Although it seems a foregone conclusion that John "Z-Visa" McCain will get the Republican nomination for President; Mike Huckabee still battles on. I had thoughts as to why that is, but had the reality of it crystallized when I was privileged to be on a blogger conference call with Governor Huckabee yesterday.
I had already formulated two reasons I thought it made sense for Mike to stay in the race. First, simply to keep his conservative concerns in front of the American people. From the right-to-life to energy independence to "The FairTax" to American sovereignty; no-one is a better advocate for re-energizing the conservative movement than Mike Huckabee.
The second reason I thought of was more pragmatic. As long as Mike stays in the race, he can still receive campaign contributions. If the current conventional wisdom that McCain has the 2008 nomination in the bag proves to be true, I expect Mike Huckabee to run again in 2012 to replace whichever of the Democrats is in the White house after beating McCain. (Although either Hillary the megalomaniac or Obama the even-more-ultra-liberal both scare the breath out of me; McCain is so uninspiring, I don't give him a chance against either of them) Mike can keep the funds he collects in this race as a head-start on the next, and I would expect him to.
Now, I think the two reasons I previously thought of are both good credible reasons; but listening to Mike Huckabee on the call yesterday, the real reason he's staying in the race struck me. He still has a chance to win the nomination. It may be, at this point, the slimmest of possibilities, but there is still a chance.
Mike simply believes so strongly in the principles on which he is running and is so dedicated to those principles that he is determined to fight while any hope of success remains, no matter how small. That's just one more example of what makes Mike Huckabee such a perfect model of doing the right thing because it's the right thing, and political expediency be hanged.
Mike's attitude about his campaign principles reminds me of Ronald Reagan's attitude about defeating the Soviet Union. Reagan was convinced the concept of Liberty endowed by our Creator would win over an inherently atheistic system of oppression, simply because it was right. It was only a question of when.
I believe in Mike Huckabee because I believe in both the principles he stands for and his commitment to them. I believe Mike Huckabee will be running for President in 2012, because he's exactly the kind of dedicated and inspiring man that we need running our country. So inspiring in fact, that I'm still holding onto the hope that in 2012 Mike Huckabee just may be running for re-election!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Huckabee is "Topps"
I found this at "The Smoking Gun" under the title "Three Huckabees for an Obama?" and thought it was amusing.
I also find it interesting that the Topps baseball card company can get the record right on Mike Huckabee; while people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham don't seem to be able to do so.
Maybe if we could just send copies of this card to conservative voters in states which haven't yet had their primaries, Mike Huckabee could get the Republican nomination.
Yes, they also show other candidates, both democrat and republican. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter (who I'd like to see as Huckabee's running mate) is not included.
I also find it interesting that the Topps baseball card company can get the record right on Mike Huckabee; while people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham don't seem to be able to do so.
Maybe if we could just send copies of this card to conservative voters in states which haven't yet had their primaries, Mike Huckabee could get the Republican nomination.
Yes, they also show other candidates, both democrat and republican. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter (who I'd like to see as Huckabee's running mate) is not included.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
An Officer and a Gentleman
Mike Huckabee has been attacked and belittled by beltway and wall-street pundits, almost since he began his "main-street" run for the office of President. Still Huckabee persists in staying in the race until one candidate actually has a majority of the delegates.
Something about Mike's persistence reminded me of a scene from "An Officer and a Gentleman" but with a twist.
In the movie, Richard Gere's character is trying to become an officer and Luis Gossett Jr's is trying to run him out of the military. Gossett finally asks Gere something on the order of "why don't you just quit?" To this, Gere responds along the lines of; "I've got no place else to go".
In the case of Mike Huckabee, I picture McCain and the pundits hammering him and asking him why he doesn't quit. In response, Mike Huckabee, battered and worn looks over at those of us who are die-hard conservatives and says; "If I quit, they've got nowhere else to go."
Now Mike Huckabee may never been an officer in the armed forces, but he is unquestionably a gentleman. Added to his obvious moral fiber, his perseverance and dedication to what he sees as his duty should be more than enough evidence to prove that given the chance to become commander in chief of the military forces of the United States of America; he would do his utmost to defend American and would never blink in the face of the enemy.
In short, Mike Huckabee has proved himself to be a Five-Star General in the conservative movement; and even should we lose the battle for the White House, "Huck's Army" will be glad to follow him long after this battle is over.
Something about Mike's persistence reminded me of a scene from "An Officer and a Gentleman" but with a twist.
In the movie, Richard Gere's character is trying to become an officer and Luis Gossett Jr's is trying to run him out of the military. Gossett finally asks Gere something on the order of "why don't you just quit?" To this, Gere responds along the lines of; "I've got no place else to go".
In the case of Mike Huckabee, I picture McCain and the pundits hammering him and asking him why he doesn't quit. In response, Mike Huckabee, battered and worn looks over at those of us who are die-hard conservatives and says; "If I quit, they've got nowhere else to go."
Now Mike Huckabee may never been an officer in the armed forces, but he is unquestionably a gentleman. Added to his obvious moral fiber, his perseverance and dedication to what he sees as his duty should be more than enough evidence to prove that given the chance to become commander in chief of the military forces of the United States of America; he would do his utmost to defend American and would never blink in the face of the enemy.
In short, Mike Huckabee has proved himself to be a Five-Star General in the conservative movement; and even should we lose the battle for the White House, "Huck's Army" will be glad to follow him long after this battle is over.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Read My Lips; "New World Order"
Many contend it was "Read my lips; no new taxes" that cost George HW Bush critical support and handed the Oval Office over to Bill Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached. I think it had as much, and possibly more, to do with his use of the phrase; "new world order".
Whatever was right with George Herbert Walker Bush, his fatal flaw of being a globalist became more apparent with time. Whatever was wrong with Ross Perot (and there was plenty), he seemed to be the lone voice of those who still believed in the sovereignty of the United States of America.
I believe it was the uneasy feeling of recognizing Bush 41 as a globalist that sent enough otherwise republican voters to Perot, and resulted in the election of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton; unfortunately another globalist.
If we had any doubts about where George W Bush stands regarding American sovereignty, his support for open borders and supposed "free trade" agreements that give away the farm to other countries (rather than being fair for both sides) make it plain that Bush 43, like Clinton before him and Bush 41 before him, is a globalist.
Now we're told that the next president will be either Hilary Rodham Clinton (a globalist), Barack Hussein Obama (another globalist), or John "Z-visa" McCain (again a raging unquestionable globalist). What's amazing about McCain is that he seems to want a well-equipped military that smiles and waves as it watches our country both invaded and given away, as long as the people taking over our country aren't carrying guns. And what else is the agenda behind the Man-Made Global Warming movement that McCain supports but globalism? (that and another excuse for higher taxes)
I'm not saying we need a protectionist like Ross Perot, or an isolationist like Ron Paul; but I think at least part of what makes Ron Paul supporters so passionate is that they see the erosion of our national sovereignty that has resulted from the globalism under our last three presidents.
I am saying we need a strong defender of our national sovereignty, like Mike Huckabee. He understands the line between sovereignty and protectionism, and between free trade and globalism. He is clear about the difference between co-operating with other countries for security and the "internationalism" of turning over our security to the approval of foreign nations.
We keep hearing that "change" is the theme of this presidential election cycle. The Democrat message seems to be that "change" primarily means changing parties. I say that in one of the most important issues for our country, we've had the same old thing ever since Bush 41 replaced Ronald Reagan. From Bush 41, through Bill Clinton, to Bush 43, we've had a globalist in the White House. In that, yes we desperately need a change.
We stand at the proverbial crossroads and we have a clear choice. Will we rediscover the path of American Sovereignty to exceptional greatness? Or will we continue down the path toward globalism and repeat the "national malaise" of the Carter years?
The President of the United States should be more than someone who wants to keep us physically safe, or who puts a priority on what other countries think of us. Whether or not our next president is Mike Huckabee, we absolutely must make sure it is someone committed to the United States as a free and independent sovereign nation. To do otherwise would put our security and our freedoms at the whim of "the Global community" and make a mockery of our Constitution. Isn't protecting our nation from all threats both foreign and domestic, and upholding the Constitution of the United States what being President is really all about?
One final note: Going along with the Global-Warming crowd really is a huge threat to our sovereignty. One of the "dirty little secrets" behind the issue of securing our borders (both south and north) is the large percentage of oil we get from Mexico and Canada. If we are ever to really reclaim our national sovereignty, we absolutely must become energy independent and as quickly as possible. That means not only "alternative energy" in the future, but an immediate increase in domestic oil production, and I mean now! Readers probably won't have to think very hard to figure out which of the Presidential candidate is pushing a comprehensive plan for energy independence, rather than a "comprehensive immigration reform" Z-visa amnesty. Right again... Mike Huckabee!
Whatever was right with George Herbert Walker Bush, his fatal flaw of being a globalist became more apparent with time. Whatever was wrong with Ross Perot (and there was plenty), he seemed to be the lone voice of those who still believed in the sovereignty of the United States of America.
I believe it was the uneasy feeling of recognizing Bush 41 as a globalist that sent enough otherwise republican voters to Perot, and resulted in the election of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton; unfortunately another globalist.
If we had any doubts about where George W Bush stands regarding American sovereignty, his support for open borders and supposed "free trade" agreements that give away the farm to other countries (rather than being fair for both sides) make it plain that Bush 43, like Clinton before him and Bush 41 before him, is a globalist.
Now we're told that the next president will be either Hilary Rodham Clinton (a globalist), Barack Hussein Obama (another globalist), or John "Z-visa" McCain (again a raging unquestionable globalist). What's amazing about McCain is that he seems to want a well-equipped military that smiles and waves as it watches our country both invaded and given away, as long as the people taking over our country aren't carrying guns. And what else is the agenda behind the Man-Made Global Warming movement that McCain supports but globalism? (that and another excuse for higher taxes)
I'm not saying we need a protectionist like Ross Perot, or an isolationist like Ron Paul; but I think at least part of what makes Ron Paul supporters so passionate is that they see the erosion of our national sovereignty that has resulted from the globalism under our last three presidents.
I am saying we need a strong defender of our national sovereignty, like Mike Huckabee. He understands the line between sovereignty and protectionism, and between free trade and globalism. He is clear about the difference between co-operating with other countries for security and the "internationalism" of turning over our security to the approval of foreign nations.
We keep hearing that "change" is the theme of this presidential election cycle. The Democrat message seems to be that "change" primarily means changing parties. I say that in one of the most important issues for our country, we've had the same old thing ever since Bush 41 replaced Ronald Reagan. From Bush 41, through Bill Clinton, to Bush 43, we've had a globalist in the White House. In that, yes we desperately need a change.
We stand at the proverbial crossroads and we have a clear choice. Will we rediscover the path of American Sovereignty to exceptional greatness? Or will we continue down the path toward globalism and repeat the "national malaise" of the Carter years?
The President of the United States should be more than someone who wants to keep us physically safe, or who puts a priority on what other countries think of us. Whether or not our next president is Mike Huckabee, we absolutely must make sure it is someone committed to the United States as a free and independent sovereign nation. To do otherwise would put our security and our freedoms at the whim of "the Global community" and make a mockery of our Constitution. Isn't protecting our nation from all threats both foreign and domestic, and upholding the Constitution of the United States what being President is really all about?
One final note: Going along with the Global-Warming crowd really is a huge threat to our sovereignty. One of the "dirty little secrets" behind the issue of securing our borders (both south and north) is the large percentage of oil we get from Mexico and Canada. If we are ever to really reclaim our national sovereignty, we absolutely must become energy independent and as quickly as possible. That means not only "alternative energy" in the future, but an immediate increase in domestic oil production, and I mean now! Readers probably won't have to think very hard to figure out which of the Presidential candidate is pushing a comprehensive plan for energy independence, rather than a "comprehensive immigration reform" Z-visa amnesty. Right again... Mike Huckabee!
The Gingrich Option
Speaking realistically rather than statistically, John McCain has much less a chance of being elected President than does Mike Huckabee.
If McCain does secure the nomination, almost all those liberals and moderates whose votes got him the delegate count will vote Democrat in the general election. (If you don't think it's liberals boosting McCain, just ask Cynthia McKinney how we conservatives finally got rid of her by voting in the Democrat congressional primary in Georgia)
I don’t think committed conservatives intentionally not voting will be the factor in losing to the Democrats. But it’s the lack of inspiring voters who are conservative but not always politically engaged. Huckabee, as “the great motivator” that he is, or Mitt Romney* or even Fred Thompson (if we could keep him warmed up) would stand a MUCH better chance of motivating the Republican base to get out and vote.
The Democrat base will be revved up no matter what this time, because of the identity politics of “minority” status with both their candidates. Please don't misunderstand and think Republicans would be against Hillary and Obama because of a "minority identity". I don't think it's an issue either way for most Republicans; but "minority status" is an even stronger motivator for liberals than the "it's his turn" effect among beltway Republicans is having for McCain.
The ticket I see as the best chance to really rev up Republican voters is Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, in any order. Both are very powerful speakers, are very likable (except to committed liberals who will always vote left anyway), and both are issue driven visionaries.
My choice is, of course, a Huckabee/Gingrich ticket. (OK, I'd really like to see Huckabee/Hunter, but I think Huckabee/Gingrich would have a better chance at victory) On the other hand, I don't see the harm in supposing in could be the other way around when we're publicly promoting the idea of getting behind Mike Huckabee as a way to keep conservatism in the forefront; to people who are not primarily Huckabee supporters.I also think mentioning "the Gingrich option" is a way to help diffuse the tension of The Conservative I originally supported VS The Conservative You originally supported. At this point, I think we need to focus on inviting others to rally behind the conservative banner. We need to focus on ideas and principles, not personalities as is so common among liberals.
Huckabee supporters can be glad Mike is the one still carrying the conservative banner. But as we "rally the troops" among the ranks of other conservatives; we may need to focus on the fact that the banner is still flying more than drawing attention to the fact that "their candidate" is not the one currently carrying it.
*[I heard about Romney endorsing McCain hours after writing this. Let's hope Mitt's delegates are still more concerned with conservatism than he apparently is.]
Friday, February 8, 2008
Water Under the Bridge
I suspect I'm not the only one who was furious about Mitt Romney's attack adds. I think his attacks against Huckabee were, if not for the most part fraudulent, at least extreme spin.
But at this point, considering Romney has suspended his campaign, I think it best that we consider his previous attacks "water under the bridge." Let's give Romney the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he made those attacks because he sincerely thought he was the best person to serve as president; Just as Mike Huckabee sincerely believes he is the best person to serve. Let's choose to believe Mitt was just fighting for that chance to serve the best way he knew, rather than out of any animus for Mike Huckabee.
Looking at the declared platforms of Romney and Huckabee, they have a lot in common. Solid national security (including border security), lower taxes, smaller government, energy independence for America, preserving family values, etc. That's why I would have much rather seen the final race come down to Romney vs Huckabee, rather than either against McCain; but that too is water under the bridge.
With all the similarity, and the fact that Romney's campaign and pundits were speculating that Romney and Huckabee were "splitting the conservative vote", it seems clear what Romney's likely tactic was. Try to convince voters Huckabee was a "tax and spend liberal", and thus siphon off conservatives to himself; while splitting some liberals/"moderates" from McCain to Huckabee.
Again, although I can't say I approve of such methods, I'm trying to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on the matter of his motives. If his motives had been of a hostile nature, he'd probably still be in the race.
I think one of the things that motivated him to withdraw, was reading the results of many exit polls. These polls indicated two extremely relevant points. First, that although McCain's support came more from liberals/moderates and Romney's and from conservatives; Huckabee's support came not from moderates to any noticeable degree, but from conservatives; and that those identifying themselves as extremely conservative mainly supported Mike Huckabee.
The second relevant point from the exit polls was that Huckabee voters were likely to have McCain as second choice (rather than Romney) and vice versa. Since the base support of McCain and Huckabee were at opposite ends of the spectrum; it should be obvious that it was not similarity of positions that made the second choice, but a dislike for the Romney attacks. Again, now water under the bridge.
I even suspect there were some conservatives who voted for McCain, but really liked Huckabee; and did so because, as an unintended result of the interaction of multiple instances of pundit spin, they had been convinced that "a vote for Huckabee a vote for [Romney]".
That brings us now to a point where we have a race between a barely Republican front runner John McCain and tenacious underdog Mike Huckabee as the defender of a platform mostly shared by everyone from Mitt Romney to Fred Thompson to Duncan Hunter and others with at least a serious claim to conservatism.
Now pundits say a McCain nomination is inevitable. I want to know; is this is more or less inevitable than the Hillary Clinton nomination was before Obama started getting all those delegates?
Yes, I saw Karl Rove lay it out mathematically on the FoxNews channel. He said Huckabee would need about 83% of the remaining delegates in play, to win a majority before the convention. It does seem that would take a major miracle. But Mike Huckabee has been counted out so many times and been the brunt of so many attacks from pundits supporting other candidates that the fact he's still standing is in itself a miracle.
Rove then pointed out that McCain only needed 40% of the remaining delegates for majority. But the obvious converse of that is that Huckabee (with a small % assist from enthusiastic gadfly Ron Paul) only needs 60% to stop McCain from getting a majority and force a "brokered convention." Considering which states are left in the rest of the primary season, if conservative would simply be willing to consider past campaigning "water under the bridge" and honestly examine Huckabee's real achievements and positions unfiltered by past preferences; then achieving that 60% chance of stopping McCain's liberal express becomes a fairly minor miracle after all.
Now while I really want to see Huckabee get that 83% and be the presidential nominee; and while I'm positive Mike is fighting for that nomination rather than VP; I'd settle for getting to a brokered convention where Huckabee could end up in either the top or second slot, but where we could get both filled by at least a 90% conservative. When it comes to the highest office in the land, I'm sorry Senator McCain, but a supposed 83% rating from one group just isn't enough.
To sum up a probably much too long article: There may have been a lot of water under the bridge; but I'm convinced there's still enough water upstream to sail a conservative ship of state; especially if we have a skipper like Mike Huckabee, and potential shipmates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and their compatriots and supporters.
Related Posts:
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
"Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates" - 2008.01.15
"Will McCain-Feingold be the Elephant in the GOP Room?" - 2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism" - 2007.12.14
"Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech!" - 2007.12.07
"A Candidate with Moral Clarity" - 2007.11.20
"No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion" - 2007.11.17
"Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong... (but it's 'alright') " - 2007.11.05
But at this point, considering Romney has suspended his campaign, I think it best that we consider his previous attacks "water under the bridge." Let's give Romney the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he made those attacks because he sincerely thought he was the best person to serve as president; Just as Mike Huckabee sincerely believes he is the best person to serve. Let's choose to believe Mitt was just fighting for that chance to serve the best way he knew, rather than out of any animus for Mike Huckabee.
Looking at the declared platforms of Romney and Huckabee, they have a lot in common. Solid national security (including border security), lower taxes, smaller government, energy independence for America, preserving family values, etc. That's why I would have much rather seen the final race come down to Romney vs Huckabee, rather than either against McCain; but that too is water under the bridge.
With all the similarity, and the fact that Romney's campaign and pundits were speculating that Romney and Huckabee were "splitting the conservative vote", it seems clear what Romney's likely tactic was. Try to convince voters Huckabee was a "tax and spend liberal", and thus siphon off conservatives to himself; while splitting some liberals/"moderates" from McCain to Huckabee.
Again, although I can't say I approve of such methods, I'm trying to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on the matter of his motives. If his motives had been of a hostile nature, he'd probably still be in the race.
I think one of the things that motivated him to withdraw, was reading the results of many exit polls. These polls indicated two extremely relevant points. First, that although McCain's support came more from liberals/moderates and Romney's and from conservatives; Huckabee's support came not from moderates to any noticeable degree, but from conservatives; and that those identifying themselves as extremely conservative mainly supported Mike Huckabee.
The second relevant point from the exit polls was that Huckabee voters were likely to have McCain as second choice (rather than Romney) and vice versa. Since the base support of McCain and Huckabee were at opposite ends of the spectrum; it should be obvious that it was not similarity of positions that made the second choice, but a dislike for the Romney attacks. Again, now water under the bridge.
I even suspect there were some conservatives who voted for McCain, but really liked Huckabee; and did so because, as an unintended result of the interaction of multiple instances of pundit spin, they had been convinced that "a vote for Huckabee a vote for [Romney]".
That brings us now to a point where we have a race between a barely Republican front runner John McCain and tenacious underdog Mike Huckabee as the defender of a platform mostly shared by everyone from Mitt Romney to Fred Thompson to Duncan Hunter and others with at least a serious claim to conservatism.
Now pundits say a McCain nomination is inevitable. I want to know; is this is more or less inevitable than the Hillary Clinton nomination was before Obama started getting all those delegates?
Yes, I saw Karl Rove lay it out mathematically on the FoxNews channel. He said Huckabee would need about 83% of the remaining delegates in play, to win a majority before the convention. It does seem that would take a major miracle. But Mike Huckabee has been counted out so many times and been the brunt of so many attacks from pundits supporting other candidates that the fact he's still standing is in itself a miracle.
Rove then pointed out that McCain only needed 40% of the remaining delegates for majority. But the obvious converse of that is that Huckabee (with a small % assist from enthusiastic gadfly Ron Paul) only needs 60% to stop McCain from getting a majority and force a "brokered convention." Considering which states are left in the rest of the primary season, if conservative would simply be willing to consider past campaigning "water under the bridge" and honestly examine Huckabee's real achievements and positions unfiltered by past preferences; then achieving that 60% chance of stopping McCain's liberal express becomes a fairly minor miracle after all.
Now while I really want to see Huckabee get that 83% and be the presidential nominee; and while I'm positive Mike is fighting for that nomination rather than VP; I'd settle for getting to a brokered convention where Huckabee could end up in either the top or second slot, but where we could get both filled by at least a 90% conservative. When it comes to the highest office in the land, I'm sorry Senator McCain, but a supposed 83% rating from one group just isn't enough.
To sum up a probably much too long article: There may have been a lot of water under the bridge; but I'm convinced there's still enough water upstream to sail a conservative ship of state; especially if we have a skipper like Mike Huckabee, and potential shipmates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and their compatriots and supporters.
Related Posts:
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
"Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates" - 2008.01.15
"Will McCain-Feingold be the Elephant in the GOP Room?" - 2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism" - 2007.12.14
"Kudos to Romney on Faith Speech!" - 2007.12.07
"A Candidate with Moral Clarity" - 2007.11.20
"No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion" - 2007.11.17
"Where Mike Huckabee is Wrong... (but it's 'alright') " - 2007.11.05
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Mitt Romney vs Sun Tzu
Some in the Romney camp seem to be crying either "foul" or "see, I told you so"; after McCain supporters in West Virginia switched their support to Mike Huckabee. What they should be doing is going back to re-read "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu ;probably the greatest military and political tactician of ancient China.
Apparently, the first vote tally in the Feb 5 WV Republican convention showed Romney was ahead, but the final tally showed Huckabee 52%, Romney 47% and McCain nowhere to be found. A number of pundits have also questioned why Huckabee often has stinging words for Romney; but remains civil, and simply points out his own superior experience and positions, when asked about McCain.
While those pundits and Romneyites may think both these indicate some sort of "back-room deal", what they need to remember is the full principle of alliances recorded by Sun Tzu in 6th century China.
I think it obvious that the nature of the political contest rules out the first part. The struggle for nomination makes all those involved in the race opposing combatants. While this doesn't of necessity indicate personal hostility between candidates; for the purpose of applying the principles found in "The Art of War", they are all "enemies."
I think it's clear that by Romney's early use of attack ads, against both John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he made himself more of an enemy to both than either was to each other. Thus the relevant principle becomes; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Now that doesn't by any means indicate that Huckabee or McCain have veered from their individual goals of becoming President themselves. It's ridiculous to suppose that Mike Huckabee is putting all this effort into becoming the VP on a McCain ticket.
It's doubly foolish when one realizes (as nearly all real conservatives do) that a McCain nomination would be doomed in the general election; where McCain's "independents" and "moderates" would mostly desert the mostly liberal McCain for the always liberal Clinton or Obama. Why would Huckabee conspire to be at the bottom of a doomed ticket? Clearly he wouldn't.
Romney supporters and pundits alike simply need to realize that Huckabee and McCain are simply holding some of their fire for now, though you can be sure they have ammunition stored against each other for the final contest. They should also not fool themselves into thinking Romney's higher "enemy" status is a result of being a better candidate. Rather the venomous snake at one's ankle is a greater enemy than the archer across the field. Hopefully when Huckabee and McCain do train their volley more directly at each other, they will be more civil and less venomous than Romney's attacks.
I also have to wonder whether Romney understands that the deceitfulness of his attacks against Huckabee have undermined even his truthful accusations against John McCain. You can be sure that when McCain decides to start actively attacking Huckabee, we will also remember the Arizona Senator's lack of integrity concerning a Romney "time-table" for pulling out of Iraq.
I tend to think Huckabee has studied Sun Tzu, although I also think venomous personal attacks are simply not his way. It's gratifying to see that although Huckabee will readily point out position differences between himself and other candidates, he hasn't sunk to the level of personal attacks and deception. His steadfast honesty and integrity should help to at least somewhat shield him against the deceitful attacks of others.
Perhaps Mitt Romney could have at least listened to the advise of W.C. Fields, before he became the source of so many untruth's about Mike Huckabee. To quote Fields from the 1939 movie where one of his most famous quotes was also the film's title; "You can't cheat an honest man."
Apparently, the first vote tally in the Feb 5 WV Republican convention showed Romney was ahead, but the final tally showed Huckabee 52%, Romney 47% and McCain nowhere to be found. A number of pundits have also questioned why Huckabee often has stinging words for Romney; but remains civil, and simply points out his own superior experience and positions, when asked about McCain.
While those pundits and Romneyites may think both these indicate some sort of "back-room deal", what they need to remember is the full principle of alliances recorded by Sun Tzu in 6th century China.
"The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Sun TzuThis of course begs the question of which part of this principle is more likely to apply in this situation.
I think it obvious that the nature of the political contest rules out the first part. The struggle for nomination makes all those involved in the race opposing combatants. While this doesn't of necessity indicate personal hostility between candidates; for the purpose of applying the principles found in "The Art of War", they are all "enemies."
I think it's clear that by Romney's early use of attack ads, against both John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he made himself more of an enemy to both than either was to each other. Thus the relevant principle becomes; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Now that doesn't by any means indicate that Huckabee or McCain have veered from their individual goals of becoming President themselves. It's ridiculous to suppose that Mike Huckabee is putting all this effort into becoming the VP on a McCain ticket.
It's doubly foolish when one realizes (as nearly all real conservatives do) that a McCain nomination would be doomed in the general election; where McCain's "independents" and "moderates" would mostly desert the mostly liberal McCain for the always liberal Clinton or Obama. Why would Huckabee conspire to be at the bottom of a doomed ticket? Clearly he wouldn't.
Romney supporters and pundits alike simply need to realize that Huckabee and McCain are simply holding some of their fire for now, though you can be sure they have ammunition stored against each other for the final contest. They should also not fool themselves into thinking Romney's higher "enemy" status is a result of being a better candidate. Rather the venomous snake at one's ankle is a greater enemy than the archer across the field. Hopefully when Huckabee and McCain do train their volley more directly at each other, they will be more civil and less venomous than Romney's attacks.
I also have to wonder whether Romney understands that the deceitfulness of his attacks against Huckabee have undermined even his truthful accusations against John McCain. You can be sure that when McCain decides to start actively attacking Huckabee, we will also remember the Arizona Senator's lack of integrity concerning a Romney "time-table" for pulling out of Iraq.
I tend to think Huckabee has studied Sun Tzu, although I also think venomous personal attacks are simply not his way. It's gratifying to see that although Huckabee will readily point out position differences between himself and other candidates, he hasn't sunk to the level of personal attacks and deception. His steadfast honesty and integrity should help to at least somewhat shield him against the deceitful attacks of others.
Perhaps Mitt Romney could have at least listened to the advise of W.C. Fields, before he became the source of so many untruth's about Mike Huckabee. To quote Fields from the 1939 movie where one of his most famous quotes was also the film's title; "You can't cheat an honest man."
Friday, February 1, 2008
A Liberal, a Liar, or a Leader?
I've heard a number of media pundits suggest the Mike Huckabee is just splitting the Conservative vote, and should get out of the race so Mitt Romney has a better chance of beating John McCain. Nothing could be further from the truth, except perhaps Romney himself.
Mitt Romney and his campaign, are of course responsible for a massive onslaught of attack adds against Mike Huckabee that were a chain of misrepresentations and outright lies about Huckabee's record and positions. What rational person would move from the camp of an honest and courageous leader like Mike Huckabee to the camp of a liar and flip-flopper like Mitt Romney?
Yes, anyone paying attention knowns John McCain is at least to the left of Joe Lieberman, and has sometimes been to the left of (or at least in line with) Hillary Clinton. His Campaign Finance reform law (that is a violation of the First Amendment), his McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, and his new McCain-Lieberman "cap and trade" economic suppression bills are all unforgivable legislative sins. But no matter how liberal (and at least recently dishonest) John McCain is, that doesn't negate Mitt Romney's dishonesty or change Romney's (at least partially) liberal history on social issues.
If anything, Mitt Romney should drop out of the race in favor of the more conservative Mike Huckabee; but of course that's not going to happen. So why do these taking heads think Huckabee should, or would, for a moment entertain the idea that he should (or could) deliver voters up to a liar like Mitt Romney. Surely they know Romney's attacks on Huckabee's record are lies, because the majority of them are finally recognizing Huckabee as a real conservative.
Am I really suggesting that Romney should bow out? No, though I actually think McCain should, as should Ron Paul. Neither of them is by any means a reasonable representation of the core of the Republican party.
So what we're currently faced with is a choice between a liberal, a liar and a leader (and if you include Ron Paul, a near lunatic). Maybe the self-serving Fi-Cons (Fiscal-only Conservatives) would like our choices reduced to the lesser of two great evils. But how does one decide whether a liberal (who now lies) or a liar (who is somewhat liberal) is the lesser evil?
Fortunately, Mike Huckabee too much of an honest conservative leader to leave us to such a fate. As Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, Huckabee has the most government leadership experience of any candidate; and he continues to lead by his continued principled positions, his powerful motivating oration, and his refusal to cave-in or "fight in the gutter" in this campaign.
So being a Georgia voter; on February 5th, I'll by-pass the liberal and the liar. I'm choosing the leader; Mike Huckabee!
Related Posts:
"Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge" - 2008.01.30
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
Mitt Romney and his campaign, are of course responsible for a massive onslaught of attack adds against Mike Huckabee that were a chain of misrepresentations and outright lies about Huckabee's record and positions. What rational person would move from the camp of an honest and courageous leader like Mike Huckabee to the camp of a liar and flip-flopper like Mitt Romney?
Yes, anyone paying attention knowns John McCain is at least to the left of Joe Lieberman, and has sometimes been to the left of (or at least in line with) Hillary Clinton. His Campaign Finance reform law (that is a violation of the First Amendment), his McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill, and his new McCain-Lieberman "cap and trade" economic suppression bills are all unforgivable legislative sins. But no matter how liberal (and at least recently dishonest) John McCain is, that doesn't negate Mitt Romney's dishonesty or change Romney's (at least partially) liberal history on social issues.
If anything, Mitt Romney should drop out of the race in favor of the more conservative Mike Huckabee; but of course that's not going to happen. So why do these taking heads think Huckabee should, or would, for a moment entertain the idea that he should (or could) deliver voters up to a liar like Mitt Romney. Surely they know Romney's attacks on Huckabee's record are lies, because the majority of them are finally recognizing Huckabee as a real conservative.
Am I really suggesting that Romney should bow out? No, though I actually think McCain should, as should Ron Paul. Neither of them is by any means a reasonable representation of the core of the Republican party.
So what we're currently faced with is a choice between a liberal, a liar and a leader (and if you include Ron Paul, a near lunatic). Maybe the self-serving Fi-Cons (Fiscal-only Conservatives) would like our choices reduced to the lesser of two great evils. But how does one decide whether a liberal (who now lies) or a liar (who is somewhat liberal) is the lesser evil?
Fortunately, Mike Huckabee too much of an honest conservative leader to leave us to such a fate. As Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, Huckabee has the most government leadership experience of any candidate; and he continues to lead by his continued principled positions, his powerful motivating oration, and his refusal to cave-in or "fight in the gutter" in this campaign.
So being a Georgia voter; on February 5th, I'll by-pass the liberal and the liar. I'm choosing the leader; Mike Huckabee!
Related Posts:
"Why Rush is Responsible for the McCain Surge" - 2008.01.30
"Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee" - 2008.01.23
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)