Posted on 01/31/2008 2:09:25 PM PST by Jim Robinson
My friends, I have to admit that I've been in a bit of a quandary since the Real Conservatives ® Thompson and Hunter dropped out of the race leaving us to to place our bets on one the four headless horsemen. But after having a day or three to sort it all out, I'm beginning to see a ray of hope.
Number one, my worst fear that the pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun social liberal Rudy Giuliani might be nominated, and thereby bring an abrupt and unholy end to the pro-life conservative movement within the GOP has been allayed. His evil culture of death platform has been soundly rejected by the Republican voters. Thank God! If nothing else is gained, that alone is a huge victory for us!
And that leaves us with the unwelcome slippery task of having to determine and select the least evil of the three remaining RINOs. But wait! When choosing between evils, why not choose the good?
McCain is insane and there are many good reasons not to choose him, but I'll list just five: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, the Keating 5, and the Gang of 14. No thanks. McCain is out!
Romney ran on a pro-abortion platform, is pro gay rights, is prone to BIG government solutions, promises anything to anyone for a vote, and flip-flops on important issues. Can't trust him.
Now Governor Huckabee. Could this be the good vs evil? He's a Baptist minister. A genuine 100% pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, Southron Christian social conservative!
And that would be my reason no. 1 to support Huckabee. He has the trust and backing of the Christian evangelicals and the support of the Bible Belt. You cannot win the presidency without the South, and I believe the pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-America Mike Huckabee is the most likely of the three GOP hopefuls to carry the South. And that's a pretty darn good reason!
My number two reason is that he is NOT McCain (and that's a pretty darn good reason too).
Number three (and this will be a tough one for a lot of my FReeper Friends) is that he is NOT Romney.
Numbers four and five are he's NOT Hillary and NOT Obama. Oohrah!
Number six, he plays a mean bass and he's a traditional favorite at Free Republic's infamous quadrennial Inaugural Balls in Washington, DC. Perhaps we could persuade President Huckabee to drop by our ball and perform his rocking rendition of "Sweet Home Alabama!" Now, wouldn't that be a hoot!
Number seven, if we can keep Huckabee in the race all the way through, thus preventing McCain or Romney from gaining enough delegates to win the nomination, then maybe, just maybe a deadlocked convention might seek out another candidate. One who can re-unite the Reagan Coalition, save the GOP, and put us back on the conservative track. Of course, my personal favorite to be that man would be FRed Thompson.
Woo hoo!!
Let it ring out through grassroots America and on to the convention! Support life! Support the GOP! Support Huckabee! And re-draft FRed Thompson!!
Never give in, never give up, and never lose hope.
Long live the Reagan Revolution!
I said Yess!!!
I so agree with this poll.
Other issues are important, to be sure. Huckabee may be a social liberal, he may be all the hateful things many FReepers say he is. But he is an Evangelical. And he is pro-life.
That's good enough for me.
Mike Huckabee is a pro-life social conservative, pro-gun and pro-family. Mike Huckabee is the least objectionable of the three remaining moderate-liberals.
I respect your choice, Jim.
Shoot, why not Harold Stassen?
First, you can't extrapolate from the experience in Florida to the rest of the country. Huckabee plays differently, in different parts of the country.
Second, a head to head match up would show the real strength of McCain. In 2000, he only pulled 33% of the primary vote and he is about at the same percentage now. I seriously doubt that faced with the choice between nominating the GOP's maverick and Romney that McCain will emerge on top.
Based on my on-the-ground experience in SC and FL, I think McCain would lose in a head to head match. And then there is the Ron Paul factor who also draws from conservative voters. McCain is the most liberal Rep in the race. I just don't see him beating Romney head to head around the country.
Huckabee will hurt Romney the most in the South.
The only one capable of frying either x42 or Obama ... with fire, knowledge and principled language (language, I said ... not necesarilly personally principled or moral ) ...
Is Newt Gingrich.
“The only reason needed not to support Huckabee, HE IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Gee that applies as well to McCain and Romney.”
Here is another fine mess we have gotten ourselves into... sigh.
McCain hates us, (as do we him ;} - Huckabee, imho, is WAY too meanspirited, and slimy to be classified as a “good, Christian man”, and Romney, well... He says the right things MOST of the time, but can we - should we believe him? At this point, my gut says yes. The stakes are so high, and all the alternatives are simply wholly unacceptable to me.
tatt
“Sorry. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. A vote for Romney is a vote against McCain.
Better Romney than McCain”
I am with you. Huckabee has no chance of winning now, and I do not believe he has many followers with his flip-flop on amnesty. He joins McCain in too many ways and closing Guantanamo is another one. Think McCain promised Huckabee something to stay in and try to take votes from Romney. Huckabee needs to know that McCain is a great backstabber of real conservatives and moderate comservatives because he is really a liberal. Endorsed by the New York Times says it all! This FredHead voted for Romney over McCain, and hope folks do the same on Super Tuesday!
“Its been awhile since we had a good smoting around here”
One of my fave quotes from an LA morning am radio guy, Hammel? Hammlin?
This election is all about swaying over independents and apathetic voters. In case you haven't noticed, the Dems are out-raising and out-numbering Republican voters more than 2-1.
Huckabee will NEVER attract the libertarians and fiscal conservatives. He is a tax-hiking nanny-stater, compassionate conservative on steroids. If there's one thing voters cannot stand, is a do-gooder trying to inject his views onto everyone. If I want moral values, I go to my church and community to get it - not from Washington. If Huckabee's nominated - a lot of people will go third party and the Dems will win. Thankfully, he's not going to win because only 3 Southern states are in Super Tuesday and he'll go broke thereafter.
Romney is poor on immigration too. If you were saying to vote for Hunter or Tancredo, I might be interested, but Hunter supports Huckabee and Huckabee has the best plan now.
I beg to disagree.
What southern state(s) did John Kerry win in 2004? I don't have the election results offhand, but I would guess that Kerry won NONE of them, not a single one.
Having said that, the election in '04 hinged on a single state: Ohio. If Ohio had been won by Kerry (and it was fairly close there), he would be president today.
All the 'rats need to do to win in 2008 is carry the same states they won in 2004, plus Ohio. Then they can win withOUT a single southern state.
And the Republican "brand" in Ohio is in the tank this election cycle, due to the past - and awful - performances by Pubbies in that state.
The South is losing the importance and weight it once had in determining presidential contests. For now, it remains "solidly red", and is likely to stay that way, at least for a few more election cycles. Yet, even the states of the Old Confederacy are in danger of "turning purple" and then going blue: look at Virginia, or even North Carolina.
What is really cornering the South into presidential irrelevance is the changing nature of _other_ states in the Midwest and Mountain areas, along with the loss of California as a "once-competitive" states for the Republicans. Look at Colorado, fast turning purple, soon-to-be blue. And Arizona and New Mexico, in ten years or less, they will be blue states. Eventually, the only reliably-red states may be down south, and the northern mountain states like Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and the Dakotas.
I don't like the changes any more than you do - but they can no longer be denied or wished away.
Just my thoughts,
- John
I agree with pgkdan. The likelihood of a brokered convention is a far stretch. The Blueblood Republicans (like the ones in Florida) would not let that happen. A brokered convention would also create much bitterness and strife among our party. When presented with the facts, Romney has changed his mind on certain issues just like many of us. McCain is a stubborn, vindictive and just a plain mean man. Romney is a good man. I was a former Huckabee supporter who is a realist. If Romney doesn’t get enough of our votes NOW, we are stuck with McGuiliani.
I love ya man, but I just can't help my fellow conservatives make the same mistake the Dem's made in 1991 by choosing a slick talker from Hope. Huck is a nice guy to socialize with as I have done on occasion, but you'll regret voting him into office. Don't say I didn't warn you. FReegards - OB1
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when McCain offers the VP to Thompson instead of Huckabee......
Asteroid TU24...
When it comes to national security, it will crush our enemies...
I LIKE reason #7. It gives meaning to all the other reasons.
(personally I like #2 and #3 as well)
Jim, you are a good man!!!
In Alabama counties, vote early to enjoy trinkets, King Cake and Mardi Gras celebrations,,
at least priorities are thought out::
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/25/america/Mardi-Gras-Voting.php
OK, now THAT was funny!
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.