"Arrogant bunker mentality"

(Disclaimer: Don't read while eating)

Governor Huckabee has accused the Bush administration of having an "arrogant bunker mentality"; he stated this a while ago.

Mitt Romney, of all people, actually said that this statement showed Huckabee was "disloyal" to the president. Now, excuse me for a moment while I go pull out my hair, throw up, and laugh myself silly all at once. (Maybe two moments, since cleaning up and recovering from the first moment may take a while.)

Ok, back. Where to begin?

1) This is a democracy. I hope we are still allowed to express "disloyalty" to our leaders, Governor Ken Doll.

2) Whatever President Bush has earned from traditional conservatives (the word gratitude perhaps comes to mind), he certainly has NOT earned our loyalty. FEMA director Brown, anyone? Harriet Miers nomination, anyone? How about approving RU-486 (the morning after pill) for over-the-counter sales? "Comprehensive immigration reform"? Entitlement expansion? Out-of-control spending? Any of this ringing a bell? Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Manuel Miranda, and others have been "disloyal" to the president on these issues.

If there is a lesson conservatives should have learned from the Bush presidency, it's that you can't refrain from making and accepting criticism when it's due, even if it may temporarily harm your "team". "Good" people, on the "right side", wearing white hats are capable of misguided and even black (hatted) deeds, and must from time to time be opposed. (Or, to quote J. K. Rowling via Sirius Black, "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters".) It's better to take the hit in the short run than to let a long-term liability snowball to an unbearable size. (But enough about social security.)

Case in point: Senator John McCain. Now, McCain isn't a 100% conservative. Probably has never claimed to be. So, he probably wasn't at the top of President Bush's speed-dial when it came time to plan the war in Iraq. So when the aftermath of the war didn't go nearly as well as the President had planned, the anti-war left and the Michael Moores of the world (could the world actually contain more than one?) were able to drag the President's (and by extension, the Republican party's) image through the mud and turn public opinion against the war. I believe as early as 2003 Senator McCain tried to tell President Bush more troops were needed. Did the President listen? No. (Full disclosure: I favored invading Iraq, still favor staying there as long as need be, and have never faltered on this. I also voted for Bush in 2004, and given the same choice again, would do so, though perhaps not as enthusiastically.)

Election '04 came and went, and the President and his party did well. But the war continued to worsen after a time. Again came the calls to change strategy and deploy more troops. Bush ignored this advice, coming from an interested member of his own party. Bush again rebuffed the advice. Then the party lost control of both houses of congress in 2006. NOW the President was suddenly in a mood to admit he was wrong. This should never have happened. Bush should have sacked then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld BEFORE the election, not after. This alone may have saved the Republicans from losing congress and facing the specter of a Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Although, in Bush's defense, it's still hard to type those words with a straight face. Who'd have thunkit?)

But most importantly, we paid the cost for Bush's foolishness in human lives. This is why it matters, more than any political agenda.

Now Senator McCain has been vindicated on the surge strategy, no thanks to King George's "arrogant bunker mentality". But on all of the above debacles, the evidence shows time and again that Bush refused to listen to those who were not his 100% ideological allies, often to his own detriment. The public has noticed this, while in a most curious phenomenon, many Republicans have not.

Either Mitt Romney has buried his head in the sand on this one, or he is condescending enough that even though he knows Huckabee to be right, he is pretending to disagree in a desperate attempt to appeal to primary voters. The fact is, President Bush has surrounded himself with yes-men and he and others have paid the price for it. This is the quintessence of an "arrogant bunker mentality".

3) If Mr. Romney think Republican voters should punish Governor Huckabee for being "disloyal" to the President because he dared point out Bush's obvious flaws, Governor Romney deserves the guillotine for the multitude of issues on which he disagreed with President Bush during his time as Massachusetts governor. I think the word "audacity" comes to mind when I hear Romney criticizing anyone for being either a) too liberal or b) not a big enough fan of George Bush.

(Case in point: watch the faces at debates when Romney starts lecturing all the life-long conservatives about what a conservative is.)

Prediction: Neither Rudy nor McCain nor Huckabee will endorse Romney over any of the others in a tight contest.

4) EVEN IF Huckabee is wrong about the President, and to my knowledge he has been very measured and precise in what he means by all this, you'll notice how none of the Republican candidates are exactly gushing over President Bush, and for good reason: he's about as popular as Michael Jackson. So it'll be interesting to see if pleas for loyalty to the President translate to general election votes. (If Romney can beat the Democrats, they should be probably throw in the towel.) Yes, "popularity" is superficial and fluid, but to be frank, it matters a great deal in a winner-take-all system in which the people decide.

That's all for now... somehow these always end up being longer than I expect them to be.

Huck and judges

The man who launched the conservative movement's successful campaign against Harriet Miers for SCOTUS has endorsed Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney for president:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29883.html

Enjoy!

Romney and Drudge

It's a widely-publicized fact that Mitt Romney's campaign chief practically has a private line to the Drudge Report page. So this morning, when Drudge splashed the latest headline designed to make Governor Huckabee look ignorant, it was not TOO surprising, although one wonders if any of Drudge's readers haven't caught on yet to the fact that he's shilling for Romney bigtime.

Also conveniently enough, Romney's response to Huckabee's criticism of President Bush's "bunker mentality" gets a spot right underneath, along with an article meant to make Mitt look tough.

And now, apparently all that wasn't good enough, so Romney's people had Drudge paint the headline red, as if it were reporting something that hasn't been said before. Huckabee has been critical of Bush's mentality from the start.

It'll be interesting to see how much more "dirt" wafting out of Camp Ken Doll finds its way onto Mr. Drudge's page. Ugh. Is this how the so-called "conservative" media has always worked? No thank you.

They don't get it (And should probably either start trying or just stop altogether).

Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Peggy Noonan, even Rush Limbaugh.

When did they all start sounding so much like the New York Times editorial board?

It is painfully obvious that faith is not something that makes them comfortable. How dare this Huckabee character (who spent much of his adult life in the ministry) talk about faith?

To anyone who has been paying attention, Huckabee has a LOT more to say than only his faith, although that shouldn't be a problem. Since when is it off-base to ask what a candidate believes, and how it affects them? On this, the elite of the GOP are singing a song woefully off-key. You'd think they would notice when the polls keep showing how many people disagree with them. It has never been more apparent that they don't consider themselves leaders of a popular movement, but elites bound on re-shaping the public in their image.

The fact is that Mormonism is seen as a sect by most Christians (at least, those who don't hold to a flimsy, evolving definition of what Christianity is). No matter how loudly Romney's backers shout that Mormons are Christians just like the rest of you ignorant hicks (and what's your problem, anyway?), we are smarter than they think. We know that Mormonism is an entirely different religion, no more like Christianity than Islam or Judaism. Now, that doesn't mean we couldn't vote for Romney, it just means that those proclaiming him the Messiah of the GOP are starting off with a strike against them. How could the most important thing to at LEAST a quarter of the base be deemed irrelevant? There is no surer recipe for disaster than to make evangelicals into slaves of the GOP. Most of us are smarter than that, and we'll just take our votes and efforts and determination elsewhere or stay home. We have seen what the Democrats have done to blacks over the years, and we won't fall for it. Sorry.

I am in no way saying there are not legitimate criticisms to be made of Mr. Huckabee. But it sounds as though it is merely who he is that is not acceptable to these elites, and nothing will change that. When did we suddenly accept the narrative of the drive-by media? It is a foregone conclusion that someone who is a man of the people, who is not a career politician or rich, who has a brilliant gift for communicating (not that our current president doesn't... oh wait, nevermind), over a decade of executive experience, and serious crossover appeal to moderates in the other party, has no chance of getting the nomination. Sorry, it would be nice, but he's not one of US, say the leaders.

My reply? That's nice. Shut up. Isn't there a self-serving cocktail party in Washington for like-minded persons you should be attending?

Huckabee '08.

They don't get it (And should probably either start trying or just stop altogether).

Adventures in missing the point: Romney's religion

I am an evangelical Christian. I have been a Mike Huckabee supporter for a long time.

I tend to the conservative side of politics.

It has been a great source of frustration for me over the last week or two to note the media coverage of the Romney/Huckabee race in Iowa. Mitt is certainly a skilled manager, and seems to live the life of an honest, hard-working family man. For that, I do not begrudge him.

I make no secret of the fact that I am a Mike Huckabee supporter. I think he has a natural charm, wit, and authenticity that will appeal very broadly in the next election. I think this is the antithesis of Mitt Romney. Everything about him, from day one, has seemed to me to be focus-group tested, calculated to please the discriminating moderate-to-conservative American voter. His answers on the social issues for me are less than convincing. How is it, that growing up in the Mormon church, which overwhelmingly supports conservative positions on social issues, he did not come to be pro-life?

The earliest reports were that he was pro-life. Then, when he ran for Massachusetts's Senate seat, he became a champion of abortion rights and gay rights. Ok, fine. Now, that it's convenient for him, he's an ardent pro-lifer again. It just wreaks of phoniness.

Some might argue that his pro-choice position indicates a willingness to think independently from his church. They may be right. As to who this argument benefits, I don't know. Few of the conservative evangelicals I have known are half as concerned about Romney's Mormon beliefs as they are about his apparent willingness to jettison them for political convenience. Few conservatives will be impressed with a free thinker on this specific issue, because they don't see any logical or factual way to justify the current abortion laws we have.

Is the growing baby in the womb, who (unlike its parent cells) has her own, full, unique DNA structure, her own heartbeat, and the beginnings of her own unique body, not a human?

And if it is, is there any more basic duty of a government than to protect the human life of its citizens?

And if there is, then "what kind of conservative are you anyway?", they might ask. The answer: not the kind we're looking for.

No, the fact is, a Mormon in the white house is no great deal to evangelicals, who have learned to get over their collective differences with Catholics, Jews, and even atheists to achieve the ends they seek. The great deal is someone who is pretending to be what he is not, or worse, is squishy on their pet causes. This is one of the main reasons, I believe, why evangelicals back Huckabee: he is authentically Mike, take him or leave him.

Another is his ideas: The FairTax, health care reform, appointing judicial conservatives to our nation's courts, securing the border, winning the war on terror- all these things animate Christian conservatives.

Still another is his "retail-politics" skills, as mentioned above. I believe everything happens in accordance with Providence, and there is a reason Governor Huckabee spent all that time as a pastor, above and beyond the main (and important) task of pastoring his flock: to prepare him for the next calls he would be fulfilling. (Is Huckabee God's chosen candidate? Maybe, maybe not. I think God has prepared several possible candidates who could each be president, and we need to choose the best one. I am not claiming to know to what extent the Hand of God will make itself known this election cycle.)

Another, often overlooked reason for Mike's support, is what it does for their (conservative/evangelical) cause. There are stereotypes of the conservative Christian perpetuated over and over again in our news media, repeated by those who probably have known very few conservative Christians. The "Christians" these media types have met are influential, power-brokering lobbying leaders and televangelists, neither of whom really represent the majority of American evangelicals on theology, temperament, or status in life. Evangelicals seem to like Mike Huckabee because he gives lie to the stereotype of evangelicals as weird, unconcerned with the world in which we presently live, or heartless bigots. He is none of these things, and in this way, he mirrors the leaders most of us know inside our churches, trying desperately despite our (and their) own sinfulness to communicate and embody the love of our Savior. Every time he speaks, an atheist, agnostic, or person of other religious speech thinks, "Well, I'm not a Christian, but if they are like this guy, I think I'd be more open to hearing about it." Not that he will be giving alter calls, but he is great PR, a sure method to bypass the typical calumnies in our media. Mike Huckabee is equal time. Is this a great reason to support someone for president? Probably not, but many see this as icing on the cake.

To be blunt, Romney is not great for our cause. The mere fact that evangelicals support Huckabee over Romney has lead many in the media to presume that it's because Huckabee's a Baptist and Romney's a Mormon, therefore anyone choosing Huckabee is bigoted against Mormons. (They certainly don't teach logic in journalism school, do they?) As I stated before, my chief concern is that Romney is squishy on social issues and has positions that vary with his political ambitions. Having been burned by too many Justice Souters, O'Connors, and Kennedys, social conservatives need to know that their president will be willing to expend their political capital confirming judges to the bench who don't believe in inventing new rights, like what happened in Roe v. Wade. (Is there a right to privacy? Maybe, but I know few who would argue that allows you to kill someone without government interference, yet that is what supporters of Roe are arguing when they say a blanket "right to privacy" allows for abortions.)

And many in the media are doing just what we feared they would do - painting evangelicals as bigots because we do not accept that Mormonism falls under the umbrella of orthodox Christianity. Newsflash: some Christians aren't uninformed and easy to command! I don't know that it's a majority of us, in fact I suspect not, but there are those who know what they believe and aren't afraid to say so.

There are historical standards for what does and does not a Christian make. The council at Nicaea is just one example. Under this standard, Mormon beliefs about the deity of Jesus and the reality of the trinity do not qualify as Christian; the same holds for their ideas of Joseph Smith's revelation as equal to scripture.

Does this make their religion awful? No! It just means that if we believe words mean things, and we are using the word Christian, Mormons aren't included under the traditional definition. If we use the word "Christian" to include Mormons, the term is not an entirely inaccurate one, perhaps, but we have given it new meaning, a broader usage, which would likely also include many groups not seen as "Christians" before.

Christian doesn't just mean "nice person", or even "moral believer in God". By this definition, Jews would be Christians. I think there are people who claim Christianity who do not live ethically, and people who aren't Christians who generally do live ethically. I am not trying to be insulting here! Let me say that all the Mormons I have met, with one exception [a young guy whose issues likely had zilch to do with his beliefs] have been outstanding people. I do not wish them any ill. I merely do not see eye to eye with them on who is and is not a Christian.

"But what about the Christians who say they have no problem including Mormons under the umbrella of the term Christianity?" They are adhering to standards which are, by traditional standards, quite liberal. Either they are not aware of what Mormons believe or they are not aware of the specifics of the Gospel they claim. We can hardly fault them for wanting to be inclusive, but often this is because they are uninformed. Do I realize what I am saying here, that so many Christians don't know what they believe? Yes, and it is a scathing indictment of the church in America. Sad but true.

To me, the attempt by reporters and pundits, even on the right (try arguing that Mormons are good people but not Christians on the RedState.com blog; see if you get kicked off for being a bigot, like I was) to redefine Christianity wreaks of a typical liberal tactic of least common denominator arguments, that we need to accept definitions of things that make everyone happy and ruffle no feathers. I couldn't disagree more. Any attempt by people with negligible knowledge of or interest in Christian theology to tell me what I should and should not believe will be resented and, quite frankly, resisted quite vigorously. That many on the right are attempting this bodes ill for the chances of their movement's success, as I am hardly alone. Don't criticize an evangelical for being too steadfast in his beliefs, or for not accepting uninformed definitions of what he may and may not believe.

Is such thinking capable of surviving in a democracy? Yes. I can be a conservative Christian and agree to disagree on theology in order to achieve consensus on morality. What I cannot do is allow myself to become so changed by this process that I no longer believe what I believe.

*****************************************************************

Now again, this theology discussion does not indicate why I think Mike Huckabee is the best presidential candidate.

What it does attempt is to explain why I, perhaps as so many Christians and conservatives will just have one more reason why we would love to vote for Mike, to stick our proverbial thumbs in the eyes of the"leaders" of our party who are saying we are bigoted for not supporting Romney. I are not bigoted, I have a belief system. This belief system does NOT require my presidential candidate to share in it. It requires that he be, unabashedly and unashamedly, an advocate for what I am all about POLITICALLY: protection of the life of every man, woman and child from conception until natural death. I see that Governor Romney is not. Therefore, I will not vote for him. No excellent speech about religion, such as Romney gave, will sway me on that. And to insinuate that I don't support him because he's a Mormon is false. If he were a Mormon who was sincere in his conviction about the need to protect the unborn, I would give him another look. At this point, I don't see that happening.

In writing off Huckabee voters as bigoted, conservative elites are
1) Insulting us for holding to the tenets of our faith and guarding them jealously, thus redefining not just "Christian" but "bigoted" as well
2) Missing the boat on Mike Huckabee, an excellent candidate who could win the general election
3) Revealing their ignorance of the God who animates the largest block of their coalition
4) Creating a double standard: Mitt's or Rudy Giuliani's deviance from conservatism is ok, Mike Huckabee's deviance is not, thus frankly opening them up to the charge that they really do only care about Wall Street and fiscal issues and not Main Street issues
5) Running the risk of tearing apart the only coalition that will enact the policies they seek

I personally do not want a realignment, as I value fiscal conservatism. But I, like many others, value it as a matter of practicality whereas moral issues are a matter of basic morality. And you can probably guess which one of these two I value more highly.

Charlie Rose

Anyone who wants to see if Mike Huckabee is a man of substance, you can check out his latest inverview with Charlie Rose here:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/01/1/

Good Morning America and continued response to critics

I caught Governor Mike Huckabee's appearance on "Good Morning America" this morning. While he himself was excellent, the fact is that his pre-taped interview was very obviously spliced and diced. It never let him get rolling.

It *SEEMED* to me as though the whole segment on the Gov. was selectively edited. It noted the increased criticism heaped on Gov. Huckabee in the last few days, marking perhaps one of the first times that Good Morning America has approvingly cited the American Spectator (I'm sure they all have subscriptions...)

Also, when answering a question from Matt Lauer, Governor Huckabee said in closing that he would really like to play bass onstage with Keith Richards. Diane Sawyer followed this statement with a smart-alec quip asking what kind of pairing (did she say dichotomy, perhaps? I can't recall the exact word used...) that was, as though Mike Huckabee was OBVIOUSLY some kind of repulsive sea creature who didn't belong with a hero like Keith Richards.

If GMA had done half as much research on the Governor's record as they had on finding every possible smear over the last couple of weeks, they'd know that Richards owes one to Huckabee (he pardoned the rock star for a traffic violation he once committed in Arkansas in the Stones' early days), and that the two have met.

It would be unsurprising if Huckabee had mentioned this story in the interview, but frankly very little of what he said likely made it to the air.

NOTE TO THE GOVERNOR, IF ANYONE FROM HIS CAMPAIGN READS THIS (and even if not):
Don't do pre-taped interviews when you can manage it. They will twist and distort what you say, intentionally or not. You are much more impressive in a live setting, which plays to your strengths.

Anyhow, in response to the critics, another great article has been posted over at "the evangelical outpost" blog, arguing credibly that had the Club for Growth, the economic policy organization attacking the Gov. been around in 1979-80 during the Reagan campaign, they'd have "attempted to derail Reagan's campaign just as they are now doing to Gov. Huckabee," thus possibly depriving themselves of the most sympathetic president to their cause in recent memory.

The CFG frankly doesn't even have kind words for Ron Paul, a libertarian! A libertarian ought to have a just about spotless record on the economy, right? (Rep. Paul certainly does.) Not according to CFG! I'm begging to suspect that their policy papers have more to do with criticizing candidates they don't think can win than actually substantially addressing their economic records.

Also, they never take into account the constraints placed on a politician's ability to enact pro-growth policies. Given Arkansas' long history as a tax-and-spend haven, Gov. Huckabee's accomplishments, including broad based tax cuts on income and capital gains, eliminating the marriage penalty and bracket creep, increasing child care tax credits, increasing standard deductions, and ending taxes for families below the poverty line, should all seem much more significant!

Consider the following:
*When Gov. Huckabee left Arkansas, the legislature had 99 Democrats and 36 Republicans between the two houses. Democrats are notoriously opposed to most tax cuts.
* Gov Huckabee is only the third Republican to be elected Governor since the end of the Reconstruction era.
* When States run out of money, they, unlike the Federal Government, can't just print more money. So Governor Huckabee's tax cuts are all the more bold in light of this fact.

UPDATE: Now John Fund of the Wall Street Journal is comparing Huckabee to Harriet Miers, who claims was "a clear social conservative when Bush appointed her to the Supreme Court but turned out to have very liberal views on lot of economic and other issues."

Huh? Her problem was that she was unqualified, not a liberal on the economy! The American people (and conservatives especially) didn't accept the Miers nomination because she was about as qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice as I am to become the conductor of the New York Philharmonic. The problem wasn't that she had views that were contrary to what conservatives wanted; the problem was that she had no real views at all! By all accounts, Ms. Miers did very poorly in mock confirmatino hearings. She didn't know what she believed about Constitutional Issues.

Yes, her view of the ability of the Court to interfere with the legislative branch's decisions on economic matters was important. But Fund must be just about the only man in America who saw Mier's record and said "Whoa brother, she's not fiscally conservative enough for me!" Perhaps Harriet Miers is something of a Rorschach ink blot onto whom people project their gripes with President Bush.

(Miers may have been an economic moderate; I fail to see how this relates to her failed judicial nomination.)

I think if anything, Mr. Fund has just shown his ignorance here. Fund has been another leading Huckabee critic, who really seems here to lack key critical thinking skills. What a joke! Anything to link Huckabee with a figure who many conservatives rightly rejected for reasons having little to do with the size of Miers' Milton Friedman book collection. Fund must have decided to come up with the idea to link Huckabee to Miers in order to turn people against the Gov. Never mind that his comparison is idiotic and untrue.

What's really behind these attacks? My honest opinion is that Fund is a Wall Street conservative. Every political party in American history either lives or dies by forming a broad coalition of interests. ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".) Within every coalition, the partners vie for influence. Many Wall Street conservatives are wary because Huckabee clearly represents, first and foremost, the Evangelical/Social Conservative wing of the party. So, regardless of his fiscal conservative bent, they are fighting him in the primary stage because the primaries are the time when parties most get to shape their image and their direction. It isn't that they don't see a difference between Huckabee and the Democrats on their pet issues; it's that Huckabee, if elected, won't spend his political capitol on "their" issues.

This is the same phenomen that lurks behind many social conservatives' opposition to Sen. John McCain: while mostly conservative on social issues, he won't be remembered as a champion of social conservative issues because his "big" issues aren't the pro-life cause or opposing gay marriage. Likewise, if he has to pick his fights with a Democratic congress, he will probably not fight as hard on these things as on his "big issues", like cutting pork and executing the war in Iraq.

The fiscal conservatives here are doing the exact thing that social conservatives are doing to McCain and Giuliani: weakening a potentially good candidate through excess criticism. I believe that both John and Rudy have the qualifications to be a great leader for the Republicans, just not the one I'd choose at this stage. But some fiscal conservatives are saying Huckabee shouldn't even be VP, let alone the nominee for the top slot. If anyone in the social conservative movement has publicly made statements like this, I have yet to hear about it. Please, coalition, let's keep it civil; we don't win by threatening to take our marbles and go home.

(As to the threat by some social conservatives to leave the party: this is likewise very foolish).

Mr. Fund and CFG: Maybe you should research some of these things before you make attacks. Could this criticism really be coming because they see Mike Huckabee as a real threat to their favored candidates?

Nah.

Huckabee responds to attacks... a test

I wrote the bulk of the content of the last post a bit over two weeks ago, although I just posted it yesterday.

In the ensuing time, the governor has continued to gain national attention for his impassioned speeches and slow but steady climb in the polls, as more and more Americans tune in to the governor's positive vision for America.

One of the first signs that a candidate is gaining in the polls is that (s)he is attacked by rivals. Just as Hillary Clinton would not be attacked by Republican front runners and Democratic rivals if she stood no chance, so would a Republican contender be ignored if he did not present a serious threat. Which makes the increasing number of negative attacks on the governor's record a milestone.

This is a stage in the campaign which is pivotal for the governor: can he whither the criticism?

I think his letter responding to a critical Wall Street Journal editorial is a good step. It is written by just one of the elites about whom I was speaking in my last post. John Fund is a good man, but in his isolated Wall Street Journal world, he forgets that most average Republicans are motivated as much, if not more, by issues like the right to life and sanctity of marriage than taxes and spending, Mr. Fund's pet issues. While all are important, the degree of venom in the article is indicative of the disconnect between the type of candidates elites favor and the type of candidates voters would favor. All the more reason to be alert and aware of what's happening out there!

Also helpful are posts by independent bloggers, such as this gem by The Roebuck Report.

There are other points in the Gov's favor that haven't been mentioned. I hope to address some of these in the future, if I can.

Finally, I must say that Governor Romney's attacks on Gov. Huckabee for offering scholarship eligibility for children of illegal immigrants is laughable. Governor Romney didn't seem to mind illegal immigrants (let alone their children, who are NOT responsible for their parents' actions) when he was in charge of Massachusetts, and they were manicuring his undoubtedly lavish lawn. (See here.)

In fact, if Governor Romney was smart, he wouldn't provoke fights over which governor, he or Mr. Huckabee, governed as more of a conservative.

I think the words of Sen. John McCain come to mind here: "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard." Does anyone find this man, the plastic former governor of Massachusetts, credible?

I think from now on we'll just call Governor Romney "The Varmint Hunter".

My choice in 2008

The 2008 election is sneaking up on us.

The Republican Party is teetering on the brink of collapse, in no small part because of its own ignorance. We need to start paying attention to the upcoming election, before our best options are gone!

So far, most of the people paying REAL attention to the presidential race are the "elites" in the Republican party- the ones who make the decisions, call the shots, the "kingmakers" if you will. They are the gatekeepers. They decide which candidate they like and then use their various platforms to sell the candidate to the American public, who do the heavy lifting for them. These include state party heads, talk radio hosts, news columnists, and others of a conservative bent, who have influence over the Republican Party.

These elites are not as socially conservative as the party's base. They care more about taxes and business interests. The problem is, the candidates they like and the candidates their party's base would enthusiastically support are vastly different. Their "frontrunner" is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man who supports abortion and "civil unions" and illegal immigration, and who lived with his a gay couple before divorcing his second wife for his mistress. Any conservative who ever argued that Bill Clinton's behavior made him unfit for office has no right supporting Giuliani's candidacy based on his character. And Giuliani is a negative campaigner's dream - the man has a checkered past, not only in his "family life" (if you can call it that), but also in a history of shady business dealings. Rudy is corporate America - give the little people what they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of business. Rudy does bring some solid things to the table, but given his shady past, it’s questionable whether he would win a seat at that table.


Then there's Mitt Romney. I do not wish to come across as a bigot, but the fact that this other frontrunner for the GOP nomination is a Mormon might be a nonstarter for many voters. Would he be able to overcome that? Maybe, but not if the videos from 1994 (or even 2002) in which Romney insists he's pro-choice and a better champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy (!) make the rounds. He'd be sunk. The timing of his conversion to conservative principles is transparently opportunistic. The fact that he has changed so many of them so quickly wreaks of an all-too-apparent willingness to abandon whatever his "beliefs" are as soon as his situation changes. If he's elected with a Democratic congress, would he really be willing to cling so fervently to those beliefs? Already, president Bush has compromised on several of his beliefs- on illegal immigration, on global warming, on the RU-486 abortion pill. How would a President Romney sell out his base if he were president? And putting all that aside, the fact is, the man is just...odd. While some praise his charm and wit "on the stump", they must be seeing what they so badly want to see in Romney, because he comes across as alternately weird and phony to me. FINALLY, Romney is exactly what so many working class swing voters hate about Bush - he's a phony, son-of-a-politician business man who either pretends or genuinely thinks he knows what the average guy wants. This will not help the Republicans' chances in 2008. Is this the best we can do? Because these are two of the main candidates most Republican elites support.

Those elites who ARE socially conservative (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, all those guys) are all in disarray, unsure of whom to support. Now we hear that they are considering a third party candidate if they don't like the Republican nominee. This would be political suicide for conservatives, since they would not make a majority on their own terms. The vote would be split, leaving the White House open for the Democratic nominee, whoever he (or she) may be. While many voters are open to voting for a social conservative, not as many vote based just on issues like abortion and gay rights, and such a candidate would almost surely lose. However, equally ugly to a is the possibility that the elites will decide the social conservatives are useless anyway and abandon them, saying "Vote for our candidate or become irrelevant." In other words, they feel that pro-life, anti-gay marriage voters should just ignore their consciences and potentially vote for a Romney or Guiliani.

The sad thing is the way in which these social conservative elites seem to accept the inevitability of their choices. Isn't this America? Aren't presidents elected by the people and not "elites"? Conservatives must stop fooling around and ignoring the race until their candidate has been "selected" for them. Just because Romney and Giuliani can raise money (or can bankroll their own presidential campaigns), that doesn't mean a majority of the American people will (or even should) elect them. Even the most far-reaching ad campaign can't sell a message to which people are simply unreceptive. In other words, you can put lipstck on a pig like Mitt or Rudy, but don't expect the American people (especially conservatives) to pucker up.
It isn't that neither man has anything going for them, and against Hillary Clinton, either of them looks good to most Republicans.

But people, this is A DEMOCRACY. There is NOTHING that says we have to buy either one of these guys just because we are told they are "electable". Power to the people! Let's pick a candidate who represents what we want, not what the media and political "talking heads" tell us to accept!

What if I told you there was a Republican candidate who is unashamedly pro-life, whose entry into politics came because of his pro-life convictions?

Who opposes gay marriage in all its forms, yet because of his background as a southern Baptist minister could lovingly communicate a firm position on the issue without scaring away non-conservatives?

A candidate who strongly favors the second amendment right to own a firearm and who has received the endorsement of America's foremost pro-homeschooling group, and of the Machinists' trade union?

What if I told you that candidate won 48% of the African-American vote in and twice won re-election in a heavily Democratic state?

That this was a candidate who can appeal largely to both "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", both of whom are key swing voting constituencies who have helped shape the last several elections?

That this candidate favors the elimination of the IRS?

That this candidate is scaring Bill Clinton, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and Rolling Stone magazine, all of whom recognize him as the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in 2008?

There is such a candidate.

He is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee? Yeah, I know, funny name. Yet as he himself says, ""My last name has never opened doors for me because it's not the name of a prominent, wealthy, or heralded political family, but the Bible says that "a GOOD name is more to be desired than great riches," and my name represents the sacrifice, hard work, and old fashioned discipline that my Dad gave me when he didn't have the education, wealth, or position to give me anything else. It's a name I wear proudly--not just for myself, but all those who like me have fought their way beyond poverty to live and love the American dream." Yes, he's usually at least that eloquent. He gets universal rave reviews from folks of all political persuasions as an excellent communicator.

He calls his style of politics "vertical" - he doesn't want to move people left or right, he wants to build them up rather than tear them down. So why hasn't he caught fire? Because not enough people know about him! This has to change. Go to his website mikehuckabee.com, read about his positions on the major issues, watch some video of him on YouTube, and if you feel that electing a pro-life, pro-family conservative is as important in 2008 as I do, help out by donating, giving money, or even just spreading the word among your friends and family.

I'll be posting more about Mike in the days and weeks ahead.

Hey all

Welcome to my new blog! I'll be using it to write about all the things that get to me, that I just have to make known somehow. Please, if you like what you read, and/or know someone else who might be interested in what I have to say, I'd really appreciate you letting them know about my blog! Thanks!