... used to be a registered Democrat.
... was the governor of a predominantly liberal state.
... voted to raise taxes in his first year as Governor.
... signed a pro-abortion law.
Who was this flip-flopper compromiser? None other than Ronald Reagan, quite possibly the greatest pro-life President of recent history (though a good case could be made for our current President).
Compare that to Romney. Romney has never been a Democrat, never raised taxes (only raised some outdated fees which had not been updated in years), and not only did not sign any pro-abortion laws, he vetoed four of them!
Those of you considering Huckabee are thinking of the pro-life issue only and I'm telling you, there is no difference between the two. All the President can do to affect abortion is appoint conservative judges, Romney has a record of doing so. Further, please show me how Huckabee understands the issues we face overseas in foreign affairs. I wrote more about this below in my blog artice "Mike Huckabee: True Conservative?"
Huckabee cannot win. He is only getting votes from evangelicals who will not vote for a Mormon. Get over it. American national elections are not issues of eternal salvation. We are voting for someone who will be the most qualified President, not the most qualified pastor.
Which leads me to my final point on Huckabee. Many evangelicals are voting for Huck because of his "solid Christian views." Please tell me how these following two examples are "solid Christian views."
- "I had been an admirer of [Robert Schuller] for thirty years because of the life-lifting message that he called 'possibility thinking,' a unique blend of positive thinking and traditional faith..." and "If there was any doubt of the authenticity of this man (Schuller) and his ministry, it was erased when I met his family." Also, "I realized his most significant achievement [was] a family who embodied the optimism, the kindness, and the openness of his messages." (quoted pg. 24 of From Hope to Higher Ground by Mike Huckabee, published in 2007).
- "And I believe God put this whole creative process into motion. How he did it and the time frame [emphasis added] in which he did it, I honestly don't know."
I think I know a source I could point Huckabee to so he can learn the time frame of the "creative process."
That being said, please vote for the guy who can win, will carry on in a debate against Clinton or Obama, and has the experience necessary to be President; Mitt Romney.
Final thought: Have you considered that Huckabee has no criticism for McCain (despite the faults I posted in my last article) yet is all over Romney? Could it be he has a VP slot saved for him in a McCain nomination? That would be a sell-out of the conservative side. I have read Mike Huckabee's book. How many of you pro-Hucksters can say that? If you read it, you will see he is not a true conservative, and will be a disappointment to the Republican party.
9 comments:
Pat, Great blog!
I very much agree with this post and most of them that I have read on your website. I applaud McCain's military service but the fact that he was in a box for years doesn't qualify somebody to be president. He has never been "Commander in Chief" while Mitt Romney has (Mass). He has never lead a State or a Corporation - not to mention REAL companies with real budgets here and abroad as Romney has. McCain has just sat back and voted on laws - where his vote is only one of hundreds. His has written three that are not conservative measures in the least. And when he has voted recently, it has been against what we as republicans want.
McCain is cocky enough to want to flip flop as he sees appropriate and attack others for ever changing their minds or positions.
I think that the words "Get Over It" are about as plain and simple words of advice as could be given about people obsessed with the faith of Mitt Romney. If people are still worried about having a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in office, please understand that you aren't being asked to elect a member of Al-Qaeda or even a Muslim here. Yes, Mitt Romney may have some different beliefs as your own Church, but his faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and King is firm. I think most, even those who have not invested the time to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, could attest that Mormons are some of the most conservative (no alcohol, no smoking, no coffee/tea, Sabbath observing, pro-life, pro-religious freedom), family-focused, Christ centered people around.
I read on Foxnews that Mitt met with the 97 year-old president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before his run. The only thing Mitt was told was (paraphrased) "It will be great experience if you win, and a great experience if you lose." Sure doesn't sound like the "I want to run the country through you" statement some would expect.
"Get over It" -- Good advice.
At any rate, I feel that Huckabee is WORKING for McCain now. He may want to be VP, he may be scared of Mormons, and he may just be clueless and want to plan his bass guitar on TV as much as possible. But a caucus for Huckabee is a caucus for McCain (and then Hillary!)
You may say, McCain has it locked up. You may be right. But if that's true, then it doesn't matter if you vote your conscience this Tuesday. Vote for a better tomorrow, vote for personal responsibility, vote MITT ROMNEY!
Dr. Brandon W. Mitchell, DC, MD
Hey, Patrick, I went to vote in your poll, but couldn't find "none of the above." :-)
I'd have backed Thompson because he best approximated my principles, but his refusal to play Reality TV Show games (Comeback Kid! Political Survivor! American Idolatry!) led folks torn between their roles as horse-race handicappers and their roles as ideologues to talk him down. I guess we're all populists now (read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism on that).
Failing Thompson, I'd have backed Giuliani because he'd have been solid internationally, and wouldn't have cared enough about domestic issues to make things worse.
Romney *does* care, *and* he's better at it than Bush. That makes him Republican-flavored Hillary, so far as I can see.
McCain is . . . unstable.
Huckabee is . . . as likely to lose my vote for advertising himself as "Christian" as Romney is for being Mormon.
And all this despite my adoration of Chuck Norris.
Sorry, the Republican Party can do what it likes. I'll just be choosing a lesser evil in November, as usual.
Not like Bush was that inspiring, either....
I guess I'll have to hunt up some other idols to solve all my problems. :-)
Cheers,
PGE
Nice blog but 2 comments stand out as being quite unjustified.
1) The comparison of Romney to Reagan. Romney has REPEATEDLY stated his pro-abortion views and vowed to never change his mind.(see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4)Also this was in 2002, a mere 5 years ago. Reagan's abortion mistake took place in 1967, 13 years before his presidency. Reagan was NEVER as adamantly pro-abortion as Romney. On the tax issue we need see that governors don't vote- they sign or veto legislation. Reagan signed legislation to raise taxes but was given no other option by his liberal legislature.
2)The two comments by Huckabee by which you questioned his "Chistian" worldview are irrelevant. I myself am no admirer of Robert Schuller but one who is is no less of a Chistian than am I. Secondly, his comments about creation prove nothing about his Christian worldview. Conservative, godly men for the last 2 thousand years have dissagreed on this issue. (B.B. Warfield (ca.1900, a hardcore conservative who wrote the book "The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible" believed in evolution. Gleason Archer ca.1990 was another conservative professor of OT at Trinity Evangelical Seminary who believed in evolution, et al)
Romney is an unelectable candidate. The Dems will do to him what we did to Kerry in 2004- paint him as a flip-flopper- and he'll lose for it. He will bring the same sort of "let's analyze this issue" mentality to issues as Carter- and he'll lose for it.
If you think Romney is unelectable however, where does that put McCain and Huckabee? McCain, in my opinion, is not electable because the Republican conservative base will not vote for him enmasse. Huckabee will get drilled in the debates for his lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and his "golden rule" philosophy toward Iran.
Re the tax issue brought up. I understand that governors sign/veto legislation. But that doesn't change the fact Reagan was behind the tax increase in his first year because it was necessary to balance the budget at that time. So instead of using the semantical argument that "governor's don't vote" my point still holds true in that regard to the Reagan-Romney comparison.
Please keep in mind that I love Ronald Reagan. He however was the one that asked for the tax increase. Even he admits it on pg 165 of his autobiography "An American Life." (edition printed in 1992.) He wrote about the fiscal mess the state of California was in then "went on television and said [he] had no choice but to ask for a tax increase."
In response to your first comment I agree that the rank and file of the Republican party is not at all excited about McCain. However, their distaste for Hillary is likely to get then to the polls. In a McCain / Clinton race Hillary's negatives among conservatives will make up for the lack of excitement for McCain. I myself do not like McCain much but I will vote for him if Hillary is the only other option.
Your criticism of Huckabee is twofold: ignorance and naivety. The issue of ignorance will not go too far. He has made a couple of mistakes along the way but- given his lack of funds and therefore lack of adequate staffing those mistakes were bound to take place. If he were the GOP nominee (which does not look likely) he would suddenly run into more money than he's ever seen and therefore have the necessary staff to keep him up to date and out of trouble with factual issues.
On the issue of his foreign policy being naive I simply do not agree. Especially if he were up against the dems who really are naive about foreign policy. If you have read his article in Foreign Affairs he articulates a position on Iran that is coherent and intelligent. Diplomatic ties could only be established if Iran were to make concessions that led to a less hostile relationship (i.e. ending their nuclear program). If those concessions were not made, Huckabee would be as willing to use miltary force as any other Republican.
Essentially the issue comes down to this: Your choices are McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. McCain, I think we probably agree, is not a true conservative and is out of the question for me. Romney has proven himself to be devoid of any true conviction. He is an opportunist who will hold whatever position is politically expedient. In Michigan he proposed subsides to the auto industry, in Iowa he said that biofuel is the wave of the future, in Florida he said that he wants to eliminate the Social Security payroll tax for workers over 65. This guy says whatever he needs to say in order to win over the specific demographic he happens to be seeking. I like much of what he says but I don't believe that he believes it. Furthermore, I simply cannot cast my vote for man who is not convincingly pro-life.
That leaves only Huckabee. Huck's stance on abortion is solid and unwavering. His approach to foreign policy is unpolished but actually quite good. His advocacy for the Fair Tax is phenomenal. His 9 point immigration plan is one that every conservative should love. The choice is clear.
Anonymous,
First you are assuming Hillary is the Democratic nominee. If Obama wins, Republicans are in trouble, especially if he is up against McCain. If its Hillary, while I would never vote for her, it might not be a bad one to sit out and hope a bad Democrat leads to change in the Republican Party; sort of like the transition time from Ford (bad Republican), to Carter, to Reagan. The only reason I would not sit out is due to the fact we are at war and McCain is strong on the war. (I think all he looks for is power but I think I personally might be able to hold my nose and vote for him. Other conservatives I'm not so sure on).
As for Huckabee's ignorance, it cannot be excused. Ronald Reagan used his time from before he was governor to learn about communism and the Soviet Union. Huckabee has not done so. His claim about Bolton being an advisor was at best a misstatement, or at worst a lie.
As for his article in "Foreign Affairs" I answered his naive foreign policy in my blog article "Mike Huckabee: True Conservative?" If you would like further clarification on that issue I am more than happy to do so.
I agree with you that Huckabee is the most "convincingly pro-life candidate" in this race and I have made it very clear I applaud him for that. While I wholeheartedly believe Mitt Romney is pro-life, if you have doubt and to vote for him would violate your conscience, then you certainly should not vote Romney. As I have stated before however, the only thing a President can contribute to the pro-life cause is to appoint strict constitutionalist judges. Huckabee will not do this because he cannot get out of the primaries. With Romney you stand (in my opinion) a much better than average chance you will get good judges. His record of appointing judges in Massachusetts is very good.
Yes, Huckabee's 9 point immigration plan is one every conservative would agree with. How about his past statements though that illegals with children in schools can stay and his support of the giving in-state tuition to illegals, as well as allowing them to compete for scholarships to Arkansas' colleges? Very few conservatives would agree with that.
Conservatives have two ELECTABLE choices; John McCain or Mitt Romney. Romney is the only one who can stand for the beliefs of the Republican base.
I apologize for the brevity of this response (I'll come back later , Lord willing, and be more thorough). I simply don'y understand how you can say that Mitt Romney will stand for anything. The only thing Romney has been consistent on is his proclivity for pandering. Romney appears to be hollow, devoid of any real sense of true conviction. This scares me on the abortion issue because the President has much more say than we have acknowledged. He obviously has the power to veto any legislation coming from the Dem Congress. We've already talked about judges. And as the head of the American family the President has the ability to communicate his positions in such a way as to give them legitimacy. There's no telling what Romney would do with the issue.
Anyways, I simply find it easier to imagine a square circle than a solid Mitt Romney.
Please understand. I do not think Mitt Romney is the greatest candidate for President to ever have an "R" after his name. I just think he is significantly greater than John McCain.
I do not think Mike Huckabee is a bad guy. I just think his views, especially on foreign affairs (the most important of Presidential duties) are too Pollyanna-like. Further, I do not see how he could possibly win in the primaries at this point. That leaves me with Romney or McCain. That choice is clear.
I am making my best case for Romney because he is what I see as the most conservative of the electable candidates. My favorite candidate when this whole thing started was Duncan Hunter, but that was clearly not going to happen. My next choice was Fred Thompson, thinking he would get his campaign out of the retirement home. As it stands now, I think Romney is the only electable choice since voting for Huckabee will split the conservatives and give McCain the nomination.
Post a Comment