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.