I may be jumping on the bandwagon, and admittedly falling into the trap of good propaganda, but with the 2008 election right around the corner, Mike Huckabee has come out of nowhere. I heard of him less than a month ago, wondered where in the world he came from, and have been impressed repeatedly. After Sam Brownback left the game, Mitt Romney was at the top of my list as a breath of fresh air from Giuliani, who I predict isn't far from joining the Hillary ticket. Now Huckabee seems like the "no brainer."
I take the Rush Limbaugh approach to endorsing a politician, as opposed to the Hannity approach [(Vote (for Giuliani) or Die]. So, here are a couple articles that show opposing views of Huckabee. The one from Ann Coulter is negative, which surprised me a bit as I have no idea who is on her list as a better conservative (Ron Paul maybe?), and the positive, which deals with life issues-something Huckabee is vocal about, and what has brought attention to his campaign. Taking Limbaugh's stance, you're smart enough to decide who's best.
Positive
Negative
If Huckabee gets the nomination, he'll be drilled on immigration, which he's criticized with being soft on, and life issues, which he's remarkably tough on. Let's hope he gets on board with a good immigration reform plan, stays true to his Baptist values and we'll be all set.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Huckabee is a carbon copy of George Bush, only I'm not as convinced he would do as well as Bush on the life issues.
If you want a "compassionate conservative" or a "neo-conservative", then vote for Huckabee.
Bush was able to use his alleged failures as bargaining chips to allow him to make his own decisions on life issues. Even so, he compromised on the stem cell issue. Huckabee has made similar decisions as Governor.
Huckabee scares me the way he truly mixes religion and politics. He is not concerned with the Constitutional ways of political procedure. To him and other neo-cons, the end does justify the means. I cannot go along with that way of doing things, even if I agree with his conclusions.
To be honest, Guilliani may be the best candidate for life issues. The only role the executive has in life issues on the federal level is in his selection of the judiciary. Guilliani has vowed to select conservative-federalist justices. If the President does anything else besides that for life issues (other than a veto), then I don't want him as President because he doesn't respect the Constitution.
There are no viable candidates to vote for on either side. Ron Paul is the closest, but has no chance.
Oh, forgot to conclude. Thompson is the best candidate.
If you are concerned about life issues, he has the most endorsements from life groups. He is a federalist. He understands the Constitution and is concerned about doing things the right way. His only downfall thus far is speaking and debating, should that hold us back from supporting him?
Giuliani has said that he will appoint conservative-federalist judges, but isn't that what Bush did? His two nominees are incredible victories for conservatives.
What rubs me the wrong way about Giuliani is the basis for his principles and where they come from. It seems that his views on abortion and homosexual marriage stem from political pragmatism rather than defined principles. How can be really be pro-choice, pro gay-marriage and yet stand ground on conservative federalist judges. It doesn't make sense, it's a ploy to get the widest number of votes without taking a stand based on a belief system.
I understand those who are pushing for Thompson and Ron Paul. Unfornately money is press, and these two candidates have been left out of it. Their politics are attractive, but it would be dangerous for the Republican party to nominate either candidate to face Hilary or Obama.
In re your comment on Guilliani, that was my point exactly. Bush did say the same thing and he appointed incredibly judges. I'd like those types of appointments to continue, you know?.
Guilliani is a political pragmatist and that is why me and, apparently, many others don't like him.
This election will be the impossible election to vote for because it will be truly difficult to decipher which candidate is the lesser of the two evils! Oh, the folly of the U.S. two party system...
Post a Comment