Posted on 10/16/2007 10:18:11 PM PDT by pissant
Ah, tis the season again.
No, I don’t mean Christmas – just yet. No, I don’t mean Thanksgiving, though it is moving ever quickly as it always seems to do.
And I don’t mean Halloween either.
So what am I referring to? If you are into politics and watching over what is happening across the fruited plain, you probably guessed the election season, even though ballots to be cast are a few months away for the primaries and just a bit over a year away from the general election. And you would be right, half so, that is. And if that is what you guessed, then you may well know the other half of the answer.
What have I missed, you say?
Ah, tis the season again – the third party candidate season, that is.
While many folks are waiting to see how things sort out before they select their choice for the White House (and for other political office), some of us are already scrutinizing those currently running to see who will best represent us. And some of us are looking to see if a third party candidate for the presidency is not only a viable option but a necessity.
Ah, yes, the necessary evil of a third party. But is it so? Read on.
We’re being told by one pro-family leader that there is only one candidate who can win the Republican nomination who will bring the values voters together and if we don’t get behind this candidate, we’ll have Hillary Clinton in the White House. We’re told to write a check for this individual and not to consider a third party candidate or Hillary will be on her throne and we will lose our country. We’re essentially told to scrap or at least put Islamo-fascism, our sovereignty and border and national security (not to mention a third party) down the political totem pole in favor of the life issue.
Hmmm, this is interesting. For pro-lifers like me who believe in no exceptions, abortion is a paramount issue to me. Thank God that the movement is growing and abortion clinics are shutting down fairly rapidly. The pro-life folks have carried the water day in and day out to our rights to speak out and lawfully do whatever possible to end the holocaust on unborn children. They work to see the laws restricting abortion are strengthened and mobilize when there is a threat of them weakening. I love what they do and I do what I can to facilitate the demise of abortion on demand.
However, I would urge this writer to examine how the immigration reform movement is just as much responsible, if not more so, for pushing our elected officials to do everything within their powers to keep illegal aliens, criminals and terrorists from illegally crossing our borders and applying incredible pressure on lawmakers to keep them from watering down our immigration policies. I would also urge her to realize the work groups like Numbers USA, FAIR, ALIPAC and others are doing to ensure America maintains its sovereignty and security and is protected from those who want to commit another 9/11. After all, immigration and national security matters as well as life issues were foremost in the minds of our Founders as reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, unlike national health care, energy policy and autos.
The above groups carried the water for American patriots the same way the likes of the American Life League, Pro-Life Action League have done so for the sanctity of life. I would not dismiss any of their efforts. Without them, we would be in a worse shape than we are today.
The one individual permitting this pro-family leader to write for his wildly popular and highly trafficked news source is disturbed (rightly so) about a certain woman’s chances to become the first female to win the White House and implies that a third party nominee may well be a necessity to get his vote. He closes his article by saying that he needs “some reasons to vote Republican, not just reasons to vote against the Democrat”.
Relax, Mr. Farah. I have a few.
However, in order to make a compelling case, we need to correct some of the assertions of the aforementioned family leader regarding the candidate she is endorsing.
Firstly, while no pro-lifer would relegate life issues on the back burner to any other, when a governor states that his position on an immigration raid in his state runs counter to his own at a rate of, in his own words, “about 1000 to one”, the question you have to ask yourself is this – is this governor one you want to be the CEO of America, let alone lead the way on true immigration reform? I would like to hear his endorser’s view on this assertion.
Secondly, the director of Faith 2 Action notes how her nominee is pro-life and pro-marriage and he is the best candidate on these issues. And let’s give him his due. Yes, he’s for the most part solidly pro-life. Yes, he’s pretty good on marriage issues, having had the state of Arkansas as one of three to adopt a “covenant marriage” law.
However, it is notable that this candidate was earlier this year said to be open to civil unions and confirmed here (click Huckabee – sorry, we couldn’t hold it in any longer), despite his support signing legislation banning homosexual marriage.
Also note that at the last link in the previous paragraph, the Huckster opposed civil unions in 2002 but in the link just prior to that one, he’s now open to it. Hmmm, interesting position for a former Baptist minister to take. But I digress.
We should also note that under Huckabee’s watch, the ACLU succeeded in overturning the state’s ban on homosexual adoption for would be foster parents. OK, to be fair, it was a lawyer from his attorney general’s office who was willfully derelict in her duty to defend state law. But since the governor is the CEO of the state, he had an obligation to instruct the attorney general’s office to forcefully represent the state’s position and from what I have researched, it appears that not only has he not done but he didn’t denounce the unanimous decision of his state’s Supreme Court either.
And this raises a question. What kind of judges would Huckabee put on the U.S. Supreme Court if elected? It appears that as many as 4 of the state’s 7 judges were selected by him for the bench and that does not bode well for America, considering Hmmm, that’s a dubious distinction in my book that he would appoint the best judges.
Thirdly, as noted by the Cato Institute, Huckabee raised taxes five times as governor and would not completely rule out doing so as president. Janet Folger of Faith 2 Action (there, I finally mentioned her) thinks tax issues should be on the back burner but Farah rightly points out that taxes are a moral matter because as he puts it “it’s immoral to steal”.
Hmmm, seems like I remember this being one of the commandments “thou shalt not steal”. You know, the 10 Commandments type, the kind the ACLU can’t stand seeing.
So I guess I have to be blunt. Despite a fairly (and I stress “fairly” as opposed to “very”) good record on taxes, the Huckster tends to pilfer when push comes to shove. He taxed cigs and liquor, “sin” taxes, you might say. Gas tax, hmmm, that’s not moral, is it? Nursing home tax, ooh, that’s not good. How could you tax the poor old infirm folks living there?
As JFK once said, we can do better. And the candidate we can do better with has the same first two letters of his last name as the wannabe prez from Arkansas. We can count on him on not just the life and marriage issues, though he excels on these. We can count on him to secure our borders; after all, he helped build the San Diego fence and sponsored the legislation covering fencing a large part of the southern border. We can count on him to be tough on crime. We can count on him to support the 2nd Amendment. We can count on him on eminent domain abuse. We can count on him on taxes. We can count on him to protect us from terrorism and to cherish and maintain national sovereignty.
And being that this candidate voted with the ACLU only twice out of 57 votes over the last 3 Congressional terms, according to its scorecard, it’s pretty safe to say this American patriot has America’s best moral and national interests in mind and not those of the ACLU. We can feel secure in electing him.
Take off the “ckabee” from the HU and replace it with “nter”. Spell it out. Hunter. Duncan Hunter, our best president to come along since President Reagan. Check his record. If you need more, check out this one.
I would suggest that the candidates closest to being worthy of election in addition to the California Congressman, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, join his campaign. It is the last best hope for America in 2008 in this writer’s view. Put the three campaigns into one and we can give the “bourgeois 4” (McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson) a huge run for the money. These are the only candidates with any name recognition that we should support.
For those who prefer Tancredo over Hunter due to the former being more recognized on the immigration issue than the latter, you have a good point. On virtually every moral and fiscal issue, they stand in lockstep. But what sets the two apart is that while Rep. Tancredo has made immigration matter his #1 issue, Rep. Hunter has covered a full gamut of issues. Plus, as noted before, the California Congressman is responsible for the San Diego fence. That does not diminish the Colorado Congressman in any form as he has been a champion of border control and is right as Hunter on the same issues. However, Rep. Hunter is seen as more divergent on the issues and again, has put his money where his mouth is.
For those of you who prefer Ron Paul over Rep. Hunter, you can make a compelling case for his election. From being a champion of strict constitutional government like no one else in America, hence earning the nickname of Dr. No in Congress, to feverishly working to stop oppressive government intrusions like Bush’s Mental Health Initiative, Congressman Paul is a stalwart. His age would be considered a liability as at 73, he would be the oldest first term president in American history. But he still has a steel trap mind on a vast many issues and would work to get the government out of every thing he sees the government as unauthorized to participate in.
Where I part with the Texas legislator is his views that issues like Terri Schiavo, civil unions and abortion (otherwise an excellent read) are states’ rights issues in line with the 10th Amendment. I am very pro-states rights as much as Paul is. However, I do not see these moral issues as he does. I understand his position and on areas not dealing with these pressing moral issues of our day, I would fully concur with him. But the thought of, for example, abortion being legal in New York but illegal in Georgia is a problem for me. The same goes, for example, of same sex marriage being legal in Massachusetts but illegal in South Carolina.
While states should have a very wide latitude in dealing with the issues of our day, this writer has a problem with the view that abortion could be viewed as moral in New York and immoral in Georgia and the same with homosexual marriage. If issues like “thou shalt not steal” (no, not in the light of taxes at this juncture) are equally punishable in all 50 states, certainly “thou shalt not kill” must be equally, if not much more so, punishable.
The sacrament of abortion must go the way of the dodo bird, period.
Where Ron Paul parts with Tancredo and Hunter is on the war in Iraq. There are disagreements on this issue that should be addressed and Rep. Paul has made some enemies as a result of his positions. But if we can put that issue aside and bring these three candidates together under one umbrella, the Hunter campaign (perhaps with Rep. Paul as VP), we have an excellent chance to reclaim our country as our numbers would be very competitive. A Hunter/Paul ticket is one everyone who values America, our traditions, our morals and our policies can come together on.
And contrary to the views of the well respected Devvy Kidd, my favorite female writer on the Internet, I do not believe it is impossible to get such a ticket in place to succeed nor do I believe that a third party ticket is a bad idea at “this time in history”. The one issue that will keep it from happening is not the war, abortion same sex marriage or immigration. It’s ridding the presidential candidates, their staffers and related personnel of their own personal pride and joining forces for the sake of the country. This is an exciting ticket. Why can’t it be done? It won’t if the naysayers have their way or if we continue to listen to them. Old habits die hard and those saying we don’t need the party dig their heels deep. But we must consider it more than ever if the true patriots (Tancredo, Paul & Hunter) aren’t represented somehow on the ticket.
Back to the Huckster. Devvy correctly scores his fitness to serve as president, something Ms. Folger would do well to grasp (and question in light of the alleged percentages he got at the Values Voter Debate). Maybe some of that coffee by the same name would provide her the necessary caffeine for a reality check (and that includes the Reality Check publishing this piece).
So who will it be? Will it be the HU candidate who has a mixed record as 12 years as governor? Or will it be the HU candidate who has had a consistent conservative voting record for over 26 years in the halls of Congress and who knows the issues as well as any patriot? I know who my money is on. And if that candidate recruits (dare I say “hunts”?) Ron Paul for the VP, America may eventually be on the road to recovery. And it can be on the GOP ticket if we all work together, ban individual pride and put America’s interests first.
If you believe the “bourgeois 4” are unacceptable (as well as the Huckster), then what other viable ticket can do better than a Hunter/Paul ticket? Hunter sponsored the legislation to build the fence across a large chunk of the southern border and helped build the San Diego fence. Paul is the most principled lawmaker in Congress. The two are a wonderful complement. We won’t get same sex marriage, weakened abortion restrictions, open borders and a deteriorating Constitution with this ticket.
Other than subbing Tancredo for one of the above two, who else would you want on the ticket?
Well, I can hope. After all, tis the season. And I do believe. How about you? And if you do believe, pass this piece on to as many folks as possible. There is a ton at stake next year.
And get into the Hunt; Hunter, that is.
DH Ping.
I don’t know if it’s getting late and I am too tired but I had a hard time following this article.
It’s like he is responding to someone but you don’t know the full conversation. I think he has bimbette Janet Folger in his crosshairs.
Okay, but I am tired so I think I will reread it tomorrow when I can think straight.
lol Me too. I found myself thinking “can’t you just get to the point?”
Big ol’ bump for Duncan tho!!
Thanks for ping pissant. The point of the article is still a good one no matter how circuitously he arrived at it.
My ticket of choice: Dunc/Tanc
From the "coffee of the same name" remark, I would suppose you are right...
Regarding the article, While I could easily pull the lever for a Hunter/Tancredo ticket, I don't think it would be as easy for a Hunter/Paul ticket. Paul is a fruit loop regarding the war and foreign relations, and the term "one heartbeat away from the presidency" leaps to mind.
Hunter is the only candidate that I can’t find any disagreement with.And yes, I am a picky sumbitch.
She's a borderline-crazy zealot who thinks she owns the Republican Party. There are times when she makes Ann Coulter look moderate.
I’ve got a couple of minor disagreements with Hunter but overall he’s the best candidate out there and he has me vote.
It was like pulling teeth.
Yep, Paul is a sure fire way to irrelevance.
Me too. he’s had a few bad votes in 26 years, but it is a vastly smaller percentage than his rivals.
She looked like she wanted to rip Huckabee’s pants off the last time I saw her.
It’s hard to argue with the most pro-America guy in the race.
His clear pro American stance and his courage of long held convictions weigh heavily on the scale in his favor with me.
And the fact that his “long held” convictions are decades old, not months. LOL
What kills me are the people who wouldn’t vote for Jesus because he doesn’t have enough charisma. Besides, a messiah has never been elected president. LOL
I could not disagree more about charisma. He is far ahead of the competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.