Since his rapid ascent to the front of the pack, Huckabee has been subjected to ferocious criticism from the conservative chattering class. This has prompted an anti-anti-Huckabee backlash, primarily from evangelical supporters of Huck who see the attacks on him as evidence that the conservative establishment just doesn't like evangelicals that much, except as suckers for votes. Huckabee himself has voiced this theory.
However, I don't think that's accurate. The real problem isn't evangelicals, but social conservatives--evangelicals are simply the largest and most organized group of social conservatives in the GOP. Rod Dreher comments that:
It's funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn't see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented...I think it's fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.
But lo, it turns out that the candidate who's caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity.
Huckabee's campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is misdescribed as being -- a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues -- abortion and the recognition by law of same-sex couples. Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.
(As an aside, Ross Douthat takes apart Will's overheated "blood libel" rhetoric concerning Huckabee here).
Social conservatives, according to Will and his ilk, are supposed to remain permanent second-class members of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. What's especially galling is that Will is enough of an intellectual conservative to know that he is being disingenuous. Gay marriage, and even abortion, are more recent conservative concerns than free trade, but that's only because liberals have pushed the envelope there more recently. Traditionalism, however, and concerns with culture, religion, the family, etc... have always been a crucial part of conservatism. Surely Will is familiar with the work of, say, Russell Kirk. If social conservatism has grown in importance, it is because that is where the battle is, that is were liberals have pushed the hardest and met with the greatest success.
Will would have us believe that cutting taxes by, say, 5% is more essential to conservatism than opposing attempts to eliminate the family as a unit of any political significance. But libertinism is even more opposed to conservatism than socialism.
I'm still not a Huckabee supporter, but it's tempting as I see the attempts to reduce conservatism to money-grubbing presided over by the "sophists, economists, and calculators" that Edmund Burke despised.
My candidate in the GOP primary remains anyone but Rudy, but I must say that I'm drawn to Mike Huckabee. I know, I know, he's wobbly on all sorts of issues from immigration to big government. He's compassionate conservatism on steroids, and all that. So I won't be lining up to offer my allegiance to his campaign anytime soon. But I'm sure enjoying his rise.
The first reason is simple: he's one of us--evangelicals, that is. Even his flaws confirm this. I think evangelicals need to get over their opposition to evolution, but Huckabee's disbelief in it doesn't annoy me much, as it simply confirms that he's one of my people, warts and all.
The other main reason is that it is a sweet, sweet pleasure to watch the money-grubbing side of the GOP squirm. It probably isn't smart politics (or very good for my soul), but I'm enjoying the panic of the pundits who have been telling the unwashed socially-conservative masses to shut up and do as their told. Well, the peasants have found their pitchforks and torches. The Rudy movement is an attempt to permanently marginalize the social conservatives in the GOP coalition; watching Huck top Rudy nationally is delectable to those of us who think it's more important that the GOP oppose abortion than every tax increase.
I offer this because I suspect that a fair number of my fellow evangelicals feel the same way. It's not entirely rational, but neither is politics.
Over at the Washington Post, the editors of the ironically named Reason magazine are singing the praises of Ron Paul and libertarianism. They write that:
Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 -- Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul's campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising "$12 Million to Win" by Dec. 31, didn't even organize the fundraiser -- an independent-minded supporter did.
When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.
As anyone with a basic knowledge of English history and culture will have noticed, this is a complete misrepresentation of Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot. Fawkes was motivated by religion (a Catholic, he wanted to blow up the Protestant king and parliament), not anarchist ideals. And Guy Fawkes day is not, as they imply, a commemoration of the gunpowder plot, but of the foiling of it.
Color me unconvinced by the historical fiction of Ron Paul's fans.
A fellow CUA grad student, one Eric Johnston, had an op-ed published in the New York Times today. This is inspiring--perhaps I too could have my work printed in paper that likes to give illegal in-kind contributions to leftist groups. Unfortunately, the piece was a bust. It argues that while Rudy might be a louche pro-abortion lapsed Catholic adulterer, he's the best possible candidate for pro-lifers. As a political theory student, I'm unfamiliar with the theology folks, but I expected better reasoning than this from them. But evidently they spend too much time calculating how many angels can dance on the grave of a pinhead, or something like that.
Mr. Johnston's entire case rests on Rudy's perceived opposition to the Roe vs. Wade ruling. The notion is that someone who supports legal abortion can more convincingly make the case that Roe was a bad decision and should be overturned, thereby returning abortion to the states to regulate. But this point is by no means established.
First, Rudy waffles when asked about Roe, as Mr. Johnston himself notes.
In a televised Republican debate, Mr. Giuliani said it would be “O.K.” if Roe were overturned but “O.K. also” if the Supreme Court viewed it as a binding precedent.
After reading that, who wouldn't be convinced that Rudy will cheerfully lead an anti-Roe crusade, and do it much more effectively than any other Republican could? Who could doubt the sincerity of his anti-Roe sentiment?
Mr. Johnston then notes that Rudy has promised to nominate "strict constructionists." And I'm sure he'd do a much better job of it than, say, Fred Thompson, who guided John Roberts through the confirmation process.
The truth is that Rudy only cares about Roe because it's created problems for his presidential campaign. He will certainly not put any effort into explaining why it should be overturned, rather, he will continue to avoid the issue as much as possible. He might appoint good judges, but his rhetoric doesn't match his record. As mayor he didn't work hard to appoint strict constructionists. But by some happy accident, he has discovered that he approves of that judicial philosophy just as he began his run for the Republican nomination.
I realize that the pro-life movement has become a cheap date for Republican politicians, but acquiescing to Rudy would be the end. If we can be had for nothing more than a weak promise to appoint "strict constructionists," we will lose all influence in the Republican Party--and we haven't any with the Democrats.
I'm sorry to be hard on any of my university, but there it is, this piece showed little imagination and no talent. I suspect its only real claim is the novelty of the argument. And while it is fashionable in some circles to produce perversely contrary theories, I think Mr. Johnston would have showed to much greater advantage had he not tried so hard to upend the conventional wisdom--though perhaps then he would not have been published in the New York Times.
(For the record, I do not know Mr. Johnston, and have nothing against him but his atrocious op-ed. I would be glad to discuss this more amiably over a beer with him sometime.)
A Rasmussen telephone survey of 500 likely voters in Arizona conducted August 30 shows Fred Thompson barreling ahead of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton 51% to 34%.
“Thompson is viewed favorably by 58%, Giuliani by 57%, Romney by 49%, and Clinton by 41%,” Rasmussen reported.
In his own state, McCain polled lowest among front running Republican candidates. The new poll found that “with McCain as the GOP candidate, 15% of Arizona voters say they’d select a third party option.”
“With those attitudes on immigration, it’s not surprising that McCain’s favorable in his home state remain weak. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters express a favorable opinion of their senior Senator while 49% offer an unfavorable opinion. That’s little changed from June when 47% had a favorable opinion of McCain,” Rasmussen reported.
Still McCain showed a 10 point lead over Hillary 46% to 36%.
At least at the heart of the matter we can still count on Arizona as a mostly red state -- but McCain sure isn’t helping these days.
At a conservative bloggers luncheon today at the Heritage Foundation guest speaker Robert Novak drew to our attention that Fred Thompson won a straw poll Saturday in Georgetown County South Carolina. To my surprise Congressman Ron Paul came in second. Below are the results. The press release states that “there were 223 total votes cast and that overall the event was attended by about 250 people.”
Fred Thompson 102
Ron Paul 40
Mitt Romney 37
Duncan Hunter 15
Rudy Giuliani 13
John McCain 7
Sam Brownback 6
Newt Gingrich 2
Daniel Gilbert 1
Check out a press release from the Georgetown County Republicans earlier that week and perhaps you will not be as surprised by the results.
GEORGETOWN--Georgetown County Republican Party Chairman Tom Swatzel announced today that the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul-TX will bring 300 supporters to the party's presidential primary straw poll on Saturday and that supporters of Senator Fred Thompson had made a bulk purchase of 100 tickets.
Swatzel said that Chris Panos with the Paul campaign confirmed that they were bringing in 300 supporters from across the state, including a car caravan from the Greenville-Spartanburg area and a campaign bus/RV that will arrive in Pawleys Island on Friday night.
If straw polls are taken to gauge public opinion and test out the waters, how can it be acceptable to bus in hundreds of campaigners skewing the results? This is what is wrong with politics today.
The Democrats running for the presidency have been busily whoring themselves for America's largest abortion provider, and Obama seems to be turning the most tricks. Not only did he join his rivals promising a socialized health care system that will pay for abortions, he wants to teach your five-year-old sons and daughters about sex. Of course, he includes the caveat that the instruction must be "age-appropriate," which means, so far as I can tell from Planned Parenthood's sex ed textbooks, that they're encouraged to stick to masturbation and oral sex until they're at least 9 or even 10 years old. After that, they can do whatever they want, and if you're 12-year-old girl is impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend Planned Parenthood will make sure she gets an abortion without telling you about it or the police about the statutory rape. That's Obama's vision for America.
As the great Malcolm Muggeridge wrote, "To the liberal mind, education provides the universal panacea. Whatever the problem, education will solve it...venereal disease spreading, to the point that girls of ten are found to be infected?-then, for heaven's sake, more sex education, with tiny tots lisping out what happens to mummy's vagina when daddy erects, as once they did the Catechism."
He was, however, too restrained in his predictions of decadence. As everyone now knows, assuming a mummy and a daddy is so heteronormative. It's much better when lesbian couples artificially inseminate themselves like cattle with the seed of a gay drag queen.
Over at National Review Online, Ms. Lopez has a piece about America's largest abortion chain and its political relations. The Democrats are all in Planned Parenthood's back pocket, of course, but two leading Republican candidates, Giuliani and Romney, have also been implicated. The question Lopez sets before her readers is: What's so bad about Planned Parenthood?
She answers the question, but with less data than she should. First, as she notes, Planned Parenthood is America's largest abortion provider, committing 264,943 abortions in 2005 (the last year PP has released data for). What she didn't mention was that Planned Parenthood has been increasing its abortion business. In 1978, PP committed 70,000 abortions a year; in 1992, 132,000; in 1995, 139,000; in 2005, 264,943. These increases have happened even as the national abortion rate has decreased.
Planned Parenthood likes to say that these abortions are only a small portion (3% is the usual figure) of its business, but that's misleading. Planned Parenthood gets that number by counting an abortion as being no more consequential than any other service or product. In short, each condom a VOX group (those are PP's college affiliates) hands out counts just as much as a late-term abortion. But let's pretend that Planned Parenthood is right, and every deed they do is equal. So what? Planned Parenthood kills thousands of human beings each week, that doesn't become less horrible because they do lots of other things.
Still, Planned Parenthood likes to pretend that their evil can be mitigated by selling lots of contraception, which it claims is the only way to reduce abortions (chastity, of course, isn't considered an option). Nevermind that Planned Parenthood's own research shows that this doesn't work. Poor teenagers who use birth control still get pregnant at high rates. Not that Planned Parenthood minds this, as it allows it to sell more abortions and lobby for more money. After all, the money politicians personally give to Planned Parenthood is insignificant compared to the taxpayer money they give to it--$305 million in the last year alone.
It's nice to see Ms. Lopez bringing some of Planned Parenthood's dark secrets into the light, and I hope this post provides some more information on the subject. The deeper one digs into Planned Parenthood, the worse it gets. You can find a lot more information here.
I've been saying for a while now that a Rudy win in the GOP primary will be a disaster for pro-lifers (and a Rudy win in the general election will be so bad that I would vote third party--four years of Hillary or Obama being better than an indefinite future of both major parties fully supporting abortion).
Well, it turns out that someone agrees with me: Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion chain. She writes that
Rudy Giuliani's front-runner position among Republican presidential hopefuls is a watershed moment in Republican politics -- and American history: George W. Bush could leave office with yet another legacy he never intended -- serving as America's last anti-choice president.
and
Giuliani's front-runner status is an enlightened cultural moment and critical political lesson.
If the Republican Party ultimately puts forth a pro-choice presidential candidate, it will demonstrate that the Republican leadership got the people's message in the "thumpin"' of the 2006 election. And the Republican Party and women and families nationwide will be better off for it.
Either way, we might be living under America's last anti-choice president. For now, savor the possibility.
Her spin on the 2006 elections is shoddy (abortion had nothing to do with Republican losses, except insofar as certain Democrats won because they ran under the pro-life mantle), as is her protestations that Planned Parenthood, which never met an abortion it didn't support, is somehow mainstream. But her glee at the prospect of a pro-abortion Republican candidate and possible president is well-placed.
The leader of America's largest abortion chain supports Rudy; pro-lifers, you have been warned.
James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family, declared in a column yesterday that he will not vote for Rudy Giuliani should he win the GOP nomination.
I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.
Well said. In the long term it will be better for Hillary or Obama to win than for Rudy to win. If social conservatives choose to support Rudy, they will be effectively barred from influence in either of the two major parties. The GOP establishment tolerates us, and sometimes throws a bone our way, because it fears losing our votes. If that fear is gone, they will entirely ignore our concerns.
The war is not the most important issue facing America. Our enemies cannot defeat us militarily. Our civilization will not be murdered. However, it has gone a good way toward committing suicide. The thrice-married, pro-abortion, homosexuality-approving Rudy will not slow that one bit.
Politics is not everything, and immediate victory is not everything in politics. Goldwater lost in a landslide, but his nomination was a tipping point in the battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Rudy’s candidacy is the same, only in reverse. His victory would destroy the conservative ascendancy in the GOP. America can survive a Democratic president. I don’t think it can survive two Democratic Parties.
Any discussion of Ron Paul ought to begin with a link to Russell Kirk's classic essay, "Chirping Sectaries."
Now that I've provided something substantial for later, here's some opinion appetizers on Ron Paul.
His first problem is that he looks and sounds nuts. His is not a manner or appearance to inspire trust. Much of that isn't his fault, to be sure, and what is has no doubt become so ingrained that he can't change it at this point in life. When you're trying to win voters, presentation matters, and Paul hasn't got it.
The swarm tactics of his supporters are annoying. Voting early and often in online polls, flooding comment boards and e-mail inboxes, etc... are not tactics likely to win people over in the long run, especially once they realize that it's a very small group of people making a lot of noise.
Finally, and more substantially, Ron Paul is an ideologue who refuses to deal with the realities of the world as it is. His extreme non-interventionism didn't even work at the beginning of the American Republic, and is impossible now. He is lacking in prudence, the hallmark of the conservative statesman.
Bizzyblog, along with a talented anonymous singer, put together this great video which includes the question that the GOP faithful may be singing after tonight's debate:
These new ads from the Richardson campaign are very creative:
Unfortunately, Richardson is too reasonable on some issues, such as taxes and the 2nd Amendment, to ever win in the Democrat/MoveOn.org 2008 primaries.
Well, well, well, look what an oppo research dump has dragged into the light: Mr. Rudy "I hate abortion" Giuliani gave money to America's #1 abortion chain, Planned Parenthood (264,943 abortions in 2005, and the number goes up every year). Planned Parenthood’s business model is simply: encourage promiscuity via involvement in everything from school sex ed programs to girl scouts, and then sell contraception and abortion. Oh, and it also sucks up 272 million tax dollars a year.
I know I attack Rudy a lot over abortion, but the GOP primary voters need to know that he’s lying to them. He isn’t moderate on abortion; he is, as I have said before, a pro-abortion extremist. And the GOP base, which overwhelmingly considers itself pro-life and claims to believe abortion to be murder, needs to know the facts of Rudy’s record before it votes.
Rudy's been trying to cover his pro-abortion stance by promising to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. This is meant to sooth pro-lifers who want Roe overturned, and it's even intellectually defensible: it is possible to support abortion and still think Roe was terrible constitutional law and abortion should be regulated by the states, not the federal courts.
It wasn't not much of an offer, certainly not enough to satisfy me, but it was something. Last night though, Rudy shot it to pieces by claiming that a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. Which is to say that's he's offering pro-lifers almost nothing. "Vote for me and I'll appoint judges who might rule that abortion isn't a constitutional right." Not an attractive proposition for pro-lifers who believe that abortion is murder and therefore the most important moral issue in our nation.
Of course, Rudy might do quite well among those who aren't pro-life, but he's alienating those of us who are, and we're a majority in the GOP base.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is wrong when she contends that "it takes a village" to raise a child, though he told a newspaper in 1998 that Clinton was "very much right."
Critics have cited reversals on positions as Romney runs for president, including support for abortion rights and gun control. He recently called himself a lifelong hunter but later acknowledged making few hunting trips that required a license.
During a speech to New Hampshire Republicans last weekend in which he touted the need for strong American families, the former Massachusetts governor said, "I think it's time for us to recognize every child deserves a mother and a father."
Asked by The Associated Press after the speech if he disagreed with Clinton's view, expressed in her 1996 book "It Takes a Village," that raising children requires a community-wide effort, Romney said he disagreed and added, "It takes a family."
However, in 1998, Romney told The Boston Globe: "Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, no-finger-pointing way."
On Monday, Romney's campaign said his Globe comments were about public-private partnerships, not families. Romney was referencing corporations, not parents, the campaign said.
Certain apologists *coughhackscough* for Rudy Giuliani have been insisting that though he’s pro-abortion, pro-lifers should nonetheless accept him. Their efforts have not been helped by the man himself, who clearly cares nothing for the concerns of pro-lifers and is barely attempting to muster the modicum of effort necessary to pretend that he won’t make pro-lifers consider Bill Clinton with nostalgia.
Yes, Rudy’s position is that extreme. He supports partial-birth abortion *coughinfanticidecough* and taxpayer funding for abortion (yes, he’s changed his rhetoric on these of late, but the exceptions and caveats he has added belie his position). He obviously believes that pro-lifers are frauds and dupes who will either abandon their principles for a perceived better chance at Republican victory or else not even note that they’ve been promised nothing.
This weekend, Rudy demonstrated again his contempt for pro-lifers, saying about abortion that “our party has to get beyond issues like that.” Apparently, we’re supposed to just “get beyond” the murder of 3000 innocents every day in America and turn our attention to the really big issues, like, in the words of one GOP sell-out, “fiscal responsibility and good management.” Let the babies die, so long as we can balance the budget. Maybe the left is right, and the GOP is just a collection of tightfisted worshipers of mammon.
If the Republican Party nominates Rudy, it will be the death of any principled conservatism; the GOP will be the home of materialistic technocrats and their comfortable suburban acolytes, nothing more. The party that ended slavery will have abandoned the last shreds of belief in the dignity of the human person and the sacredness of human life and liberty. It will have become a Godless corporate whore that worships ease, comfort, and efficiency and disdains anything that cannot be tallied in a budget spreadsheet.
Western civilization depends on the doctrine of the imago Dei, and the belief that human life is therefore sacrosanct. This has always been imperfectly realized, but it is the central character of our culture that conservatives must cultivate and preserve.
PROOFREAD, PROOFREAD, PROOFREAD: Even little 8-year-old Susie Flynn can spell "president," something that the architects of Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-Calif.) run for the title of commander in chief apparently can't manage. In the California Republican's formal Federal Election Commission filing making his bid official, Hunter misspelled "president," mangling the name of his committee as "Hunter for Prseident Inc." On the bright side, although the field of candidates for the presidency is a bit crowded, Hunter is uncontested to be prseident. His signature song? "Hail to the Cheif."
Wow, what a bunch of smart alecks over at CNN- I am surprised they didn't throw in some old Dan Quayle "potatoe" jokes too.
Deroy Murdock, who is second only to John Podhoretz in the ranks of supposed conservatives hacking for Rudy Giuliani, is going to need to try a little harder at selling out his pro-life principles. Over at NRO, Murdock devotes a column to explaining that pro-lifers should be ok with Rudy because the abortion rate fell in NYC while he was mayor. But as another pro-Rudy piece on NRO today points out, "Furthermore, abortion numbers fell substantially under President Clinton’s administration, but that hardly makes him a hero to the pro-life movement." It didn't even make him acceptable, and rightly so. Real pro-lifers don't want to merely reduce abortion, we want to end it. And picking Rudy as the Republican nominee will likely set us back decades in that struggle, since both major parties would know that there's no need for them to be pro-life.
This just in: Possible presidential contender Fred Thompson has just announced that he has a form of lymphoma. Thompson, who recently emerged as the top choice candidate for conservatives, told Fox News he had no symptoms and his life expectancy should not be affected. Apparently there is a treatment option for this particular type.
Thompson said he is feeling healthy and will speak with Neil Cavuto later today on Fox News. Watch breaking announcement here.
UPDATE: Thompson has already blogged at RedState about the issue...read it in his own words HERE.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears to have gained some much needed traction this past week following the announcement that he raised $23 million in the first quarter of campaigning -- beating out all other Republican presidential candidates.
I read his book. I admired his leadership. I respect his stance on national security and foreign policy. He looks like a nice guy with a backbone who ultimately does want what's best for the American people.
However...it is really hard to respect words that fail to coincide with action. Case in point, Giuiliani said in a recent CNN interview that, "[I am] personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion...but it is your choice..."
Morality is not individually relative. If that were the case, we could create our own personal moral codes without question. It's like saying, "I am personally opposed to child abuse, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to use a different method...but it is your choice..." Insert the same example with drugs, alcoholism, theft, or other obviously wrong behavior and you get the same result.
When Giuliani calls abortion a "constitutional right" -- obviously not stated in the constitution -- and purports the murder of unborn children simply so they will not be born into poverty ("There must be public funding for abortions for poor women"), I'm reluctant to support him.
We know what is most important right now -- and that's national security and foreign affairs. But if I believe abortion is murder, and I do, I simply can't downplay this aspect of Giuliani. Americans are dying in the womb every day and he wants public funding for it. Come on, Rudy. Everyone (even those folks at NARAL) knows what abortion really is...
Looks like New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson has seen how far back he is in the polls in his efforts get the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and is desperate to gain the support of the liberal base of the Democratic Party. So he just signed a bill to legalize medical marijuana.
New Mexico doctors are allowed to prescribe marijuana to help some seriously ill patients manage symptoms including pain and nausea under a bill signed into law by Gov. Bill Richardson Monday.
"This law will provide much-needed relief for New Mexicans suffering from debilitating diseases," Richardson, a Democratic candidate for U.S. president in 2008, said at the signing ceremony. "It is the right thing to do."
The southwestern state is the 12th in the United States to endorse the use of marijuana for medical uses. New Mexico's state Legislature is the fourth in the country to enact such a measure.
The law allows marijuana use by patients suffering from several conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis and epilepsy, according to Richardson's office.
