Intellectually, I recognize that John McCain could have done very well with either Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.
Palin brought in an avenue to reel in disaffected Hillary supporters. She puts a very articulate and reasonable face on the issue of domestic energy production. She is a reformer and maverick - which fits into McCain's career and image very well. She also has impeccable pro-life credentials (I don't think a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's child).
She lacks experience, though, and on the economy in general, she is not as strong as Romney. But the pluses far outweigh the minuses.
Romney had the economic credentials - in spades. He also had no real skeletons, had been vetted, and would have not only locked down some uncomfortably close Mountain West States (Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico), but he had a very good chance of flipping Michigan. The way this election is shaping up - McCain winning Michigan means game over for Obama.
There were downsides. He and McCain didn't exactly get along in the primary. The other, though, leaves me with a bag of mixed emotions.
To wit, Mitt Romney was shot down for the Presidential nomination by anti-Mormon bigotry among evangelicals - a bigotry that was played to by Mike Huckabee. It was a bigotry that a lot of leading conservatives did not denounce. Why they did not do so is a mystery. Afraid of losing support? Was it a reluctance to make a charge that has all too often been used by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with little merit? Who knows? But the fact they didn't take on Huckabee has led me to seriously reconsider my alliance with conservatism.
Worse, it also colors my views on a very dedicated wife, mother, and public servant. As much as Sarah Palin is a good nominee, and knowing intellectually that it is very likely that she was selected on the merits, a part of me will always wonder whether she got the slot entirely on the merits (which make it just about a coin toss), or because McCain blinked vis-a-vis Huckabee and other anti-Mormon bigots. I’m probably being very unfair to Governor Palin, but that question just is not going away any time soon.
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
An open letter worth reading...
See Article6Blog.com for something worth leading.
August 18, 2008
- The Honorable George H.W. Bush
- George Bush Presidential Library and Museum
- 1000 George Bush Drive West
- College Station, TX 77845
Dear Mr. President:
Last December, it was our distinct pleasure to visit the magnificent library archiving and celebrating your service as the president of our great nation. The occasion was your hosting Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. Your introduction of Gov. Romney was most gracious and his speech captured the very essence of what is great about the American vision of how religion and public life intersect.
Sadly, since that time, some involved in the current presidential election cycle have behaved, very publicly, in a fashion that represents some of our worst tendencies when we stand at that intersection. Of course our nation is full of groups with their own particular viewpoints, all vying for attention - and that is to be encouraged; it is an important part of America’s greatness.
Candidates for the highest office in the land, however, must, as Gov. Romney said that day in your auditorium, rise above petty bickering to unite our nation. To accomplish that, candidates must unite their political party, not tear it apart on religious, ethnic, or other grounds.
And yet, former presidential candidate and current FOX News commentator Mike Huckabee seems intent on creating such discord and disunity. His recent efforts to stand at the head of the “anybody but Romney for vice president” movement are simply offensive. His protests to the contrary notwithstanding, that movement and his energy on its behalf are so clearly based in religious bias, even bigotry, that they simply step outside the boundaries of legitimate presidential electoral debate and threaten our party’s unity. Such behavior can only serve to cheapen our nation’s political discourse as it increasingly descends into the gutter.
This is more than mere conjecture. Recent polling evidence, particularly that out of a Vanderbilt University study based on surveys conducted when both Huckabee and Romney were still active presidential candidates, clearly indicates that the very limited arguments Gov. Huckabee uses in his opposition to Gov. Romney play on traditional Christian prejudices concerning Mormons. In many cases those arguments cases are simply “code” for “we cannot vote for him, he’s a Mormon.”
In 1908, William Howard Taft sought the presidency. Mr Taft was a Unitarian and he was opposed on religious grounds by William Jennings Bryan using tactics similar to those we are seeing Gov. Huckabee use against Gov. Romney today. The man leaving the presidency at that time, Theodore Roosevelt, felt it necessary the defy the convention of former presidents staying clear of the fray and to defend the right of every American, regardless of religion, to hold the highest office in the land. He did so in a series of now-famous letters to the various parties involved.
Today we write to you, as the senior Republican statesman in our nation, to ask you to take a similarly bold stand, to write such an important letter and to do so openly. Much has changed since the turn of the last century; our politics are conducted far more publicly than they once were. We ask that your letter be open and made available in the leading journals of this time.
This type of behavior we are seeing simply must be repudiated. You stand in a unique position to provide such repudiation. Gov. Huckabee must be made to understand that to continue to behave in this fashion will permanently disqualify him, and those he represents, from serious consideration for any leadership role in the Republican party ever again. Few people, if any, can speak for the entire party with as much wisdom, experience, and insight as you can. You alone not only are beyond the battles of presidential politics, but also enjoy the moral authority coming from having won them. You can help us keep our party, this nation and our electoral processes within the bounds of traditional American understanding and decency. We will be a much worse nation indeed if we break down into identity group bickering instead of uniting to elect the best people to govern us.
If we may be of any service to you in your efforts to fulfill our request, please do not hesitate to call upon us.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and may God bless!
Sincerely,
- Lowell Brown
- Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
- Co-Author
- Article VI Blog
- http://www.article6blog.com
- John Schroeder
- evangelical Presbyterian, member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
- Co-Author
- Article VI Blog
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My vote, and why it went as it did.
It's official. This morning, I cast my vote in Virginia's Republican primary election. It will be said that I cast my vote for John McCain, and that is how it will likely be tallied. But in reality, it was more a vote AGAINST Mike Huckabee.
In some ways, I guess I was naive. I thought that Americans had gotten over religion as a barrier to the Presidency. That was arguably a question settled by John F. Kennedy.
I was wrong.
The New Republic seems to have hit the nail on the head:
But there is just too much evidence that they are a minority among evangelicals:
* James Dobson's maneuvering, discussed earlier in this blog.
* The admission from Huckabee's research director that many evangelicals would grab on to an issue like "flip flop", but would really be voting against Romney because he was Mormon.
* The Vanderbilt study contains statistical backup of the anecdotal evidence.
* The increase in anti-Mormon sermons in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.
* The comments on Huckabee's official campaign blog.
The preponderance of the evidence points to anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals as a primary factor in the failure of Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign.
Sorry, but I feel like I've been given the finger by values voters. Never mind that I have a lot of agreement with them on a number of issues, they simply have decided that a Mormon should not be president, and have made it clear that any Mormon who is too uppity will be taken down.
To quote Mase from "Will They Die 4 You" on the South Park Chef Aid soundtrack:
Quite frankly, I trust religious conservatives about as far as I can throw a Nimitz-class carrier. I'd rather have a moderate like McCain than a religious bigot like Huckabee. In the future, an endorsement from James Dobson and others of his stripe will be a negative in the primary - and I will keep options open, including sitting out a general election if I do not like the choices.
That's pretty much where I am now.
In some ways, I guess I was naive. I thought that Americans had gotten over religion as a barrier to the Presidency. That was arguably a question settled by John F. Kennedy.
I was wrong.
The New Republic seems to have hit the nail on the head:
Southern states have GOP primary electorates dominated by evangelical Christians, specifically by Southern Baptists. And many of those Southern Baptists are committed to blocking the ascension of a Mormon to the presidency.This is not to say all of them are. Nancy French at Evangelicals for Mitt and John Schroeder at Article 6 Blog backed Romney. So did MacRanger, who I had the pleasure of talking with in a number of shows (albeit after a flirtation with Fred Thompson).
But there is just too much evidence that they are a minority among evangelicals:
* James Dobson's maneuvering, discussed earlier in this blog.
* The admission from Huckabee's research director that many evangelicals would grab on to an issue like "flip flop", but would really be voting against Romney because he was Mormon.
* The Vanderbilt study contains statistical backup of the anecdotal evidence.
* The increase in anti-Mormon sermons in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.
* The comments on Huckabee's official campaign blog.
The preponderance of the evidence points to anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals as a primary factor in the failure of Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign.
Sorry, but I feel like I've been given the finger by values voters. Never mind that I have a lot of agreement with them on a number of issues, they simply have decided that a Mormon should not be president, and have made it clear that any Mormon who is too uppity will be taken down.
To quote Mase from "Will They Die 4 You" on the South Park Chef Aid soundtrack:
[Someone] smack me, I'ma smack 'em backSo, I sent them a finger and a hearty "fuck you" in return. Spiteful? Yeah, to a degree, it was. And I think, given the evidence, I'm entitled to take a shot or two. But there's also a cold, rational way of thinking about this situation.
If it lead to the guns, then that be that
Quite frankly, I trust religious conservatives about as far as I can throw a Nimitz-class carrier. I'd rather have a moderate like McCain than a religious bigot like Huckabee. In the future, an endorsement from James Dobson and others of his stripe will be a negative in the primary - and I will keep options open, including sitting out a general election if I do not like the choices.
That's pretty much where I am now.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Noted, Dr. Dobson...
James Dobson certainly played things cagey prior to Super Tuesday.
He told people to vote against McCain on Monday. But he didn't bother to actually endorse anyone until after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race.
Never mind what Romney did in Massachusetts after gay marriage was imposed on that state. Never mind the way Romney had lived his life. Never mind that in his time as an ecclesiastical leader, he never took a penny (and probably made financial sacrifices in that role, unlike Mike Huckabee).
But it seems his wife worked to exclude Mormons from the National Day of Prayer events in 2004.
If it looks like anti-Mormon bias and sounds like anti-Mormon bias... then you ain't likely to go broke betting on anti-Mormon bias.
Yob tvoyu maht, Dr. Dobson. I ought to vote for McCain on Tuesday to spite your religiously bigoted ass.
He told people to vote against McCain on Monday. But he didn't bother to actually endorse anyone until after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race.
Never mind what Romney did in Massachusetts after gay marriage was imposed on that state. Never mind the way Romney had lived his life. Never mind that in his time as an ecclesiastical leader, he never took a penny (and probably made financial sacrifices in that role, unlike Mike Huckabee).
But it seems his wife worked to exclude Mormons from the National Day of Prayer events in 2004.
If it looks like anti-Mormon bias and sounds like anti-Mormon bias... then you ain't likely to go broke betting on anti-Mormon bias.
Yob tvoyu maht, Dr. Dobson. I ought to vote for McCain on Tuesday to spite your religiously bigoted ass.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My beef with Huckabee explained...
Article 6 Blog has done perhaps the best coverage of religion as an issue in the 2008 race for President.
That is why this post from that blog is worth reading.
The scary thing is that Huckabee may very well succeed in at least knocking Mitt Romney out of the race. Unlike McCain, who has earned some big-time credentials on issues by doing things like supporting the surge when the surge wasn't cool, and backing stuff he believes in despite flak from friends and foes, or Giuliani, who has perhaps the better turn-around and crisis management track record than Romney, Mike Huckabee's not even showing that he is really capable of defending his positions. Instead, his campaign has been on the grounds he is a "Christian leader" and he has literally claimed that Romney's efforts in the past to point out his track record have been unfair.
Hmmm... I don't know about you, but I find something very suspicious about that.
I don't think it is unfair to compare job performance. It is not unfair to bring up a person's track record. But running against a guy's religion is dirty pool. Had this been a real job, rather than a political race, they would face some problems under the Civil rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
And therein lies the reason Mike Huckabee is not going to get my vote under any circumstances. He was, for all intents and purposes, a coward. He refused to defend his track record or his positions on fiscal and foreign policy issues. He chose to instead make an issue out of Mitt Romney's religion. A man that dishonorable should not be President of the United States.
That is why this post from that blog is worth reading.
The scary thing is that Huckabee may very well succeed in at least knocking Mitt Romney out of the race. Unlike McCain, who has earned some big-time credentials on issues by doing things like supporting the surge when the surge wasn't cool, and backing stuff he believes in despite flak from friends and foes, or Giuliani, who has perhaps the better turn-around and crisis management track record than Romney, Mike Huckabee's not even showing that he is really capable of defending his positions. Instead, his campaign has been on the grounds he is a "Christian leader" and he has literally claimed that Romney's efforts in the past to point out his track record have been unfair.
Hmmm... I don't know about you, but I find something very suspicious about that.
I don't think it is unfair to compare job performance. It is not unfair to bring up a person's track record. But running against a guy's religion is dirty pool. Had this been a real job, rather than a political race, they would face some problems under the Civil rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
And therein lies the reason Mike Huckabee is not going to get my vote under any circumstances. He was, for all intents and purposes, a coward. He refused to defend his track record or his positions on fiscal and foreign policy issues. He chose to instead make an issue out of Mitt Romney's religion. A man that dishonorable should not be President of the United States.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Dishonorable Defeat of Mitt Romney...
There really is no other word to describe the defeat of Mitt Romney in Iowa except dishonorable. When you take a look at WHY people voted Huckabee, it came down to the fact that Huckabee was "Christian" and Romney was allegedly not (never mind that the church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Huckabee did not win Iowa on the strength of his stands on various issues (because his foreign policy and fiscal stances are closer to the Dems than to the GOP), nor his track record on social issues (because, if that were the case, one would realize that Romney not only left very little daylight between his positions and Huckabee's, but he arguably faced a major crisis in that matter). He certainly couldn't boast of accomplishments comparable to Romney's before entering political office (saving the 2002 Olympics and turning around several companies, not to mention helping to launch companies like Staples).
His victory was arguably due to his playing of the religion card against Mitt Romney. Article 6 Blog has documented a lot of this. What is most damning are the comments left on his official site's blog by his supporters. It is very telling that he could not have exercised some very basic moderation of his blog. In fact, he certainly seemed to be willing to turn a blind eye to the Mormon-baiting, as long as he won Iowa.
Equally sickening is the fact that conservatives of a certain stripe rewarded Huckabee for this. In 1994, Newt Gingrich expressed outrage when Romney was attacked by the Kennedy family over his religious beliefs. Today, there is the sound of silence from the right as this dishonorable conduct is turned on a Republican. Then again, after the Harriet Miers nomination and the right's embrace of Ramos and Compean, I find myself not so surprised.
Mike Huckabee's dishonorable tactics make it impossible for me to vote for him. Indeed, if it is a choice between Huckabee and Obama, I'll vote for Obama - because here's just no difference between the two on the big issue that matters, and because I can no longer in good conscience empower a political movement that rewards dishonorable conduct. Obama would be a mess, but at least he is honorable. something I cannot say about Huckabee.
Furthermore, Fred Thompson is also unacceptable to me unless he is willing to fire Cyndi Mosteller, who has engaged in similar Mormon-baiting against Romney. If Fred Thompson is honorable, he'll stand on his positions, and NOT resort to Mormon-baiting. Otherwise, I'll find better things to do than cast my vote for him.
Huckabee did not win Iowa on the strength of his stands on various issues (because his foreign policy and fiscal stances are closer to the Dems than to the GOP), nor his track record on social issues (because, if that were the case, one would realize that Romney not only left very little daylight between his positions and Huckabee's, but he arguably faced a major crisis in that matter). He certainly couldn't boast of accomplishments comparable to Romney's before entering political office (saving the 2002 Olympics and turning around several companies, not to mention helping to launch companies like Staples).
His victory was arguably due to his playing of the religion card against Mitt Romney. Article 6 Blog has documented a lot of this. What is most damning are the comments left on his official site's blog by his supporters. It is very telling that he could not have exercised some very basic moderation of his blog. In fact, he certainly seemed to be willing to turn a blind eye to the Mormon-baiting, as long as he won Iowa.
Equally sickening is the fact that conservatives of a certain stripe rewarded Huckabee for this. In 1994, Newt Gingrich expressed outrage when Romney was attacked by the Kennedy family over his religious beliefs. Today, there is the sound of silence from the right as this dishonorable conduct is turned on a Republican. Then again, after the Harriet Miers nomination and the right's embrace of Ramos and Compean, I find myself not so surprised.
Mike Huckabee's dishonorable tactics make it impossible for me to vote for him. Indeed, if it is a choice between Huckabee and Obama, I'll vote for Obama - because here's just no difference between the two on the big issue that matters, and because I can no longer in good conscience empower a political movement that rewards dishonorable conduct. Obama would be a mess, but at least he is honorable. something I cannot say about Huckabee.
Furthermore, Fred Thompson is also unacceptable to me unless he is willing to fire Cyndi Mosteller, who has engaged in similar Mormon-baiting against Romney. If Fred Thompson is honorable, he'll stand on his positions, and NOT resort to Mormon-baiting. Otherwise, I'll find better things to do than cast my vote for him.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
GOP says "No Mormons Need Apply"
Huckabee's lead in Iowa speaks volumes about what a significant chunk of the GOP believes, and quite frankly, it is ugly.
In essence, a candidate with a far superior resume lost because an opponent used the politics of religious identity. In essence, when he couldn't really attack Romney's record, his resume, Huckabee pretty much attacked his religion.
It's sickening. It is also a very sobering moment for me. We just saw someone who was at ground zero of the marriage debate and who stood up against human cloning and who did so in a statesmanlike manner get defeated largely because of his religion. Don't take my word for it - see Huckabee's supporters and staffers.
This is a fence that may be unmendable.
EDIT: Alexham at Redstate now demands that we be nice to Huckabee.
Sorry, but I see no reason to be nice to someone whose only message was "Vote for me because the other guy's a Mormon."
Why should I support someone who views me as a devil-worshiping cultist, Alexham? Why should I not sit out or vote for the Democrat (should Obama be the nominee)? At least Obama's not only honest, but the defeat of Huckabee may prompt the GOP to finally do something about the ugly side of certain SoCons.
And this is not just because I am a Mormon. It is because Huckabee's tactics are beneath contempt - either the First Amendment's protection for freedom of religion and Article VI of the Constitution mean something, or they do not. And it is obvious that SoCons seem to have a very selective respect for those provisions.
In essence, a candidate with a far superior resume lost because an opponent used the politics of religious identity. In essence, when he couldn't really attack Romney's record, his resume, Huckabee pretty much attacked his religion.
It's sickening. It is also a very sobering moment for me. We just saw someone who was at ground zero of the marriage debate and who stood up against human cloning and who did so in a statesmanlike manner get defeated largely because of his religion. Don't take my word for it - see Huckabee's supporters and staffers.
This is a fence that may be unmendable.
EDIT: Alexham at Redstate now demands that we be nice to Huckabee.
Sorry, but I see no reason to be nice to someone whose only message was "Vote for me because the other guy's a Mormon."
Why should I support someone who views me as a devil-worshiping cultist, Alexham? Why should I not sit out or vote for the Democrat (should Obama be the nominee)? At least Obama's not only honest, but the defeat of Huckabee may prompt the GOP to finally do something about the ugly side of certain SoCons.
And this is not just because I am a Mormon. It is because Huckabee's tactics are beneath contempt - either the First Amendment's protection for freedom of religion and Article VI of the Constitution mean something, or they do not. And it is obvious that SoCons seem to have a very selective respect for those provisions.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The difference...
I can bet that Huckabee supporters are claiming that Mitt Romney is attacking Huckabee - and trying to make claims that there is an equivalence after Mitt went after Huckster.
Yeah, right.
Mitt Romney went after Huckabee's Kos-esque criticism of President Bush. He also compared his record on immigration. Neither compare to Huckabee's playing of the religion card.
To claim they do defies logic.
Still, some will try to defend it.
Yeah, right.
Mitt Romney went after Huckabee's Kos-esque criticism of President Bush. He also compared his record on immigration. Neither compare to Huckabee's playing of the religion card.
To claim they do defies logic.
Still, some will try to defend it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
An apology I cannot accept...
So, Mike Huckabee has apologized.
It is an apology I am not ready to accept by a long shot.
Why? Well, let's look at the basic issue: As I said Tuesday, Mitt Romney's track record and resume far surpasses that of Mike Huckabee. Romney has repeatedly taken businesses that were in trouble and turned them into success stories. He has also given us some of today's most recognizable companies via his work as a venture capitalist (Staples comes to mind). Then, he also served the public, first in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics that were in very serious trouble, then by serving one term as governor of Massachusetts.
During his tenure as governor, he not only turned a bad fiscal situation around without tax increases, he also confronted two divisive issues of social policy in a manner that was statesmanlike and impressive. Yes, his positions have changed, but it is just as reasonable to argue that the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage and the human cloning bill were muggings that led to a change in perspective (a circumstance that has been the subject of a long-running joke among conservatives).
What has Huckabee brought to the table? Not much as governor, except for getting a rapist paroled - who then went on to commit more violent crimes. Oh, he lost 100 pounds. I'd buy a diet plan from Huckabee, but do I want him in the Oval Office? Not unless he is there to give the President an autographed copy of his book.
In terms of resumes, Romney beats Huckabee hands-down.
And fundamentally, this is the first reason why the defense offered by Joshua Trevino fails.
The second reason is tied to the first. If as Trevino postulates, Huckabee's positions on economic policy and foreign policy are defensible, then why is Huckabee not defending them against criticism? As someone who has studied theology, and thus who might be able to make a moral case for them, he should be able to do that very well. Yet, it seems we get more of the moral argument about why we should be nice to terrorists from McCain than from Huckabee. As a Southern Baptist preacher, who probably gave many sermons (which he has refused to release, leading me to wonder what Huckabee is afraid of on that count), he should be able to make the compelling case.
Huckabee has not done so. Instead, he has played the religion card, as Article6Blog.com has documented so well. What we have found out over the last two weeks certainly makes it very likely (at least in my mind) that Huckabee is behind the "push-polling" that was so controversial around Thanksgiving. I'll discuss that part later.
In essence, Huckabee did not defend his resume or track record. He instead has complained about comparisons of his track record in ads. He instead appealed for votes on the basis of his religion. His comments in the New York Times Magazine profile also leave little room to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.
This is why I am not willing to accept his apology. Huckabee is not sorry that Mitt Romney's religion has come under attack. He is not sorry about the consequences of the attacks, which have given him a decent lead in Iowa. He is just sorry that his Mormon-baiting is now undeniable - and his apology is an attempt to gloss over the indefensible actions of his campaign, desperate to gain momentum against a candidate with a superior resume and superior resources.
Huckabee will not get my vote in 2008. I have far better things to do with my time than to empower a two-bit religious bigot who oozes sanctimonious hypocrisy.
It is an apology I am not ready to accept by a long shot.
Why? Well, let's look at the basic issue: As I said Tuesday, Mitt Romney's track record and resume far surpasses that of Mike Huckabee. Romney has repeatedly taken businesses that were in trouble and turned them into success stories. He has also given us some of today's most recognizable companies via his work as a venture capitalist (Staples comes to mind). Then, he also served the public, first in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics that were in very serious trouble, then by serving one term as governor of Massachusetts.
During his tenure as governor, he not only turned a bad fiscal situation around without tax increases, he also confronted two divisive issues of social policy in a manner that was statesmanlike and impressive. Yes, his positions have changed, but it is just as reasonable to argue that the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage and the human cloning bill were muggings that led to a change in perspective (a circumstance that has been the subject of a long-running joke among conservatives).
What has Huckabee brought to the table? Not much as governor, except for getting a rapist paroled - who then went on to commit more violent crimes. Oh, he lost 100 pounds. I'd buy a diet plan from Huckabee, but do I want him in the Oval Office? Not unless he is there to give the President an autographed copy of his book.
In terms of resumes, Romney beats Huckabee hands-down.
And fundamentally, this is the first reason why the defense offered by Joshua Trevino fails.
The second reason is tied to the first. If as Trevino postulates, Huckabee's positions on economic policy and foreign policy are defensible, then why is Huckabee not defending them against criticism? As someone who has studied theology, and thus who might be able to make a moral case for them, he should be able to do that very well. Yet, it seems we get more of the moral argument about why we should be nice to terrorists from McCain than from Huckabee. As a Southern Baptist preacher, who probably gave many sermons (which he has refused to release, leading me to wonder what Huckabee is afraid of on that count), he should be able to make the compelling case.
Huckabee has not done so. Instead, he has played the religion card, as Article6Blog.com has documented so well. What we have found out over the last two weeks certainly makes it very likely (at least in my mind) that Huckabee is behind the "push-polling" that was so controversial around Thanksgiving. I'll discuss that part later.
In essence, Huckabee did not defend his resume or track record. He instead has complained about comparisons of his track record in ads. He instead appealed for votes on the basis of his religion. His comments in the New York Times Magazine profile also leave little room to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.
This is why I am not willing to accept his apology. Huckabee is not sorry that Mitt Romney's religion has come under attack. He is not sorry about the consequences of the attacks, which have given him a decent lead in Iowa. He is just sorry that his Mormon-baiting is now undeniable - and his apology is an attempt to gloss over the indefensible actions of his campaign, desperate to gain momentum against a candidate with a superior resume and superior resources.
Huckabee will not get my vote in 2008. I have far better things to do with my time than to empower a two-bit religious bigot who oozes sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
National Review endorses Mitt Romney...
Their editorial on the endorsement lays out the case for Mitt in very good detail, and cites the reasons why he's my top candidate, beating Rudy Giuliani out in a photo finish.
The big quote is here:
After one such event, re-thinking would be in order. With two such muggings, the shift is not only explainable, but the presumption should be that it is genuine.
Regrettably, he is not likely to win Iowa - largely due to Mike Huckabee playing the religion card. Now, I can hear the complaints from bloggers like Joshua Trevino - who feel that the real issue is how "untrustworthy" Romney is. I beg to differ, and cite the alternative explanation I have outlined above.
I will also add one other counterpoint: By the standards that Trevino has set, Ronald Wilson Reagan's track record as governor of California would have utterly disqualified him to be the Republican nominee - because he would have been far less trustworthy based onhis track record. Reagan signed legislation that liberalized California's abortion laws. Mitt Romney's track record is far more pro-life than Reagan's was - and he fought his battles in a much more hostile political environment.
Furthermore, I will add this to the discussion: When you take religion out of the picture, Mitt Romney's track record and resume far surpasses that of Mike Huckabee. To witness his conduct during the gay marriage battle was to see a consummate statesman standing up against an imperial judiciary and a legislature that abdicated its responsibility to stand up for the people it represented. It was notable not just for what Romney did (making the case very eloquently and effectively), but for what he did not do (the demonization of opponents on this issue was conspicuously absent).
And yet, Huckabee is ahead in Iowa by a wide margin. His supporters and his ads have played up the theme that he is a "Christian leader" lately as well (again, see Article6blog.com, which has covered this issue). Coincidence? Happenstance? I doubt it. In essence, the candidate with the superior resume will not be hired by Republican primary voters, and his religion appears to be a major reason, if not the major reason.
Rudy Giuliani's resume/track record is perhaps the only one that really rivals Romney's. It tops Romney's in one critical area for the President of the United States: Crisis management. He also has matched Romney in a number of other areas, and he has also, unlike John McCain, gone to great lengths at times to emphasize the common ground he holds with conservatives, rather than seeking to stick his thumb in their eye. His private life has been a mess, but unlike Bill Clinton, there seems to have been no effort to deny or minimize it on Rudy's part.
Either Romney or Giuliani would make a fine President - and I have sent both of them small donations (what I can afford). Hopefully, one of them will emerge victorious for the nomination, and will select the other as their running mate. It would be the strongest ticket the GOP could put together.
The big quote is here:
No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage.The claims of flip-flopping never really resonated - not when there is a much more plausible alternative theory to explain his shift: He got mugged. Not once, but twice.
After one such event, re-thinking would be in order. With two such muggings, the shift is not only explainable, but the presumption should be that it is genuine.
Regrettably, he is not likely to win Iowa - largely due to Mike Huckabee playing the religion card. Now, I can hear the complaints from bloggers like Joshua Trevino - who feel that the real issue is how "untrustworthy" Romney is. I beg to differ, and cite the alternative explanation I have outlined above.
I will also add one other counterpoint: By the standards that Trevino has set, Ronald Wilson Reagan's track record as governor of California would have utterly disqualified him to be the Republican nominee - because he would have been far less trustworthy based onhis track record. Reagan signed legislation that liberalized California's abortion laws. Mitt Romney's track record is far more pro-life than Reagan's was - and he fought his battles in a much more hostile political environment.
Furthermore, I will add this to the discussion: When you take religion out of the picture, Mitt Romney's track record and resume far surpasses that of Mike Huckabee. To witness his conduct during the gay marriage battle was to see a consummate statesman standing up against an imperial judiciary and a legislature that abdicated its responsibility to stand up for the people it represented. It was notable not just for what Romney did (making the case very eloquently and effectively), but for what he did not do (the demonization of opponents on this issue was conspicuously absent).
And yet, Huckabee is ahead in Iowa by a wide margin. His supporters and his ads have played up the theme that he is a "Christian leader" lately as well (again, see Article6blog.com, which has covered this issue). Coincidence? Happenstance? I doubt it. In essence, the candidate with the superior resume will not be hired by Republican primary voters, and his religion appears to be a major reason, if not the major reason.
Rudy Giuliani's resume/track record is perhaps the only one that really rivals Romney's. It tops Romney's in one critical area for the President of the United States: Crisis management. He also has matched Romney in a number of other areas, and he has also, unlike John McCain, gone to great lengths at times to emphasize the common ground he holds with conservatives, rather than seeking to stick his thumb in their eye. His private life has been a mess, but unlike Bill Clinton, there seems to have been no effort to deny or minimize it on Rudy's part.
Either Romney or Giuliani would make a fine President - and I have sent both of them small donations (what I can afford). Hopefully, one of them will emerge victorious for the nomination, and will select the other as their running mate. It would be the strongest ticket the GOP could put together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)