Dee at Conservatism With Heart:
The last time evangelical Christians pulled the lever for a presidential candidate just because he was an evangelical we got Jimmy Carter.
Is history about to repeat itself?
It could be. Evangelicals, understandably hesitant to pull the lever for Rudy Giuliani, have found their candidate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. When Rudy's nomination appeared likely, the Christian wing of the Republican party was expected to ignore his obvious shortcomings and vote for him to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. RightwingSparkle:
Many in the Republican party ask Christians to look at the big picture. To think how much worse Hillary will be than Rudy. To think how much better Rudy is on the war on terror. But let's face it, the MSM has convinced most Americans that we don't have much to fear with the war on terror. Americans take our safety for granted once again. Christians aren't immune to this. Conservative Christians tend to see an even bigger picture, which specifically involves eternity. So all these things, even war, come and go, but our decisions and our actions go with us into eternity. This is why they will stay home, and this is why Hillary will win.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
It would surely be a disaster for our country if evangelicals stayed home on election day but it would be hard to blame them if Giuliani were the nominee. His liberal leanings, not just on moral issues, are glaring and cannot be denied.
Virginia Patriot, commenter on a post by John Hawkins at Townhall.com:
There are millions of us who usually vote GOP who WILL NOT vote for Rudy, for a variety of reasons. For me it's the amnesty issue, for others it's life, still others, homosexuality or gun rights. Whatever the issue is, it is a bright line we will not cross. No amount of Hillaryscare, intimidation, name-calling or cajoling will get us to vote for Rudy. He's in the wrong party. He is a liberal. I don't vote for liberals. When he loses, don't blame us, we tried to warn you. Flipping off half your voters is not a winning strategy.
If the polls are to be believed, the tables are turning. Ignoring the obvious shortcomings of Mike Huckabee, conservative Christians are bound and determined to vote for him. Politics abroad foreign to Huckabee:
White House hopeful Mike Huckabee is pretty good with a shotgun - at least when he's aiming at a pheasant and not his own foot.
Polls show his bid to win Iowa conservatives with folksy charm heading into the Jan. 3 caucus - including a recent pheasant hunt - has worked, but he may be hounded by repeated fumbles on foreign policy matters.
Huckabee erred when he questioned whether Pakistan should continue martial law in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination - a declaration that was lifted two weeks ago.
[...]
He raised eyebrows by offering his "apologies" to Pakistan and by tying the uproar in the country to U.S. border security.
And in a morning TV appearance, Huckabee said Bhutto's slaying brings "a new level of instability to the Middle East, and particularly to Pakistan."
Pakistan is in South Asia.
Jim Conklin, chairman of the Linn County GOP, said he's hearing local concerns about Huckabee's foreign policy chops.
"He doesn't always have his facts there," Conklin said. "He is very weak there."
"Very weak". Does this bother his supporters? Apparently not:
...Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, said Huckabee needs to stay the course.
"What's his appeal to voters? His authenticity," he said. "The last thing he needs to do is start telling these people things that they can see through. He has to remain true to the reason they're supporting him - they trust him."
Covington predicted Huckabee voters are unlikely to be turned off this late in the cycle mainly because they're supporting him with their hearts.
That's the case for 72-year-old Max Batterson of Unionville, Iowa.
"None of this affects me as much as [his] standing by his beliefs," said Batterson, adding, "his leader is Jesus Christ, and that's who he's going to fall back on, and I believe in the same Jesus Christ. So I believe he'll be led the right way."
Standing by one's beliefs is a good thing but being clueless on critical foreign policy matters is dangerous and deadly. Huckabee's naivety on foreign policy is by no means his only weakness as his record as governor of Arkansas proves. His tax policies alone should be enough to raise serious doubts about his candidacy:
The evidence for the former Baptist minister's tax raising ways is indisputable. The Arkansas Journal uncovered a video of him discussing a broad menu of levies that he would welcome to help increase revenues. The New York Times reported Sunday that while some taxes were cut during his term, "on balance, tax increases outweighed the tax cuts by some $500 million, and many of the cuts that Mr. Huckabee heralds owe little to his efforts."
Although on the record as supporting strong enforcement of our borders, his record on illegal immigration in Arkansas is troubling. Governor Huckabee in 2005:
Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as "inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery." He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.
Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."
The bill is modeled after Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in November. The Arkansas measure was filed by Republican Sens. Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith.
Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don't make false accusations against somebody.
Jesus juice. How many kinds are there?
Up until a couple of months ago, Mike Huckabee didn’t stand out much for anyone. He wasn’t polling well, and the mediots and his opponents paid very little attention to anything he did. However, since he's risen in the polls and the spotlight’s brightened considerably on his campaign, what’s shone the most is not an image a potential president should want to emulate. Before I go any further, a few nice comments about Huckabee are in order: I’ve said before that Huckabee is a likeable guy. But likeable guys don’t always make good presidents. He’s someone you could take to the buffet breakfast at Shoney’s and shoot the breeze with. Somebody you wouldn’t mind being your neighbor. If he were still a minister, he’s someone you wouldn’t mind going to hear preach his Sunday sermon. But presidential material he isn’t.
Not by a long shot. Hugh Hewitt:
Whether the evangelicals who like Huck abandon him or not, the campaign is over. You can't run for president in a time of war and particularly at a moment of international crisis and appear so obviously unprepared for the job.
Just as conservative Christians rightly refused to embrace Rudy, warts and all, this conservative refuses to embrace Huckabee. His negatives are too big and too important to ignore. Our country desperately needs a strong, conservative leader and Mike Huckabee is not the man for the job. Not only that, there is no way he could defeat Hillary in 2008. Maybe Hugh is right and Huckabee's campaign is effectively over. It would be encouraging, however, if the evangelicals who are driving his campaign would come to their senses. We are electing a President. Not a Sunday School Teacher.
“Let the candidate who is most clueless be the next to step out of the presidential race." Mr. Huckabee she's talking about you.
“Our country desperately needs a strong, conservative leader”
Spot on, Julie!
Can you name any candidate of any party, or even an independent candidate, who has a verifiable record of being more truly conservative than my guy Dr. Ron Paul? Surely it can’t be someone who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Posted by: Don | December 30, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Don,
You know I've always respected Ron Paul's view of limited government. He always stood up, many times alone, for individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. He is a believer in strict adherence to our Constitution and I'm in total agreement. I just do not think he is the right man for the job of Commander-in-Chief. I also am a bit turned off by his campaign. There's just something about it I don't like. He seems so combative at times...
His position on the Iraq war, and the War on Islamic Terrorists, is what bothers me most. I don't believe we can disengage ourselves from the world and hope for the best. I don't believe we are in this war because of our foreign policy or any actions we've taken, or not taken. Radical Muslims want to kill us and nothing we do, short of converting to Islam and adopting Sharia will change that. We must be pro-active. Maybe we've made mistakes, that's to be expected. That does not mean we should surrender.
Fred's the Man!
Julie :)
Posted by: mad_cow | December 30, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Well, Osama bin Laden said that the reason for the 9/11 attack was the presence of US forces in Arab lands and the 9/11 commission agreed that was likely the reason. I know that radical Muslims want to either convert, enslave, or kill all of us “infidels” but they’re better able to do that over there than they would be by trying to come after us here if we used our armed forces to secure our borders. We would still have a world-wide strike capability if it were needed to retaliate against any nation or group that decided to attack the USA.
We see what our present foreign policy has gotten us. We don’t know until we try it what would happen if we changed it.
It’s not just radical Muslims that our policy offends, either. People all around the world that once admired and respected the USA have become disenchanted, or worse, with us. They see the USA as a bully nation, almost a wannabe world empire,and are turning against us whereas at one time they would have stood side by side with us.
The main point to me though is that I think preemptive undeclared war is just plain unconstitutional.
War is a tool that the Council on Foreign Relations uses to further its agenda of creating a “One World” government to benefit a relatively few elitists and to make us their serfs. I wish Thompson would resign from the CFR and loudly denounce its agenda…..but if he did, the CFR would see to it that he wouldn’t have a prayer of being elected.
Posted by: Don | December 31, 2007 at 06:07 AM