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 don’t vote for lying liberals, and that applies to both McCain and Huckabee. Huckabee is staying in the race to take votes from Romney. Huckabee has NO chance of winning. It is dishonest of Huckabee to mislead voters this way.
But that's no different than the condition of the GOP in MA in the post-Romney years. (Not a lot of adoration there, either)
Oh hells yeah, my hope for a brokered convention is still alive!!!
Interesting points Jim. I was for Duncan, then Fred, then settled for Romney. Not happy about it but he’s the only one with a chance to stop mcCain IMHO.
Now that Rudy has dropped out, and the discussion on this thread is 500+, maybe its time for a new poll?
With Rudy dropping out, who do you now support for the Republican nomination?
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Mitt Romney
None of the above
It's a virtual certainty that Huckabee will drop out next Wednesday. His campaign has no cash, and he'll be lucky to win even one state next Tuesday.
I'm not sure what this endorsement accomplishes other than to help McCain.
Maybe that's the intent.
>>The only reason needed not to support Huckabee, HE IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Gee that applies as well to McCain and Romney.<<
Huck also has no foreign policy experience or business experience and doesn’t believe in evolution.
That makes him the worst of those choices, in my opinion.
Oh, I forgot...
Today is opposite day!
;)
>>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.<<
I was so hopeful that Duncan or Fred would win. But the odds of a deadlocked convention seem so slim and its seems even slimmer that a deadlock would result in a Fred nomination that I feel obligated to pick the best of the three instead of the one that could cause a deadlock.
I surely do appreciate your position and admire you for staying more positive than I feel. But I am gonna have to go a different direction than Mike Huckabee.
Jim, the tape is not playing very well, it must be over loaded, but there is very little a president can do regarding abortion, except appoint conservative judges, which McCain would not do and a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain has offered Huckabee the vp slot to keep in the race until McCain has it locked up.
Huckabee is liberal on EVERY other issue, except abortion. His tax plan is a fantasy dream and his knowledge of foreign policy is hopeless.
Count me in. Brokered convention sounds good.
What is Mr. Romney’s record on appointing judges?
“The Boston Globe reported in July of 2005 that, Romney has “passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.””
Yesterday, I have to admit, a posted picture of Romney (from the time when he signed the Massachusetts Coercive Care Bill with Teddie Kennedy) stopped me in my tracks and gave cause to shiver with horror. (Especially since Romney was regarded as a last
Hail Mary pass.)
At the time, It gave me pause to wonder what Vegas might put on the odds of a brokered convention versus the odds of Romney holding true to his campaign rhetoric.
Honeybunch, I meant I have lost hope for this campaign.
Jim has offered one suggestion to save it...it is over for Florida and now you guys have to decide how to bring about a positive solution using Tuesday’s election in some way.
I just struggled through their debate and think they have made a “deal”. So much “love” has not always been exhibited on a honeymoon!
My guess is that it would be difficult to find qualified Republican lawyers in Mass. They would all be incognito.
It’s not lying of you keep your campaign promises. That’s what’s so scummy about politics but that’s the way it is.
“I don’t vote for lying liberals, and that applies to both McCain and Huckabee. “
But you’d vote for, Flip, who’s a flip-flopping, lying liberal? ‘Splain it to me Lucy.
Uh...could please look at the following "words" and then tell me which "word" to take him at? (Even if you just boil it down to his 2007 comments in numbers 9, 10, 11, & 12 below...I still don't which 2007 comments to believe...do you?)
(1): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor in a previous article to the one that's being posted. (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98) = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
(2): 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent
(3): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
(4): But by 2002, guess what? He was pro-abortion again! "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?
(5): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert? )
(6): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!
(7): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt NOW says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.") = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
(8): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
(9): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?
(10): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
(11) " I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
(12): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
Which brings us back to my first post. Understand now?
I think that Romney has explained the changes in his positions far better than either McCain or Huckabee.
Did you know that Huckabee signed a law, making it illegal to smoke in your own car if you have a child in the car. That’s just an example of some of the control freak stuff that Huckabee supports. He wants to control us, but not the illegals.
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.