Insurrection . . . will conservatives fight back?
Now that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has suspended his bid for President, I must ask the following question: Will the conservative wing of the Republican Party mount a comeback and declare that they will not be forced into the "de facto" nomination of John McCain?
If you are a conservative, there is only one way to avoid John McCain becoming our nominee- support Mike Huckabee. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. Gov. Huckabee has the experience of running a government- 10 1/2 years as Governor of Arkansas. He was elected not once, but four times in Arkansas and has never faltered in his stance upon conservative principles.
Remember, we not only need a conservative nominee this November, we need a nominee who can clearly communicate our conservative values. Mike Huckabee is the only candidate remaining who can do just that.
3 comments:
I've read your blog with mild amusement since it became a Mike Huckabee love fest. The one point you keep coming back to is Huckabee's so-called "true conservatism" as you mention in this post. Conservatism at its core is not a social movement. Historically, conservatism centers around limited federal government, low taxation, a strong national defense and most importantly, state's rights. The controversy with McCain amongst the Republican Party stems from his gravitation towards Federalized immigration laws, campaign finance and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts. Social issues do not factor into this opposition amongst the party faithful as much as you imply.
The kind of "conservative government" Mike Huckabee proposes is anything but. I would go so far as to say that it more closely resembles the populist message of John Edwards. Sure, the names and players have changed, but the philosophy remains the same: "the Federal government should legislate morality based on the ethics of the Commander in Chief." That's Mike Huckabee's message in a nutshell. He proposes Constitutional Amendments to ban abortion across all states. He proposes Constitutional Amendments to ban gay marriage across all states. Under True Conservatism, the morality of the South should have no bearing on states like Massachusetts or California any more than the morality of Massachusetts and California should have a bearing on Southern states.
The only reason "social conservatism" gained any political traction under Reagan was because cases like Roe v. Wade imposed a progressive set of ethics onto more traditional states - against their will. Somewhere along the line, the Evangelical movement lost sight of this - or maybe it never cared as long as it looked like it was getting its way. A few weeks ago, you wrote: "If only we were as obsessed with family values..." My initial thought as someone you would erroneously describe as a liberal was "I am obsessed with family values. I'm obsessed with keeping your values out of my family." That's what true conservatism is all about. I have the right to lead my life as I see fit as long as I don't encroach on your ability to lead yours (and vice versa). And the Federal government has no place telling you or me how to live, how to educate my children or tax my income.
I like Mike Huckabee. I think he's a good guy. I also think John McCain is a good guy. But "good guy" or not, we're talking about the leader of the free world - not whether he opposes gay marriage and/or abortion. Let's face it; we saw the evangelical movement get its ideal candidate in George Bush. And look where that got us. Not just you, and not just me. But the whole nation and the whole world. You got your Conservative judges on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is no closer to being overturned than it was in 1992. Gay marriage is still legal in Massachusetts and neither a George Bush nor Mike Huckabee Presidency could change that. When the Country elects a decent governor, but seriously unqualified individual to the highest office in our fair land, it harms all of us for the sake of a few hot-button issues. And Mike Huckabee - as good of a guy as he is - is not nearly as qualified as John McCain for the job. And I'll gladly back that statement up if you so desire.
Here's my main point. You are confusing morality with true conservatism, and in doing so you're suggesting that the Republican Party nominate an incredibly liberal individual (yes, liberal) who would openly pander to an often bigoted and close-minded sect of our Country. But a nomination wouldn't matter. Mike Huckabee could not win a general election. And Mike Huckabee could not win a debate against either Clinton or Obama. Huckabee's simple-minded one-liners would fall on a deaf electorate during a general election - whereas McCain has displayed a thorough and nuanced understanding of the issues throughout his career. I probably would still vote for a Democrat, but I would be proud to have John McCain as my President. And I think after 8 years of utter incompetence under George Bush, the American people deserve someone with the mental capacity to think outside the box and realize that there are issues far more important than the pro-life and "sanctity of marriage" agendas.
Americans deserve a choice between strong, intelligent leaders in November - not a choice between your perception of "right and wrong." Mike Huckabee should bow out of this race for the good of the entire Country.
I agree with some of what was said before me, but I will say that the biggest disgrace the republican party has suffered has been the public smearing of Mitt Romneys name. He is head and shoulders above Huckabee and Mcain. Huckabee was in fact my first choice. But after looking at issues central to the Republican parties core, I found that Huckabee is not that man, and Mcain ain't even a Republican! I respect huckabees stand for his religion, and beleive he is a good man. But if you look at his past, not what he says now, he comes up short of being a conservative. I hope and pray that Mcain doesn't get the nomination and choose Huck as his VP, because he would ruin him.To end this "rant", Huckabee in my mind has played the spoiler in garnering enough votes away from Romney to all but hand the nomination to Mcain. This is a crying shame and one of the reasons I am tempted to not even vote this election, because in my mind it has become a "lesser of two evils". This is Clint from Vandalia,just so you know,and I know your a big huck supporter but Id love too hear your opinion on Mitt and Mcain.
Very well put David! I stated on this site once before that the view of the president should not matter. what is important is rather his philosophy for running the country, which as you said, according to true conservatism would be limited government. Ron Paul seemed to me to be the only candidate true to that.
A president should not force his beliefs upon the entire country. Although he is a christian and that may explain why he feels the need to cram his beliefs down other peoples throats. I think it's funny how Christians so want a president who will force the world into their personal standards. Yeah, that will work. Nothing like forcing people to do or not do something to win them over. I mean, if i'm not mistaken, don't we have a pro-life president now? And are there still abortions in the US? Why do we need laws for people to determine their morality. I mean abortion and gay marraige are legal, but that does mean i plan on doing either of those. do you mr Cook?
The more things we outlaw the more we set up a system that will only one day come back to outlaw our freedom of religion.
Post a Comment