Here is a great Article on the way "Blue Blood" Republicans feel about the Religious Right. I have read a number of articles that have tried to explain this, but this one seems to be the best.
January 28, 2008 IssueCopyright © 2007 The American Conservative
The Audacity of Huck
The Religious Right roils the establishment by backing one of its own.
by Michael Brendan Dougherty
Mike Huckabee was supposed to be an amusing sideshow. Just last August, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani dominated the GOP big tent, capturing the spotlight with their massive fundraising efforts and early endorsements. Meanwhile, without a single reporter in tow, Huckabee wandered around New Hampshire and Iowa, speaking to perhaps a dozen people at a time, joking that other candidates “pay $150 for an exfoliation. I could just hand them a bar of Lava soap.” Beltway conservatives and consultants, enjoying Huck’s genial act, speculated that he might make a nice vice president and laughed at his harmless quips. They aren’t laughing anymore.
As Huckabee moved up in the polls, his campaign chairman Ed Rollins declared the Reagan coalition dead, implying that Huckabee could form a new one in its place. The leaders of the conservative movement struck back: free-market activists spent thousands on ads to halt Huckabee’s rise in Iowa, and editors of the leading conservative publications denounced his “populism” and “evangelical identity politics.” Rush Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners that a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster.
Then he started winning. In Iowa he beat the heavily funded, establishment-approved Romney by 9 points and moved from sixth to third in New Hampshire, scrambling the entire Republican race. He is running close to John McCain in national polls and leading in delegate-rich states like South Carolina and Georgia.
Huckabee has convinced his supporters that the Religious Right has too long endured second-class citizenship in the conservative movement. Ironically, the anti-elite posture that Beltway conservatives taught heartlanders to assume when confronting the media or academia has been turned against establishment conservatives themselves. David Brooks declared in the New York Times, “The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.”
The Beltway Right has reason to worry. As a rhetorician, Huckabee is as good as anyone in politics today. He can stir an audience like Barack Obama, but he adds a deft sense of humor and pop culture that allows him to keep up with media figures like Stephen Colbert or Jay Leno—qualities unexpected in a leader of the Religious Right.
But obvious as his talents are, Huckabee’s policy prescriptions have been hard to decipher. On foreign policy, he grabbed headlines by denouncing the Bush administration’s “arrogant bunker-mentality,” and in a nod to realism, he wrote that the U.S. policy toward Iran should be containment, not confrontation. He says that there are options between “shock and awe” and “cut and run.” But just as observers began speculating that Huckabee might decouple Christian conservatives from the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration, he suggested that Palestinians could form their own state in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. So far, he has managed to make members of nearly every school of foreign policy uneasy.
Asked about economics, Huckabee claims to be “a Main Street Republican, not a Wall Street Republican” and preaches a message of economic independence—even nationalism. Speaking to a group of social conservatives, he declared, “A country that cannot feed itself, that cannot fuel itself, and that cannot fight for itself with its own weapons which it manufactures itself is a nation that is not longer free. … I don’t want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia, and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia.” Yet Huckabee has not called for an end to NAFTA or for implementing protective tariffs, insisting against evidence to the contrary that he is a free trader.
Establishment conservatives, deciding that the joke from Hope has gone on long enough, have begun sneering with increasing condescension. “That bait shop on the lake—it’s looking good,” Lisa Schiffren blogged on National Review Online. “You’ll be surrounded by nice neighbors, real Christians, and you can be the smartest guy in the room. … Remember Huck—Jesus wouldn’t be dumb enough to go into politics. You were right on that one. Maybe it’s not what he wants from you either.”
Former House majority leader Dick Armey penned a blistering attack on Huckabee’s “feel good politics” and told TAC that he “sounds more like John Edwards than John Edwards.” According to Armey, the conservative movement must balance its priorities: “The traditional, successful, happy Reagan coalition is a coalition of conservatives that came from an economic wing and a social wing tied together by their commitment to constrain the growth of government.” Armey laughs at the idea that Republicans want evangelicals in the backseat: “I can’t remember someone who has been elected besides Reagan that hasn’t caused Jim Dobson to say, ‘He’ll betray us.’”
Asked which candidate comes closest to his vision for the party, Armey chooses Rudy Giuliani. The former mayor’s tax plan, Armey enthuses, “is the biggest supply-side statement of any candidate in the race,” and Giuliani’s commitment to small government commends him to the conservative movement. Of course, Giuliani is also pro-choice and pro-civil-unions.
It is precisely Armey’s understanding of “balance” that has created the backlash for Huckabee. Consider: Romney’s conversion to social conservatism is recent and, to many, unconvincing. Yet National Review endorsed him. Giuliani has been considered an enemy of social conservatism since he was first elected mayor of New York. And John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. Writing in The American Spectator, George Nuemayr sympathized with evangelicals: “How is it that the bar of conservative entry for a presidential nominee lowers for the Romneys and McCains, then rises for the Huckabees?” Nuemayr suspects that vitriol is directed at Huckabee not because he “takes this or that heterodox position on issues of economics/trade/foreign policy; it is that he’s a transparent Christian conservative.”
Joe Carter, an activist at the Family Research Council, took a leave of absence to spend a month acting as Huckabee’s rapid-response man. He seconds Nuemayr’s analysis and highlights the barely disguised class conflict in the GOP: “The establishment Republicans don’t want some hillbilly preacher to be president.” To Carter and others, the conservative establishment’s contempt for Huckabee feels familiar. It mirrors the liberal establishment’s disdain for conservatives generally. And so just as Beltway conservatives have taught middle America to resent the liberal elites, so Huckabee and his supporters have leveraged evangelical discontent at those who tell them to “sit down and take what the party gives you.”
The turning point in Huckabee’s campaign came at the Values Voters Summit held by FRC last October. All the Republican candidates came to speak to the largely evangelical crowd, and the leaders of social conservatism hoped to announce their united endorsement. Though Romney was given the keynote spot, Huckabee blew the doors off the conference, saying, “I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you. … I think it’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-synch the lyrics to our songs.” Attendees bought Huckabee’s identity-based appeal and voted for him overwhelmingly in the event’s straw poll.
In the weeks that followed, Huckabee continued to call for evangelical solidarity, telling Zev Chafets of the New York Times, “If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.” Recently, campaigning in Michigan, Huckabee told reporters, “Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction ... the social conservatives, were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.” For years the Beltway Right had posed to heartlanders as an “us,” but for evangelicals supporting Huckabee, National Review, the Club for Growth, and the Republican establishment now resemble a “them.”
Huckabee’s success also corresponds with an intellectual shift among conservatives focused on rising middle-class anxiety. This summer, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are set to publish Grand New Party, in which they argue that the Republican Party must address the economic needs and aspirations of its middle-class base, transforming itself into the party of Sam’s Club rather than the country club. They praise Huckabee’s populist sensibilities.
Similarly, in a column that told Huckabee-fearing Republicans, “Be Not Afraid,” neoconservative David Brooks framed the preacher’s rise this way: “Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.” Brooks argued, “A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.” Huckabee doesn’t yet demonstrate policy sophistication, but it’s easy to imagine reform-minded conservatives refining his instincts.
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
Showing posts with label Primary Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Primary Election. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Reagan Vs. Ford II (Huckabee Vs Republican Pudits)
I wanted to thank Illinois4Huckabee for publishing my research on the Nashsau Article calling Ronald Reagan a tax raiser. I did not only find that article I found two others that correlate to today's attacks on Gov Huckabee. Here's one that William F. Buckley wrote on the attacks on Reagan from the Republican leadership. Good read. I especially like the phrases in Red. Speaks volumes on how non-establishment candidates are treated. Remember we had a Brokered Convention and Reagan missed the nomination by 92 delegates
Reagan vs. Ford
william f. buckley
'. . . Ford now
worries about
Ronald Reagan . , .'
From 12/21/1975 - Sunday Messenger, The
Up until the electrifying Gallup Poll, the resistance to Ronald Reagan was slouchy, disorganized, mostly mute. Not many months ago James Reston was advising Ford to "stop worrying about Ronald Reagan." Clearly Ford now worries about Ronald Reagan more than he worries about the
Russians, which is melancholy commentary on the passion people invest in clutching on to power.
It had been a formalistic opposition, reduced to clichéd objections. Reagan is extremist, unqualified by background, that kind of thing. Time Magazine published a letter by a doctor in Cincinnati who actually presumed to put his name under the single sentence, "Ronald Reagan is the prototype American politician of the 70s: mindless, witless, positionless and worthless." No wonder malpractice insurance is going up. if grown doctors are capable of such imbecilities. But 1,000 of these taunts are deflected every day by Reagan, with a good humor totally free of spleen. Thus, when the Democratic candidates, who include everybody except Shelly Winters, issued their demand that every time an old Ronald Reagan movie was shown on television they should be given equal time, Reagan replied that every time an old Ronald Reagan move was shown, he should be given equal time.
But now of course the great assault has begun. Led by Howard Galloway, a former secretary of the Army, A Reagan supporter summed up Calloway's remarks. "All he said was that Reagan is incompetent, unpopular and insincere."
If Galloway had been Nixon's, or LBJ's campaign manager, one might safely assume that the remarks were authorized by the boss. In the present circumstances, one cannot be certain. Last summer, Galloway was sprinkling little jets of disparagement of Nelson Rockefeller, which one day firehosed into the declaration that it was by no means to be taken for granted that President Ford had decided he wanted Vice President Rockefeller on his ticket in 1976. On that occasion, a) Ford went to extravagant lengths to dissociate himself from his talkative campaign manager — I think he even shared a helicopter with Rockefeller, which suggests the desperation; b) Reagan, at a press conference, proffered his sympathy to Rockefeller over the coarse handling he was receiving at Callaway's hands; and c) Rockefeller telephoned Reagan to express his gratitude. (by the way, shortly after this article Ronald Reagan movies were banded for the rest of the Election cycle.)
Perhaps before these words are printed, we will know from Ford whether he disowns the animadversions of Galloway. It will be less interesting to see whether Rockefeller returns to
Reagan, Reagan's courtesy of last summer.
Ford will have to ask himself — sooner than we thought, thanks to the Gallup Poll —whether he would prefer to see a Democrat elected President, than Ronald Reagan. There is little doubt that, following the lead of Rockefeller, whose disavowal of Goldwater in 1964 split the Republican Party, Ford could probably guarantee the loss of the election by Reagan. If he were to do so — by advertising Reagan's alleged insincerity, unpopularity and incompetence — he would be acting out of personal petulance far more clearly than Rockefeller in 1964. At that time there were genuine divisions between Goldwater and Rockefeller, respectively the conservative and the liberal leaders of their party.
But Ford is, by and large, a conservative; so that any attempt by him to ruin Reagan's chances, in punishment for Reagan's challenge to Ford's re-nomination, could not be understood as less than masochistic spite. Out of character, one would think, in a man renowned for his fairness and geniality.
Meanwhile, Reagan's progress at the polls is a political phenomenon of the first magnitude. Not only did he suddenly zoom ahead of Ford with the Republicans, but also with the independents. So much for the alleged narrowness of his appeal. The professionals in both parties are waking up to Reagan's singular qualities as a politician. Gradually, for instance, they concede that his sense of timing proved superior to theirs. And that his rule against criticizing fellow Republicans makes his detractors look childish and boorish. It is now left only for someone in a red wig to pay Charles Mathias to enter the race. Perhaps that has already been arranged.
Reagan vs. Ford
william f. buckley
'. . . Ford now
worries about
Ronald Reagan . , .'
From 12/21/1975 - Sunday Messenger, The
Up until the electrifying Gallup Poll, the resistance to Ronald Reagan was slouchy, disorganized, mostly mute. Not many months ago James Reston was advising Ford to "stop worrying about Ronald Reagan." Clearly Ford now worries about Ronald Reagan more than he worries about the
Russians, which is melancholy commentary on the passion people invest in clutching on to power.
It had been a formalistic opposition, reduced to clichéd objections. Reagan is extremist, unqualified by background, that kind of thing. Time Magazine published a letter by a doctor in Cincinnati who actually presumed to put his name under the single sentence, "Ronald Reagan is the prototype American politician of the 70s: mindless, witless, positionless and worthless." No wonder malpractice insurance is going up. if grown doctors are capable of such imbecilities. But 1,000 of these taunts are deflected every day by Reagan, with a good humor totally free of spleen. Thus, when the Democratic candidates, who include everybody except Shelly Winters, issued their demand that every time an old Ronald Reagan movie was shown on television they should be given equal time, Reagan replied that every time an old Ronald Reagan move was shown, he should be given equal time.
But now of course the great assault has begun. Led by Howard Galloway, a former secretary of the Army, A Reagan supporter summed up Calloway's remarks. "All he said was that Reagan is incompetent, unpopular and insincere."
If Galloway had been Nixon's, or LBJ's campaign manager, one might safely assume that the remarks were authorized by the boss. In the present circumstances, one cannot be certain. Last summer, Galloway was sprinkling little jets of disparagement of Nelson Rockefeller, which one day firehosed into the declaration that it was by no means to be taken for granted that President Ford had decided he wanted Vice President Rockefeller on his ticket in 1976. On that occasion, a) Ford went to extravagant lengths to dissociate himself from his talkative campaign manager — I think he even shared a helicopter with Rockefeller, which suggests the desperation; b) Reagan, at a press conference, proffered his sympathy to Rockefeller over the coarse handling he was receiving at Callaway's hands; and c) Rockefeller telephoned Reagan to express his gratitude. (by the way, shortly after this article Ronald Reagan movies were banded for the rest of the Election cycle.)
Perhaps before these words are printed, we will know from Ford whether he disowns the animadversions of Galloway. It will be less interesting to see whether Rockefeller returns to
Reagan, Reagan's courtesy of last summer.
Ford will have to ask himself — sooner than we thought, thanks to the Gallup Poll —whether he would prefer to see a Democrat elected President, than Ronald Reagan. There is little doubt that, following the lead of Rockefeller, whose disavowal of Goldwater in 1964 split the Republican Party, Ford could probably guarantee the loss of the election by Reagan. If he were to do so — by advertising Reagan's alleged insincerity, unpopularity and incompetence — he would be acting out of personal petulance far more clearly than Rockefeller in 1964. At that time there were genuine divisions between Goldwater and Rockefeller, respectively the conservative and the liberal leaders of their party.
But Ford is, by and large, a conservative; so that any attempt by him to ruin Reagan's chances, in punishment for Reagan's challenge to Ford's re-nomination, could not be understood as less than masochistic spite. Out of character, one would think, in a man renowned for his fairness and geniality.
Meanwhile, Reagan's progress at the polls is a political phenomenon of the first magnitude. Not only did he suddenly zoom ahead of Ford with the Republicans, but also with the independents. So much for the alleged narrowness of his appeal. The professionals in both parties are waking up to Reagan's singular qualities as a politician. Gradually, for instance, they concede that his sense of timing proved superior to theirs. And that his rule against criticizing fellow Republicans makes his detractors look childish and boorish. It is now left only for someone in a red wig to pay Charles Mathias to enter the race. Perhaps that has already been arranged.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Is It Huckabee or Reagan?
I came across this article from 1975 on a conservative Governor that was bucking the establishment leadership and pudits. This is from the Nashua, New Hampshire Telegraph.
Our Opinion
Nashua Telegraph 11/25/1975
Mr. Reagan's Record
Ronald Reagan, or so the ultraconservative legend runs, brought the yeasty state of California to the brink of perfection during his two terms as governor.
Since his tenure as governor constitutes his first and only governmental service and experience, Mr. Reagan and his flacks make much of it; too much, in fact.
When he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination last week, Mr. Reagan performed the obligatory "mess in Washington" routine and promised to clean it up tidily, using the techniques he employed as governor of California to "manage government more efficiently." "We found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the federal level." So much for the rhetoric. Now for the record:
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state budget soared from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion — a more than 100 per cent increase.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state sales tax was increased from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, the corporate income tax was increased from 5.5 per cent to 9 per cent, and the top personal income tax was increased from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the number of state employees increased by 5.7 per cent. This is the mart who promises to cut armies of employees off the federal payroll, who promises to balance the budget, who promises to begin paying off the national debt and who, to top his program of conservative delights, promises to cut taxes to boot.
Some people may be charmed by Ronald Reagan's pitch; some people may even be persuaded, but the difference between promises and performance, between the Reagan rhetoric and the Reagan record is a difference that should be made plain to the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.
Our Opinion
Nashua Telegraph 11/25/1975
Mr. Reagan's Record
Ronald Reagan, or so the ultraconservative legend runs, brought the yeasty state of California to the brink of perfection during his two terms as governor.
Since his tenure as governor constitutes his first and only governmental service and experience, Mr. Reagan and his flacks make much of it; too much, in fact.
When he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination last week, Mr. Reagan performed the obligatory "mess in Washington" routine and promised to clean it up tidily, using the techniques he employed as governor of California to "manage government more efficiently." "We found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the federal level." So much for the rhetoric. Now for the record:
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state budget soared from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion — a more than 100 per cent increase.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state sales tax was increased from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, the corporate income tax was increased from 5.5 per cent to 9 per cent, and the top personal income tax was increased from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the number of state employees increased by 5.7 per cent. This is the mart who promises to cut armies of employees off the federal payroll, who promises to balance the budget, who promises to begin paying off the national debt and who, to top his program of conservative delights, promises to cut taxes to boot.
Some people may be charmed by Ronald Reagan's pitch; some people may even be persuaded, but the difference between promises and performance, between the Reagan rhetoric and the Reagan record is a difference that should be made plain to the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Why Huckabee
I created this blog to talk about the visions of this country and the political reality. I am going to hop right into heavy politics.
I have been a "Keyester" for the last 8 years. He is a man with great ideas and I would be mesmerized by him time and time again whenever I heard him talk about his vision of America.
His explanation of the importance of respecting and protecting life from the time of conception moved me completely to the Pro-Life view. He has since moved me to the importance of the Fair Tax, the importance of following the Constitution's first Amendment that "Congress shall make no laws "Respecting" the Establishment of Religion of the Free exercise of..." and all the issues he talks about.
I was very excited that people of Iowa gave Amb. Keyes 14% of the vote in the 2000 Caucus. I believed that he had an important job to do in the campaign of 2000. That was to keep the conservative view fresh in the candidates minds. He did what he had to, he kept George W. Bush, who stayed closer to the Conservative vision from loosing to a very questionable vision of John McCain.
After that he came to Illinois to run against Barack after someone blindsided Jack Ryan over child custody papers. They were opened illegally and showed Mr. Ryan in a bad light. Mr. Ryan decided that it was not worth it and quit the race. Mr. Keyes must of viewed the race in Illinois as un-winnable and spent most of his time attacking Mr. Obama and trying to marginalize him for further advancement. This was my first issue with Mr. Keyes. I was expecting him to try and win, not attack Obama for 4 months for political reasons.
Come Aug. 2008 and I am looking for a candidate for President. I was looking at the candidates to see Newt.That looks good. He didn't run. Thompson is toying with joining the fray, but he is taking his time. The more I saw other candidates the more I liked Fred. In September, Fred decides to run. He has his first chance to get in a debate, which is where I hear their vision and how strong the visions are. This is why I vote for a candidate in the primaries. The debate is the Faith2Action debate and Fred and the other big three avoid like the plague. That told me all I needed to know about these candidates. This says they are afraid of conservative values. I did notice that Alan Keyes was joining the fray and joining this debate.
In the last few years I have noticed the that true conservatives (Christians) have been having to hold there noses when pulling the ballot leaver. The Senators are closer to RINOs then in line with the vision Ron Reagan had. House members are not far behind. With President Bush pushing more and more liberal things like open borders and with the Spending out of sight. I felt that the 2006 elections were more about Republicans ignoring the Conservative base then the Democrats winning. Sure we got a tax cut and revenues have exploded, but so has spending. We should of had a surplus by now with all the revenue that has been generated.
So I made a conscious decision that if Alan Keyes does (like he always did) show the same vision he always has and the viewers agreed, like always, I would support Amb. Keyes like I supported him in 2000 and 2004. I would talk to other conservatives and explain his vision and try and get him to the convention to express the conservative vision the way only he has been able to.
I saw the debate and was very surprised. Alan was his normal self, but he was not the one that caught my attention. Mike Huckabee was very good at expressing his vision and he did it with out the exuberant passion that Alan Keyes has. The only negative I see with the presentation of Amb. Keyes is that he seems to come of like a Baptist Minister. The former Baptist Minister came off with the same vision but he did not sound like one. Fair Tax, Pro-Life, Protecting the Constitution from the activist judges, these were all visions that both held. I now was torn between Gov. Huckabee and Amb. Keyes. After the poll after the debate showed that Gov. Huckabee had impressed more then just me.
I then decided to talk to other conservatives in my area that I respected. Neighbor said Huckabee was his choice at this time. My wife's Great-Uncle said Huckabee. Then finally I asked my pastor and he said that he liked Huckabee. Three for three told me that it was Huckabee that I was going to back this year unless there is something I did not know.
I Started by visiting the website and he was what I thought he was. Then came the Florida Values Debate that all the candidates were in. The day before each candidate gave a speech to the Conservative Christian group Value Voters. Mike Huckabee was given huge marks. Then the debate and he showed why he had won me over at the September 18th debate.
Since this day Gov. Huckabee has been attacked from every part of the Republican leadership. Every time he has been attacked he has shown that he is ready for the position of President. Plus he has tried to live by the Reagan motto of "Thou Shall not Attack a Fellow Republican".
I will try and keep you up to date with the attacks on Gov. Huckabee. I will do this with my view on his stand, old news articles that refute others views, and talking about the view I have on the coming race for the nomination and then the White House.
I have come to the conclusion that the establishment of the Republican party will not allow a conservative to win this nomination. it seems like the leadership likes our votes, but not our leadership. I believe that the election of 1976 is very close to today's election. Not the old "Jimmy Carter" comparison, but the anti-establishment run of Ronald Reagan.
I have been a "Keyester" for the last 8 years. He is a man with great ideas and I would be mesmerized by him time and time again whenever I heard him talk about his vision of America.
His explanation of the importance of respecting and protecting life from the time of conception moved me completely to the Pro-Life view. He has since moved me to the importance of the Fair Tax, the importance of following the Constitution's first Amendment that "Congress shall make no laws "Respecting" the Establishment of Religion of the Free exercise of..." and all the issues he talks about.
I was very excited that people of Iowa gave Amb. Keyes 14% of the vote in the 2000 Caucus. I believed that he had an important job to do in the campaign of 2000. That was to keep the conservative view fresh in the candidates minds. He did what he had to, he kept George W. Bush, who stayed closer to the Conservative vision from loosing to a very questionable vision of John McCain.
After that he came to Illinois to run against Barack after someone blindsided Jack Ryan over child custody papers. They were opened illegally and showed Mr. Ryan in a bad light. Mr. Ryan decided that it was not worth it and quit the race. Mr. Keyes must of viewed the race in Illinois as un-winnable and spent most of his time attacking Mr. Obama and trying to marginalize him for further advancement. This was my first issue with Mr. Keyes. I was expecting him to try and win, not attack Obama for 4 months for political reasons.
Come Aug. 2008 and I am looking for a candidate for President. I was looking at the candidates to see Newt.That looks good. He didn't run. Thompson is toying with joining the fray, but he is taking his time. The more I saw other candidates the more I liked Fred. In September, Fred decides to run. He has his first chance to get in a debate, which is where I hear their vision and how strong the visions are. This is why I vote for a candidate in the primaries. The debate is the Faith2Action debate and Fred and the other big three avoid like the plague. That told me all I needed to know about these candidates. This says they are afraid of conservative values. I did notice that Alan Keyes was joining the fray and joining this debate.
In the last few years I have noticed the that true conservatives (Christians) have been having to hold there noses when pulling the ballot leaver. The Senators are closer to RINOs then in line with the vision Ron Reagan had. House members are not far behind. With President Bush pushing more and more liberal things like open borders and with the Spending out of sight. I felt that the 2006 elections were more about Republicans ignoring the Conservative base then the Democrats winning. Sure we got a tax cut and revenues have exploded, but so has spending. We should of had a surplus by now with all the revenue that has been generated.
So I made a conscious decision that if Alan Keyes does (like he always did) show the same vision he always has and the viewers agreed, like always, I would support Amb. Keyes like I supported him in 2000 and 2004. I would talk to other conservatives and explain his vision and try and get him to the convention to express the conservative vision the way only he has been able to.
I saw the debate and was very surprised. Alan was his normal self, but he was not the one that caught my attention. Mike Huckabee was very good at expressing his vision and he did it with out the exuberant passion that Alan Keyes has. The only negative I see with the presentation of Amb. Keyes is that he seems to come of like a Baptist Minister. The former Baptist Minister came off with the same vision but he did not sound like one. Fair Tax, Pro-Life, Protecting the Constitution from the activist judges, these were all visions that both held. I now was torn between Gov. Huckabee and Amb. Keyes. After the poll after the debate showed that Gov. Huckabee had impressed more then just me.
I then decided to talk to other conservatives in my area that I respected. Neighbor said Huckabee was his choice at this time. My wife's Great-Uncle said Huckabee. Then finally I asked my pastor and he said that he liked Huckabee. Three for three told me that it was Huckabee that I was going to back this year unless there is something I did not know.
I Started by visiting the website and he was what I thought he was. Then came the Florida Values Debate that all the candidates were in. The day before each candidate gave a speech to the Conservative Christian group Value Voters. Mike Huckabee was given huge marks. Then the debate and he showed why he had won me over at the September 18th debate.
Since this day Gov. Huckabee has been attacked from every part of the Republican leadership. Every time he has been attacked he has shown that he is ready for the position of President. Plus he has tried to live by the Reagan motto of "Thou Shall not Attack a Fellow Republican".
I will try and keep you up to date with the attacks on Gov. Huckabee. I will do this with my view on his stand, old news articles that refute others views, and talking about the view I have on the coming race for the nomination and then the White House.
I have come to the conclusion that the establishment of the Republican party will not allow a conservative to win this nomination. it seems like the leadership likes our votes, but not our leadership. I believe that the election of 1976 is very close to today's election. Not the old "Jimmy Carter" comparison, but the anti-establishment run of Ronald Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)