.
Social conservatism was always on the radar, and more of an issue back then. King was notorious for affairs outside of marriage, so it’s not like he was Tim Freaking Tebow. And he’d be similar to other black leaders who criticize violence and sexual content, if he were alive today. (Sharpton, Jackson, Cosby).
I’ve dealt with the abortion issue. Regardless of the fact that I haven’t seen any evidence of King being fiercely against a woman’s right to choose, it’s clear that a person can be ppro-life, and still otherwise hold a great deal of leftist ideologies.
King was a leftist. My points are clear. His “associations” speak for themselves, and you heard out of his own mouth how he believes in the redistribution of wealth.
As usual, you seek the last word, but once again, I’ve made my point. King was a leftist.
Not more of a political issue. It wasn’t brought up in Reagan’s 1964 GOP convention speech. In fact, Goldwater was something of a social liberal, but it didn’t matter all that much either way because that wasn’t what the politics of the day were generally about. That started becoming more of a separate area of concern in the ’70s, and especially in the ’80s with the rise of groups like Moral Majority.
Now if you can quote major political debates between candidates going on in King’s time on the subject, or any equivalent group to Moral Majority or Focus on the Family or anything like that, I’d reconsider this point, but I think you’ll find that I’m correct on this.
King rose to fame on the eve of the sexual revolution and women’s rights movement. Roe v. Wade was decided just a few years after his death. There was a great deal of social upheaval in regards to gender roles, sex, the youth and the “conservatism” of the 50′s was knocked on its a$$. Look what happen concerning pop culture in the 60′s (music, television and film).
Whether it was sex, women’s rights, or censorship on television (The Doors and Stones…), social conservatism was most certainly relevant, because it was being challenged. Of course it was debated.
King however, seemed more concerned about Civil Rights, and addressing it in a leftist fashion.(Federal intervention, wealth redistribution). He was also a pacifist. All of that is certainly contrary to the GOP/Conservative platform.
You wrote this:
And if one is of the opinion that the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior, you’re dead wrong. I’ve laid out his policy ideology, which you seem to concede. Add in his feelings on wealth redistribution and associations with socialist and communists, along with being a committed anti-war pacifist, I think your statement is incorrect. He was also staunchly pro-union.
Conjecture about the serial adulterer being sooooo prolife, like countless democrats, and to extrapolate from that he’d disregard his strong and passionate hard left leanings and be more put off by Democrats, than the Republicans that he disagrees with on the VAST majority of policy matters, is simply a stretch.
MLK would be extremely disgusted with Obama’s commitment to war abroad and his failure to do more to redistribute economic wealth. I’m not being speculative and hopeful like you and Rocketman. I’m actually going by what the man has said and written…what he was doing on the day he was murdered.
Look, you wrote this in part:
THANK YOU. You folks are stubborn to concede any points from someone left of center on this blog. So I’ll take that, and allow some of you to be in abject denial about what MLK clearly stood for.
Thanks again. Peace.
Good of you to finally notice, because for the last few posts, you were insisting on points that I hadn’t disputed at all (that King was far left of center on economic matters). That does not mean he was far left of center on social matters.
Now as for how those issues were handled in the ’60s, the closest anything back then came to what in later years would be identified with “social conservatism” in later years were political figures like Nixon and Reagan promising to restore law and order. The biggest “social” concern of the time was protests getting out of hand. Just look at the gubernatorial and presidential campaign themes of the day. They had nothing to do with such things as “family values” and so forth. That all came later.
So given the lack of controversy in areas like that, it’s difficult to tell where King would have stood once it became more pronounced, if you just go by his speeches (other than that he was a committed Christian, his sins notwithstanding). That’s why you have to go with those who knew him best. His family would be a good place to start. And one niece in particular has stated clearly her views on that.
Now there may be others really close to him with a different view, but if you’ve heard of anyone contradicting her on that point, I’d be interested in seeing it.
As you know, King praised Planned Parenthood, and that pretty much speaks for itself. I have no reason to believe that King wasn’t personally pro-life, so I won’t rebut his niece’s feelings on that narrow issue. Now his niece has made quite a career for herself as a rightwing leader, and having that last name helps. Years from now, a relative of Reagan will surely rise as a leftwing leader and invoke his name or narrow issues.
Do I think King’s likely prolife leanings would override the vast leftwing political leaning, on countless matters, to the point that he’d be, as you put, “less put off by Republicans than by the Democrats”, absolutely not. There are plenty of prolife Democrats. My sister is a staunchly prolife baptist, yet wouldn’t dream of voting for a republican at the national level. She despises republicans, for reasons related to economics, healthcare and the military industrial complex. Yet she’s passionately prolife, even for rape and incest. (unless the life of mother is in danger) She’s as loony about her hate for republicans as some of the loons here about Obama and democrats. I’m the “moderate” in my family. lol
The point is, there is more to being a republican or democrat, than the abortion issue.
A committed leftist like King on civil rights, economic, labor and foreign affairs issues, wouldn’t be too happy with the modern republican party. King’s record, written and spoken, speaks for itself, regarding his ideas and passions.
Good discussions, for the most part. I’m done responding on this thread. Later.
Well, no offense coming from a non-family member, but the key word here is “loony”. As passionate as King was about what he believed, he seemed to have control of his emotions. I could be wrong about that, but that’s the impression I have of him. Which leads me to my next point:
Well, I could be biased here, but I think that’ll depend on how logically and honestly he works things through. After surveying that colossal breakdown of the black family since his time, what would he have to conclude is the likely cause? Racism somehow getting worse? America somehow getting less socialist? Or a breakdown in Christian morality?
All three things were near and dear to his heart, so which one would he have to choose? So the issue may not be so “narrow” as you suggest.