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!
You’re probably right. I just know from experience that that was one of the sticking points or causes of many in the liberal faction of the SB convention. Whether he aligned himself with that particular cause, I don’t know. But, at the least, he did ally himself with the supporters.
“I think that Romney has explained the changes in his positions far better than either McCain or Huckabee.”
He’s slicker than the other two, I’ll give you that.
“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.”
I’m not a Huckster supporter and don’t plan to become one anytime soon.
Candidates change all the time, yes. But #1, look at how much grief Kerry got for flip-flops in '04. Secondly, I've listed two specific issues below where Romney has been flip-flop-flip. (And it's worse on abortion in general...plus numerous other flip flops on things like civil unions for homosexuals; telling two different things to a Catholic agency re: policy of same-sex couples adopting, etc.)
THE FLiP SIDE OF MITT
Multiple Choice Mitt not only "changes" his positions, but he does so multiple times, waffling back & forth. On the position of whether business owners should be forced to hire alternative sexual preference employees, what do you think the chances are of a given candidate having three (count 'em, 3) pre-Christmas positions over the past 14 Christmases? (Well, Mitt has managed to do that...and his latest position is have the states do the dirty work of pro-homosexual activists.
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/ THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Has Mitt really converted, pro-life wise? Let's first just examine, in two summary statements, a comparison of what he has said in 2007.
Mitt on the 2007 campaign trail:
(Summary Statements: Example A)
Jan 28, 2007 in South Carolina: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Source cited in ensuing "FLiP & FLoP post). A little over 6 months later: Aug. 12, 2007 in Fox interview: "I never called myself pro-choice...I wasn't pro-choice..."
(Summary Statements: Example B)
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
Give Romney a 2nd and honest look. You just may be suprised. He is out ONLY choice.
Another thing that made the choice a bit easier, in light of his “conversion” is the endorsement of James Bopp- author of the Human Life Amendment in the Republican Party Platform.
Better a convert to our side than someone like McCain who works against us IMHO.
As of Jan 28, the National Right to Life said that Mike Huckabee was the candidate who was the most pro-life
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/StatementonCandidates.html
Then you are either a Democrat or McCain supporter, but then that’s the same thing, isn’t it.
“Mitt has run throughout 2007 as the pro-life anti Roe v. Wade candidate.”
So, let’s just ignore all of the previous years when he supported abortion. Yeah, that makes sense!
Here’s what he said in 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
You’ve made my day, Mr. Robinson. Thank the Lord you’re the real thing.
You’ve given me a lot to think about: the liberal that’s pro-life and pro-family is better than the liberals who aren’t or who may not be.
See my post #617. Big difference between keeping the status quo & being enlisted in the other side's efforts. (Romney never was neutral with regard to pre-born until he made two pro-life actions sandwiched between a public pro-abortion rhetoric in 2005)
Yes but that was back in Oct 2007
As of Jan 28, 2008, the National Right to Life has said that Mike Huckabee is the most pro-life of the remaining candidates
“National Right to Life is grateful for the strong pro-life record established by Mike Huckabee as governor of Arkansas, and recognizes that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president.”
Oh dont worry, they also acknowledged RINO Romney’s recent and latest flip..
“National Right to Life also appreciates the pro-life position taken in this presidential campaign by former governor Mitt Romney.”
LOL
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/StatementonCandidates.html
So, let’s just ignore all of the previous years when he supported abortion. Yeah, that makes sense!
I was correcting a misstatement somebody made about Mitt and 2007. Don't put words into my mouth. You're not smart enough.
“Then you are either a Democrat or McCain supporter, but then that’s the same thing, isn’t it.”
I love it when people assume things that aren’t backed up with evidence. It’s always good to use evidence to back up your assertions. For example, I assume you are a RINO. The evidence is that you support Flip.
For the record, I do not support McCain either. I have no horse in this race. I don’t vote for liberals, not democrat liberals, not republican liberals.
If Scarborough backs him up on guitar on "Seventh Son," that might be an interesting convention.
Please check Post # 632 for latest statement from the National Right to Life, January 28, 2008
Mike Huckabee is considered the most pro-life candidate..
I wish I had the opportunity. My problem with Fred is that he dragged his feet going in. I liked Hunter also. Either/or that would be my vote.
The rest.....Romney first, Huckabee I am not sold on at all.
A FReeper mentioned when Fred droped out that maybe Ron Paul (ughhhhh) may be worth backing. He may not be worth much, but it will be an entertaining four years.
He may be right. In a sad, sad way.
I have major reservations about Huckabee.
Yep, just 3 months ago he got Wilkes endorsement-maybe it hasn't sunk in yet. Combined with the endorsement of the author of the pro-life plank in the GOP platform and pro-life groups in MA, its make his conversion more believable. I welcome converts to our side.
I expect to be included in the next Sidebar Poll.
I won't let you down.
Number seven, if we can keep Huckabee in the race all the way
What do we do if he, by some quirk of fate, ends up winning the nomination? No thanks. Of the three Republicans remaining I see him as the worst possible scenario.
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.